Without rehashing all the details of the incident, Kyiv Post owner Mohammad Zahoor and the editorial leadership of the paper have agreed to disagree about what happened.
Yet we have amicably resolved the situation.
The issue that won’t go away is simply this: Should a publisher be able to ask an editor to kill a story, for whatever reason? Many publishers in Ukraine would answer yes. It is their paper, so why not?
In fact, in discussions with some of our Ukrainian colleagues at other news organizations, we understand that it is still fairly common for owners to dictate what an editor should or should not publish.
We understand that it is still fairly common for owners to dictate what an editor should or should not publish.”
– Kyiv Post.
No publisher, of course, has the time or interest to monitor all the news coverage, so instructions usually come in the form of guidelines about who and what can be covered or not covered and how.
But when outside interference happens, news coverage ceases to be the result of the best collective judgment of the team of journalists.
Not only does this subservience put trust with readers at risk, it is bad for business.
Certainly, a publisher has every right to set the broad editorial policy – whether to finance an entertainment or a sports publication, or a general interest one such as the Kyiv Post.
Some owners even properly insert their views in editorials – the published opinions, like this article, that are meant to represent the institution’s point of view.
Zahoor has not wanted even to go that far because he views editorials as the sole province of journalists and he is, by and large, an apolitical businessman.
His hands-off approach is also a brave step for him, since we have opinions at times with which he strongly disagrees. He tends to be an optimist who, despite Ukraine’s problems, sees golden opportunities all around.
The dispute sprang from a conversation between a British owner and an American editor. Both nations are known for having a vibrant free press, but it was the Kyiv Post’s largely Ukrainian staff that played the pivotal role in defending independent journalism.”
– Kyiv Post.
He thinks some of us journalists see only the problems around us.
The sad irony of the conflict involving the Kyiv Post is that, with the exception of this single request to pull a controversial interview with Agriculture Minister Mykola Prysyazhnyuk from the April 15 edition, Zahoor has been an exemplary owner and steward of the Kyiv Post’s tradition of independence, community and trust.
History will likely treat Zahoor as a champion of the free press, and his reputation should only be enhanced by the way in which he courageously came to a quick resolution to end a five-day strike with a public pledge never to interfere in editorial content again.
He also allowed former chief editor Brian Bonner to return to the staff.
Before this, Zahoor saved the Kyiv Post by purchasing the newspaper in 2009 from its founder, American Jed Sunden, for $1.1 million.
By his estimate, he has since invested another $1.4 million for improvements. He also defended us against threats and lawsuits.
The next chapter has yet to be written. Clearly, the Kyiv Post needs to return to profitability quickly and Zahoor has given us until the end of September to make strides in this direction. He also may sell this sacred (to us) institution, and we trust him to keep it in good hands if he does.
The dispute sprang from a conversation between a British owner and an American editor. Both nations are known for having a vibrant free press, but it was the Kyiv Post’s largely Ukrainian staff that played the pivotal role in defending independent journalism.
As Zahoor admits, they were courageous and inspired everyone with their resolve and solidarity. We are forever grateful to those who helped us in this struggle.
Unfortunately, the situation is different in most Ukrainian media outlets.
Conversations between publishers and editors almost never become public or even known to the staff of journalists.
The media landscape remains troubled for many reasons.
There is no real journalistic independence without financial independence.
The media landscape remains troubled for many reasons. There is no real journalistic independence without financial independence.”
– Kyiv Post.
The Kyiv Post is vulnerable because advertising revenue is not keeping pace with expenses at the moment. We remain in a start-up phase of our kyivpost.ua website, and have invested in the hopes of a future advertising payoff.
In Ukraine, media ownership is concentrated among a handful of billionaires, some of whom operate their outlets as levers of political influence rather than businesses.
Moreover, journalists are vulnerable because of low salaries, weak or non-existent labor unions and the lack of enforceable contracts with such provisions as reasonable severance pay based on position or seniority.
We remain proud of the Kyiv Post and its owner. We had a dispute, aired it publicly and resolved it so quickly that we didn’t skip a single print edition. We now are working harder than ever to keep the trust of our readers and advertisers.
We believe in the Kyiv Post as one of the few remaining bastions of independent journalism.
We also continue to believe that Zahoor is a man of good intentions who got caught up in a bad situation.
From the support that he and the staff have received in the last week, particularly since our tentative settlement on April 20, we believe the community does as well.
