The Commission on Journalistic Ethics received a complaint from the press service of Rivne Oblast State Administration regarding materials of ITV channel “Not Everyone Happy” about the modular down for IDPs in Radyvyliv (March 1, 2023).
The complainants believe that the material violates journalistic ethics, particularly by inciting enmity towards internally displaced persons. The authors of the complaint believe that by failing to provide the position of the opposing party, the channel violated journalistic ethics.
The editorial team did not respond to the Commission’s request to provide commentary about the contested material.
Relevant ethical standards and compliance
The link provided in the complaint to the material “Not Everyone Happy” on the YouTube channel of the ITV channel was not available, while the text version of the material was available on the website under the title “People Unhappy with the Modular Town in Rivne Oblast.”
The Commission on Journalistic Ethics has already received and considered a complaint against the aforementioned story. Following the Commission’s communication with TOV TRK Rytm, which is the legal entity in the media sector broadcasting under the ITV brand, the story was removed from the YouTube channel.
However, the website still contains the article which is the text version of the same story, with violations of the Ethics Code of the Ukrainian Journalist. Therefore, the Commission believes it necessary to consider this publication.
The material “People Unhappy with Modular Town in Rivne Oblast” covers a story about the construction of a modular town for internally displaced persons in Radyvyliv.
From the very first sentence, the journalists create a rift between the locals and the IDPs: “By trying to make some people happy, they disregarded the requests of others.”
The material is not balanced, since it does not represent the stories and thoughts of forcibly displaced persons for whom the modular town is intended. The material contains three quotes from local residents who are dissatisfied with the new town, as well as a quote from a representative of the local government. The IDPs, who have already received keys to houses, according to the journalists, are not represented in the story in any way, apart from portraying them as somebody who to be “made happy.” In addition, the material does not represent the ideas of locals who would approve of the modular town.
The authors of the story list the following reasoning of the opponents of construction:
“Locals complain that the houses are literally ‘hanging’ on the balconies of a residential building.”
“They have taken away people’s vegetable gardens… what can we do, there’s nothing we can do…”
“People have already made peace with the fact that they can no longer grow vegetables next to their houses. But locals are concerned about something else, too. ‘I’m worried if we get people who will tell [Russians] what is located where, that’s the scariest thing,’ — local resident Volodymyr.”
While communicating with a local government representative, the authors of the story do not ask whether local authorities consulted the community about the location of the modular town, whether they took into account citizens’ proposals, etc. The deputy mayor comments on the beautification of the town, but not on the complaints of residents who are unhappy that their vegetable gardens have been taken away. The accusations do not receive any response from other characters of the story or from the journalists themselves.
The Commission believes that the lack of balance in the material is a violation of paragraph 6 of the Ethics Code of the Ukrainian Journalist: “Respecting the right of the public to full and objective information about facts and events is the primary duty of a journalist. Journalists and editors must take steps to verify the authenticity of all messages, video and audio materials received from members of the public, freelancers, press services and other sources.”
The material contains unsubstantiated and unproven accusations against local authorities and evaluative judgments made on an arbitrary basis and not explained to the audience. The Commission also sees violations of paragraph 9 of the Ethics Code of the Ukrainian Journalist: “Facts, judgments and assumptions must be clearly separated from one another. The dissemination of information containing bias or unfounded accusations is unacceptable.”
This is evidenced by the two following fragments: “They built it wherever they wanted. And in the end, they decided to save money. We are talking about the first modular town in the oblast, which was built on the territory of the Radyvyliv community. The pilot project was meant to become exemplary. But it looks like something went wrong.”
The journalist does not provide evidence or confirmation that the site for the construction of the modular town was chosen randomly and that other free and more acceptable and suitable places were considered.
“But when they got down to business, they decided that it was possible to save money on the pilot project. And they did it at the expense of IDPs’ comfort.”
This is phrased in a way that makes it unclear who “they” are. In addition, from the text version of the story, it is impossible to understand what the money was saved on, what conditions were not provided, and thus, the journalist’s statement appears unfounded and evaluative.
The publication contains accusations against local authorities which are only voiced by the journalist, without any relevant commentary, refutation or explanation by an authorized official.
“The modular town received quite a bit from the oblast budget — over UAH 11 million. That is, each house is worth as much as a one-bedroom pre-owned apartment. However, they chose modular objects. In turn, they took control over beautification works in Radyvyliv.” Without a visual demonstration of the conditions inside the modular house and the conditions in a pre-owned apartment, such a comparison is inaccurate and looks like an unfounded accusation.
“It is therefore unknown whether families of IDPs will be able to live in the town with comfort. It is equally unknown whether the structures will withstand the potentially difficult weather conditions in Rivne oblast.” The first part shows that the journalist is not entirely confident while speaking about the problem, and the allusion to low-quality construction or the materials used for the houses is not followed by clarification that justifies that claim.
According to paragraph 15 of the Code of Ethics for the Ukrainian Journalist, “No one shall be discriminated against on the grounds of sex, language, race, religion, national, regional or social origin or political opinion. Relevant features of a person (group of people) should be indicated only in cases where this information is an essential part of the material. It is necessary to refrain from hints or remarks concerning physical defects or diseases of the person, to avoid use of offensive expressions, profanity.”
The material of the ITV channel dedicated to the modular town in Radyvyliv reinforces the prejudice against displaced people, portraying them as a dangerous social group. Journalists contrast local residents and IDPs, emphasize the inconveniences for local residents after the construction of a modular town and their fears.
The publication contains completely unfounded accusations which in a way even violate the presumption of innocence (“I’m worried if we get people who will tell [Russians] what is located where, that’s the scariest thing.”).
The accusations are provided without a comment from local authorities and without quotes from IDPs themselves: in the contested material, they remain invisible.
The material contains unfair comparison of the losses of local residents and IDPs who left the areas of active hostilities (losing a vegetable garden next to the house vs. losing property, housing, possibly loved ones).
Findings and recommendations
Having considered the complaint against the ITV material about a modular town for IDPs in Radyvyliv (March 1, 2023), the Commission on Journalistic Ethics established that the material “People Unhappy with Modular Town in Rivne Oblast” contains violations of paragraphs 6, 9, and 15 of the Ethics Code of the Ukrainian Journalist and thus issues a warning to the ITV channel.
The decision of the Commission on Journalistic Ethics is aimed at helping Ukrainian journalists maintain professional ethical standards in the Ukrainian media and foster societal demand for high-quality journalism. While any citizen or legal entity is entitled to file a complaint with the commission, we do urge representatives of the authorities to avoid abusing this right and using the Commission’s decisions to punish media and journalists.
For proper coverage of topics related to the life of IDPs, the Commission recommends the following to journalists and editorial teams:
- Avoid portraying IDPs as a homogenous social group in materials, focusing on them as specific people with individual experiences instead.
- Highlight the voices of IDPs rather than officials who speak on their behalf.
- Avoid repeating discriminatory statements about displaced persons and residents of the occupied territories.
- Contact experts or use materials of civil society organizations that work with internally displaced persons.
- Show not only difficulties but also the benefits enjoyed by host communities after receiving people from dangerous areas.