After Shufrich, two candidates are competing for the position of head of the committee on freedom of speech

In the near future, the Rada is going to elect a new chairman of the committee, and by tradition, this position is assigned to the opposition. Thus, the new chairman of the committee will be chosen from among the representatives of the opposition.

The Verkhovna Rada has finally taken the first step towards filling the vacancy of the head of the committee on freedom of speech. This place was empty back in September after its previous head, Nestor Shufrich, who previously represented the now banned OPZZH in parliament, was detained on charges of treason. And only then did the Verkhovna Rada promptly dismiss the odious people’s deputy from the post of head of the committee.

More than two months have passed since parliamentarians remembered the personnel gap in the not-so-delicious committee (until now, the duties of the head there were performed by the “servant” Evgeniy Bragar). Two resolutions were successively registered in the Rada on the nomination of candidates for the position dismissed after Shufrich. Both proposals, traditionally for this committee, are from the opposition. The first is from the “Voice” faction, which proposed people’s deputy Yaroslav Yurchyshyn. The second is from European Solidarity, which delegates the people’s deputy of three convocations (Udar, BPP, EU) Rostislav Pavlenko. It is significant that both candidates are not members of the committee they plan to head, and have never had a direct relationship with the media (like Shufrich). Yurchyshyn is the ex-executive director of the anti-corruption organization Transparency International Ukraine, first deputy chairman of the anti-corruption policy committee. Pavlenko is a political scientist, former head of the Presidential Administration of Poroshenko, member of the Committee on Education, Science and Innovation.

The consideration of this issue by the regulations committee on Wednesday ended in a mini-scandal. The Committee supported the resolution to submit Yurchyshyn’s candidacy to the session hall with six votes (four from the “servants of the people”, one each from “Batkivshchyna” and “Platform for Life and Peace”). At the same time, the committee did not even consider the resolution regarding Pavlenko. Predictably, this caused a flurry of emotions in European solidarity. Pavlenko, hot on the heels, accused the authorities of “unsportsmanlike” behavior and “segregation along party lines.” Co-chairman of the “EU” faction Irina Gerashchenko said that with all due respect to Yurchyshyn, part of “Voice” “sings along” with the Office of the President: namely, they voted for the allocation of billions of budget hryvnia to oligarchic channels as part of the telethon and helped to lease the “Rada” channel . Gerashchenko noted that her faction will insist on considering two resolutions in the hall, despite the committee’s decision. However, even if the leadership of the Rada meets the EU halfway, Pavlenko’s chances, which previously seemed modest due to the acute conflict between Poroshenko’s party and Bankova, are now becoming completely illusory. The final vote in the session hall could take place as early as this week.

Even before the meeting of the Regulations Committee, the “Commander-in-Chief” asked both contenders for the chair of the head of the Committee on Freedom of Speech to answer a list of questions. We were interested in how the people’s deputies are going to get this committee out of the loop, what they see as the main threats to the Ukrainian media space, and who they consider the main enemy of freedom of speech in the country.

“The vast majority of citizens do not get information from the telethon”

Yaroslav Yurchyshyn, “Golos” faction

Your biography is not directly related to your media activities. Why did the faction decide to delegate you to this post, and why did you agree?

In fact, a key aspect of the free speech committee's work is to protect the rights of journalists on two fronts. The first is access to information, related, in particular, to monitoring the implementation of the law on access to public information. The second is the protection of rights associated with professional journalistic activity. This is already a certain human rights direction and something with which I have actively worked in the field of fighting corruption. Well, in general, anti-corruption activities at the international level are considered precisely as human rights activities. Even when I was the executive director of Transparency International Ukraine, we had more than one common project with different associations of journalists, so this area is clear to me.

The head of the committee is a more administrative position of managing and organizing processes. Namely, the professional component can always be co-opted through the creation of a real expert council under the committee. It now includes Sergei Shvets, who has a media background and, in fact, the media component in the work of the committee should not be a problem.

In the Verkhovna Rada there is the only faction that does not have a committee leader - “Voice”, while the same “Batkivshchyna” at least has representation in the presidium of the Verkhovna Rada, and “European Solidarity” has chairmanship in the Committee on European Integration. Therefore, it is logical that when the position of the head of the committee on freedom of speech resigned, we, as an opposition party, apply for it.

What do you see as the main problems in the area of ​​freedom of speech? Do Ukrainians have enough access to information to form an objective picture of what is happening?

The biggest problem is that no one has dealt with the problems of journalists and journalism recently. We have captured journalists, we have periodically succumb to pressure because of their professional activities (the latter include Mikhail Tkach, Natalya Ligacheva), and there is no parliamentary control over this. The Committee on Freedom of Speech was significantly reduced in its powers, so regulation of the media sphere was mainly transferred to the Committee on Humanitarian Policy.

But we have a new challenge created by short-sighted policies in the field of information - the low quality of the official media product. The vast majority of citizens get information from “telegram” channels, worst of all – anonymous ones. This greatly simplifies the procedure for manipulating Russian propaganda. This topic is in critical need of understanding, and mechanisms must be found here that are not purely punitive, but in balance with the journalistic environment. So that the mechanisms found to facilitate the verification of information sources are not considered as censorship and an attack on freedom of speech. The latter, let me remind you, is one of the basic freedoms that is monitored in the process of fulfilling the requirements for the right to be a member of the European Union.

How will you revive the work of this committee, which has been in decline in recent years? What will be your first steps in your position?

The very first will be to initiate a meeting with associations of journalists, restart the Expert Council, prepare steps together with journalistic environments in several areas - monitoring cases of obstruction of journalistic activities, facilitating the release of captive journalists, searching for mechanisms for effective access to information under martial law and guaranteeing a better balance information. I see associations of journalists and organizations working in the field of media monitoring as a key partner. In principle, this sector is quite active. Ukrainian investigators quite often act as partners for international networks of investigative journalists. I think that it is quite possible to return to the committee the functions of the main platform for communication between journalists, media and authorities.

Promoting more balanced information, of course, cannot be done by any means of government intervention in editorial policy, but at the same time there must be communication, clarification and promotion of certain organizational issues, such as a more transparent accreditation system on the demarcation line. Now communication with the new communication team of the Ministry of Defense, headed by Mr. Illarion Pavlyuk, is quite effective, and it itself understands this challenge and is ready to assist. With the help of the committee, it is possible to develop a system that is both understandable to journalists and protected from the military’s point of view. And there are many more points in which parliamentary control functions are appropriate.

It is unlikely that the committee will have a large number of legislative initiatives, but if, for example, certain authorities do not systematically provide relevant information, attention should be paid to this and the functions of parliamentary control should be applied.

Will you demand the return of the committee’s powers, which were cut from it in 2019 and transferred to the Committee on Humanitarian and Information Policy?

I think that first of all they were cut because Nestor Shufrich became the head of the committee. For who will come to Shufrich to protect the rights of journalists, except for Medvedchuk’s expulsion channels? First you need to understand the opportunities and responsibilities that exist within the committee, and having demonstrated the effectiveness of the work, of course, you can move on to the next steps.

I spoke with Mrs. Svetlana Ostapa, who now heads the Supervisory Board of the Public. She monitored the work of the Freedom of Speech Committee for several convocations in a row of leaders from different political forces. And she explained why there was a reorientation of the journalistic environment towards the humanitarian committee and why in the humanitarian committee, due to the huge number of other areas (the development of book publishing, language policy, museum affairs, etc.), journalism will not occupy the place where it should be , as in a relevant committee.

At this point I'm really thinking about collaborating with the Humanitarian Policy Committee. There will probably be joint committee meetings regarding overlapping powers, and then we will find an option for the optimal distribution of responsibilities. If over time it becomes necessary for greater efficiency to ask the question of returning powers, of course, we will ask. But whether this will be done is a larger political decision.

Should there be media censorship during war? If so, where should its border be?

There should be no censorship in principle, because it is an ineffective phenomenon. The prohibition to talk about something only gives rise to the desire to talk about it more. Achieving this ban is possible only through punitive methods, and for the authorities this leads to one result - the situation with Reznikov demonstrated this very clearly.

As for restrictions, you cannot tell where our military units are located, what kind of communications they use, who is responsible for certain operations... Access to other unclassified information must be absolutely competitive. During war there are more requirements for security and verification of information, but if people simply limit access to it, then they will look for it where it is available, but most likely unverified. For example, we are now seeing an increase in the popularity of “telegram” channels.

The issue of resolving the “telegram”, declared almost a threat to national security, is being raised at the level of the National Council for Television and Radio Broadcasting, and the Security Council... How, in your opinion, should it be resolved?

If this is a threat to national security, then what level of threats it poses and how to counter it is a matter of legend for the intelligence services. But we definitely need to analyze those information campaigns by Russian propaganda that have already been carried out through telegrams. And understand at what stage the state can intervene and how to demand greater verification of information. Although much here depends not so much on the state, but on people’s understanding that the harm from quick, unverified information is often at the level of bad habits such as smoking or unlimited alcohol consumption. That is, it affects other vital signs. In general, the issue of verifying information from social networks is pressing not only for Ukraine. Therefore, it is very important to study international experience and exchange the experience of other countries in regulating this area. Yes, hearings on this topic are now being held in the European Parliament... We in Ukraine need to join these trends, taking into account the fact that our threat is even higher.

Specifically, the committee can hold working meetings with representatives of traditional media, Internet sites, and official adequate telegram channels. And as a result, it is possible to understand what restrictions or requirements for information verification can be established in Ukrainian legislation as a certain obligation. The Committee may also hear information from and receive suggestions from the Security Service. We in parliament already had such an example during the discussion about the Russian intelligence network under the guise of a religious organization of the so-called Moscow Patriarchate. That is, under the roof of a committee it is possible to gather all interested parties and develop a policy on how to respond to the problem.

Who is the greatest enemy of free speech in the country right now?

Poor-quality information policy, which tries to follow the principle of prohibitions and restrictions according to the Soviet template instead of creating better communication on a competitive basis. The Ukrainian authorities still act on the principle that it is better to remain silent about the problem than to take an active position and communicate the error and ways to solve it. We inherited this systemic problem from the Soviet Union, and, unfortunately, many people play within this paradigm.

Can we say that the problem of oligarchic influence on the information space has already been solved?

This problem has been temporarily reduced, but not solved. The leading television channels are now united into the Unified Telethon, and during the war the state actually gained the opportunity to influence the policies of these channels. But they still remain owned by financial and industrial groups and have not turned into civilized business corporations with supervisory boards and an independent editorial policy. But the war provides a chance to work this issue out normally, and certain steps have already been taken in this direction.

What's next for the telethon? Especially now, when it has already become obvious to everyone that, using budget funds, he simply kept the audience in an overly rosy bubble?

As with any information mechanism, the marathon needs to achieve better presentation. The fact that it is not a monopoly is shown by the facts that the vast majority of citizens do not draw information from this source. Unfortunately, for those who conceived it. Therefore, you need to take care of its quality, its modification, so that it fulfills the functions of the key communication channel for which it was created.

Are you negotiating with parliamentary forces to support your candidacy?

Some unofficial communications, of course, take place. But I think it would be much more honest to formally consider two competitive submissions in the hall, where everyone will be able to state their position and their work plan. Knowing Rostislav Pavlenko from his work in the public sector and politics, I can say that his candidacy is quite worthy. And since voting for myself is illogical, I will happily vote for my competitor.

“Instead of discussion, society is offered molasses”

Rostislav Pavlenko, European Solidarity faction

Your preliminary biography is not directly related to media activities. Why did the faction decide to delegate you to this post, and why did you agree?

The issue of freedom of speech is complex - it concerns human rights, the rights of journalists, the regime of the existence of the media and support for those freedoms that have been fought for a very long time in Ukraine and which now in many ways need to be restored. I have fought for this in three parliaments, both at the level of legislative proposals and at the level of political work, so I believe I have enough knowledge, contacts and skills to effectively speak out in defense of freedom of speech.

What do you see as the main problems in the area of ​​freedom of speech? Do Ukrainians have enough access to information to form an objective picture of what is happening?

The authorities, under various pretexts, are trying to reduce freedom of speech and citizens’ access to information and replace it with a certain ersatz. Healthy discussion in society is limited and sweet molasses is offered instead. This is dangerous because only revealing mistakes and working on them is one of the advantages of democracy over authoritarianism. It has been said many times that a small autocracy will not defeat a large one. It can only be defeated by a democratic European country, and freedom of speech is one of the very serious foundations for democracy to manifest its advantages.

If we talk about specific problems, there are many of them: starting with restrictions in the work of journalists, such as their artificial exclusion from the sidelines of the Verkhovna Rada, ending with such things as the removal from digital broadcasting of three television channels independent of the authorities. These channels remain on YouTube and cable networks, but are not viewable in many small villages and towns. That is, this is an objective limitation of the guaranteed right of citizens to access information.

And, of course, the main problem limiting freedom of speech is a full-scale Russian invasion. In Ukraine, uncoordinated demonstrations of combat work, movements and deployment of troops, and so on are criminally punishable. We see that during the full-scale invasion, the media and journalists learned to implement these provisions quite skillfully and responsibly. But any restrictions on citizens' access to non-military information are excessive and limit the ability of democracy to demonstrate its advantages over authoritarianism. We need to look at the example of Israel, where there is a government of national unity and all politicians share powers and responsibility for the state of affairs in the country, and at the same time free discussion on political topics is maintained while very serious work on security is carried out.

How will you revive the work of this committee, which has been in decline in recent years? Your first steps are in charge.

Having before my eyes the experience of previous committee chairmen, I can say that the first step should be the resumption of the committee’s work as a platform for interaction between journalists and politicians. It is necessary to involve interested representatives of all parliamentary committees, the executive branch, journalists, and media experts, who certainly have many questions, in its work. The Committee should transform from a formal combination of several people's deputies seconded by factions into a permanent platform for discussing problems and solving them in a working format. I think this way we can bring him back to life.

Will you demand the return of the committee’s powers, which were cut from it in 2019 and transferred to the Committee on Humanitarian and Information Policy?

It seems that this would be logical, given that information policy is directly related to freedom of speech. We will ask questions about this, but it is unlikely that the majority and factions and groups dependent on it will agree to this. I would see one of the factors for the effectiveness of the committee’s work being the involvement of colleagues from other committees to resolve issues on the merits. And then, if it becomes obvious that there is a need to return information policy issues to the responsibility of this committee, I think we will be able to achieve this.

Should there be media censorship during war? If so, where should its border be?

Censorship is prohibited by our Constitution. Another constitutional provision states that the right of citizens to receive information can be limited only by law, based on considerations of public order and public health, and not by presidential decree or order of the Cabinet of Ministers. And discussions regarding how best to direct public resources to organizing defense, in my opinion, are only useful.

As for self-censorship in wartime, the answer to this question should lie within the framework of the editorial policy of the media and the attitude of journalists themselves to what information they do not disseminate for one reason or another. Because you must admit, there is definitely a difference between the spread of “treason” and a responsible discussion about specific things with the obligatory conclusion of what should have been done instead.

The issue of resolving the “telegram”, declared almost a threat to national security, is being raised at the level of the National Council for Television and Radio Broadcasting, and the Security Council... How, in your opinion, should it be resolved?

Obviously there is some danger to this. And NSDC Secretary Danilov said that this messenger is actively used for various Russian IPSOs. You just need to understand that you can hardly achieve anything with some cosmetic measures, just like with a simple ban. This is not a matter of simply turning off Russian social networks, as was done in 2017 - this means of communication is much more difficult to turn off.

It is precisely the dissemination of different points of view and different media in the “telegram”, under one’s own flag and under one’s own responsibility, that could help neutralize the danger from anonymous channels disseminating hate speech. What would be important here would be the interaction of different media of different orientations, various experts and politicians under the common denominator of protecting national security. One of the tasks of the free speech committee would be to find an effective way to overcome these dangers, without throwing the baby out with the bathwater and starting to do things that obviously don’t work.

Who is the greatest enemy of free speech in the country right now?

The first enemy is, of course, Putin and Russia, who came to war back in 2014 and continued with a full-scale invasion in 2022. This is where the biggest problems with freedom of speech lie. Well, the second are those who are trying to take advantage of this war in order to introduce undemocratic and one-sided communication instead of freedom of speech. Of course, the authorities have more powers for this - they are the ones who turn off the channels and introduce, in my opinion, a telethon that has long since become obsolete. These actions must be combated by protecting freedom of speech.

Can we say that the problem of oligarchic influence on the information space has already been solved?

Oligarchy is the use of economic position to gain influence over government. So far, with the telethon, everything has focused on one point, and this issue has not only not been resolved, but, on the contrary, has worsened. Both the authorities and the oligarchs around them pooled resources so that everyone could see one sweet picture. We have seen such things in Russia and Belarus, and one of the first points of entry for depriving the oligarchs of influence on the media would be to split this marathon and separate channels for independent speech. At least then everyone's position will be visible and the audience will be able to quite calmly conclude who is saying what and why.

What's next for the telethon? Especially now, when it has already become obvious to everyone that, using budget funds, he simply kept the audience in an overly rosy bubble?

There is a feeling that he has long outlived his usefulness. There is no longer any need to direct budget funding there, or even to preserve this single monster. Journalists from almost all media take a rather responsible approach to disseminating information, especially regarding security issues. Therefore, each media outlet could quite easily return to independent broadcasting, but they were slightly corrupted by budget funding and forced into a single information template. Therefore, it will be quite difficult to disenchant it.

Are you negotiating with parliamentary forces to support your candidacy?

I personally don’t, but thank you for the opportunity for such an off-site discussion. I think that such things are just healthier so that both society and those who will make decisions can evaluate how and what the candidates offer.