We have appraised the power of the weapons of mass destruction in the several days when Russian TV channels were disconnected. At the same time, we came across the acute problem of Ukrainian media space existence. What level of democracy can a media editorial board afford in an invaded and occupied country? For, until now, the standards of journalism have been formed by Americans, Britons, Germans, and Frenchmen, that is, by those who spoke the truth about their wars on foreign territories, such as Vietnam, Algeria, the Falklands, Iraq, etc.
Their examples brought forth the practice of an effective struggle against the military agencies involved in the aggression. But there are no rules of behavior in defense, when enemy tanks are being concentrated near sovereign borders. It is unreasonable to just state the fact, foreseeing the recurrence of Guderian’s strategy in an eastern interpretation. In a time of ordeal and major emotional stress, everybody wants to know more about their own protective measures than about the enemy’s plans. But, besieged by audio-video-digital news tickers, we can rarely find encouraging information from our side and are more and more immersing into the externally-inspired fear. And this fits in with the quite familiar Russian scenario of intimidation. Tension on the borders and in society; mistrust towards the authorities, the hryvnia, the army, and all things Ukrainian are supposed to destroy the country or at least to plunge it into chaos for many years.
In these cursed days, Ukrainian journalism and the free milieu we have formed are undergoing the most trying ordeal. We, who think in different ways, are free to interpret facts, and do not depend on the state, are opposing an antipode. Fighting against us is the integrated, centrally managed and funded propaganda machine of a big totalitarian country. It has “all the moves noted” and all the roles assigned, and every news report meets the tactical and strategic goals of the General Headquarters to defeat Ukraine.
What can we do to thwart this evil scheme? An abstract idea of the truth, our own standpoint, or the coordinated actions of a community that is aware of all the dangers and challenges of time?
In reality, we can do more than we think we can. All the hallmarks of human civilization – from the Egyptian pyramids to Silicon Valley – were created by free people. Slaves do not make history. And the freedom of our journalism is not an abstract notion – it is a force vested with the right to take actions in line with inner persuasions. Each of us, who goes on the air, writes an article or a commentary in social networking sites, shares responsibility for the moral condition of society. Our citizens will be ready to do what we will instill in them.
Today, journalists can exert essential influence on the country’s psychological climate and restore at last the critically needed practice of regularly informing the public on the authorities’ actions. Many ministers have begun to use social websites to be in touch with society, but we need an integrated system of weekly briefings to show the state’s attitude to all the pressing problems. This is important to every Ukrainian and to the foreign journalists and analysts whose attention is riveted on Kyiv. It is common practice in Western countries to set up government coordination centers during large-scale antiterrorist operations. They are also the main source of news about the developments. Why are we unable to set up something like this? There are so many media people among those at the helm…
It is not a rare occurrence to see journalists in power. Having made a brilliant display of writing skills in newspapers, many of them, as, for example, Benito Mussolini, also made their way up in politics. Pardon me for a disputable example, but the man succeeded in fascinating the grassroots in various instances. Recently in Toronto, four people were vying for a parliamentary seat: an observer, a TV hostess, a reporter, and a columnist. The professional community noted this, and CAJ (Canadian Association of Journalists) conclusions seem to be interesting to me. To be more exact, it is reflections, not conclusions. For example, one of them is on the need to tell the truth always. For a journalist, it is the cornerstone of his or her profession, whereas politics does not like its “servants” to be too frank. Therefore, journalists may blossom in one reference frame and wither in another. The Canadians consider this the main problem of their society, where many people convert the popularity they gained in one walk of life into career benefits in another. So they called upon their colleagues to show “political chastity.” I think our journalists are also mature enough to be aware of the problem when brilliant fighters for common ideals turn into the obscure functionaries of party ranks. Although all people, irrespective of their occupation, have the right to elect and to be elected, it is easier and cheaper to exercise this right speaking and writing is your job. And, since the writing and broadcasting people are filling traditionally closed niches, I wish they would draw the outlines of an information policy in the name of the people, instead of revealing official secrets. Can we hear about any officials who are not venal and mendacious? Or they do not exist, as the molders of Ukrainian villains claim?
Despondency is a deadly sin in Christian morality because, as theologians believe, the dispirited increase the number of those who are in despair and have lost faith and, hence, they increase the strength of evil. Whenever it befalls us to break bad news to our kith and kin, we first prepare them for this because we love and pity them and do not want to aggravate their sorrow by dropping a chance word. We must not shut our eyes and ears to the truth, for this would be unprofessional. But to spread panic is amoral. It is difficult to draw a line between the two situations by means of knowledge alone, but the heart will tell you which is which.
