Reporters Without Borders stated in May that “chronically high levels of violence against journalists hit a new peak, while impunity remained total” under the current government. Unfortunately, Western publishers haven’t been helping our cause.
In late December, reports of a syndication agreement surfaced between the London-based Financial Times and a daily business newspaper, Kapital, which emerged on the Ukrainian market in April.
Already then, media watchdogs said that Kapital is controlled by Serhiy Arbuzov, the first deputy prime minister of Ukraine. He denied ownership ties in March.
Financial Times Head of Communications Kristina Eriksson informed me this week that her company was assured by Kapital’s owner, Oleg Svirko, that there are no undisclosed third parties with a financial interest or control of the newspaper.
Yet local editors and reporters know better, being aware of the labyrinths of opaque ownership structures that often extend overseas.
In the case of Kapital, the media watchdog Telekritika collected enough evidence to suppose that a team of behind-the-scenes spinsters and PR specialists are controlling that publication without any legally established links, thus enabling Svirko to make the claim that no third parties are involved.
Also consider that the Ukrainian market lost two business dailies last year because of the corroded investment climate. Only a wealthy investor – protected by tight government ties – would bother entering this sorry market.
Given this market’s weakness, the motivation to launch a business daily (where those more established have failed) would not be to report on news, but to offer the state spin on the news.
Examples of that spin abound in the issues of Kapital, whose sophisticated content (including news on business deals, the latest gadgets and arts performances) otherwise serves as slick packaging for the state propaganda at its very core.
Many Kapital articles hype state plans for grandiose projects that are traditionally rarely fulfilled. They proclaim huge economic gains from projects that have yet to be launched, without getting verification for such estimates from independent analysts.
Articles frequently surface that highlight the advantages of the state’s increasingly desperate initiatives of creating revenue and collecting taxes and fees. Its reporters have unparalleled access to exclusive information that is often provided by anonymous state officials.
Therefore, the Financial Times either hasn’t done its homework, or is willing to turn a blind eye to individual rights abuses. The newspaper shouldn’t have signed a syndication agreement without performing thorough due diligence on its affiliated publication’s links to state officials.
Kapital’s publishers have placed the world renown and respected FT logo on the top fold of its front page. In allowing this, the FT has been, in essence, offering its stamp of approval to the spin vehicle allegedly produced by Arbuzov and his government, which is recognized by the EU as engaging in persecution against the opposition.
An increasing number of EU leaders have labeled the administration of President Yanukovych as authoritarian, including former European Parliament Chair Hans-Gert Pottering and Andreas Gross, the 2012 Ukraine election mission chair of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.
Yet two weeks ago, another Western publication has allowed itself to get mixed up with this authoritarian government.
On June 20, a company called VETEK announced it would acquire, among other publications, Forbes Ukraine. VETEK is owned by the 27-year-old tycoon Serhiy Kurchenko, another sudden newcomer to the media business. He is widely recognized as simply being a front, as world boxing champion turned opposition lawmaker Vitali Klitschko recently alleged. Kurchenko, of course, denies it.
Forbes’ chief editor, Volodymyr Fedorin, immediately announced he will resign on Oct. 1, citing his conviction that Kurchenko is representing the state interest in turning Forbes into its mouthpiece. After all, one of Kurchenko’s companies threatened to sue Forbes last year for an investigative article addressing alleged corruption.
Yet Miguel Forbes, who leads Forbes’ licensing division in New York, issued a statement welcoming the sale, stating he’s happy about the new possibilities it creates.
In response to my follow-up inquiry, a Forbes spokesperson sent me a statement saying the new owners are fully aware of the company’s policy that any breach of editorial independence is grounds for terminating the license. They will create an “independent editorial oversight board” for Forbes Ukraine to ensure editorial integrity.
In a similar gesture, seller Boris Lozhkin announced a charter to uphold editorial independence and journalistic ethical standards. Yet Ukrainian journalists understand that such promises aren’t trustworthy.
If the leaders of the Western world are having difficulty convincing the Yanukovych administration to play fair and release former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, then the ability of editorial board members and journalists to exercise some influence on these unaccountable oligarchs is even more doubtful.
Regardless of whether editorial standards upheld, Forbes should have not allowed itself to get involved in a company controlled (allegedly) by state officials. The FT syndication agreement and the Forbes sale to a state-linked company raise the ethical issue of whether Western publications, which enjoy the rule of law and freedom of the press, have a moral obligation to defend those same Western institutions in the countries in which they work.
Among the consequences of the moral relativism that has engulfed Western societies is that businessmen have ignored their moral obligations abroad and have instead fully deferred to that other Western value – profit margins.
It’s up to those of us defending Western values in Ukraine to convince the London-based managers of FT to abandon its syndication agreement with Kapital until its owners are determined to be entirely independent of the government and disclose their ultimate owner(s).
Forbes management in New York needs to be convinced of canceling its licensing agreement with any company until its owners are likewise determined to be independent.
We can make moral arguments or use the language they seem to understand a lot better: earnings figures. I’m canceling my subscription to Forbes Ukraine this week.
Zenon Zawada is a former chief editor of the Kyiv Post.
