File a complaint
Close search
26.04.2023

CJE Statement on Publication of the Video of a Ukrainian Prisoner of War Being Executed

A large group of Ukrainian media, including ones with a significant reach, published a video recording depicting a possible execution of a Ukrainian prisoner of war by Russian soldiers. Before being shot, the man said, “Glory to Ukraine!”

The video first appeared on social media and was later shared by the media, including television channels and online media. The case shocked Ukrainians and caused a significant public outcry. Many users on social networks noted that watching the video caused them physical and moral suffering. 

The Commission on Journalistic Ethics believes that the media that distributed the video uncensored and showing the face of the Ukrainian soldier grossly violated the Ethics Code of the Ukrainian Journalist. 

Clause 3 of the Ethics Code of the Ukrainian Journalist emphasizes the importance of balance between social significance of information covered and a person’s private interests: “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.”

In this case, a possible war crime committed by Russian soldiers is indeed of public interest. At the same time, the media should take into account the feelings of the deceased soldier’s family, who should not learn about the death of their loved one from the news. Without information on whether the family knew of the soldier’s death, the journalists should have used the video with a hidden face, which would make it impossible to identify a specific person. 

The fact that the full video appeared on social media earlier does not relieve the editorial teams of their responsibility to verify the authenticity of the video and adhere to other professional standards: for example, warn the audience about the scene of violence, limit the audience of the video to 18+, etc. 

Another gross violation of journalistic ethics was the publication of versions of the possible identity of the military servant before this information was officially confirmed (on Thursday, March 9, this confirmation was not yet obtained). In pursuit of sensationalism, journalists traumatized several families of missing Ukrainian soldiers.

Many journalists and newsrooms limited themselves to posting the video and did not attempt to investigate the circumstances, establish the source, etc. — that is, they did not perform their journalistic work. This appears to be exploiting a subject painful to Ukrainians to boost views, instead of establishing the truth and contributing to justice. 

In its statements, the Commission on Journalistic Ethics has already covered publication of private information of individuals affected by the warreporting on people’s deaths during the war and reporting on topics related to prisoners of war

The Commission on Journalistic Ethics believes that the gross interference with privacy and the detailed depiction of violence observed in the case with the video fragment of the possible execution are excessive and cannot be justified by public interest. The Commission condemns the sensationalism in the work of journalists and newsrooms and calls on colleagues to respect private information concerning prisoners of war and to be responsible when covering sensitive topics that may impact society.

Share