Stereoscope Ukraine: Self -censorship

Colta.ru continues a joint project that was conceived and implemented by colleagues from the N-SST (Union of Journalists covering events in Eastern Europe) with the support of Frankfurter Allgemeine and the Polish weekly Tygodnik Paowszechny . The English version of materials can be read on sites www.stpol.de and Transitions Online . We are glad to be a Russian platform for publishing these texts.

What do they think in Ukraine about what is happening with the country today? Once a week, five Ukrainian authors answer questions from the artist and journalist Evgenia Belarusian.

Stereoscope Ukraine - Ukraine. Five votes

Evgenia Belarusian

Any conversation about Ukraine today begins with a war that permeates all spheres of life, almost all the doors in front of it were open.

A few days ago, the opposition politician Boris Nemtsov was killed in Russia, and he also fell victim to a military machine that destroys his life in Ukraine daily. His death was an unprecedented attack on the Russian opposition movement.

At the same time, there are few completely safe large cities in Ukraine. Not even a month had passed since unknown people staged an explosion in the Odessa apartment of one of the authors of this publication, the poet Boris Kherson, we hear about explosions in Kharkov, in Kyiv. So unsuccessfully tries to work Russian political censorship in a foreign country.

Is there Ukrainian censorship or self -censorship? Can we speak and think against the current or war has become our internal censor and we, ourselves, without always realizing, are we working for it?

In other words, can “patriotic” self -censorship destroy what Yanukovych and his repressive apparatus could not defeat?

The third question. Censorship and self -censorship: how does it work in Ukraine?

Ivan Yakovina

Ukrainian journalists are increasingly stating that in the country there is an erosion of freedom of speech and information. It is not a matter of the authorities of the authorities on independent media, it is not. Rather, the problem is the most powerful social demand for good news, as well as the unconscious readiness of many media outlets to satisfy this demand, sometimes to the detriment of the standards of the profession.

In the media space itself, the worldview conflict does not stop. On the one hand, the confrontation are journalists who defend the need to maintain complete objectivity even in conditions of external aggression. They are opposed by colleagues who believe that for the speedy victory in the Donbass, all funds are suitable, even dishonest techniques of the information war.

According to my sensations, the longer the war lasts, the more supporters of the second point of view appear. In their opinion, strictly observe the journalistic balance sheet, to report problems in the economy, corruption and incompetence of the authorities can and will only be necessary after the victory in the war. Now they allow personal, emotionally painted assessments in the news, unquestioning trust in official information, as well as the silence of facts that can undermine the faith of the people into military success.

Moreover, journalists who are recruited for courage to report corruption or lies in the authorities, as well as military failures, are often accused of the absence of patriotism, the spread of panic and even working for the enemy.

The motive of supporters of the information war is clear: "Everything for the front, everything for victory!" However, now they involuntarily lay the very bad tradition of the "flexibility of the principles of journalist." Already in peacetime, she can result in the complete loss of society’s confidence in the press and the destruction of the institution of free and independent media itself.

Roman Dubasevich

There are things that are now difficult to talk about within the country, especially beyond its borders. Does it make sense to hold the territories at any cost and direct the last money into service? What should be the memory of the dead in order to help prevent the following victims, and not cause a second injury? What is this strange feeling when we find out that each deceased Ukrainian soldier allegedly has three times more separatists? What is a great horror for the local population: to get into the separatist zone or under fire?

To be a “useful idiot” in this situation is probably the most difficult reproach.

In December, I was preparing a report on the cult of the “cyborgs” - this was the name of the Ukrainian defenders of the Donetsk airport for holding it even when it turned into an apocalyptic ruin. They became the heroes of the whole country, the embodiment of a real man. Children sent them their drawings with wishes to return alive, composers wrote songs, and upon the return of the girl greeted them with flowers. But when the word "cyborg" appeared, I had the feeling that the lives of these soldiers were even greater. Now it did not come from decisions of small -competent politicians or generals, but from the opinion of the whole society.

We often complain about the elite, forgetting that we often dictate our will to her, creating that powerful demand for “positive news” and the practice of silence that Ivan Yakovina speaks of. Representing without state, socially marginalized culture, the Ukrainian intelligentsia was often forced to act as its lawyer. However, like literature and art, the priority of which was the struggle to preserve the Ukrainian language and independence.

But in addition to protection, Ukraine is in dire need of good opponents that would help us see ourselves and a difficult reality.

Oleksandra butler

My husband works as a journalist. In our young family, journalistic materials are not considered to be an end in itself. Materials, whether this is a photo, video or text, is just a tool using which, we can make the surrounding reality better. And do not confuse this with the fact that we need only “positive news”: we first need truth.

My husband was not far from Debaltseve when the Ukrainian military came out of there. He recorded on the video not only the emotions and comments of those who came out, but also the number of dead - there were 44 of them, which were taken by the military themselves.

And I was surprised not only that the president of Ukraine did not say a word about the victims, significantly underestimating the number of victims. The comments on the social network were even more surprised, which said that it was impossible to report on death like this, on social networks, that relatives can find out that this undermines the morale. The author who speaks the truth is not fully patriotic, Ivan Yakovina writes about this.

You can try to go further and think: why don't people want to know the truth? Perhaps they are tired of the war, as you can allow you to get tired of politics during the election race. Apparently, our reality has become such that sometimes it does not want to know it at all. But I think that, having learned the truth, you need to act. Go to the front, transfer money to volunteers, help immigrants, become a volunteer in the hospital. Do something that can change the news.

For example, it’s scary for me that at some point I can’t trust anyone, even my eyes.

Boris Kherson

I do not feel internal censorship - perhaps because I write analytical materials, and all distortions relate to reporter materials. The hysteria of the media of Ukraine, alas, exists, but this is only a weak attempt to pay the same coin to Russian colleagues.

Can internal censorship do what the external could not? With a living Internet - no. The balanced judgments and fear of a sincere statement should be distinguished. This fear is unfamiliar to me.

In my information space there is no shortage of calls to dismember and strangle Russia (and Ukraine - on the other hand). The calls to burn with napalm or hanging on the squares are also not in a novelty. Against the backdrop of the Minsk agreements of military operations, against the backdrop of terrible news - Boris Nemtsov was killed - all this seems natural. But someone should rely on the mind even in these difficult times!

“In order for the conflict in the Donbass to end and the world to come, Russia must cease to exist. At least in the form in which it exists today is a large poor empire. ”

This statement by Oleksandra Porcer from our last publication causes me a protest and an irresistible desire to object. First of all, Russia is not an isolated country. Its hypothetical decay (in the coming decades I simply do not see such an opportunity) would be the largest geopolitical disaster, the wreckage formed could give rise to civil wars of such a scale that would not leave the world a chance of well -being, and maybe survival. We should never forget - the decay of a nuclear power is fraught with a global threat.

Throughout its history, Russia experienced periods of cruel repression and democratic messages. Putin's regime is disgusting, but they (both Putin himself and the regime) are not eternal. Hopes should be assigned to the democratic reform of Russia and the extinction of a militaristic fucker.

Now we have acquired the inertia of war. And while in Ukraine it will not be behind at least three years of peaceful development, the search for reasonable solutions will be difficult. Patience, alas, the necessary factor. It hurts to say that. But "we have no other way."

Overwhelmed Stepov

Do those living in Ukraine, have an emerging society with which you can talk with? In my opinion, no!

Are politicians ready to hear society? No!

One -sided political show with the participation of the same heroes, the lack of sites for communication of politicians and citizens, coverage of events, which is more and more conducted on the principle of “about enemies is bad, about their own,” all this can completely reduce the possibility of building a new civil society, more open than before.

I am now the initiative to create a public confidence in the President of Ukraine, which would not include officials or politicians, but representatives of society, professions, science-the creation of Internet sites to discuss government and public initiatives.

The situation is such that I ask myself questions. Does the president know that villages and agriculture are dying in us? Does he know that Donbass, who is experiencing war, is facing not only a humanitarian disaster, but also environmental? Is the parliament aware that people working in a particular field sometimes better see the priority points of its reform than officials assigning budgetary funds under the old schemes?

In Ukraine, there are communities, public initiatives that are ready to participate in political life, making all decisions. But is the power ready to hear these voices not from the Maidan, but at the desktop, to see in a critical society not rebels, but citizens? Is the authorities ready to hear criticism, and not patriotic slogans? No, I, alas, do not see it yet. Now the process of reforms and the actions of the authorities criticize only parliamentarians, which are part of the establishment competing power groups. I do not have enough constructive public criticism, which I could trust.

Is it really necessary to arrange a Maidan for the smallest political change?