The information monopoly of the authorities on television may soon end. It was known before that the Western allies wanted this, but now they have moved from hints to public demands. On November 2, G7 ambassadors reported on their meeting with representatives of Ukrainian media and the National Council on Television and Radio Broadcasting.
“We discussed the current media landscape and the value of supporting high-quality, independent and pluralistic broadcasting as a necessity for the sustainability of Ukraine,” the ambassadors said.
Pluralism instead of monopoly
A year ago, German Ambassador to Ukraine Anka Feldhusen, in an interview with Evropeyskaya Pravda, commented on the fact that three TV channels (Espresso, Direct and Channel 5) were disconnected from digital broadcasting. “We may not publicly, but we talk about these things with the Ukrainian government all the time. We have a common goal: for Ukraine to remain democratic during the war,” she said, “And we have discussed more than once that we need to move to a more open space.” She stressed that “people should have alternative sources of information” and “people should be given the opportunity to choose what they want to watch.”
However, a few days ago, Deputy Minister of Culture and Information Policy for European Integration Taras Shevchenko, in an interview with the same “European Pravda”, said: “At not a single meeting with the EU did we hear that the telethon should be closed.” Perhaps this is true. Western allies are not demanding that Bankova close the telethon. They only insist on pluralism, that is, that Bankova return “Direct”, “Fifth” and “Espresso” to cable television networks. And so that all television broadcasting (including the telethon) should be independent of the authorities. As the G7 ambassadors noted, independent and pluralistic broadcasting is necessary for the sustainability of Ukraine.
But if this is done, then the point in preserving the telethon will disappear. After all, it was conceived precisely so that the government would gain a monopoly on television under the pretext of military necessity.
If we disband the telethon, then, of course, we will have to return “Channel 5,” “Espresso” and “Direct” to digital air, as well as launch a number of new TV channels there, including several Polish ones, bought by Rinat Akhmetov with the aim of using them for broadcasting in Ukraine. At the same time, the channels of Dmitry Firtash (“Inter”) and Viktor Pinchuk (ICTV), which are currently participating in the telethon, will also want independence. Yes, and “Channel One” can remember that it is public, not presidential.
Genre crisis
Defending the telethon, Taras Shevchenko cited the results of a recent social study conducted by the InMind company commissioned by the international organization Internews with financial support from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). “Ukrainians are aware of the telethon and trust it,” said the deputy minister. “Viewers believe that the telethon should continue at least until the end of the war.”
Indeed, among telethon viewers, 71% trust it and 65% want it to continue. But this is among his audience. And if we take all respondents, then among them this share is 40% and 37%, respectively.
The research figures confirm the decline in Ukrainians’ interest in this format of news presentation. 56% of respondents do not watch the telethon, including 20% who do not know about it at all, 22% know, but have not watched and do not watch, 14% have watched before, but no longer watch. They watch it at least once a week – 36%, including daily – only 18%. It would seem that during a full-scale war, the vast majority of Ukrainians should, on the contrary, follow the news daily. In fact, this is what people do - they look for news, but rather in online media rather than on TV.
During the study, these issues were discussed in focus groups. And here’s what turned out to be: interest in the telethon is decreasing because, according to respondents, it lacks efficiency (compared to Telegram channels), information is censored, embellished or presented in an overly patriotic manner, and content is repeated throughout the day. Supporters of returning channels to their own broadcast schedule believe that the telethon has already done its job and it is necessary to ensure a diversity of opinions and competition.
In-depth interviews with military personnel were also conducted. 20 military personnel located in combat areas and other field positions expressed their opinions. “The military does not watch the telethon due to the lack of television at the front and lack of time. Those respondents who watched the telethon before their mobilization or situationally during their vacations home are critical of it, motivating their attitude by the lack of truthful and accurate information, the lack of criticism of the authorities, the insufficiency of materials from the first line of the front, interviews with soldiers and stories about Ukrainian heroes, information about the future of Ukraine after the war (political life),” state the authors of the study.
Benefits and harms for the authorities
A single telethon could be an adequate format if all patriotic TV channels were allowed to participate in it. But Bankovaya refused to create a government of national unity, but wanted to govern alone. That’s why she created the telethon for herself.
Bankova's calculation was clear. Firstly, the telethon was supposed to create the most heroic image of the authorities (relegating the military to the background). Secondly, the authorities were not going to share the glory of the future victory with anyone (and especially with the opposition). Thirdly, the government wanted not to allow any mention of its miscalculations before the big war to be broadcast on television.
However, the quick and easy victory that Bankovaya hoped for did not work out. And the advantages of the telethon began to turn into disadvantages.
When all the TV news revolves around one person, it's a great way to focus all the glory on him. But when another task arises - to dilute responsibility for all the miscalculations made both before and during the great war, which complicated and delayed our victory - then a single telethon turns out to be a hindrance and begins to cause harm.
First of all, censored, embellished and late news distracts people and encourages them to look for alternatives. Moreover, such an alternative for many is “Direct”, “Channel 5” and “Espresso” on YouTube.
In addition, even regardless of the content of the news, the very fact of the absence of “pluralistic television broadcasting” (the formulation of the G7 ambassadors) contributes to distrust and a critical attitude towards the authorities. With each passing month, society is becoming more and more convinced that the telethon is a tool of manipulation.
All these 20 months, the telethon created high expectations, in particular, a relatively quick and easy victory. A year and a half ago, a year or even six months ago, expectations were easily sold. But now it is becoming increasingly difficult to sell them. And unfulfilled expectations are a direct path to people’s disappointment and a fall in the government’s ratings.
It is clear that the dissolution of the telethon and the restoration of pluralism on digital television will create great risks for the authorities. The authorities are afraid of a sharp increase in the influence of opposition channels, and with them the opposition. If not for this fear, then the fate of the telethon would probably have been decided long ago.
However, the Western allies seem to have taken this issue seriously and will not rest until they get their way. Therefore, we can assume that Bankovaya will accept the inevitable and try to make the most of the new situation.
For example, the television channels of oligarchs loyal to Bankova are quite capable of competing with opposition ones in creating news programs and political shows. They are also suitable for promoting new leaders from among the “correct” (loyal to Bankova) military, volunteers and activists. Finally, they can be used to promote the message that the lack of a quick and easy victory is solely the fault of the military, and not Bankova. The telethon is too tightly tied to Bankova to say this directly. But when some “independent” channel starts talking about the military’s miscalculations, Bankovaya will be able to say that she has nothing to do with it, and even feign deep indignation.
And we will probably see what will come of this at the beginning of the new year. This is superimposed on another problem: whether the authorities will decide to hold presidential elections on March 31, 2024. One would assume that Bankovaya would try to save the telethon to use it during the presidential campaign. But it is doubtful that the United States and the European Union would agree to such a unique interpretation of democracy.
