Publications

Table Of ContentsNext Page

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

While the formal censorship that existed in Ukraine during the Soviet era ended after the country gained its independence in 1991, informal censorship continues. Media outlets expressing views critical of government officials or other prominent figures have been subject to arbitrary tax inspections, denial and revocation of licenses on technicalities, and crippling libel suits, while individual journalists have faced harassment and physical attacks. This report documents one insidious form of informal censorship: secret instructional memoranda prepared and distributed by the Presidential Administration to top managers and editors of national television stations and some newspapers. These memoranda, known as temniki (from the Russian temy nedeli or weekly themes), provide guidelines for the content and nature of news reporting. Editors-in-chief fear repercussions for non-compliance with these directives and thus follow temniki instructions when determining editorial frameworks for journalists' work.

State officials routinely deny knowledge of or involvement with temniki. However, Ukrainian journalists, media analysts, and prominent politicians consistently report that the instructional documents originate from within the Presidential Administration. Editors receive calls from officials about instructions contained in temniki, and the documents themselves consistently call for news coverage that portrays President Leonid Kuchma and the pro-presidential Social Democratic Party of Ukraine (united) (SDPU(u)) in a favorable light and discredits or marginalizes important opposition politicians and parties.

Human Rights Watch conducted research on informal political censorship in October 2002 through interviews with television station employees, government officials, and media analysts. We focused on the impact of temniki on television news journalism because television is the most widely utilized form of mass media in Ukraine. To this end, we interviewed ten prominent employees from five national television stations and one Kyiv station, including senior editors, program editors, news anchors, program hosts, and correspondents. In addition, we examined seven temniki covering different weeks in late 2001 and in 2002. Human Rights Watch received temniki from sources connected to top editors and managers at prominent stations.

Temniki were first distributed to a limited number of pro-presidential media outlets in September and October 2001 during the campaign period prior to the March 2002 parliamentary (Verkhovna Rada) elections. Editors, journalists, and media analysts reported that by August 2002 distribution of temniki had expanded to all stations, and compliance with the instructions was more vigorously enforced through phone calls and intimidation. Temniki became public in early September 2002, when the Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada Committee on Freedom of Speech and Information, Mykola Tomenko, revealed their existence.

Temniki have eroded freedom of expression in Ukraine. Editors and journalists feel obligated to comply with temniki instructions due to economic and political pressures and fear repercussions for non-cooperation. In the past, media outlets that supported opposition parties or failed to comply with official requests have faced tax inspections, legal actions, or license withdrawals that have threatened their existence or in some cases have shut them completely. Similarly, journalists who have taken independent positions have faced demotion, pay cuts, and dismissal. The harassment and violence journalists experienced even before the appearance of temniki have contributed to an atmosphere of intimidation that impels journalists to comply with the directives. The most shocking of these incidents was the murder of outspoken opposition journalist Heorhii Gongadze in September 2000, in which President Leonid Kuchma and other top officials have since been implicated.

Failed reforms and economic stagnation have left media outlets and journalists vulnerable to the sponsorship of large political-financial blocs that use media as mouthpieces for their interests. This situation is especially pronounced for the major television stations. Of the six national television stations in Ukraine, one is state-owned, two are owned by leaders of the SDPU(u) and influenced by the head of the Presidential Administration, and three are financed in significant part by President Kuchma's son-in-law. The most influential regulatory and sole licensing body for domestic media, the National Council on Television and Radio Broadcasting, lacks transparency and has been susceptible to paralyzing political pressure.

Temniki and other external pressures on television stations have transformed the news- making process. Whereas in the past, journalists, news anchors, and production editors largely determined the content of the news, now they must negotiate with editors-in-chief or top managers at length over virtually every aspect of every text and program in order to ensure the station's compliance with the Presidential Administration's instructions conveyed through temniki, phone calls, and other informal channels. In some cases station managers have removed political programming or analytical shows in order to avoid controversy. Outspoken journalists have been transferred to less prominent positions within television stations where their non-compliance is less significant. Under these conditions journalists routinely resort to self-censorship as they have come to understand which material will be acceptable for broadcast and which will be rejected. Television news is now solidly pro-Kuchma, and, because television is the most widely utilized form of mass media in Ukraine, the government's censorship effectively denies the Ukrainian public access to a crucial source of objective information.

Because Ukraine is a state party to both the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the government is obligated to protect the right to freedom of expression.1 Domestic law also guarantees this right. Article 15 of the Ukrainian Constitution prohibits censorship and Article 34 guarantees each citizen "freedom of thought and speech and to the free expression of his or her views and beliefs."2 In addition, Ukraine has developed numerous laws to protect the media and journalists and to support free speech and access to information. The failure by the Ukrainian government and the Presidential Administration in particular, to fully implement and enforce these laws and commitments, puts it in breach of its obligation to protect freedom of expression.

Human Rights Watch recommends that the Ukrainian authorities and international bodies take steps to ensure Ukraine's compliance with domestic and international obligations to uphold freedom of expression. The Presidential Administration should cease immediately the use of temniki and any other form of pressure or formal or informal censorship of news making on television stations and other media. The Office of the Prosecutor General should conduct prompt and thorough investigations of government officials and others implicated in censorship or other abuses against the media and hold accountable those responsible. The Verkhovna Rada should take steps to amend legislation on the definition of censorship, on the definition and practice of defamation, on the establishment of a realistic minimum wage for journalists, and on the increased transparency of the National Council on Television and Radio Broadcasting.

Human Rights Watch also recommends that the Council of Europe use all available means and mechanisms to address Ukraine's failure to meet its obligations and implement the recommendations recently set forth by the Committee of Ministers. The Council of Europe should also consider continuing assistance to the Ukrainian authorities through initiatives similar to those set out in the 2001-2002 "Action Plan for the Media in Ukraine." Similarly, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the United Nations (U.N.) should ensure adequate implementation of recommendations related to freedom of expression set out in recent reports on Ukraine. Finally, the European Union (E.U.), the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and international financial institutions should condition deepening of bilateral relations on measurable progress by Ukraine in guaranteeing freedom of expression.

1 Article 10(1) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms provides: "1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television, or cinema enterprises." Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides: "1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference. 2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice."

2 Constitution of Ukraine, Adopted at the Fifth Session of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on June 28, 1996.

Table Of ContentsNext Page