Not so long ago, the topic of censorship was raised in the Ukrainian media space: journalists from Ukrayinska Pravda reported pressure on the media. Then there was an interview with Dmytro Lytvyn, the presidential communications adviser, who commented on the UP’s claims that he was behind the ban on communication with the media outlet’s journalists. This was followed by an article by the Russian publication Medusa about censorship in the Ukrainian media. At the same time, the speakers have a radically different view of the situation with censorship (or lack thereof) in Ukraine.
For example, Vlasta Lazur, a journalist at Radio Liberty, does not believe that censorship and self-censorship are among the top problems in the media where she currently works. However, when it comes to the media that are supposed to be independent and are part of the Telethon, the journalist is ready to talk about censorship.
“I have no proof, but I have no doubt that there is censorship there,” she said.
Ihor Rozkladay of the CEDEM believes that self-censorship is more relevant for Ukrainian media, as there are too many trigger topics that can trigger a wave of outrage on social media. Therefore, “sometimes it’s better to keep quiet than to speak.” In his opinion, however, darkrooms are no longer a reality in Ukrainian media.
For Pauline Maufrais of the Ukrainian program in the Eastern Europe and Central Asia department of the international organization Reporters Without Borders, judging by the number of discussions of censorship on Ukrainian platforms, this topic is not among the top three problems and challenges. There are many other issues that the Ukrainian media are trying to solve.
Natalia Lyhachova, head of the NGO Detector Media, sees the problem of censorship as one of the three most pressing issues for the Ukrainian media. She agreed that a number of Ukrainian publications are not censored by anyone, but there is also the Telethon, where, in her opinion, there is direct censorship. There are also anonymous Telegram channels with a huge audience that shape a lot of public sentiment, and which, according to Lyhachova, “are used on a large scale by the authorities, the president’s office.” She also named a third factor: “when ministers are afraid to come on the air and give comments, it is self-censorship,” which can be perceived as competition to the authorities. Therefore, the head of Detector Media suggests distinguishing between two types of self-censorship: the one chosen by the journalist himself or herself to avoid harm, and the one imposed by the authorities.
But if self-censorship is so widespread in the Ukrainian media, how can it be overcome?
Vlasta Lazur says that self-censorship has ceased to be a problem for her for many years. But sometimes it still reminds her of itself.
“About a year ago, in the summer of 2023, my viewers started writing to me about the horrors that are happening near military registration and enlistment offices. People were just spending the night there. I raised this topic in our editorial office and said: we need to go to the military enlistment office for the night and show what is happening there. And the vast majority of my colleagues said: we can harm the armed forces this way… I had a very strong conflict with my colleagues at the time, but we put this topic aside. The summer of 2024 came… I said: we need to go to the military enlistment office… We spent many hours there. We filmed a lot of videos of hundreds of men standing in lines for 10 hours. We showed it to them. And the Deputy Minister of Defense came to see us. And four days later, the Ministry of Defense issued a statement: we have heard the public, we are introducing an electronic queue. I don’t know whether it was our materials or our rather tough interview that worked, but at that time I really regretted that I hadn’t done it a year ago. Maybe now the electronic queue would have worked better. For me, this is another illustration that we must refuse self-censorship by all possible means,” the journalist said.
Over the past year, journalists have become less prone to self-censorship. If a year ago, a number of topics were simply not touched upon with the motivation “do no harm,” now most newsrooms are wondering if it is too late to talk about problems that are overripe. This trend is also noticeable on social media. Ihor Rozkladay recalls that at the beginning of the invasion, media professionals were blowing cold because neither they nor the rest of society were prepared to hear explosions from Gostomel at 6 a.m. He believes that arguments about whether we will do no harm are now redundant.
“The Russians have learned to use anything that happens in the public space for so-called malinformation. That is, it is not disinformation when they come up with something completely wild, such as eating bullfinches. They take a specific story that happens during the week,” said Rozkladay.
He emphasized that quite real cases are repackaged by the Russians as disinformation and spread through propaganda channels. Russians have learned how to work with painful topics for Ukrainians, and this can lead to self-censorship of journalists.
Attention to publications about censorship or self-censorship in the Ukrainian media is becoming a topic of discussion not only in Ukraine but also abroad. Pauline Maufrais notes that Ukrainian journalists continue to cover corruption, war crimes, economic and political issues in the midst of war. It is important for Reporters Without Borders to tell Western countries about this, emphasizing that freedom of speech still exists in Ukraine. However, there are also problems related to pressure on the press. Western media are aware of how the Telethon works and that there have been requests to end it.
There is an opinion that it is necessary to talk about media problems. Because if Ukrainian media outlets do not do so, their Russian counterparts will do so in a way that is favorable to them and will become the only source of information about events in Ukraine. Opponents of this position emphasize that discussing the problems could harm the coverage of these events and spread Russian narratives. Ukrainian media have to exist between these contradictions.
It is obvious that the Russians will use Ukrainian issues against Ukrainians, but where is the middle ground? How do you not play along with Russian propaganda and at the same time not miss the moment when censorship takes over the media?
“It is better to talk about our problems within the framework of self-responsibility, within the framework of Order 73 of the Commander-in-Chief, within the framework of coordinating everything related to military matters with the military. But everything else should be discussed, as always, as in civilian life, keeping a balance,” says Natalia Lyhachova.
However, even if we are honest and open about the shortcomings and conflicts, another problem remains. Ukrainian media professionals have a feeling that the articles and materials written by “good” Russians about Ukraine are more trusted than those written by Ukrainians. As if the opinion of a Ukrainian journalist will remain biased because he or she is a party to the conflict. And while Pauline Morphe has not noticed that Western audiences trust Ukrainian media less, Ihor Rozkladay says that there is an imbalance. For him, the situation at a conference in Vienna this year when there were no Ukrainians on the panel about Ukraine, but Russians were present was illustrative. And when Ukrainians tried to raise questions about themselves, they were told that there was no time for questions and answers in the meeting’s regulations.
“Russia is more understandable because of its antiquity. The fact that Russia has ‘beautiful fortresses’ in every European capital called ‘Russian cultural centers’. It is definitely harder for us to compete with the Russians because they have been doing this, excuse me, since the days of Czarist Russia. That’s why Russia is more understandable. Ukraine is something new that still needs to be understood. There is academic inertia here, which was also trained on Russian sources. Therefore, we are still to some extent a post-colonial country to which we have to get used, and this will obviously take time. For a long time, unfortunately, the Russians will be heard better than us,” he concluded.
