Playing the watchdog role, journalists have a crucial mission — to provide society with truthful information, expose injustice, and monitor the activities of public authorities and other influential institutions. However, in order to effectively fulfill this role, journalists themselves must be open to criticism and constantly work to improve their content.
Openness to criticism and readiness for improvement, as well as active cooperation with self-regulatory bodies, help journalists perform their important role in society more effectively. This was the subject of the expert discussion by the Commission on Journalistic Ethics “Self-Regulation in the Media: What Needs to Be Done to Make It Valuable for the Media?” that took place in a hybrid format on-site and online in Kyiv on July 23, 2024.
Andrii Kulykov, head of the Commission on Journalistic Ethics, said:
“For many years, the Commission on Journalistic Ethics has been promoting the idea of self-regulation in this country, actively using all methods to improve the quality of the Ukrainian media and another important goal — protecting the rights of audiences. That’s why we want to hear from editors, journalists, people who work in our industry: what needs to be changed, improved in the work of the Commission on Journalistic Ethics as a self-regulatory body? Why have the ideas and methods of self-regulation not yet become the first, or perhaps the second, necessity for most of our industry?”
Gillian McCormack, Internews country director in Ukraine, emphasized: “We have been talking about self-regulation for a very long time — at least 20 years, if not more. And I must say that it is as difficult today as it was then to try to convince new generations of people that media ethics is a real thing, and that self-regulation is not only possible, but also necessary for the profession. Self-regulation is about being transparent about the values you stand for — transparent to the people you work with and to the people you work for. Self-regulation offers evident benefits for the media industry over government regulation. Governments regulate for themselves, not to meet the interests of the industry concerned. This saves you money on lawsuits. If people trust the self-regulatory body to be a fair arbitrator, they don’t need to sue you for damages.”
Lina Kushch, First Secretary of the National Union of Journalists of Ukraine, emphasized, “I want to say that over the past few years we have been practicing mediation of complaints. This is when the complainant and the media whose material their complaint was about reach an agreement and make mutual concessions. This has not always been easy; sometimes it takes quite a bit of time, and you need to approach both sides several times before they reach an agreement. But we already have quite a few complaints that we were able to resolve this way. This is a trend that makes me happy.”
Oksana Maksymeniuk, a media lawyer and head of the RPDI legal department, pointed out, “Many newsrooms cannot afford a separate fact-checker or a lawyer. Therefore, it is important that when problematic issues occur, they are handled by the Commission on Journalistic Ethics. Indeed, the decision of the Commission on Journalistic Ethics as an expert agency is taken into account in lawsuits, which makes the position of the respective party stronger.
Oleksandr Burmahin,member of the National Council of Ukraine on Television and Radio Broadcasting, said, “Sometimes they say that the media regulator tries to use the Commission’s opinions in its practice. I will reiterate that now, these are two separate things. The law on the media does not mandate that the media should adhere to ethical standards, and thus, the regulator cannot use any of the sanctions stipulated by the law in these cases, even if it wanted to do so. Therefore, we can forward such cases only if we simply see that it is beyond the law on media, but it can be in the field of the code of ethics and we simply forward it, let’s say, based on the purview.”
Vadym Voityk, Ivano-Frankivsk, Galka.if.ua outlet: “My message is something that I feel and strongly believe in — that what is self-regulation should be directly and clearly referred to as self-regulation. It should not become the basis for further legal action. And if we break the law, there has to be a legislative provision that we break, not a clause from the Code and this general aspiration how we should be nice, comply with ethical standards, avoid spitting in public etc. So that it doesn’t turn into something that it’s attempting to be. And what is happening, I think, is that the Ethics Code of the Ukrainian Journalist — I can see there have been multiple situations like this among lawyers — is becoming a systemic source of inspiration for the entire insulted community that our media are writing and filming stories about.”
Natalia Liashchenko, CEO of Kyiv TRC, emphasized that her company always had positive experience with the Commission on Journalistic Ethics. “This always helped us resolve our own problems in the newsroom, improve our work when we had evident fails, and protect our interests and positions when the Commission undertook the major task of creating a platform for us to find an understanding with an organization that took an issue with us. And we reached an agreement. I will share our case with the Center for Combating Disinformation.”
“Many of my colleagues, even in our own, my own newsroom, tend to confuse two concepts: self-regulation and self-censorship. Especially young journalists, but not just young ones, believe that self-regulation means avoiding certain subjects that can lead to some circumstances or issues. This brings us to the level of journalistic education in general,” says Natalia Liashchenko.
Anna Murlykina, editor of the 069.com.ua website, member of the Commission on Journalistic Ethics, said, “Journalists working in the Ukrainian media need to take a proactive stance and take an interest in what is happening in the journalistic industry. The Commission on Journalistic Ethics should also be proactive. It would be very useful if every Ukrainian city had a representative of the Commission who would inform the public about its work, represent the Commission’s interests and forward issues and complaints. This would raise people’s awareness of the Commission’s existence and activities. From personal experience, I can say that our editorial policy, adopted in 2011, helped us maintain our reputation and survive even in a time of crisis, when our city of Mariupol was destroyed. Thanks to maintaining standards, we did not require financial support, since donors themselves approached us with offers to help.”
Roman Kifliuk, national expert with International Media Support, pointed out that the most important thing in self-regulation is motivation. “No matter how much you force people to accept it, regardless of what enforcement measures you take, I think coercion won’t work in Ukraine, it’ll probably backfire. But if we do everything at our own discretion and do not adhere to basic rules of ethics, eventually we’ll have to compete with Telegram channels, which have experience and can easily get ahead of us in this unethical field. And in this chaos, it will be difficult to convince the reader, the viewer, that we are ethical, well, we just lacked a little money there, but we wish we had a little more money, and we would be ethical, tomorrow starting at three o’clock we will be ethical.”
Natalia Lyhachova, editor-in-chief of the Detector Media group, said, “When people say they didn’t know about the Commission on Journalistic Ethics and only learned about it recently, this really surprises and upsets me. I also agree this is not something to brag about. But at the same time, it tells us that indeed, we all, not just the Commission, we all have to work. I am not currently a member of the Commission, but I was involved in its creation, and I am a big supporter of self-regulation. Andrii says that you work a lot with universities, it appears that we all work with universities, but when you come across young journalists, they do not know the standards or the rules of journalistic ethics, unfortunately. This work needs to be done in a less formalized and more practical way.”
Svitlana Ostapa, head of the PAT NSTU Supervisory Board, Commission member, emphasized that it is important to treat all the parties equally and respectfully. “You should always be respectful towards both the complainant and those to whom the complaint refers. We always put these parties on equal terms, communicating with them, calling, writing, asking for their comments. If the media outlet works in line with standards, it always responds to our emails. However, there were cases when tabloid-type media sent us offensive emails and threats. Our decisions are always based on specific articles of the Ethics Code o f the Ukrainian Journalist, not on emotional or evaluative judgments.”
Otar Dovzhenko, media expert, head of the Independent Media Council, creative director of Lviv Media Forum, emphasized how important it was to comply with the Code. “The Code is not perfect, but it contains all the key journalistic standards. Some of the responsible media are trying to make it part of their editorial rules, learn and remember it. It is dangerous to question these basic rules and to keep editing the Code. It is better to develop additional documents that would take into account specific topics, such as content on social media or the use of artificial intelligence. Our goal is to encourage people to agree to comply with these standards voluntarily, without coercion. The media that rely on donor support start understanding themselves that maintaining standards is a key to success.”
Diana Dutsyk, a member of the Commission and CEO of NGO Ukrainian Media and Communication Institute, emphasized how critical it was to be responsible and develop new strategies. “Any decision published on the Commission’s website can be interpreted or used by anyone. Therefore, we should discuss how to make this process useful for the media, not just prohibit the use of Commission decisions. The top management of the editorial office is fully responsible for the team, journalists, and their knowledge. If the editor demands compliance with standards and ethics, the team does it. We need to develop new tactics and strategies for working with the entire media environment, and not only with the best ones, because our media environment is massive and varied.”
Valerii Ivanov, media expert and president of the Ukrainian Press Academy, expressed his opinion regarding the Commission’s role. “It is normal that not everyone will be happy with the Commission’s work. Its task is to protect the interests of society and the audience, and its power lies in the moral condemnation affecting the colleagues. It is important to publish the Commission’s decisions and promote them so that they reach a professional audience. The Commission represents a professional social group that provides an assessment but this does not mean that the Commission is always right. Our media environment is abnormal because the market doesn’t decide what media will work — well-off owners do. Social media should also be considered to be media in ethical terms to protect the interests of the audience.”
Tetiana Lebedieva, a member of the Commission, said, “In recent years, more people have started hearing us and listening to us. We are focusing not only on condemnation, but also on education. Each of our decisions contains recommendations on how journalists should cover such situations. There are topics that are essential and we address them before anyone even complains. These guidelines are often included in manuals we distribute electronically. Donors do pay attention to whether publications are ethical, and it is becoming a mandatory prerequisite for cooperation. Internews has always fought for high-quality media and information, and you can feel it in our work.”
The meeting ended with a call for further development of self-regulation in the media as a necessary element of ensuring quality and trust in journalism in Ukraine.