Politics everywhere

Is Mass Media supported by the government?

Although the media in this or that country is legally free, the danger lies in the fact that the majority of people are not aware of the ownership. The media in fact is controlled by a comparatively small number of persons


By EVGENIYA DONCHENKO
from Kyiv, UKRAINE


In every modern country, regardless of form of government, the press, radio and television, in other words, the media are political weapons of tremendous power, and few things are so indicative of the nature of a government as the way in which that power is exercised. In studying the politics of any country, it is important not only to understand the nature of the social, economic, political and other divisions of the population but to discover what organs of public and political opinion are available for the expression of the various interests.

Although the media in this or that country is legally free, the danger lies in the fact that the majority of people are not aware of the ownership. The media in fact is controlled by a comparatively small number of persons. Consequently, when the readers see different newspapers providing the same news and expressing similar opinions they are not sure that the news, and the evaluation of the news, are determined by a single group of people, perhaps mainly by one man. In democratic countries it has long been assumed that governments ought, in general, to do what their people want them to do.

We can state that any democratic country has three political functions: information, discussion and representation It is supposed to give the voter reliable and complete information on which to base his judgment, it should let him know the arguments for and against any policy, and it should reflect and give voice to the desires of the people as a whole. But what situation we have in Ukraine? Whenever the mass media in Ukraine is supported by the government?

Before I point out the situation, I should admit that the situation we had in the past and right now, quite changed, we even could state that now we are in the transition, reformation period. But as it was and as it is in Ukraine the mass media is supported by the government. But you may ask me why?

Coming back to our past experience, it is well-known that international monitoring organizations strongly criticized Ukraine mass media for improper coverage of political events and for the lack of unbiased information about election campaigns for the electorate. They underlined that "after President Leonid Kuchma was re-elected in 1999, the national and local governments and political parties toughened control over financial independence and activity of mass media." The toughening reached its critical level during the 2002 parliamentary election, the period when intimidations of journalists and mass media reached the peak over the whole period of Ukraine's independence. As a result, the authorities got recommendations to stop immediately distribution of instructions concerning the context and the form of information coverage. The president and the government of Ukraine had to give up the practice of intimidating editors-in-chief of mass media and look into assassinations and attacks at journalists.

Should appear the guarantee for equal access to mass media for all candidates at the election. What is more, should be "an honest representative multi-party monitoring committee; it must take care that state-run TV and radio broadcasting companies regularly report about implementation of recommendations and instructions issued by the committees and organizations."

Then, appeared the new era, the new challenges and well-known notion as "Orange revolution". Actually, that was the period of so-called journalist revolution, the changing of the mass media position.

It was evident that one of the most remarkable and momentous results of the Orange Revolution was the journalist revolution, when journalists of leading TV channels and print media refused in mass to carry out the recommendations of "temnyki", distort information, and manipulate public consciousness - practices that were extensively applied during the 2004 presidential campaign. Practically within one day the image of the main TV channels, radio programs and print media underwent change. They occurred in the wake of the overall change in the political situations.

However, the "journalist revolution"(JR) is not yet complete or irreversible. The depth of changes depends on the type of the mass media and region. In Kyiv, just like in other large cities, the changes are more obvious than elsewhere, while on television they are much more visible than in the press. Some media outlets imitate the changes, substituting subtler manipulative techniques for blatant propaganda. Therefore, the changes are frequently not institutionally secured and depend on the good will of the managers and owners of medial outlets.

The citizens' reactions to changes in the media and their assessment of these changes coincide, on the whole, with the stereotypes of receptiveness or unreceptiveness of the changes in the country. Respondents from the West and Centre are much more optimistic about JR than the representatives of the East and South. Over a half of the latter believe that no changes have occurred at all. Is this to mean that for them the mass media's bias did not exist? In the East and South people are more inclined to expect the authorities to continue bringing pressure to bear upon the mass media which will remain financially dependent on their owners.

But the current status of the media is not too favourable for implementing effective reform. The success of the media reform will depend on the political will of the new government that has demonstrated its resolve for change and sustainability of democratic standards of freedom of speech and the press. An important step to this end should be a quick establishment of a public broadcasting service, which would radically change the situation in the information environment. But unfortunately, as we see, time showed that even after the orange revolution our society, our government do not ready for the global changing and reforms.