Q&A with the head of Telekritika, a media watchdog news website and magazine who explained some of the undercurrents in the media world.
Editor’s note: Natalia Ligachova, head of Telekritika media watchdog’s news website and magazine, explained in a June 8 interview with the Kyiv Post some of the undercurrents of the court hearing that stripped Channel 5 and TVi of analog broadcasting frequencies. She also talked about censorship and ways to resist it, as well as mistakes made by journalists after the 2004 Orange Revolution.
KP: Is the scandal around Channel 5 and TVi a commercial or political dispute?
NL: It often happens that a purely commercial issue, which I think this dispute had been between Channel 5, TVi and [head of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) Valery] Khoroshkovsky, is overlaid with politics later. Originally, that competition [for frequencies on Jan. 27] should not have happened, according to many laws because, as of 2012, Ukraine will move to digital TV broadcasting. From January 2010, the law forbids tenders for analog frequencies.
It’s actually ridiculous because there are no free frequencies left, and the tender was for frequencies that are originally not even suitable for TV.
On the other hand, during the session of the National Commission [for TV and Radio, which regulates airwaves] there was no de facto quorum. It existed technically, through formally continuing a session that they once had not completed. They have a legal [loophole] to be able to do that – a very dubious scheme.
This was the basis for the lawsuit by Inter Group, that there was no quorum. And they also perceived it as a potential corrupt practice.
KP: So, where does politics come in?
NL: Undoubtedly, there are many questions here about the involvement of Khoroshkovsky in this case, who has a direct relationship with Inter Group [as its co-owner]. Is there any competition [between Inter and Channel 5 and TVi]? I don’t think so.
But there are plenty of questions about Inter Group’s position. Now they insist that the tender itself was illegal – but when they took part in it, they didn’t say it was illegal!
TVi had prepared the frequency for itself. It is common practice here that after that there has to be a tender held. By agreement with the National Council and all market players, the initiator has historically received the most frequencies. But they had to share with others, too.
But Inter Group claimed most of these frequencies – and that’s unfair. [Having understood that the claim would not be satisfied], they withdrew their application, and then filed a lawsuit. It’s not very clear why.
Then the new government arrived. Khoroshkovsky became head of the SBU, and it seems that Inter is participating in this lawsuit, but claiming nothing for themselves. So why continue? There are many answers, including the one that this is political pressure, an attempt to make these TV channels more loyal.
KP: What are the potential long-term consequences?
NL: The desire of the new power to control and monopolize television is visible through many of its actions and through the quality of the news we have. TVi and Channel 5, together with Tonis, are effectively the three channels conducting a more or less independent information policy.
In other words, what started off as a commercial dispute was overlaid with politics and a political personality with much power, as well as influence on the National [TV and Radio] Council and the courts. Khoroshkovsky is a member of the High Council of Justice. In any democratic country, undoubtedly, this kind of a court hearing, with major procedural violations, simply could not happen.
On the other hand, the racket raised by the managers of TVi and Channel 5 is not all that straightforward, either. As far as TVi goes, why did they claim those frequencies? Obviously, to become an analog channel – a stronger position that allows you to get picked by the cable networks quicker. Possibly, this makes it easier to get onto the multiplex platform when Ukraine moves on to broadcast in digital format. Currently, they are a satellite channel, with partnership agreements with regional TV channels.
As far as Channel 5 is concerned, because it’s composed of two legal entities, it has already received two sets of frequencies. Right now its owner [Petro] Poroshenko possibly has a plan to sell two channels in the end, not one.They claim that the new frequencies are needed because of new licensing conditions, which make one of [channel 5’s legal entities] an entertainment channel. But what’s stopping them from having the license changed?
There are some undisputable things. First, it’s the dishonorable situation around Khoroshkovsky. There are many questions civic society has. Also, civic society is interested in having Channel 5 and TVi as independent and news-oriented channels.
But both the new government and the owners are responsible for that. If the journalists are supporting the owners in this dispute, they have every right to demand a guarantee that the frequencies are defended and that the channel cannot be turned into an entertainment one or sold to another owner who has similar intentions.
There has been precedent with Poroshenko. Radio 5 that he owned received many frequencies after the Orange Revolution to start a Ukrainian radio. In the end, the radio never went on air, was sold and became Radio Alla, playing Russian music.
Another point is that something needs to be changed at the National TV and Radio Council. These sorts of commercial disputes lead to the loss of news channels. This shows inadequate work of the National Council, which has to make sure that we have information channels, public TV and that the needs for Ukrainian-language media are satisfied. But it has never done it in a civilized way.
As a result, we end up in a difficult situation when it’s not clear who needs to be defended, how and what for.
KP: Commercial disputes aside, the country is facing a huge censorship problem. How can those facing it defend themselves?
NL: The Stop Censorship! movement is trying to find some solutions, even though the new government has plenty of resources to make the media controllable.
But much depends on the journalists. A huge effort has to go into working with newsrooms of TV channels. We know by experience that if one journalist says “no” in response to illegal pressure (and any proposal to violate journalistic standards is an illegal one), this changes the situation at the whole channel. If there is not one, but two, five or 10 of such journalists, or the whole newsroom, it can change things radically.
We [Stop Censorship!] have to admit that so far have not made a radical change. Journalists from many channels have not joined us. It’s the trade union that has to work with newsrooms, but it’s very weak and needs to be strengthened.
If we unite, we will turn into a real force. We have seen that the government is afraid of unified resistance. So far, they are flabbergasted and cannot believe that all this resistance comes from journalists – and this is the fault of the journalists who for five years put up with “dzhinsa” [paid-for news] and stealth advertising. Those in power are still thinking [that resistance is coming from the owners.]
By unifying our effort we can defend many of our positions. Ukraine does not live in a vacuum. All the [powerbrokers’] accounts are in the West. They need some sort of an image abroad.
KP: Why are trade unions so weak? Who are friends of journalism?
NL: Primarily trade unions and lawyers. The country has many qualified media lawyers. At the same time, Ukraine’s trade union laws allow to very effectively defend journalists from dismissal, for example. Without the consent of the particular medium’s trade union, the owner has no right to fire a single journalist. On the other hand, we understand what the life of every journalist will turn into if he enters into a conflict with the owner or top manager. He cannot be fired, but he won’t be allowed to work properly.
KP: Is there any solid evidence that the government pressures media owners?
NL: We have not caught anyone red-handed, but one of the aims of Stop Censorship! is to conduct a journalistic investigation.
In 2002 or 2004, it was easier: the temnyky [written instruction from government officials on how to cover news] were unofficial, there was no stamp on them, but there were hundreds of people, top managers and journalists, who received them from a particular email address.
I think it was a major mistake in 2005 not to bring this case to the end. It could have been proved in court that “temnyky” was a tool of pressure on editorial policy of TV channels. There was plenty of material evidence.
Now, we have no such evidence so far. Apart from the fact that Igor Shuvalov [the alleged author of temnyky] is seen on Inter channel and apart from the alleged meetings of top managers at [Deputy Prime Minister Volodymyr] Semynozhenko’s office on Mondays, there is no real proof.
It turns out that the main proof that this administration has centralized control is the news we get on TV.
Right now proving censorship is very difficult because manipulations have become very sophisticated. I recently watched [weekend] news on all channels, and formally they adhere to many criteria of objectivity. Our monitoring shows that there is a catastrophic drop in the quality of the news, and there are a few formal criteria that can be used to criticize them. But it’s now difficult to catch undisputable facts of violation.
[Potential news is filtered out] by chief editors under the pretext that it’s not newsworthy. And you cannot prove that it’s interesting and important. And then it looks like there is no censorship because this news item was never made.
