The Independent Media Council received a letter from NGO Democracy Development Center (dated August 4, 2021,No. 04/08/2021) regarding the TV show “Right to Power” (the episode aired on June 10, 2021; LLC Studio 1+1 TV and Radio Broadcasting Company). The letter contained a request toreview the show’s content and provide an opinion on compliance with professional journalistic standards, media laws, and the manipulation of viewers’ opinion “on the part of the 1+1 TV channel and its host N. Moseychuk.”
The Independent Media Council believes that the episode of the TV program “Right to Power” aired on the 1+1 channel on June 10, 2021, violated the requirements of paragraph “c” of Part 1 of Article 59, paragraph “b” of Part 1 of Article 60 of the Law of Ukraine On Television and Radio Broadcasting, paragraphs 6, 9, and 15 of the Code of Ethics of Ukrainian Journalists, paragraph 15 items 2.2, paragraph 2 item 3.2, paragraph 2 item 3.3, and paragraph 2 item 3.5. of the editorial charter of the television and radio broadcasting company “Studio 1+1.”
The Independent Media Council also calls on the broadcasting company “Studio 1+1” to publish the editorial charter on its website.
1. The Independent Media Council received a letter from NGO Democracy Development Center (dated August 4, 2021,No. 04/08/2021) regarding the TV show“Right to Power” (the episode aired on June 10, 2021; LLC Studio 1+1 TV and Radio Broadcasting Company). The letter contained a request to review the show’s content and provide an opinion on compliance with professional journalistic standards, media laws, and the manipulation of viewers’ opinion “on the part of the 1+1 TV channel and its host N. Moseychuk.” According to the letter’s author, theepisode in question contained violations of journalistic standards of balance, authenticity, and discrimination based on the participants’ political and sexual characteristics, with the host failing to take measures to stop such violations and even “personally supporting the participants in the show who committed such violations.” In particular, attention is drawn to the host “sharply expressing her own opinion about Iryna Herashchenko.”
2. Under paragraph 12 of the Regulations on the Independent Media Council,the Council took the appeal up for consideration on December 6, 2021,given the public importance of the issues raised in the TV program.
3. The episode of the “Right to Power” TV show airing on June 10, 2021, lastedover two and a half hours andwas devoted to exchanging Ukrainian prisoners for captured militants and military personnel of the Russian Federation. The discussion mostly focused on exchanges conducted during Petro Poroshenko’s presidency. The TV host was Nataliia Moseychuk and her guests in the studio were Iryna Herashchenko (European Solidarity), Hennadiy Druzenko, Yevhen Terekhov (Adviser to the Minister of Internal Affairs), Serhiy Kryvonos (General, Armed Forces of Ukraine), Anton Herashchenko (then Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs), Ivan Dieyev (veteran), Andriy Biletskyi (politician, military), Oleksiy Arestovych (President’s adviser), and others. Tetiana Rychkova (European Solidarity Party) and Mark Feygin (lawyer, Russia) joined the show via Skype. Although invited (according to the host), representatives of Opposition Platform – For Life did not appear on the show. The role of the OPFL’s leader, Viktor Medvedchuk, in the exchanges was mainly mentioned in the studio in a negative light. During the broadcast, there were several emotional disputes between Iryna Herashchenko and the host Nataliia Moseychuk and some other guests in the studio.
4. At 01:34, a video by Russian television was shown (the letter says it was made by the Russia 1 TV channel, while I. Herashchenko referred to it in the program as “ORT”; at any rate, the host herself said before the showing that it had been previously shown in the “LPR”). The video was about Volodymyr Ruban’s participation in an alleged release of the Ukrainian military. In particular, he said to a captive (officer Hrechanyi) that his slow release was due to “politics” to “fit” with the election (on the Ukrainian side). Aftershowing the video, N. Moseychuk repeated what V. Ruban had said. Responding to I. Herashchenko’s remarks, the host said that the TV channel showed it because viewers must “know the douchebags.” After which, there was a dispute between I. Herashchenko on the one hand and the TV host and some studio guests on the other hand, lasting a few more minutes.
Article 34. Everyone is guaranteed the right to freedom of thought and speech and the free expression of his or her views and beliefs.
Everyone has the right to freely collect, store, use and disseminate information by oral, written or other means of his or her choice.
The exercise of these rights may be restricted by law in the interests of national security, territorial indivisibility or public order, to prevent disturbances or crimes, protect the health of the population, the reputation or rights of other persons, prevent the publication of information received confidentially or supporting the authority and impartiality of justice.”
Article 10. Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and 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.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.”
3. Law of Ukraine On Television and Radio Broadcasting
Article 57. Editorial charter of a broadcasting organization
1. The editorial charter of a broadcasting organization shall set the standards as respects the generation and dissemination of information.
4. The editorial charter of a television and radio organization shall specify:
Basic requirements as respects safeguarding that the information disseminated by the broadcasting organization is accurate, unbiased, impartial and balanced…
requirements regarding verification of information received from third parties…
special rules regarding dissemination of information on political parties and politicians both during and outside the electoral process…
6. The editorial charter of television and radio broadcasting organization must be made public. A copy of the editorial charter shall be sent to the National Council within seven days of its approval or amendment.
Article 59. Obligations of TV and Radio organizations
1. Broadcasting organizations shall…
k) disseminate objective information…
Article 60. The duties of the creative personnel of television and radio broadcasting organizations
1. A member of the creative personnel of television and radio broadcasting organization shall be obliged to
b) to verify the reliability of obtained information…
d) prevent dissemination in television and radio programs of information that violates the rights and legitimate interests of citizens, or is degrading to their honor and dignity…
Article 67. Release from liability for disseminating information which is not true
1. Television and radio broadcasting organizations and their personnel shall not be liable for dissemination of any information which is not true in the following cases…
c) such information was part a statement, made by a person other than broadcasting organization’s personnel and was disseminated without prior recording;
(d) such information is a verbatim reproduction of any material distributed by another mass media or news agency, where a clear reference to such is made…
4. Ethics Code of Ukrainian Journalists (2013 version)
6. Respecting the public’s right to complete and objective information about facts and events is a journalist’s first duty. Journalists and editors must take steps to check the reliability of all reports, video and audio materials coming from the public, freelancers, press services and other sources.
9. Facts, judgments and assumptions have to be separated from each other. Spreading information containing biased and unfounded accusations is unacceptable.
10. The opponents’ viewpoints, including the views of the targets of media criticism, should be presented in a balanced way…
15. No one shall be discriminated against based on sex, language, race, religion, national, regional or social origin or political affiliation. Respective characteristics of a person (group of people) should be indicated only if this information is an essential part of the journalistic material. It is necessary to refrain from hints or comments concerning physical defects or illnesses of a person, avoid using insulting expressions or profanities.
5. Editorial charter of TV and radio company “Studio 1+1” *
“2.2. Principles of editorial policy
Journalists of the 1 + 1 TV channel work in the interests of the entire Ukrainian society, without giving preference to any political, social, ethnic or religious group…” (paragraph 15).
“3.2. Accuracy
When reporting an event based on someone else’s words, journalists must fact-check the informationusing at least two independent sources. If it is not possible, the audience should be informed accordingly” (paragraph 2).
“3.3. Reliability
Information coming from other media outlets…, 1+1 seeks to verify information or duplicate it from its own sources…” (paragraph 2).
“3.4. Balance
The 1+1 TV channel provides the position expressed by all sides to the conflict,.. different views on controversial issues… the parties should be given equal air time to express their positions in each broadcast, if possible” (paragraph 1).
“3.5. Separating facts from comments and judgments
Journalists’ own comments and judgments are allowed only in authors’ and analytical programs aired on 1+1, whose format conceptually allows for some subjectivity of the authors. Such programs should be publicly positioned as informational and analytical, analytical, journalistic, etc.” (paragraph 2).
* The editorial charter is not available on the channel’s website and was provided by the National Council on Television and Radio Broadcasting upon request. According to Part 6 of Article 57 of the Law of Ukraine On Television and Radio Broadcasting, the editorial charter must be made public, but this provision does not specify the way to make it public. Given that the channel has a website and almost all of the channel’s programs are published there, it would be logical to expect the text of the editorial charter to be posted on the website as well.
1. Political talk shows are a separate type of media product, with most of contentbeing created by the guests of the show. Their statements do not have to comply with professional journalistic standards, and they fall under legislative regulations of the activities of television and radio organizations rather indirectly. Therefore, the Independent Media Council does not evaluate the statements and behavior of the studio guests, only those ofthe TV host, including her reaction to the guests’ words and actions.
2. The TV show “Right to Power” is described on the TV channel’s website as an informational, non-entertaining product (“…in each episode, politicians answer questions, even the most inconvenient ones…”). In other words, the program’s purpose is to inform the audience, not sortout relationships between politicians or entertain the audience. Accordingly, professional journalistic standards and legal provisions governing information broadcasting apply to this content.
3. As for inviting guests to the studio, the TV channel’s approach towards the political party European Solidarity cannot be called unbalanced: Iryna Herashchenko and Tetiana Rychkova took part in the show and had the opportunity to express their opinions. The host also noted that representatives of OPFL were also supposed to be there, but they declined to participate.
As for the participants’ gender composition, men prevailed in the studio. Unfortunately, currently there is no regulations (national lawsor professional standards) regarding the gender composition of the studio’s guests. In this regard, the media also faces the task of selecting relevant experts, politicians, and government officials to speak on the air.Not all of them are able or willing to agree to participate in the show,in particular at a certain time and venue. Political forces andpublic authorities have the right (but not the obligation) to delegate their representatives and determine who those persons will be, in particular their gender.
Thus, in terms of selecting the participants for the program, the Council does not see any imbalance in the representation of political forces but emphasizes that despite the lack of specific laws, the media should try to ensure a more balanced gender composition of the studio guests.
Now it is necessary to determine whether the various participants were treated equally during the talk show.
4. Iryna Herashchenko had the opportunity to speak at the microphone (39:00 – 52:00). She spoke not only about the TV program, but also jabbed atthe 1+1 TV channel, specifically mentioning Viktor Medvedchuk’s participation in its corporate ownership structure and proposing to transfer a quarter of the channel’s earnings to buy apartments for JFO veterans, accusing the channel of ignoring the topic of the Kremlin’s hostages. To which the TV host said: “you are speculating, it’s called… bruteness”, adding later: “and you’re not evencheating, Mrs. Iryna, you are lying!” I. Herashchenko kept expressing her position long afterthe argument with the host responding to the allegations (up to 59 minutes and 45 seconds). The host later said: “It seems to me that you were used “on the sly”, and so you don’t want to take on the role of Medvedchuk, you don’t want to take on the sins of Petro Oleksiyovych…” (58:00)
5. However, N. Moseychuk did not react to subsequent provocative or emotional statements made by other guests in the studio. At 1:09:45,a participant in TV show talked about a “disemboweled” victim passed to Ukraine (such vocabulary can emotionally traumatize the relatives of many victims). Such statements should not be used in reference to any Ukrainian soldier, no matter how much he or she was tortured in captivity. At 2:37:50,when making allegations against Poroshenko and mentioning the Russian Federation, H. Druzenko asks the question: “Is that our main enemy?” (an obviously manipulative and inadequate comparison considering that the political influence of the ex-President is limited to a parliamentary faction comprised of less than 30 MPs, while Russian aggression continues to pose a real threat to the country’s territorial integrity and sovereignty).
At 1:37, when speaking to I. Herashchenko, H. Druzenko compared her with the Russian propagandist Skabeeva, saying: “…You’re a woman, you’re a mother… why take a sin upon your soul?” The Independent Media Council agrees with the complainant about the statement’s sexist nature because it unjustifiably divides men and women based on whether one can lie, “sin”, etc. We do not evaluate the behavior of the guests in the studio, but we take into consideration the fact that the host did not react to H.Druzenko’s statements. As with his later statements cited in the previous paragraph, the emotional statements made by other studio guests did not prevent the host from reacting quite actively and emotionally to the statements made by the European Solidarity representative.
6. The Independent Media Council also takes into consideration item 3.4. of the TV channel’s editorial charter outlining its interpretation of the concept of balance as a reflection of the positions of all parties to the conflict. Since two European Solidarity representatives took part in the TV show and had enough time to express their positions, and in light of item 3.4. of the charter, there were no violations of the principle of balance during the talk show.
7. Yet at the same time, the IMC sees the TV host’s behavior as biased towards the political force European Solidarity given the following. N. Moseychuk’s (and some program guests’) emotional statements towards I. Herashchenko concerned her being part of European Solidarity. We also consider the fact that the video by the Russian TV channel was shown (to be discussed in more detail below) as proof of bias since Petro Poroshenko was still President at the time of the filming and the accusations against Ukraine’s authorities.
Despite I.Herashchenko’s jabbing at the TV channel, we believe that the TV host should have reacted more subtly to prevent the conversations from evolving in the direction of mutual accusations and scandal. After all, this talk show was aiming to answer as many questions as possible, i.e. provide the viewers with information, not sort out the relationship between I. Herashchenko and N. Moseychuk. This, in particular, follows from paragraph 15 of item 2.2. of the editorial charter of the 1+1 channel: journalists work in the interests of the entire Ukrainian society. Regardless of how offended journalists and TV hosts may feel, their work should be to ensure the audience’s right to receive quality and complete information, not sorting out relationships or expressing personal emotions. Instead, the show’s scandalous contentwas wasting airtime that could have been used to provide additional information on such an important topic as releasing Ukrainian soldiers.
A journalist’s political bias is a violation of the requirement for objective presentation of information (paragraph “c” of Part 1 of Article 59 of the Law on Television and Radio Broadcasting, paragraph 6 of the Code of Ethics of Ukrainian Journalists). The Independent Media Council remindsthat this legal provision applies to television and radio broadcasting organizations (at least currently). It is about informational programs, not entertainment. However, this talk show is positioned on the channel’s website not as entertainment but as an informational TV product.
Also, given the nature of N. Moseychuk’s statements, they were in violation of the professional standard of separating facts from comments and judgments (paragraph 9 of the Ethics Code). After all, “Right to Power” is not an author’s television program in which the journalist’s own judgments are acceptable and natural, as specifically provided by paragraph 2 of item 3.5. of the TV channel’s editorial charter.
8. When speaking about the European Solidarity representative, N.Moseychuk used, inter alia, such expressions as “you’re not cheating, you’re lying”, “I’m an artist and I see it this way” (01:43:20), etc. In addition to their being indicative of bias, they are also relatively offensive and interfere with substantive discussions, depriving the viewers of a potential opportunity to obtain additional information. Therefore, there was a violation of paragraph 15 of the Code of Ethics of Ukrainian Journalists (prohibition against using offensive language), which also includes discrimination on political grounds, which can be equated to the above-mentioned bias of the TV host. Besides, there is a violation of paragraph 15 item 2.2. of the editorial charter (regarding equal treatment of all political forces).
9. When the 1+1 TV channel was airing the video from a Russian source (01:34) about Mr. Hrechany, the source of his origin was not clearly indicated, except for the host’s words about its being shown in the so-called “LPR.” The complainant and I. Herashchenko cite different Russian channels as sources. Overall, however, the TV host undoubtedly acknowledged that the video being shown was of Russian origin. The rather extensive (relative to the duration of the story) set of the host’s judgments (behind-the-scenes) in an allegedly news story is indicative of its propagandistic nature. That the host and Volodymyr Ruban in the video actually make it clear that the Ukrainian side – the previous government – was in no hurry to free our officer on grounds of political gain. Assessing the veracity of such statements is not within the purview of the Independent Media Council, but the issue of veracity should have been clarified by the 1+1 TV channel whenit started to air a Russian propaganda story during the show.
Instead, N. Moseychuk said before the showing that it would be “appropriate” and that it had been shown in the occupied territories. After the showing she simply repeated the statements made by Volodymyr Ruban who can hardly be called an independent expert. It looks like the TV channel aired a video to intensify the criticism of Poroshenko’s political force, ignoring the duty to fact-check information featured in it. However, this obligation follows from paragraph “b” of Part 1 of Article 60 of the Law of Ukraine On Television and Radio Broadcasting. Although this provision is worded as the duty of the channel’s employees, the regulator imposes such an obligation on them through their employer – a TV and radio broadcasting organization, with the provision set out in the law governing the latter, not in the employees’ contracts with the channel.
Also, failure to pay attention to the aspect of fact-checking information in the video is a violation on the part of the TV channel of paragraph 6 of the Code of Ethics of Ukrainian Journalists, paragraph 2 item 3.2. of the editorial charter (accuracy means the verification of data from two sources and an obligation to inform the audience, if failed to do so), and paragraph 2 of item 3.3. of the same charter (authenticity also means the verification of information and the priority of the channel’s own sources).
10. It is important to note that the Independent Media Council does not believe that the provision contained in paragraph “d” of Part 1 of Article 67 of the Law of Ukraine On Television and Radio Broadcasting applies here, releasing the channel from liability for verbatim reproduction of materials distributed by other media outlets and containing references to them. Firstly, the source of the video was not specified, so it is difficult to speak about references to the original media source. Secondly, it is problematic to apply this law to foreign media both in terms of technical aspects (other language content, conditions and practice of media work) and legal aspects (the definition of “media” in another country may take on a significantly different meaning than in Ukraine). Thirdly, given that the Russian Federation is an aggressor country towards Ukraine (Parliament resolution of January 27, 2015), the Russian media cannot be considered objective and impartial towards Ukraine by definition, and their content will always require strict scrutiny in the Ukrainian context.
The Independent Media Council believes that the episode of the TV program “Right to Power” aired on the 1+1 channel on June 10, 2021, violated the requirements of paragraph “c” of Part 1 of Article 59, paragraph “b” of Part 1 of Article 60 of the Law of Ukraine On Television and Radio Broadcasting, paragraphs 6, 9, and 15 of the Code of Ethics of Ukrainian Journalists, paragraph 15 items 2.2, paragraph 2 item 3.2, paragraph 2 item 3.3, and paragraph 2 item 3.5. of the editorial charter of the television and radio broadcasting company “Studio 1+1.”
The Independent Media Council also calls on the broadcasting company “Studio 1+1” to publish the editorial charter on its website.
Votes:
“In favor” — 11;
“Against” — 0;
“Abstained” — 0.
Head of the Independent Media Council A. Cherevko
Secretary of the Independent Media Council O. Holub
Secretary of the Independent Media Council P. Moiseyev
1. The Independent Media Council received a complaint (letter No.0055/21 dated June 11, 2021) from H. Bahmut, a representative of PE Trading House Galpidshypnyk, requesting that the Council examine several publications for violations of laws and basic standards of journalism. The complaint also contains a request to “assist with removing the inaccurate information from the Internet.” 2. Pursuant to […]
1. The Independent Media Council received a complaint from A. Levus, founder of NGO Ukrainian Strategic Initiative, and Y. Honcharenko, vice president of NGO Foundation for Support of Strategic Initiatives regarding the contents of the article ”Money for remembrance. How building a memorial in Babyn Yar has turned into a national issue” by Liubov Velychko published on […]
The Independent Media Council received a complaint from Nataliia Lesyk regarding episode 14 of the television program “Mysteries of DNA” broadcast on the STB TV channel on October 27, 2020, and containing information that identifies her, albeit indirectly, as the mother of Eduard Fintotvidzha, an orphan. She did not participate in the production of the […]