Since this battle may well have spelled
the end of the channel as we knew it, the solidarity shown by the journalists
who resigned en masse is certainly welcome. On the other hand, the blow was
probably fatal precisely because from the outset there were two distinct camps
presenting mutually exclusive versions of the situation.

TVi had come under attack many times over
the last three years, and the uses made of the National Broadcasting Council,
the tax authorities, and Internet providers convinced only those seriously
wishing to be duped. This attack has apparently come from within, and the lack
of serious protest from the West is possibly in part due to consternation over
conflicting versions from people who until recently seemed to share the same
agenda.  

This agenda, it should be stressed, was
one of journalist independence and honesty, hard-hitting questions and
investigative journalism, not a political stand.  

That ended on 23 April, when one of those
journalists Artem Shevchenko announced that he was the new general director and
that the channel had a new main shareholder, a little known New York-based
businessman Alexander Altman. Confusion intensified when Mykola Kniazhytsky came
out in support of this position. Kniazytsky had been the general director through
most of the previous onslaughts and was himself, as representative of TVi,
facing criminal charges over alleged tax irregularities just a year ago. Then
mass protest both within Ukraine and abroad probably made the authorities back
off.

The TVi team, including general director Natalya
Katerynchyk, but excluding the self-titled new general director, Artem
Shevchenko, were confronted with a fait accompli and serious contingents of
strongmen there to enforce it. This already makes the claims that all was above
board questionable. Altman could not provide the power of attorney entitling
him to gain a controlling package; Nikia Ortodoksy, director of the Cyprus
offshore Wilcox that supposedly sold it to Altman, claimed that the latter’s
documents were faked and said she would be approaching the law enforcement
bodies in Ukraine, the UK and the US. Altman and Kniazhytsky have both claimed
the controlling shares were bought to prevent Konstantin Kagalovsky
(former or present owner) from selling the channel to those close to the
current regime. True or not, this squalid tale firstly highlights a lack of
transparency regarding media ownership. Ironically, Kniazhytsky, now an
opposition MP, is one of the authors of a draft law proposing strict measures
to ensure media ownership transparency. 

Just not, it would seem, in this case.

We should bear in mind that the sums
mentioned and apparent hallmarks of a company seizure are over a TV channel
which everybody knows was a money-losing enterprise. This gives weight to
suspicions that those close to the “Family” (Yanukovych, his sons, and those
close to them) are involved. However, it makes Kniazhytsky’s intense
activity in support of the takeover incomprehensible, as is the lack of
response from other opposition politicians.

With scant information and no proof it
seems senseless to run through all the hypotheses presented over the last 10
days. One scenario, however, is worth mentioning, namely that the channel
could continue to give coverage to the opposition, but change the focus of
their investigative projects. Ligachova and Siumar mention this scenario with
reference to Serhiy Arbuzov, now Deputy Prime Minister and a close friend of
the “Family.” It is suggested that he could use the channel for
“investigations” against his enemies – Serhiy Lyovochkin from the President’s
Administration and Dmytro Firtash, the millionaire with close links to the
present regime.

One of the problems in Ukraine is that
shocking revelations are simply ignored by those in power and do not lead to
any changes. With officials’ reputation already tarnished, many journalistic
investigations could continue, with others – apparently exposing those few
politicians and civic organizations with reputations still to be destroyed –
deftly inserted.

Such fears make the resignation of
virtually the entire TVi team (around 31 journalists) and current negotiations
underway to create a public Internet resource particularly encouraging.
Ligachova and Siumar stress that such a project must receive wide support from
very different people so as not to simply become a grant-funded project. 

How much a TV channel with limited numbers
of viewers could seriously threaten the increasing monopoly over the media is
questionable. What is not in doubt is the destructive impact of bemusing
conflict and behind the scenes deals. Whoever orchestrated the demise of
TVi has most to fear from civic solidarity and journalists’ commitment to
professional standards in their work. The positive example demonstrated by
the TVi team is indeed vitally needed and must be supported.

Halya
Coynash is a member of the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group. The article
can be accessed at this link http://www.khpg.org/en/index.php?id=1367698299.