Publications

Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page

V. THE IMPACT OF TEMNIKI ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

Increased external pressure, including the explicit directives contained in temniki, has changed the practice of television news journalism. Journalists recognized that in the past a certain degree of outside pressure on stations' senior editors and managers from the authorities or certain political parties influenced editorial policymaking. Now, however, editors and journalists feel unable to work and impart information free from political interference. Since the summer of 2002, in particular, television station management has exerted unprecedented pressure on journalists and production editors to work within very narrow editorial boundaries. Editors feel compromised and forced to ensure compliance with temnik directives and other instructions in order to counter threats to their television stations. Journalists told Human Rights Watch that station managers and top editors frequently receive angry or threatening phone calls from the Presidential Administration when their reporting strays beyond the pre-determined boundaries.

These complaints often lead station managers to take additional coercive measures to modify journalists' reporting. The management of most stations is reluctant to fire journalists, except in extreme cases. Journalists reported that some managers are sympathetic to journalists and also believe dismissals publicly reveal problems, create scandal, and confirm the existence of censorship.151 Instead, station managers may threaten journalists with transfer to less influential positions, such as from evening news programming to morning or daytime shows with less political content. Editorial pressure is less stringent on news programming outside of the prime time viewing hours.152 Some news program hosts were asked to retire or themselves chose to retire when station management removed their programs from the air or significantly reformatted them. Journalists are particularly vulnerable to the pressures of their editors because they receive the majority of their salaries illegally and do not pay taxes on them. The station leadership may avoid accusations of censorship or other negative public reactions over the dismissal of prominent employees by keeping journalists on staff, but taking away their unreported pay. Thus, in many cases, editors and journalists who are no longer welcome at their stations nevertheless remain employed.

In these conditions, journalists feel unable to conduct impartial research, analysis, or reporting, and resort to self-censorship or resign from television reporting altogether. They also feel restricted in their ability to freely make statements on censorship or participate in union organizing or other activities designed to help journalists challenge undue pressures and censorship.

Changes in Editorial Policy and Growing Threats to Journalists
Before the summer of 2002, journalists, news anchors, and production editors all played an active part in the decision-making process regarding news broadcasts. Journalists and correspondents would research news material and would then work with anchors to write texts. News anchors would then confer with program editors or editors-in-chief. Production editors made the majority of the final decisions regarding news content and the priority of news items. The editor-in-chief played a relatively distant role, being responsible for determining the station's general editorial policy and making recommendations to program editors to that effect. "At our station, the producer and editor would determine the content of the news and the editor-in-chief had the right to give an opinion, but he would not impose it," noted Yurii Y., an editor from a leading television network.153 A prominent news figure from the same network confirmed, "[In the past] in the editorial process there was more or less a degree of democracy, insofar as two or more opinions were being expressed and heard."154

Editors and journalists reported that the system began to undergo notable changes, starting in the summer of 2002. One production editor from a leading station stated that "[in this period], channels began to feel maximum influence."155 The editor-in-chief no longer remained responsible primarily for general oversight and direction. He began to review in detail proposed news material and to decide the substance of programming in order to guarantee that the requests in the temniki were fulfilled. As one editor described the transformation of the process, "the editor-in-chief now receives orders, which he then redistributes to his editors."156 For Pavlo P., a political correspondent, this meant that, "what in every other country is called censorship, here is called `editorial policy.'"157

A newsmaker from a leading station described the changes in the editorial process during the autumn 2002, when top editors began to reject outright the material that he and other journalists deemed important for broadcast. Top editors would instead propose their own material, something uncommon in the past. This meant that "everywhere there was a constant reworking of the material" as editors and others argued over which news items should be presented.158 Pavlo P. described his experience with the editor-in-chief during this period of increasing direct control. When Pavlo P. expressed his dissatisfaction with the growing limitations on the kind of news stories that editors would accept from reporters, the editor told him, "If you don't want to deal with this editorial policy, then you should write about flowers."159

Anatolii A., a news editor, also reported changes in the leading editor's supervision of his program. During the summer, even as external pressure from the Presidential Administration increased, Anatolii A. frequently disregarded many of the spoken demands from the editor-in-chief regarding the inclusion and presentation of certain news items and exclusion of other topics. Although for many weeks the editor would ask, "Why did you ignore my requests?" Anatolii A. experienced "no consequences for his ultimatums."160 However, in early October 2002, the editor-in-chief told him,

The channel is under threat, and you are ignoring my spoken recommendations. I don't want to limit your freedom, but I am forced to filter what material goes into your show. I am obliged now to write to you in advance telling you which subjects to present and the order of subjects.161

When Anatolii A. refused to fully comply with these new written requests, the editor-in-chief threatened him with a transfer from his status of program editor to a less influential position, a threat that he understood to be valid based on past experience of colleagues on the same channel.

Anatolii A. recalled that even in early 2001, prior to the introduction of the temniki and the increase in censorship, some reporters on his station who focused on political themes and the March 2001 opposition protests were slowly moved out of their positions. The station leadership did not take these actions crudely. Rather, journalists and editors of political shows received new positions with increased pay, but found themselves working at different times of day and on less politically sensitive programs, such as early morning or entertainment shows.162

One editor noted that editors dictated new changes to the format of news programs. "In the past we could invite two or three guests with different opinions on a topic in order to present different sides."163 Now, since the editor-in-chief fears that there will be severe consequences should he lose control over the content of live discussions, production editors and news anchors face difficulty in inviting a variety of guests for such shows or hosting live shows at all. One journalist who worked on an important evening news program stated, "On our station there was an understood list" of people who could be invited for talk shows and who could not.164 Similarly, for news broadcasts, journalists are reduced to interviewing only "people who follow a particular line."165 In another case, Yevhen Y., an editor on a prominent news station reported that station leaders proposed a call-in poll on a political subject during an ostensibly live broadcast. In actuality, however, the program had been recorded an hour earlier and the percentage of callers who would `support' a particular political position was predetermined.166

In some cases station leaders have dealt with analytical shows that seek to present critical examinations of different political perspectives by canceling them altogether or diluting them to such a degree that they are unrecognizable. Ivan I. described the gradual transformation of an evening analytical news show that he worked on for several years. For several months beginning in March 2002, there were increasing restrictions on whom the show's creators could invite for live political discussions, and the texts approved by his editors were increasingly limited. In September 2002, under greater pressure to avoid critical reporting, the station management decided to reformat the show such that it no longer presented balanced political analysis or hosted guests during live broadcasts. Ivan I. stated that he and his colleagues accepted the format without a change of the show's name, since they considered it "a pity to lose the brand, the audience, the advertising, everything." However, in the course of these months, they felt that "the meaning of the program went to zero."167 The management of the station explained the change by arguing that production of the program in the old format had grown too expensive. Ivan I. understood that the program proved to be too expensive not financially, but politically. Ultimately, "everyone was tired of the daily arguments [about the show's material]. They were arguments no one needed."168

Journalists recognize that in many cases top editors and managers have no option but to fulfill the requests outlined in the temniki or other demands issued by the Presidential Administration. Senior editors do not necessarily promote biased reporting based on their own personal convictions, but on the understanding that non-compliance with the directives places their own jobs, the jobs of the stations' employees, and the very existence of the station at risk. "The editor-in-chief is trapped. He knows that he doesn't have much choice."169 Because the government maintains licensing and tax pressures on every station, each station's survival depends on remaining in favor with authorities that have the ability to create problems. One journalist told Human Rights Watch, "The tax administration has promised that the television station won't be searched, so long as we comply with instructions and political wishes."170

Journalists reported that the Presidential Administration maintains pressure on editors and managers through phone calls about particular broadcasts or journalists. "Every week there are complaints ... [regarding the content of the news]," stated one prominent news figure from station "A."171 A former senior employee of a leading Kyiv station, Yevhen Y., told Human Rights Watch that the station leadership had received calls asking, "What is happening on this station? Are you trying to start a revolution?" When a station manager confronted him, Yevhen Y. asked if there had been specific complaints related to his journalism. The manager responded, "I simply don't need telephone calls from the president."172 In another case, a station received calls from the Presidential Administration requesting that editors fire a journalist who had recently spoken publicly and published articles denouncing censorship.173

At some stations, the editor-in-chief is willing to discuss openly with senior staff the dilemmas the temniki pose. One editor of a leading station stated that "inside the channel, there are no secrets; everyone in the [editorial] team discusses the temniki."174 Another program editor told Human Rights Watch,

Within the circle of station editors, everyone understands what is going on, the true story, and why the editor-in-chief is coerced into doing what he does. Within the group of journalists, he is very open about the pressures he faces, the political demands, but he will not say the same to outsiders.175

An editor-in-chief of another station told his staff that, "we must comply [with the directives] because if we don't, we will lose the station altogether."176 Similarly, on another station, one editor-in-chief expressed openly to station journalists his remorse for forcing a narrow editorial policy. He told them, "I take all responsibility for this. I am the worst. I am suppressing freedom of speech... If there are complaints about you or your work, I will take all responsibility."177 A journalist from station "A" noted that his editor-in-chief argued that his desire to protect his staff and the station convinced him to participate in the actual writing of temniki "in order that they be more civilized and clever."178 Journalists from other stations remarked that top editors do not discuss with others the existence of temniki or pressures that they face, but simply expect that staff journalists comply unquestioningly with editorial policy.179 An editor from this same station said, "It is not acceptable within the station to discuss censorship. Everyone is afraid of losing their jobs."180

Self-Censorship
In the face of increasing pressures from editors to report in specific ways on a limited number of topics, journalists increasingly resort to self-censorship rather than face arguments with top editors, negative reactions from the presidential authorities, or the loss of their jobs and careers. For most television journalists, departure from a station does not provide a real solution to the problems of censorship. Since the system of temniki and pressure from the Presidential Administration pervades all national television stations, conditions for journalistic freedom across stations are equally poor. Journalists feel that they would gain nothing by leaving one station and attempting to move to another. One journalist preparing to leave his job stated that with regard to censorship, "On all channels, everything is the same."181 Another editor told Human Rights Watch, "To leave a station means to give up television journalism altogether because there is nowhere else to go. A person has two options: work within the system or not work at all."182

The majority of journalists choose to stay at their stations and either comply fully with strict editorial policy or seek ways to negotiate within the boundaries of the directives. For Pavlo P., a political correspondent, "It is better to work every day and fight for every theme, every bit of material" than to abandon journalism altogether.183 Yet in order to continue working, journalists often sacrifice objectivity and fairness in reporting. A major news figure told Human Rights Watch of his decision to begin censoring the news material he presented to his editors: "I would write my text and the director of information would read this text and there would be constant arguments. Ultimately, ... I gradually came to understand what might be allowed and proposed material along those lines."184 Similarly, a journalist on station "A" reported that in the process of working with the editor-in-chief he soon came to understand "which themes would not pass at all and which would go through, although with some limits."185

"Each journalist and editor is trying to overcome censorship in some way," reported one newsmaker.186 In order to do this, journalists feel compelled to report with caution and a constant eye to potential repercussions for their actions. Yevhen Y., a former editor, believed that because now "journalistic investigation is dangerous, there is a very low level of analysis."187 Yet journalists frequently take risks with the material they present. One important news figure told Human Rights Watch:

I couldn't lie openly. .... But at the same time, all I could think about was how to protect myself from ... negative reactions ... I tried to find ways to present two sides of a story in such a way that no one would be upset.188

A correspondent from one station noted, "It is not desirable to present negative facts about Kuchma, but sometimes we find moments to present some of these facts on the air."189 Denis D. told Human Rights Watch that he attempts to include certain prohibited news in the spoken component of his broadcasts, even as video material shows a more compliant perspective. He applied this approach when reporting on the September 16 demonstrations: he mentioned Yushchenko's participation in the protests, although editors had banned Yushchenko's image from the broadcasted video footage.190 Analysts noted that one news anchor from another station presented the news regarding the September 16 demonstrations in such a careful manner that she "clearly attempted to emphasize the abnormality of the situation somehow, while at the same time appeased the vigilance of those who obviously watch over the channel."191

Some journalists reported that their self-censorship progressed to such a degree that they preferred to avoid discussing material at all rather than present only one biased side of a story or the disinformation requested in the temniki.192 Editors faced similar obstacles. One former top editor at a leading station expressed his feeling of exasperation over the censorship and his repeated failed attempts to negotiate with the station leadership about the inclusion of particular items in news broadcasts. He told Human Rights Watch, "When you lose so many times, you ultimately stop trying to win."193 This editor requested and received transfers to positions within the station where he would be less responsible for enforcing an editorial policy that he did not support. He told Human Rights Watch that his request for transfer was based on the knowledge that "in the future I would be forced to carry out other people's politics and enforce censorship" and that from other positions he would have opportunity "to argue for the inclusion of certain material."194

Some journalists, news anchors, and senior editors with great reluctance have chosen to leave their stations. A former editor from one leading station, Yevhen Y., told Human Rights Watch that in the days following his public statements about state censorship of television news broadcasts in the spring of 2002, the station's management took steps to force him out. They denied him access to station equipment and introduced new editorial staff, without informing him or other senior editors in advance. Yevhen Y. and others were left without a space to work or a staff to supervise. "We were slowly moved to the periphery so that we would simply quit. I dreamed of being fired so that I wouldn't have to quit," he remembered.195 In these circumstances, Yevhen Y. felt that he "had lost the right to practice [his] profession," and resigned.196

A prominent top manager stated that despite many years of commitment to a leading television station, the administration's censorship ultimately compelled him to quit this autumn. "My conscience wouldn't allow me to continue in these conditions. I was embarrassed to be associated with those practices, that material," he stated.197 Similarly, Ivan I. decided to leave his station after the program he worked on was reformatted and a proposed talk show to replace it was never developed. "It was a dead end out of which I had to find an exit," he told Human Rights Watch. "And the only exit was to quit."198 However, when he attempted to resign on the official basis of "a mutual agreement" between himself and the management, the station leaders refused, regarding such a statement as controversial, and demanded that Ivan I. resign "of his own volition."199 The situation resulted in a standstill in which Ivan I. remained employed by the station but no longer worked, receiving only the meager official salary, rather than the salary he had received previously. He believes that once he leaves the station he will be blacklisted. Another journalist confirmed that on occasion journalists have been blacklisted once they have resigned from their stations.200

Restriction of Activities Outside of Television Reporting
In addition to limitations journalists endure at their stations, journalists have felt pressure to limit activities that they undertake outside of their stations. Journalists began to organize a professional union and a strike committee in the autumn 2002 in response to growing censorship and the vulnerabilities they felt in the workplace. Yet many journalists reported feeling that by participating in these activities, they could risk their jobs. One former editor told Human Rights Watch, "The channel would not allow its journalists to demonstrate publicly."201 The station's editor-in-chief described the current situation to his journalists as "a dark time," and implored his employees, "Let's simply survive through this together and in the end we can all be fine."202 Journalists from another station reported that in return for not firing employees, the leadership requested that when conflicts or problems arise, employees work to "sort it out themselves, within the circle" rather than go on strike or give interviews.203 The management asked journalists and editors, "Try to protest less, and let's just hold on through this turbulent period for a few years."204 When some of the station's journalists voiced complaints about censorship to the top management, the message they received in return was:

You are trying to create a scandal. You are going to make life impossible for the other [hundreds of] people who work here who do not deal with censorship, like technical and administrative workers. You put the channel under threat and you will be responsible for [hundreds of] other people who will also lose their jobs.205

Similarly, on another national station, a journalist reported, "We were told that we should think about the channel: `If you go, if you protest, you threaten the whole channel.'"206

Yurii Y. reported that, in addition to working at a leading television station, for many years he wrote articles for both an independent newspaper as well as for one of the newspapers owned and controlled by people close to President Kuchma. Yurii Y. felt that by writing for newspapers of divergent political orientations he would avoid being limited in his own reporting to a particular political or editorial line. In addition, he believed that his material would reach a much wider readership than if he bound himself to only one publication. However, in mid-September, after Yurii Y. spoke out publicly against censorship and wrote articles accusing the government of manipulating television journalism, the newspaper refused to accept his material. In addition, Yurii Y. reported that the editor-in-chief of the television station received calls with demands that the station fire him for his outspokenness and publication of critical articles. Yurii Y. believes that the station did not fire him for fear that the dismissal would cause even greater and more public controversy.207

Ivan I. also reported having experienced problems at his station when he began to work with others to find solutions to the censorship they all experienced. He actively participated in the formation of the journalists' union and the strike committee. The station leadership gave him an ultimatum, "Your community activities are not accepted by the station. Either you work on the station or in your NGOs."208 Fearing similar consequences, very few television newsmakers are among the more than 300 journalists who have signed a public manifesto against censorship. One journalist interviewed by Human Rights Watch who did sign the manifesto reported that his editors had recommended that he not attend certain meetings held by the organizing journalists.209

151 Human Rights Watch interview with Yurii Y., station "A," Kyiv, October 9, 2002.

152 Two journalists confirmed this fact, saying that information airing on the main evening news broadcast was controlled significantly more than information airing on morning, daytime, or late night broadcasts. Human Rights Watch interviews with Valentin V., station "D," November 8, 2002 and Anatolii A., station "A," Kyiv, October 10, 2002.

153 Human Rights Watch interview with Yurii Y., station "A," Kyiv, October 9, 2002.

154 Human Rights Watch interview with Denis D., station "A," Kyiv, October 17, 2002.

155 Human Rights Watch interview with Anatolii A., station "A," Kyiv, October 10, 2002.

156 Human Rights Watch interview with Yurii Y., station "A," Kyiv, October 9, 2002.

157 Human Rights Watch interview with Pavlo P., station "F," Kyiv, October 19, 2002.

158 Human Rights Watch interview with Denis D., station "A," Kyiv, October 17, 2002.

159 Human Rights Watch interview with Pavlo P., station "F," Kyiv, October 19, 2002.

160 Human Rights Watch interview with Anatolii A., station "A," Kyiv, October 10, 2002.

161 Ibid.

162 Ibid.

163 Human Rights Watch interview with Yurii Y., station "A," Kyiv, October 9, 2002.

164 Human Rights Watch interview with Ivan I., station "E," Kyiv, October 17, 2002.

165 Human Rights Watch interview with Yurii Y., station "A," Kyiv, October 9, 2002.

166 Human Rights Watch interview with Yevhen Y., station "C," Kyiv, October 11, 2002.

167 Human Rights Watch interview with Ivan I., station "E," Kyiv, October 17, 2002.

168 Ibid.

169 Human Rights Watch interview with Yurii Y., station "A," Kyiv, October 9, 2002.

170 Human Rights Watch interview with Ivan I., station "E," Kyiv, October 17, 2002.

171 Human Rights Watch interview with Denis D., station "A," Kyiv, October 17, 2002.

172 Human Rights Watch interview with Yevhen Y., station "C," Kyiv, October 11, 2002.

173 Human Rights Watch interview with Yurii Y., station "A," Kyiv, October 9, 2002.

174 Human Rights Watch interview with Vadim V., station "B," Kyiv, October 11, 2002.

175 Human Rights Watch interview with Yurii Y., station "A," Kyiv, October 9, 2002.

176 Human Rights Watch interview with Vadim V., station "B," Kyiv, October 11, 2002.

177 Human Rights Watch interview with Denis D., station "A," Kyiv, October 17, 2002.

178 Human Rights Watch interview with Anatolii A., station "A," Kyiv, October 10, 2002.

179 Human Rights Watch interview with Pavlo P., station "F," Kyiv, October 19, 2002.

180 Human Rights Watch interview with Valerii V., station "F," Kyiv, October 11, 2002.

181 Human Rights Watch interview with Ivan I., station "E," Kyiv, October 18, 2002.

182 Human Rights Watch interview with Anatolii A., station "A," Kyiv, October 10, 2002.

183 Human Rights Watch interview with Pavlo P., station "F," Kyiv, October 19, 2002.

184 Human Rights Watch interview with Ivan I., station "E," Kyiv, October 17, 2002.

185 Human Rights Watch interview with Denis D., station "A," Kyiv, October 17, 2002.

186 Ibid.

187 Human Rights Watch interview with Yevhen Y., station "C," Kyiv, October 11, 2002.

188 Human Rights Watch interview with Denis D., station "A," Kyiv, October 17, 2002.

189 Human Rights Watch interview with Valentin V., station "D," November 8, 2002.

190 Human Rights Watch interview with Denis D., station "A," Kyiv, October 17, 2002.

191 Natalia Ligacheva, "Television in the Conditions of a Police State."

192 Human Rights Watch interview with Yurii Y., station "A," Kyiv, October 10, 2002.

193 Human Rights Watch interview with Vadim V., station "B," Kyiv, October 11, 2002.

194 Ibid.

195 Human Rights Watch interview with Yevhen Y., station "C," Kyiv, October 11, 2002.

196 Ibid.

197 Human Rights Watch interview with Oleh O., station "A," Kyiv, October 18, 2002.

198 Human Rights Watch interview with Ivan I., station "E," Kyiv, October 18, 2002.

199 Ibid.

200 Human Rights Watch interview with Valentin V., station "F," November 8, 2002.

201 Human Rights Watch interview with Vadim V., station "B," Kyiv, October 11, 2002.

202 Ibid.

203 Human Rights Watch interview with Yurii Y., station "A," Kyiv, October 9, 2002.

204 Human Rights Watch interview with Denis D., station "A," Kyiv, October 17, 2002.

205 Human Rights Watch interview with Anatolii A., station "A," Kyiv, October 10, 2002.

206 Human Rights Watch interview with Pavlo P., station "F," Kyiv, October 19, 2002.

207 Human Rights Watch interview with Yurii Y., station "A," Kyiv, October 9, 2002.

208 Human Rights Watch interview with Ivan I., station "E," Kyiv, October 18, 2002.

209 Human Rights Watch interview, with Valentin V., station "D," November 8, 2002.

Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page