Background
The Commission on Journalistic Ethics received a complaint from Oleksandr Kyfak against the materials of the Vgoru media platform: What Is Judge Korovaiko Trying to Hide? (November 22, 2022) and Leader of Lawyer Rating Oleksandr Kyfak Is a Follower of a Kherson Animal Husbandry Enterprise? (April 21, 2023).
The applicant claims that the aforementioned publications contain inaccurate and subjective information about him which “violates personal non-property rights, namely, honor, dignity, and business reputation” of the complainant as a lawyer and honorary consul of Germany in Odesa. The applicant believes that the mention of him contained in the publication dedicated to the head of Kherson Appellate Court Oleksandr Korovaiko is unfounded.
The applicant also claims that he approached the newsroom “with a demand to remove untruthful information and publish a refutation.” But “instead of publishing the refutation, the online newspaper Vgoru published a new article mocking me,” says Oleksandr Kyfak.
The Commission on Journalistic Ethics approached the newsroom for a comment and received a response signed by Ilona Korotitsyna. The newsroom believes that “the complainant’s claims regarding the published articles are far-fetched and indicative of blackmail, manipulation, and a conscious and aggressive attempt to influence the freedom of speech.”
“Mr. Kyfak indeed sent a letter to the newsroom of Vgoru Media Platform, where he demanded removal of certain information, alleging that it violated his personal non-property rights. However, as the applicant should know, the demand to ‘remove information’ is not stipulated by the law,” explains the newsroom. “The mechanism for the protection of honor, dignity and business reputation is enshrined in Art. 277, part 7 of the Civil Code of Ukraine: “Inaccurate information shall be refuted in the same manner in which it was originally publicized.” Any apologies are also not considered a legal remedy.”
Relevant ethical standards and compliance
The Commission on Journalistic Ethics has already reviewed Oleksandr Kyfak’s complaint against the Anticor outlet and assessed the applicant’s reasoning. The articles of the Vgoru outlet do not contain new information about the applicant which would be significantly different from what was indicated in the previous complaint. Therefore, the Commission does not see reasonable grounds for analyzing this case again. The conclusions and recommendations indicated in the decision regarding the publication in Anticor outlet about Oleksandr Kyfak are exhaustive and remain relevant.
On the other hand, the Commission notes that one of the disputed materials, “What Is Judge Korovaiko Trying to Hide?”, contains violations of the Ethics Code of the Ukrainian Journalist in the part of coverage of the judge’s activity. The disputed material is about the head of Kherson Appellate Court Oleksandr Korovaiko, who was applying for the position of a judge of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine at the moment of publication. Considering the public importance of the subject, journalists’ attention to the judge, his biography and business contacts is understandable.
The first paragraph indicates that journalists “collected their own profile of the candidate from open sources.” Calling it a “profile” and the “Investigation” section mean that a comprehensive research and analysis of facts are expected.
As the publication fairly indicates, a significant share of public registers have become inaccessible since the declaration of the martial law. Therefore, journalists used materials collected by other media. This method is not prohibited, but journalists should not simply copy information, but rather add value.
Under clause 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 publication indicates that the outlet shared information from the “Law and Business” website about the head of the court allegedly undergoing checks as part of the case on the alleged treason of former head of the regional SBU office Oleh Kulinich. Later, information was removed from the Law and Business website, and an entry was published on the website of the State Judicial Administration, refuting the judge’s involvement in the case of the former head of the regional SBU office.
From the publication on the Vgoru media platform, users cannot find out whether information of this outlet about the alleged involvement of the head of the court in the “case of Kulinich” was accurate. The publication posted in the “Investigation” section does not indicate that the journalists verified information about the judge before sharing findings with the readers. The authors ponder a lot about the reasons for the removal of the publication, but do not ask either Law and Business, or the State Bureau of Investigations, or Oleksandr Korovaiko himself about the reasons.
Thus, the Commission views it as a violation of the Ethics Code of the Ukrainian Journalist. Clause 6 of the Code clearly indicates the need to check all materials that come to the media outlet from other sources, including materials from other media.
In addition, the absence of Oleksandr Korovaiko’s comment in the material where he is the object of criticism himself violates clause 10 of the Ethics Code of the Ukrainian Journalist: “Views of the opponents, including ones who are objects of journalistic criticism, must be presented in a balanced manner. Assessments of independent experts must be provided the same way.”
Public figures must be ready for broader criticism from journalists and society and for public discussion of all aspects of their activities. On the other hand, journalists must provide officials who face criticism with an opportunity to comment on the accusation or include the official’s previously expressed position on this issue in the material.
This will make the investigation balanced, transparent and comprehensive, especially when it comes to possible facts of abuse of office or corruption.
Findings and recommendations
Having considered the material of Vgoru media platform “What Is Judge Korovaiko Trying to Hide?”, the Commission on Journalistic Ethics has established a violation of clauses 6 and 10 of the Ethics Code of the Ukrainian Journalist in terms of coverage of judge Oleksandr Korovaiko’s activity and issues a warning to the newsroom.
It is important for Ukrainian society to preserve and develop investigative journalism as a necessary element of the authorities’ accountability and transparency. At the same time, low-quality journalistic investigations tend to appear in the media, which devalues this essential genre and undermines trust in the work of all journalists.
The Commission on Journalistic Ethics emphasizes the need to adhere to the Ethics Code when working on journalistic investigations:
- Verify all facts underlying the material, including facts published in other media. The fact of publication in itself does not necessarily prove the accuracy of information.
- Clearly separate facts from judgments and assumptions, avoid biased coverage.
- Avoid emotionally colored vocabulary in fragments of material that are descriptive in nature and lead up to the main content.
- Provide substantiation of each allegation and statement published in the material and refer to such sources.
- Make sure the material is balanced and provide those facing criticism with an opportunity to comment on or refute the allegations. Journalists should report on the fact of asking the person for commentary, even if their request was denied.