Background
On January 6, 2024, the Commission on Journalistic Ethics received a complaint by Oksana Okhrimenko against the publication on the Telegram channel “Vitalii Hlahola Official” written by journalist Vitalii Hlahola “Naked New Year Party in Zakarpattia Oblast” dated January 4, 2024, available at https://t.me/VGlagola/10791.
The description of the channel indicates “Telegram channel of journalist Vitalii Hlahola. Content can be shared only including a hyperlink to the channel.” The post contains two photos, as well as a video taken during a party in one of the hotels in Zakarpattia Oblast. The video, taken from outside the venue where the event was taking place, shows applause from the audience alongside the movements of a naked dancer. The publication indicated the organizers of the event, who were from Kyiv. The post, just like the next one, describing the event agenda in more detail, garnered numerous outraged reactions from readers.
The complainant believes that the journalist shared photos from a party that did not violate the law in any way. The publication and its subsequent use by other media caused a wave of hatred towards the participants, and the publication itself constitutes interference with private life, which is a criminal offense.
On March 19, 2024, the Commission contacted the journalist with a request to provide comments regarding violating the requirements of clause 3 of the Ethics Code of the Ukrainian Journalist in his story and the arguments specified in the complaint. Vitalii Hlahola did not respond.
Relevant ethical standards
Clause 3 of the Ethics Code of the Ukrainian Journalist states: “A journalist must treat a person’s private life with respect. This does not interfere with their right to journalistic investigation connected with certain events and facts if the social significance of information collected and shared by the journalist exceeds the person’s private interests.”
Regarding violations of the requirements of the Code, cl. 3
Before considering the complaint, the Commission considers it necessary to point out that it is aware of the role of Telegram as an online platform for sharing personal views and the difficulty with establishing who can be viewed as media or a journalist when it comes to regular publications on social media. When making a decision about whether the requirements of the Ethics Code of the Ukrainian Journalist should apply to a certain material, the Commission will assess the style (whether the author tries to position himself/herself with the audience as a journalist or a media representative), the publicity (whether the audience of publications is restricted), as well as the factor of registration as an online media outlet, which is voluntary under current law.
In the case considered herein, the Commission views Vitalii Hlahola as a journalist despite his simultaneous occupation as a member of Uzghorod City Council. This is due to a number of factors: in the channel description, Vitalii Hlahola refers to himself as a journalist (see also the decision regarding Iryna Fedoriv’s blog post on Ukrainska Pravda), asks to provide a hyperlink to his channel as a form of copyright protection, and encourages his readers to send him news. His Telegram channel is publicly available and thus can be accessed by an unlimited audience. This is why the Commission believes that the Code standards should apply to Vitalii Hlahola’s activities pertaining to his Telegram channel.
The post complained about by the applicant is an example of “tabloid” journalism designed to satisfy society’s demand for sensational news. However, such journalism must also take into account the standards of professional ethics, with respect for private life being one of the key requirements. In its Recommendations Regarding Ethics Practices in Tabloid Journalism the Commission pointed out that sharing private information without people’s consent is a violation of journalistic ethics, and any interference with private life by journalists must be reasonable, though its limits are wider for public figures, who must be prepared for a broader extent of criticism and for greater attention to them and to their loved ones. In addition, the Commission noted that sensationalism which only exploits a “hot topic” for the entertainment of the public undermines public trust in the role of the media in helping to resolve issues.
In the opinion of the Commission, Vitalii Hlahola’s publication did not constitute a public interest that would outweigh the privacy of the participants and organizers of the party. There is no information that high-ranking officials or politicians of the national or local level participated in it, which under certain conditions could justify the publication. While naked dancing may cause indignation in some, they are not prohibited, especially at private events. Judging people only because they spend their spare time in a way different from what a large part of the public might prefer is an easy way to engage additional audience, but it does not serve public interest, which is key for journalists and the media. That is why the Commission comes to the conclusion that Vitalii Hlahola’s post violates the Ethics Code of the Ukrainian Journalist.
Conclusion and recommendations
In view of the above, the Commission believes that the material written by journalist Vitalii Hlahola on his Telegram channel Vitalii Hlahola Official “Naked New Year Party in Zakarpattia Oblast” of January 4, 2024, violates clause 3 of the Ethics Code of the Ukrainian Journalist and issues a warning to Vitalii Hlahola.
The Commission emphasizes the need to adhere to the Recommendations Regarding Ethics Practices in Tabloid Journalism, which apply not only to media that deliberately share sensationalist information but also to social and political media, which can sometimes publish materials about the private life of celebrities or true-crime stories.