By the word of Evgeniy Glybovitsky “With the foundation of the single “Syspilny movnyk” independent citizen journalism will stop be”

Sincerely I regret that I did not film the speech by Yevgeny Glibovitsky on the panel "Suspilne Movlennya" on #lmf2017. This is really a serious puncture,his words show that not all the processes conducted in our country under the guise of reforms pursue the goals declared by the state.

Popular phenomenon called Public broadcasting found place in Ukraine at the project called “Society television and broadcasting of Ukraine”. This is a big project of reforms in which process channels of Ukrainian state television and radio become social. At the same time, the structure financed for budgetary money will cease to fulfill order of the state and become accountable to the society.

It sounds very good, correct and beautiful, like many other things wrote on paper and in many of our laws. The truth is in reality everything is a little different.

In fact, the Ukrainian stateis financed by society, but is it accountable to it? Does it fulfill its order? Is society quite a work of the state? - No no and one more time no. Nevertheless, de jure, the state is a public structure and obeys it, but de facto ....

What is still interesting in this moment, the society used to finance state television and radio broadcasting before, and it did not report to the society before, so if something really changes after the reform of this structure- that its name.

But let us return to the discussion of the issues raised at the forum.

The first to take the floor was the famous journalist Andrei Kulikov, who briefly explained the need to create such a structure, citing the experience of Great Britain, Finland and Estonia, where in particular Public TV is funded by a commercial television tax.

Concluding the speech, he noted that a powerful public television and radio broadcasting can not only compete with the Commercial Media, but also lead to the fact that most of them will disappear from the market.

Eugene Glibovitsky, who took the word after Andrei Kulikov, discussing the problems of Ukrainian media expressed quite an interesting idea.

Commercial media, he said, is far from being a commercial structure in fact, since its purpose is not commercial profit. Commercial media have become an element of political corruption and they pursue not business goals, but exclusively satisfy the political ambitions of their masters.

Also, Eugene Glibovitsky said that in a year and a half, Public Television will become the leading operator in local markets.

Miroslava Gongadze told about the experience of Public Broadcasting in the US, where the state supports non-commercial radio channels by only 30%. Most of the funds for the development and support of public broadcasting are allocated by commercial structures, which find it their duty to support such social initiatives. Moreover, for such their social activity they receive tax privileges. In fact, this model, as it were, allows commercial structures, so to say, to pay taxes in an addressable manner.

Miroslava Gongadze also led a number of competitive advantages of the Public Media, which are:

  • Editorial policy
  • Geographical accessibility
  • Universal clarity
  • Attention to minority issues
  • Contribution to national identity
  • Financing direction

The concluding on this topic was the speech of Daria Yurovskaya. She noted that the Public Channel will become something more than just television or radio. This will be a platform that will ensure the delivery of content to users through all possible channels of information. She noted that the Public Broadcasting will not focus exclusively on television and radio, but will pay attention to new media.

A very important quality of the new media structure, she called an obligatory and careful factchecking, and stressed that taking any decision, in the first place will be the trust, not the rating.

The time of questions has come.

Most of the most important issues voiced on the panel concerned civil journalism:

What do those structures, those civil journalists who did not wait for support from the state and for a long time already created structures that already exist and produce high-quality and sought-after content? What is their role and place in the new paradigm of the Public Broadcasting?

Answered Yevgeny Glebovitsky.

He said that civil journalists will not have a place in the information space of the country outside the Public Broadcasting Channel. That they will need to find ways to integrate themselves with the channel. What awaits them is absorption or death! That "Bolivar cannot carry double!"

I do not know for who how, but for me personally these words sounded like an ultimatum to independent civil journalism.

Evgeni Glebovitsky actually confirmed that renaming the State TV Channel into the Public TV channel would not only not change its essence, but would also jeopardize the existence of independent civil journalism in the form in which it now exists.

In fact, if his words, as a representative of the supervisory board of the "new" "public" media structure, sounded like the declaration of war as an independent, relevant and so necessary for today civil media in Ukraine.

He acknowledged that the state speculating on the theme of decentralization, just renamed its structure, which will now fight not only with the oligarchic media out of control of it, but also with civilian media.

How does this fit in the European democratic way of thinking and developing the country?

How is this consistent with the government's declared provisions on European integration, if in fact the state is going to again get a monopoly right to call the truth that information that will show its policy in the right light?

The situation turns out to be surprising, but alas more than understandable and explainable.

The words of Yevgeny Glebovitsky, to my great regret, confirm the conviction that in our media, as well as in politics, there are still enough representatives of opponents of democracy, opponents of freedom of speech.

They will do their best to preserve the media in the original form in which they got from the USSR. They see in media only an instrument of propaganda.

They simply do not understand that if Bolivar is ready to carry anybody further, it will not be a state propaganda machine, camouflaged for independent or public media. However much he would like, but in the war with civil society, in a war with the people, in the struggle with the real voice of the people - with civil journalism, it will not help either state support or control over the finances of this sector.

Media, with the advent of the Internet, has long started its way to real, not imitative independence.

The Internet has uncovered an unprecedented set of tools for prospects and opportunities, the arsenal of which is growing and replenishing every day. Therefore, any miserable attempts by state or state figures representing the interests of the state to curb it, will only lead to the opposite effect.