Despite holding Italian and Canadian citizenship and having worked in Ukraine for less than 3 years, Savik Shuster has already managed to establish himself as one of the best known journalists in the country. He is primarily associated with Ukraine’s new-found freedom of speech and the lessening of press restrictions that were ushered in by the 2004 Orange Revolution. Mr. Shuster first made his name with the interactive political talk show Freedom of Speech, which was first launched on the Russian TV channel NTV before moving to the Ukrainian TV channel ICTV in 2005. The show helped establish the diminutive host as an advocate of open debate and political accountability. Since emerging as a media star in Ukraine the journalist has switched channels to Inter, where he hosts the ratings hit Freedom with Savik Shuster and the Great Ukrainians TV project, but he has remained an outspoken advocate of impartial coverage and freedom of expression in his studio. “For me free press is the absence of state pressure and an equal distribution of mass media outlets between different financial groups,” he tells Business Ukraine.
Echoes of Maidan
Freedom of the press was one of the most intoxicating battle cries of the Orange Revolution, with the wall of state censorship broken by a number of journalists who publicly refused to adhere to the strict censorship dictated by the administration of former president Leonid Kuchma. Prior to the Orange Revolution the government had sought to maintain an iron grip on the Ukrainian media, dictating what could and could not be broadcast through daily directives to senior media managers called Temniki. As the Orange Revolution protests unfolded, one of the key breakthroughs was the decision by large numbers of Ukrainian journalists to demand an end to political manipulation of the news. Their protest forced TV channel owners to back down and issue public apologies for broadcasting distorted information, paving the way for Viktor Yushchenko’s eventual triumph in the re-run second round of voting. Mr. Shuster did not experience this Kuchma-era censorship firsthand but he has played a key role in the process of moving towards a more pluralistic press in the past three and a half years and remains convinced that the changes have been far-reaching. “It seems to me that the situation is getting better. I think that politicians are gradually starting to understand that forcing the press to do something or follow an official party line is wrong. I have witnessed how people working in the Ukrainian media are less and less likely to worry about the authorities’ reaction. Today they are more likely to look at the work purely on the basis of their professional obligations as journalists,” he offers.
Nevertheless, Mr. Shuster argues that any talk of true media freedom in Ukraine remains somewhat premature. “The situation is still not particularly healthy,” he says. “The state, by which I mean the President, the government and parliament, all continue to seek to influence journalists. All too often they succeed. The manner in which they do so may vary according to the whims of each individual journalist or broadcaster.” Mr. Shuster points to the current high ratings in Ukraine enjoyed by current affairs shows and news broadcasts as evidence of the widespread hunger for good quality, accurate information about what is going on in the country. However, he accepts that for many powerful figures this demand is not decisive. “I would argue that many people in power continue to have an interest in preventing society from knowing the details of government. The state cannot accept that an independent press, which by definition is independent first and foremost from government control, is an important pillar of a free society and can help the state to function properly.”
In the global context
Mr. Shuster has experienced state interference in a number of countries and can offer a comparative study to prevailing attitudes in Ukraine. Prior to arriving in Ukraine the bulk of his journalistic work had been in Russia. Mr, Shuster worked in a variety of media spheres, heading the Svoboda radio station before moving over to NTV channel. “In Russia there is no real free media,” he states. “There is state censorship for the electronic mass media, while only a few newspapers like Vedomosti and Kommersant or exceptional radio stations like Echo of Moscow can afford to deal in balanced information.”
Mr. Shuster’s journalist career began with articles about Afghanistan and other wars for international titles including Newsweek, Der Spiegel, Liberation and La Republica. He has also worked for Radio Svoboda in Munich as well. As a result of his long-standing ties to international media he believes that the press can be termed as free in most western European countries. However, he argues that this free press status cannot currently be extended to Italy, “Because Berlusconi has a vision of press freedoms which is closer to Putin’s than to Merkel’s,” the journalist suggests, before adding that there have been some improvements in recent months.
Media markets and monopolies
The ownership of virtually all Ukrainian media resources remains divided between big business groups and as a result the media business is often viewed as a minor element within huge financial structures. Mr. Shuster states that this creates enormous conflicts of interest within media holdings. It also prevents Ukrainian journalists from working independently and places serious restrictions on the growth of professional standards. “It is very important to note that we still don’t have real media magnates, by which I mean people who earn their money solely from the business of publishing newspapers or managing radio stations and TV channels. Throughout the Ukrainian TV industry there are no examples of a purely commercial enterprise except maybe 1+1 Channel, where the Lauders’ family earns considerable revenues. We need a generation of publishers and broadcasters who will earn money exclusively from their media outlets,” he reasons, adding that while there is no such thing as totally unbiased information, if a society offers its public a wide range of both conservative and liberal mass media outlets, “a person can then have access to a wider range of information and draw their own conclusions.”
A main barrier to greater press freedoms in Ukraine remains the lack of separation between government and the big business groupings who control much of the economy, including the country’s major media outlets. “Media magnates should be competing for the audience, not seeing who can spend the most time in the prime minister or president’s office. If the country’s media outlets were run as independent business empires rather than auxiliaries in a wider conflict then channel owners could still maintain their oligarch status, but the country would have achieved a certain balance in its media. Unfortunately this will never happen while we have ownership groups whose mass media outlets were created to protect their other business interests and curry favour,” he states.
An appeal for professionalism
Throughout his stint in Ukraine Mr. Shuster has been a vocal advocate of the role professional journalists can play in creating a truly free society. He has been scathing of the lack of professionalism among Ukraine’s journalistic cadres which has meant that the potential of the 2004 breakthrough remains largely if not entirely unfulfilled. “A person’s intelligence and their thinking depend on what they read. Today it is better to read classics than Ukrainian newspapers,” he quips, adding, “We journalists have not yet reached the necessary level ourselves. The quality of what we produce on TV, radio and in newspapers is not enough to force our political classes to improve themselves.”
Mr. Shuster argues that the true power of the media lies in solidarity among the industry’s employees. He stresses the continued dangers of journalists ignoring violations against their colleagues: “It is necessary to understand that this is a profession where it is a case of all for one and one for all, especially in post-totalitarian countries where the desire to control remains strong. Russian experience tells us that there is no secret formula to undo a totalitarian regime, only solidarity.”
Despite a perceived lack of professionalism and the continued presence of widespread corruption within the media industry, Mr. Shuster believes that a more robust press corps has had an impact on Ukraine’s post-Orange political climate. “Despite the imperfection of the current system, with its secret party lists and proportional representation, elements of the political classes are beginning to understand what public politics is all about. They realise that they will be held responsible for their words, and have learned that telling lies will rebound on them. Our politicians now rely on publicity in order to build up the public support they need, and most appreciate that today’s attempts to buy votes for UAH 100 will not help in the long run.”
The language conundrum
The Ukrainian media sector has been one of the main battlegrounds of the on-going battle between the Russian language, which was established as the dominant broadcast language in Soviet times, and the resurgent Ukrainian language. Mr. Shuster remains wary of attempts correct the current imbalance by legislating in favour of the national language, fearing that it could have the effect of forcing huge swathes of the population to rely on Russian state television. “We could end up with a situation where half of the Ukrainian population is under the influence of Russian state propaganda. If we force the Russian language out of Ukrainian broadcasting, we effectively push a part of the Ukrainian population towards Russian propaganda,” he argues. Mr. Shuster argues that the realities of the country’s geopolitical position call for a more pragmatic approach and sees a role for Ukrainian Russian language broadcasts in promoting the spread of democratic values throughout the region. “Ukraine didn’t choose its geographical position but it will always be under the influence of Russia. Personally, I’d really like to see Ukraine, which is a democratic country with liberal values, influence Russia more than Russia influences it,” he concludes.
