Even for Viktor Yushchenko himself, the level of discussion at the plenum of the National Union of Journalists of Ukraine seemed unexpected, as it probably did for Deputy Premier for Humanitarian Issues Mykola Zhulynsky, who uttered not a single word throughout the session of the journalist nomenklatura. Mr. Yushchenko, addressing the forum, called on representatives of the fifth estate to streamline all their numerous appeals and requests into a professional channel.
Indeed, what all the proposals about local media problems (for example, collective ownership of editorial offices, etc.) and local Union requirements of funds (for the veterans’ rest home, health resort treatment of Union members, and establishing a national press club, etc.), regularly heard during all meetings between mass media and the authorities, including the President, require is a normally regulated bureaucratic mechanism for dealing with non-governmental, trade- union, and creative organizations. Alas, as this mechanism does not exist in our power, nor does it in our Union of Journalists which acts according to, so to speak, hands on control without offering any well-reasoned and systematic programs to establish interaction between the media and the government bodies. Simultaneously, the Union does not assert itself as an institution to defend the rights of and freedoms of journalists and principles of the freedom of expression by way of civic pressure on all branches of government (a vivid example of such pressure was recently shown by our Russian colleagues, when the concerted efforts of a dozen influential publications helped, among other things, to issue a newspaper in defense of Andrei Babitsky, the Radio Liberty correspondent detained in Chechnya).
Of course, for fairness sake we should note that the heads of regional journalistic organizations also spoke about things of paramount importance, such as top priority state support of Ukrainian-language publications, denationalization of the media, the lifting of privileges for elite publications (i.e., those loyal to the authorities), the reduction of tax burden on all printed matter (at least to the Russian level), the observance of the laws on information by commercial television and radio, etc. But all this was said by fits and starts, let alone the fact that many of the issues under discussion (another example: domestic paper production) had a direct bearing on the activities of the State Committee for Information Policies (recently merged with the Committee on Television and Radio), whose representatives were quietly and modestly sitting in the hall. All that went on at the forum resembled Soviet period trade union or managerial meetings or the perestroika congresses of people’s deputies, where everybody would shout about everything without any real results, although the whole “democratic public” still seems to be pinning its hopes on the government of reformers (to what extent this public is indulging in dreaming is a different issue). Our journalism has ushered in, as it were, a new post-election era, with the already available parliamentary majority, the forthcoming referendum, the reaction of Western organization to certain processes in Ukraine, etc. Yet, the Union of Journalists and its leader were not prepared to have a dialogue with the Prime Minister about these pivotal points of our information space. There was not even a trace of a certain well- shaped, clearly-worded, and systematized program of actions and development of the union itself and Ukraine’s journalism. There was no talk about the observance of any legal framework in the relationship between the media and all branches of power, enhancing a mechanism for protecting the freedom of expression, the long- awaited setting of clear-cut rules of the game on the information market, the creation of equal conditions for all media businesses, or about any real steps to demonopolize media delivery and sales means.
By all accounts, the election of Ihor Lubchenko as chairman a few years ago certainly played a positive role: at any rate, now the union has distanced itself from state bodies and taken quite an independent stand. But still, one man is still no warrior on the battlefield.
The very atmosphere of the plenum was aptly characterized by one nuance: after a brief showdown with the representative of Ukrposhta (Ukrainian Post), the participants spent an hour and a half in the smoking area, waiting for the Prime Minister who was late. Members of the union board had nothing to discuss among themselves, at least in public. The situation thus reminded me of an old painfully familiar maxim: the master is coming soon, and he will be the judge.
Perhaps one should not level sweeping criticism at the union itself and its nomenklatura, the more so that most of its board members are of pension age or close to it. They live by the laws of a different time, laws that, incidentally, are again gaining currency in society at astonishing speed and not without strong assistance by some members of the intelligentsia. They are used to speaking with the authorities in the exclusive language of humble requests. Most of them are unfamiliar with the work principles of professional and creative organizations in democratic countries. Very much has already been said that Ukrainian journalism has long needed a different union with new goals, priorities, and organization of its activities. In fact, most of the best known journalists are no longer members of the union, which could well be transformed into the a union of veteran journalists having its specific goals. But what might be called a true professional and creative Union of Journalists is now high on the agenda. And it is journalists, in all probability, who will have to create such a union, otherwise this idea will be snatched away by our official or oligarchic nomenklatura which will quickly try to cook up something obedient and compliant. Only the creation of such a union — with skillful managers and lawyers who will take an assertive stand and be independent of the state budget — will make it possible to exert real influence on this country’s information theater and the position in it of individual journalists and media outlets, both private and state- run. Only such a union will be prepared to really promote the transparency of the media business and the establishment of the same relationship of all the media with the tax authorities (so that the government fiscal policy does not become an instrument of political hand control). Only such a union can prevent politicians from hampering, for example, the National Television and Radio Council or from easily keeping off the air journalists they do not like.
The point is that we, journalists, should also take some part of the blame and responsibility when we talk about the arbitrary rule of bureaucrats and shadow capital in this country. Civic institutions capable of becoming the true controllers of official actions can never be initiated from above. They are always set up by the joint efforts of citizens themselves. As long as we, journalists, continue to accept the rules of the game imposed on us and prefer to be all kind of things — spokespeople, supplicants, ladies of easy virtue, or supposedly free birds looking down upon their less successful muckraking colleagues — our media will always hold the same place in society now. And no sociological rankings that demonstrate the ostensibly high trust of the electorate in the press and television will hide the obvious: the media in Ukraine are not a self-sufficient factor (i.e., a real fourth power) of political and social processes. They do not in reality influence public opinion, the authorities, or oligarchs shape it by using them. And as long as Ukraine does not have a powerful independent organization of journalists, nothing will change in this country in this sense, which will also lead automatically to the stupor of many democratic processes.
FROM THE EDITORS
By printing the opinion of our observer, The Day begins a debate on the current state of the Union of Journalists, its problems, and possible ways to reform it. Naturally, we will give the floor first of all to the union’s current leaders.
