We would like to concentrate in the beginning a little bit on this
situation here in Ukraine, and I would like to ask Angelina from your experience, I mean,
what are the blind spots of reporting here in Ukraine?
I think blind spots in reporting in Ukraine is a very sensitive question and we really
lack an open discussion on that. But I think I'm going to start with saying that the state
of media and the media itself, its position in Ukraine is kind of a blind spot and weak spot
in Ukraine even after the revolution of dignity, which also promoted and demanded that Ukraine
would have a chance to start over with media coverage and have access to information and
that the sources of information would be transparent. So the media that I'm working with
and the newsroom that I'm running is actually working in an infrastructure that we call
like a grassroots public broadcaster. So Bromansky TV has started out as a small internet media
which then gradually, just do it yourself, studio, volunteer editors, volunteer journalists,
for I think something like half a year, people were just volunteering. And it coincided with
the events at Maidan. So sometimes people think that Bromansky was found during Maidan,
but actually the idea of founding an independent media was there for quite a long time because
the specifics of Ukrainian media landscape, the biggest problem of Ukrainian media landscape
is that the majority of the TV channels, printed media and radio stations are owned by the
oligarchs and it's just predominantly for major business groups or for major surnames
which are well known to all people in Ukraine. So it was just a small history of Bromansky.
This is how we were found. So the problem is that, as I already said, something like 86%
of TV audience is controlled by the channels owned by those four people and almost 90%
of radio stations are controlled by them. Something like 20% of printed media and internet
media are controlled by them, but it's a huge number. So one of the main problems was that
Ukrainians really lacked access to information, balanced information. And one of the demands
was founding a public broadcaster. So this process started in 2013 after the revolution,
but it's still, it's a huge reform, it's still underway. And one of the major challenges
that we're facing as journalists is lack of platform where we could tackle those blind
spots. I will keep on talking and I will tell more of how do I see these blind spots. But
for me as a journalist and editor, one of the major problems is an absence of a proper
platform. This is why we decided to go for and create and sustain our own TV channel.
We made a precedent by becoming a first NGO to receive a TV license. It's a really hard
job if someone, someone out of you there would like to do that, go for it, but just be prepared
that sustaining a 247 channel with not a lot of money and a lot of fundraising and horizontal
structure managed by the journalists themselves is a huge challenge. So this is something
that we're doing. But the bigger goal there is to have a proper platform and to give people
that access to the information that they really need, especially in the times like this, times
of conflict. But getting back to your question about blind spots or reporting. So problem
number one is lack of platform where you could hold a proper and proper moderated discussion
on the things that are out there. It's, when we were preparing for this panel, we also
talked to you. I was asking you what kind of audience we will be having and who we're
talking to because it really, it really matters who is taking interest in Ukraine and how
many people, how much do these people know about the processes in Ukraine. We've done
a lot of reporting from Ukraine. For foreign media, I've done reporting from foreign media
as well. Yevgen is running a project that is also aimed at foreign audience. The problem
is that tackling some of the blind spots for the foreign audience sometimes goes with understanding
that there is a lot of Russian propaganda out there. And talking to the foreign audience,
you need to keep in mind all of those myths and all of those messages that were spread
by the Russian propaganda. So sometimes I find myself in a weird situation explaining
to the, I'm pretty sure that all of you are journalists, you know where you are and you
know what you're reporting on. But still, sometimes I find myself in weird situations
talking to foreign audience, trying to explain them that there is no fascist junta in Ukraine
on one hand, but on the other hand, trying to tell them that there is also a problem
of far-right violence in Ukraine. And this is also one of the blind spots. And trying
to explain that, you find yourself in a situation where a lot of other Ukrainian journalists
have to keep in mind when they are reporting, for example, on far-right violence. They need
to understand that all of the things that they are reporting on will be very often taken
by the Kremlin propaganda and used against them. This is one of the things I think it
has to deal with self-censorship. Do you think it's an issue which is a blind spot
and could you also add some others? I mean, which are issues which are actually a taboo
for blind spots?
Thank you so much for inviting me to be a part of this panel. Do you know what it used
to be? It used to be a day in the museum. So as far as day in is dead, you need to keep
the temperature really low, to keep the memory alive. So bear with that. Thank you very much
for this explanation. Very useful. The temperature of historical memory. And by the way, 35
years ago, I was admitted to PNU as an official rebuilding. Yes. I look back to the blind
spots. That's really an issue because the Ukraine is conducting another, it was another.
And one more is, you know, external world, another world is both foreign and another
world is a small world. I think it was in Germany before we wanted to refine what kind
of journalism we do and to impact on that. And I think in terms of that, this is a great
time for Ukraine in journalism because I never remember that we would have so many discussions
before about what we are doing. So usually, journalism was always about doing. So we talked
about explaining, you just draw and get material and try to get, you know, towards your deadline
and so it's that much time for reflection. Now we have so many discussions inside journalism
about our blind spots that probably it really need to bring Ukrainian journalism to a much
better level of everything, to the level of standards, a level of understanding what
the values of the journalism we are doing is and so on and so forth. So I really believe
that the biggest blind spots in Ukraine are within Ukrainian journalism. For example,
as a media editor, I can still say that the journalistic standards are a big blind spot
and we still have a lot of people in the profession who might have very different understanding
of what we are doing inside our profession. We still have very vague understanding quite
often of what the journalism should be about coming from outside of our profession and
the different expectations for the profession. And also there are a lot of issues which might
say, yes, they are a blind spot because Ukrainian journalists did not have previous experience
just of doing that. For example, Ukrainian journalists never did have experience of covering
the world. Mostly we have been talking about the world as international journalists, as
foreign correspondent. As a foreign correspondent I was covering the world, but that was happening
in other countries which definitely gave quite different perspective of how we look at that
and how we have the world over here. So it's definitely with different courage in here.
Ukrainian journalists were not prepared, not in terms of the understanding how to cover
that technically, not how to cover that on an editorial point of view. And that was
a big issue. Another big issue, how to cover those victims of the war. For example, how
to cover internally displaced people, how to cover victims of the war, how to talk to
the soldiers who are participating in this war. And also there is a huge influence on
the top of all that was having Russian propaganda and how Ukraine was explained from outside
of Ukraine. Because Ukraine and coverage was pretty much internationalized. We had a lot
of journalists covering at least at the initial stage. So it was basically under the huge
lens. And Ukraine actually needed to kind of feed into all these expectations from very
different groups. Inside of Ukraine, how we should be covering outside of Ukraine, international
journalists had different perspectives of what was happening here, international policy
makers had their own vision of how it was happening. Basically, Ukraine was at the crossroad
between all of that. And you might imagine how difficult it might be for the journalists
to cover all of that. And when I was preparing for this conference earlier today, I did a
huge provocation on Twitter, which explains the external context of what we are now talking
about. So I posted that with all Russian journalists left as a part of the Russian
security and propaganda machine. Just a blatant generalization. All. And I used all letters
kept. All Russian journalists. And it was very interesting from the social research point
of view. I still get responses. And by the way, that was the most responded tweet ever
to me. And I already have around two thousand replies on that. And most of them are from
international journalists based in Moscow, who are saying that all differences, the whole
spectrum, that I'm not very professional. To the person of instance, the real insults
that I read is stupid, you know, and I was in with a lot of things in between. But it's
really very, very interesting that how big mass we have here in the understanding role
of each national media system, how it's treated from outside, how different analysis.
And either you're looking from inside the media system, or you're looking from outside
of the media system. And it really depends how much involved and how much in this media
system is. And what was the most interesting for me is that the most people who came to
defend Russian media system. Because I'm aware of all those great Russian journalists
working for few but strong media voices who still do not control the processes. But I
was intentionally doing this kind of organization to get this to the other strand, to the other
sort of either, to see what's going to happen. And I was surprised by the results of that.
But we see how radicalized the environment is, both inside and outside, how huge expectations
to Ukrainian journalists is, and how often Ukraine is looked with a kind of magnifying
glass, at the same time by other media systems, other media systems, like Russia, are accepted
as it is. For example, to some extent, because we know that here the media system has many
limitations. That's why it's all the scenes that are explainable, and those few journalists
who are doing government jobs, they're doing government jobs. And yeah, so we see how
different the context can be, depending on whom you're talking to, with what kind of
prepositions you have to this conversation, and what is the bubble of those people whom
you are using the app to. Because all the responses I want, they came from my kind of
usual, proud of people I usually communicate with. So this is a...
That's your bubble.
This is my bubble. But this bubble, it came to be quite nasty, if you wish, you know. And
again, that was the reaction I was expecting from them. And that's why it's important to
be open about the weaknesses of your system, to be open about the advantages of your system,
because I really do believe that Ukraine and journalism have a lot of positive scenes
here.
Yeah. So thank you. I think we have a tweet. We will discuss it a little later, because
it leads into another...
Can you read it?
Yes, we have to read it first. And then I think it's a different discussion. But thank
you for this point. And I would like to ask Christian, oh, you are here as a foreign
correspondent. It means that you depend very much also on the reporting of the Ukrainian
media, which you read and see and hear every day. And I'm interested, what do you see as
a blind point or blind spot? Perhaps I can mention, because you told that already that
the IDPs could be a point like this. I remember I was here in March and we had a huge discussion
here at Kiev, because there were a lot of refugee organizations, very unhappy by the
Ukrainian reporting. So I would like to hear if you think that this would be one of the
main points, or if there are other points.
Thanks for having me here. Thanks, Gemma. When I came here last June, I thought, oh, you
switched on your TV set and your flat and you've got an awful lot of in-depth reporting
on the war, on the consequences of the war, on IDPs, on the rehabilitation and reintegration
of veteran soldiers. That's what I had in mind and I found nothing but that stuff. And I
still have to look around a lot to find these scores in Ukrainian media, especially on those
four TV stations you mentioned. I'm afraid this won't change, because these TV stations
have adapted, or were forced to adapt, a role model for reporting, for journalism, which
is completely different from mine, and as far as I know you're programming from yours.
They are political tools and weapons in the hand of those who pay for it. And you can't
expect proper reporting. I do not want to insult any colleague who's working there.
There are many colleagues who reflect upon that situation, but they can't break the chain.
They have to deliver what is expected from them. So this was my first blind spot experience
when I came here last summer, and the first report I did was on IDPs in Mariupol.
Which was published in Ukrainian media, as you've told me.
Yeah, it was picked up by Ukrainskaya Prada, which for me is a foreign correspondent.
A very strange experience that, especially if you work for a satellite news system like
Deutsche Welle, you'll remain on the moon. You hardly get any feedback from your viewers
and your users. But then, as it was picked up by Ukrainskaya Prada, and as you know,
we have a good working website in Ukrainian language. Katarina, where are you?
She's working and filing for this outlet as well. Many of the stories we did for TV,
in either English or German, were adapted into Ukrainian and played a role here as well.
This was for me as a correspondent, completely new. I don't want to go into detail now
discussing the blind spots in Ukrainian media, but two more remarks.
For me as a foreign correspondent, the biggest blind spot of Ukraine is Ukraine.
You mentioned it already in your opening remarks. For me, of course, it's paradise.
It was paradise. It is still paradise. That was not a single story.
I offered to the various news desks of Deutsche Welle, which was not commissioned.
Perhaps you could just shortly add a little bit about the Ukrainian and Russian program
you have at Deutsche Welle, which your work is also translated to.
I'm not sure if everybody here knows what you're offering at Deutsche Welle.
I have never expected you to ask me to advertise Deutsche Welle.
Very shortly, because I'm afraid that not everybody knows.
Just try it out, dw.com slash Ukraine.
That's the L.
We have a very strong news team in our one office, and we have the colleagues here in my office
who will find for the website. There's video material, you'll find audio files, and you'll find...
And we try to properly report on what is relevant for this country.
It's 24 hours in the Internet now.
It's 24 hours. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
One thing I would like to mention is Russian propaganda,
because Angelina was talking about it, and you're also hearing it.
When you were talking about the tweet you sent before coming here,
I thought, what had been my reply if I had been in Moscow?
I think I had been very nice to you.
But this opens up the discussion afterwards.
What I want to mention is something different.
Yes, there is Russian propaganda.
Yes, there's the effort of Russian state media to create,
especially in Western countries, in Germany, in France, in the US,
an extremely hostile anti-Ukrainian narrative.
It's less fake news. It's less disinformation campaigns.
It's this underlying pattern.
When talking about Ukraine, it's presented, it's portrayed,
either as a failed state or a state doomed soon to fail.
And I think the problem of Ukraine to get its viewpoint, its message
across, is less the role of Russian propaganda,
but there was simply no foreign correspondence to report.
I don't know whether there were still 715 in Moscow.
I guess it's a bit less, but it's still a huge number.
So perhaps they don't need even the state propaganda,
because there are so many journalists,
so carry Mr. Lavrovsen with the contents messages all over the world.
That's just what I wanted to mention.
I want to discuss that and the role of Russian journalists in this country
and the way Ukrainian authorities are dealing with them later on.
It's really very difficult to compare the market fake news on one hand
in the relationship, in the narrative on the other hand,
because it's two different genres,
and they do not compete with Google, with each other.
They cannot complement thousand fake news with thousand great narratives
that would be kind of complementary.
It doesn't work like that because the destructive narratives
are much more simple to produce, much more simple to distribute
because they work much better, they don't need an explanation.
You can just push whatever you need basically,
but with narratives you really need to have a good pause
to explain that first of all.
And I would not say that Ukraine does not have that, we definitely have.
And another issue is it's much more difficult now to push Ukraine
and narratives around, because you mentioned that at the beginning
there were plenty of foreign correspondents here,
but almost all of them left, one very simple reason,
because only the war sells, and when we did have the real war,
there were hundreds of correspondents,
I can say some media organizations had up to five, even seven,
correspondents on the ground in the east of Ukraine all day,
and now there is none of them, one very simple reason,
because there is no war, there is no plot,
there is no that anyway, because it's used to have, like, thousands.
And also, every time, those journalists I'm talking with,
most freelancers now, every time they try to bitch
any kind of positive narrative in Ukraine,
they are usually set by the media organizations,
they are not interested in that,
so they're interested in conflicts, war, fascism,
here for rights, problems with ADPs,
problems with migrants, and anything like that.
So if you do have that, please pitch those stories.
If you do have positive stories, we are not interested much in that,
and that's what makes journalists pitch more and more
negative stories in Ukraine, and that's like Catch-22, you know,
so they're asking for bad stories, negative stories,
they offer them, because they need to live and to sell their content,
and then we are arguing and amazed by so many negative stories
in Ukraine around, so that's one of the kind of blind spots as well, I would say.
I think this shows very well that it's not a problem only of Ukraine,
but of a certain mechanism in our work which produces this kind of blind spots,
and I would like to give...
Yeah, yeah, thank you.
I think it's a general for this kanyuktura of the mainstream media,
of course, it's the same with any conflict you take,
even with the way that the mainstream media reporting on Syria,
on the Syrian crisis, I mean, what we hear about this country is just
to take at least five or ten stories that you received from Syria
and you would see that it's pretty much the same as in Ukraine,
it's just blood, refugees, killings and things like that,
but what I really wanted to add also to what you gave me and Christian were saying
is that not only these people moved out from Ukraine,
they also moved to Moscow, and they're reporting on Ukraine from Moscow,
and that's one of the problems that we've been facing for many, many years.
I personally know brilliant reporters who have been reporting from the 90s,
and that's the way their offices work.
They have a correspondent in Moscow who has to cover the region,
and then they need to move to Ukraine,
but that's not the perspective that Ukrainians are also expecting.
And it's just a very hard way to operate, have the speakers,
have the newsmakers understanding the context, things like that.
So I personally know several people who were here for almost three years
here covering the conflict, now they moved to Moscow,
and they're still reporting on Ukraine, you know, from Moscow.
But getting back to the blind spots and to what Eugenia was saying,
to the thing that we as a media community faced,
some of the challenges we were never facing, for example, war reporting,
we faced so many challenges and so many problems
that we didn't know how to tackle and how to deal with them,
we didn't have a proper language for that.
I think for the first two years we were struggling with the language,
we were struggling with finding proper words for the things that were happening,
and also Russian propaganda was also part of the problem
because they were proactively moving with the dictionary,
they were proposing the words.
And then you had to tackle those words like Appalachancy or rebels,
as we had, even I think for the first months of so-called Russian Spring,
we had a lot of mentionings of the rebels, even on BBC, if I'm not mistaken.
So of course the world media were trying to figure out what's there,
is that a civil conflict?
Is it Ukrainians against Ukrainians or the Russian military aggression?
So there were a lot of questions, but inside Ukraine it was a huge problem
trying to find the proper words, trying to find the proper language.
Then suddenly we found ourselves in a situation where media standards
became sort of an ironic man, where you would have someone
who is standing there and saying, okay, let's try to stick to standards,
objectivity, balance, and all of the other things.
You would have someone saying that standards are impossible
when you're reporting on a war from your own country,
and still these two camps are still existing,
of those who think that standards are possible
and those who think that standards are impossible
when it comes to reporting on war from your own country.
I wanted to ask you a question first.
And then the others will say, we want to be the proper journalists,
even if there's war, we need to be journalists in the first place.
Do you see a lot of debates still of your Ukrainian colleagues?
What does your stand?
I would first like to ask Angelina, in the meantime,
you've found that language.
Yes, we did. We actually had a very boring and pragmatic way of dealing with that.
We asked our colleagues from the BBC,
who have also quite a long track record
on reporting also on conflicts from their own country,
helping us with writing down this dictionary, that language.
We had Svetlana Perkova with us.
We just locked down in a room for three days,
and we were writing down all of the words
that we were having trouble with.
Now we have a master's dictionary,
and we have people who are coming to us.
We present them with that dictionary.
And of course, we're trying to follow those guidelines.
We do have some questions.
I keep on wondering whether it's possible to report unbiased on a war
when this war is in your own country.
For me as a foreign correspondent, it's very cheap way out.
It's not my war. I observe it.
My camera is somewhere five meters over the ground.
Let them do what they are doing.
It sounds cynical. It's not meant to be cynical.
But that's why I don't dare to judge
how the Ukrainian colleagues are doing it or not.
I would like to tell you a little episode.
I was traveling to Mariupol with the UNHCR.
I was the only non-Ukrainian journalist.
There were seven or eight Ukrainian colleagues,
and we were traveling the front line
and could see some of the UNHCR relief projects.
And then we came to a completely devastated settlement,
one of the many, Krasno-Olivka,
and there was a Kostchofkin, which was completely deserted.
But in one entrance, there were two old people,
a couple sitting, and there were seven,
a couple of pieces of soap, toilet paper,
and some very essential things you need to survive.
And the bus stopped, the UNHCR bus stopped,
and all colleagues, including me, we rushed out
and went to those people.
They were the only one on the street.
We could see the traces of fresh chalice in the street.
So it was really a green place.
The front line was some two-and-a-half, three kilometers away
from that Kostchofkin.
And my Ukrainian colleagues made a circle
and started asking questions.
Who are you?
How old are you?
Do you have children?
The story was one of the children left for Donetsk.
The other one was living in Kiev.
So a nice story to be talking about in journalistic terms.
But what happened, it turned out,
that this old couple accused the Ukrainian artillery
of starting the shooting at night,
and not the separatists, not the Russian forces.
And then the Ukrainian colleagues got very angry
and tried to convince them that their observations were wrong,
that it can't be the Ukrainian army that starts the shooting
that's the other side.
And then the old people got annoyed and a bit angry as well.
I stood by and observed it and thought,
oh my God, what's happening here?
This is the role of a journalist
to convince someone in your interview
who has this very authentic biographical story
to tell that this story is wrong
because the overall rationale of the war is a different one.
I just wanted to be with this episode
and talk a little bit about those more than a year ago.
But I want you to judge it and observe it.
Yeah, please.
To the story, who can imagine the other...
who can understand the story?
For example, we've been doing quite a lot of stories
with the same accusation
and they were used by propaganda.
And we've been dividing them
because according to your analysis,
intelligence available on the ground
and after talking to military,
or former military or military experts,
we came to the opposite conclusion.
But the propaganda was still insisting
that it was Ukrainian army conducting
the bomb weapons at the time.
And it was disseminating to a local population
which was watching mostly still Russian television
because Ukrainian television
cannot get through all of that.
The Ukrainian TV is still jammed
from Russian territory,
so it's impossible to do the Ukrainian one.
So those people would have the only dominating narrative
and then there is a narrative like that.
So on that end, it would be quite...
also UBS housing narrative can be considered
as objective and neutral and other things
because they do not have access to...
The other point, the other side of the story
is probably more knowledgeable explanation.
As I said, the Ukrainians,
even if they want to produce propaganda
they would not be able to broadcast it
to use a contact line zone
because for Ukrainian television
it's a huge blind spot.
So it's still dominated, as I said,
by Russian television
and Ukraine now plays
four big transmitters over there
but they are jammed, as I said.
And so I would find
sometimes in some...
localities would both find
any presence of Ukrainian media.
So then you had to...
And I just have another point with you
that probably we are going into the stage in journalism
where I'm just saying that
on one hand this is C-cent, on the other hand this is Z
and I am your dear journalist
and I'm standing in between
and I don't care much about what is happening in the ground
and then you go and you decide
I think that we are kind of
leading out the conflict zone for journalists
and again, on the other hand,
we are technically asking
why propaganda wins?
Why...
populist wins?
Because they offer very simple,
straightforward explanations to people
and people are just
not interested in hearing on one hand
and you go and you decide yourself.
They are interested in giving something to them
they can maybe read,
especially if they agree with what they are trying to do.
That's why they love populism.
That's why they listen to that.
That's why we see that the razors are popularity
because they take a specific scene
that throws it into specific audiences
which correlates to their expectations.
And this is another part of the story.
We don't know what is then the future
of journalists, if not on one hand and another.
And it's possible to get pregnant here.
Because what was happening there
would be home to the state
from the very first day.
Probably the occupation might be stopped
and hopefully we would not have
the warrant on hold there.
But journalists were saying,
yeah, we see some people but we don't know who they are.
And that uncertainty was going on
about three weeks after the beginning of the campaign.
So basically it
helps the Russian forces
to have that effect
on the problem done.
And then you can do whatever you wish.
It's already there.
Thank you at that point.
There is a set of standards.
Yes, you have to follow while reporting.
But we've come for that too.
And we also found ourselves in the middle of the situation
where we understood
that we are falling into that trap.
You know, when you have to
report from both sides
saying and the DNR reported this
and then the Ukrainian Army reported that.
But we found our own way
to deal with that.
It's reporting from the field
and talking to people.
It's not only asking them
what they hear on TV,
but it also showing
what the conflict
or what the war leads to.
Frankly speaking, for the first months
of the Russian aggression
we were,
the majority of journalists were fascinated
by the number of people
who went to the army.
And lots of journalists were reporting
on the military side.
Because lots of our friends, relatives
and even colleagues went
to fight.
And it was quite easy to get to the front line.
So we jumped into the car with someone you know.
You show that it's a marvelous story
from the point of view of journalism.
You have a camera inside this car
and you travel right to the front line
and you are at war
very easily and you report.
But for many months
I think we left, as media
we left stories from
across the territory
from what was happening to the people
who were there, you know, outside
the military vehicles.
Perhaps also the veterans, what do you think?
And the veterans too, but the local
people in Donbass, they were just
missing from the media
landscape. First of all
it was harder to reach them.
It wasn't so comfortable
if you think that they were sympathizing
with Russia. So of course
it's not so comfortable to talk
to people who probably you
disagree with. And in many reports
still you would find
I still, as I saw that
in winter and I was just fascinated
by the fact that
so Ukrainian army reports
they freed one of
the villages that was before
controlled by the
so called DNR. And
we see shots
of the city
with Ukrainian flag and
the reporters standing in the middle of that town
saying, so a military brigade
now with this and this entered the city
now it's free.
But the city was never controlled by the
DNR. It had the Ukrainian flag
and you could easily check that
if the reporter would
talk to the local people.
But the local people were just wandering around
this camera and they were
not in the story.
There were not even a single sound bite
from a local person.
So I think
it's one of the easiest ways to
when you find
troubles in reporting this kind of
hybrid conflicts when it's
kind of hard to understand when there's
a lot of propaganda
what is happening just
try to talk to people and see
what the war leads to.
So there's a blind spot to be definitely
there. This is reporting from
Luhansk and Donetsk.
Most of you
are perhaps familiar with that.
It's more and more complicated
for western media, for western
reporters to go to
these occupied territories.
I tried it three times
and never got access.
One of the efforts ended
in the no man's land
at the separatists slash Russian
blockposts late at night.
One in December
and I tried again in February
the procedure was always the same.
The so-called Ministry of Information
gave clearance and said, okay, we could
come and we greet you, we show you
around our efforts, how our
republic is developing
and then the MGB
Ministry of Security of State Security
which is modeled after the Russian
MSP and it's a group of people
from Moscow, obviously,
they refused the entry
for us. In February
when we tried it for the last time
Ministry
Ministry, as you know
the Ministry of Information
of Donetsk said, this is very, very
sad, but we have a solution
for you so that you can cover the situation
here. Send us an email
the questions you have
and we have a camera team and we shoot
it all for you and we do the interviews
and you get it for a good price.
So this is
definitely a blind spot
in the Ukrainian
and Western correspondence.
At this point I would like to
invite you with your questions
or comments and please tell us
who you are very shortly and
I don't know if this is somebody
going around with the microphone.
Hello everybody, my name is
Lyubov Lich, I'm a journalist
of
independent Ukrainian
media called
Georgievik. This is one
of those media who
doesn't
belong to oligarchs
and
yes, and I wanted
to make a point that
in Ukraine
those editors who
wants to be
positive news about what is going on
in Ukraine,
they are under pressure of
not only Russian trolls
but
they are also
criticized by
the colleagues and
editors who has another
bottom view tries to say
that you know that it's not
so bad in Ukraine, guys
we have reports
we have something nice
but colleagues says
oh, you are Porokhobot
Porokhobot is
the word that means
that you work for
Poroshenko
yes, and
this is really
stupid to
blame with the editor
or trying to make
positive stories but
this is the reality
we are living in and we are trying to
fight with this and say
no, forget about this
word, Porokhobot
is not the editor that
wants to make something
sometimes stories
it's basically
almost the same as
the Russian troll factory but just used
by
political technology used by
any politician in Ukraine
it just happened that
on Facebook or on other social media
you would easily recognize
trolls that are working for the president
Poroshenko because they would
support a certain narrative
that is probably backed up
by the president's administration
but another blind spot there
criticizing
criticizing president
in the country which is at war
is also sort of a blind spot
in Ukraine
we know that
for sure as a media that
covered a story on Panama papers
that uncovered
an offshore company registered by the president
and the team
the investigative team
that broke that story
they became a target
not only by the Porokhobots
and also
public speakers
and opinion leaders in Ukraine
but they also got quite real
threats
and very often
when the story is broken about the president
he's closest
allies
and sometimes
if the story is dealing with corruption
there's a high chance that you will
be attacked at least
on social media by the trolls
that are working for
in favor let's say not for
we cannot prove it for sure
who are they working for but in favor
in favor of the narrative
that you cannot attack a president
in the country which is at war
that's another blind spot
I would agree
now there is really a prevailing culture
of
fashion and threshing
Ukraine in different levels
and you can see that you find
very
destructive because
that's really great the whole
culture which is ruining
not Poroshenko personally
or anyone but he said
culture which is ruining institutions
and trust institutions in general
so when
the next time
we would be expecting people to go
to elections and to vote
they would say we would need to vote
because we've been explained by journalists
there is no any difference between politicians
political parties
all of them are corrupts all of them are oligarchs
it doesn't matter who would be
in charge we cannot change anything at all
so I see the real
as a downside here so of course
journalists should be watching those and criticizing
but again
to the extent where this criticism is justified
by the effects on the ground
and on the other hand it should not be
the prevailing culture of journalism
of criticizing for the sake of criticizing
because when you are
criticizing president you have
more chances to be invited to the conference
and to be published
and to create difference
because if everybody else would be doing
the opposite you have few chances
to you know to get through
of course everything should be
according to the effects on the ground
and
we should not trash institutions
because in Ukraine now it's
essential moment to finish up
building up institutions
not to trash them up there
because if you would not have the strong institutions
I mean strong in a positive way
not strong as a military
security apparatus
but strong as institutions
it wouldn't matter
who is in charge
whether it's Poroshenko
or is it Yanukovych or is it anyone else
so people would be in control
of those institutions through democratic process
if we would be
trashing the trust in the institutions
people would just be
disengaged from political process
and that's exactly if we come back to
Russian propaganda that's exactly
what they want people in different parts of the world
to get to
they want people to get disengaged
from the political process by explaining that
there is no difference
you cannot make any difference
and this is the most terrible thing
which is now happening
but I think it's even worse
what you describe of the institution
what's happening with the institutions right now
it's the war which is being used
in my observation as a pretext
to backtrack many important
reform projects and to bring along
extremely anti-liberal measures
by the state, by the institutions
and these measures
as we talk about in so far
affect you, affect media
affect international media
there was a group of
they were not a group but there were
several Russian journalists
expelled this summer
because of hostile narratives
was that right?
he says yes
I say no
bad reporting cannot be a pretext
to be expelled from the country
bad reporting
I say to you, believe me
I see a lot of very bad reporting
from foreign correspondents
not as bad, not as hostile
as these three or four
colleagues did
but bad reporting cannot lead
to be sent away
if the report is bad
confront the colleague with the report
and say why did you do it
that's I think the way to deal with it
or why was TV-Dosh
taken off the air
I can't
I get
the last Russian
half of the TV station
for a reason
is that right?
that is also one of the narratives
spread by the Autobots
nothing personal but that was
something that we've been criticised
with
you are destroying
trusted institutions
sorry media is also an institution
when media is doing their job
you cannot destroy media
you cannot say that the journalists are not doing
their job, they're destroying the president
or the trust into the
president or the government
as an institution and that's something
that you cannot do during a war
so it's also tricky
who and what sort of institution
is destroying, I'm still thinking
about it
the point about Russian media is also quite tricky
because it's not only bad reporting
it's also contributing
to the information war
and
when you have reports that are being
used by the Russians
sorry but also at the Security Council
of the United Nations
it's
when these reports are coming
from Ukraine and these people are on
the ground in Ukraine
it's a question for Ukraine and the authorities
how you should deal with those reporters
and as to Dosh
I have a lot of colleagues
working there and I know
a lot of them but
the problem with Ben acknowledged
was
a number of
violations
in commercial
politics, I think
policies, I think they
violated some of the laws in Ukraine
as to
dealing with the commercial
so there was quite a specific reason for that
I mean at least that was
the official position of Ukraine
on the event channel
I have met a lot of people here
who come and try to make
different
who try to help to
journalists like to improvise
to learn a lot and to learn
international standards
but then the problem is
these journalists they return back
to oligarch open to media
and they are the lack of platforms
and they would suggest
really competitive salaries
and huge
competitive coverage for example
and do you see any kind of
solution for that?
We really need
if we really are lacking platforms
no I would say we do have enough
platforms now because
basically, primarily you see
quite a few platforms
opening up recently
with Romance case models examples
and texts
and Romance curate you and many others
so I would not say that
Ukrainians really feel
underreported
to some extent
and so the question is
if people really
are consuming that information
from all those platforms
whom they trust
why they pick one media
or another media
and the same situation
for example in Russia
you have plenty of access
to information
which are valid in Russia
for example nobody is banning you from that
but the question is if people are using
that opportunity
or if they are not using why is it happening
because they are not interested
in that narrative again
and another big issue here
is you mentioned
Ukrainian propaganda and other things
so the question here is
all the journalists in Ukraine
really don't want journalists
so for example those people
who have been deported from Ukraine
and who pretend to be journalists
so we have stopped fake analyzing
one of the stories
channel one journalist produced
it was a six minute story
six minute TV story
with not a single fact in that story
single minute story
and she just repeated
it's already developed back in 2014
she just compiled
those facts in one story
and that she was complaining
that she was deported from the country
because of bad narrative
it's not about bad narrative
it's about contribution to
information warfare
which made the government
to the decision and again
that would happen in any other country
it's up to the government
of those countries
how will anyone to be in the country
no
and the second if those people
comply with the law or do not comply
so those Russian journalists
who have been not complying with the law
they ask to leave the country
and that would happen in Germany as well
if I would be trying to enter Germany
I would need visa
and I would need to
not now but I
and the other thing
so any country
can decide
who they want to have
on their territory and who they don't want to have
and as a great institution
says it's a prerogative
we're training government and president
to take care of the security
I think we as journalists should never
let the state decide
what is adequate reporting and what is propaganda
not the state
not the state that's wrong
and if you say it's okay to deport them
the next day will be
the state deciding whether they are reporting
is adequate or not
do you know
Yevgeny Kizilov
for those
who don't know
he's the head of
Russian foreign broadcasting
so to say the mastermind of propaganda
and he's one of the most
aggressive TV presenters
running a show
a political news show that's bought
every Sunday night
he's the only journalist
who's on the
travel analyst in the European Union
and I think this is
I think the US one, I'm not sure
I think not on the European Union
that's a very different discussion
I would like to give the floor
to other journalists here as well
I just want to make a comment
about what Yevgeny said earlier
that if
as called a spade comment
when he said
journalists really refer to
those little green man as
Russian military maybe
would not have been born
I know from
the experience of a lot of my friends
that was extremely difficult situation
at the time to call them
what they are and
I want to ask you what would you
have done if you were there
and just a quick question to Christian
why do you think there are only 12
foreign accredited journalists
in Ukraine?
journalists really need to
try to give more information
and the neutrality
should not be the neutrality for the sake of neutrality
like we are here
we will not tell you what we see
I can give you one example
Simon Stropes can self-insult you
so this example here
is not Ukrainian journalists
it's a vice news journalist
who just follows the steps
of the Russian journalists
and produces the partisan documentary
but that's what makes
his documentary so unique and attractive
because he was holding the scenes as a young
he was not saying
he is a green man
he is a Russian man
from Russia, from the regular armed forces
and they just drag them down and this is my word
so I would say this is a great example
of genius to put it
Ukraine didn't settle for a quarter
of a century
in the nineties there were
a couple of western news outlets
newspapers, TV stations, agencies
who had their correspondence here
some of them were sent from Ukraine
but these offices were subsequently
closed down because Ukraine
in the viewpoint of the editors
didn't develop and was not interested enough
so the decision was taken
to send them to Moscow
that's what you mentioned
it's more practical to have a start
of 3, 4, 5 correspondence in Moscow
they covered region and then Ukraine
was re-incorporated
in that region
and as we think
we agree was wrong
and it was a very practical
monetary practice
and then in 2014
many outlets realized
we didn't take
we haven't taken a closer look at what happened
in this country and the Parachute Journalism
started
we talked about it
and perhaps now
we are really are perhaps other followers
I know that there is
one famous public
broadcaster in Moscow
they have 4 correspondence and they wanted
to send one of them permanently
to Kiev
but the head office said no
it's too expensive to rent a flat
instead of the business and the studio infrastructure
but that's why perhaps
there will be more in the country
