Since the beginning of the full-scale Russian invasion, video interviews with Russian prisoners of war have been actively shared by Ukrainian media, and there are actually journalists who specialize in this subject.
The Commission on Journalistic Ethics considers it necessary to respond to such materials and provide recommendations on the covering the topic of prisoners of war in the Ukrainian media.
Background
Among the interviews with Russian prisoners of war that are distributed in the Ukrainian media, there are both those created by the journalists themselves and those recorded by the Ukrainian special services and used in the media.
Regarding materials created by journalists (Liubomyr Ferens, Volodymyr Zolkin, Dmytro Karpenko).
For the most part, the structure of such video interviews is similar. At the beginning of the interview, the journalist asks the prisoner about his date and year of birth, place of residence, whether he has relatives etc. This information is provided in the video description.
The faces of prisoners of war are not hidden, including faces with traces of burns, injuries, etc.
The conversation is reminiscent of an interrogation; the journalist can insult the interviewee and their family, impose their own judgment. In response to the POW’s story that he was beaten at some point, the journalist comments, “Well, at least they didn’t cut anything off.”
The journalist asks the interlocutor for consent to the video recording and its distribution. But the audience knows nothing about the circumstances under which such consent was obtained. For example, Volodymyr Zolkin and Dmytro Karpenko promise their interlocutors to arrange a call to their relatives. Volodymyr Zolking said that he demands that the captives answer his questions, or they cannot call home. The faces of relatives whom the journalists call on video are also displayed onscreen.
Videos on Volodymyr Zolkin’s YouTube channel are accompanied by the logos “Military Intelligence,” “National Police” or “Coordinating Headquarters for the Treatment of Prisoners of War.”
Short interviews with Russian prisoners of war are also recorded by the media while preparing reports from the places of detention of prisoners. In this case, some media (ICTV, Radio Free Europe, TSN) do not show their interlocutors’ faces even if they obtained consent for the interview. Others demonstrate POWs’ faces (Suspilne (PBC)).
In the video story by journalist Liubomyr Ferens about the camp of Russian POWs in Ukraine, you can see the prisoners’ faces and hear their last names. The video shows how an employee of the institution takes the journalist to the premises where the prisoners are held. Interviews recorded in the institution later became separate materials on the Lviv.Media YouTube channel. The journalist does not explain the circumstances when consent for the interviews was obtained and whether an employee (or employees) of the institution was (were) present during the recording.
On the use of videos with POWs recorded by law enforcement agencies or special services in the media (Espreso, NV, Rayon.in.ua).
Such materials often skip citing the source, and they may be perceived as materials created by journalists themselves, rather than recorded as part of the investigation or during the surrender.
In such videos, captives may have their eyes tied, be injured and require urgent aid, or be hospitalized (UNIAN).
Regarding the violation of the Geneva Conventions and the Ethics Code of the Ukrainian Journalist
Public interest in video interviews of Russian prisoners is understandable and justified. Russia’s war against Ukraine is not just Putin’s personal war. It is a war in which specific Russian citizens kill Ukrainians, and interviews with prisoners can serve as evidence.
At the same time, the Commission on Journalistic Ethics believes that there is a negative practice of covering the subject of Russian prisoners of war in the Ukrainian media.
The 1949 Geneva Conventions provide for the humane treatment of prisoners of war, including protection against public curiosity, acts of violence or intimidation, and coercion of information.
This applies to the demonstration of pictures or videos, disclosing recordings of interrogations, private conversations, personal letters, or any other private information, as indicated by the human rights organization Human Rights Watch, which urged Ukraine to observe the rights of prisoners of war. The organization stated that “Ukrainian authorities should stop posting on social media and messaging apps videos of captured Russian soldiers that expose them to public curiosity, in particular those that show them being humiliated or intimidated. Such treatment of prisoners of war, or POWs, violates protections under the Geneva Conventions intended to ensure dignified treatment of captured combatants on all sides.”
According to HRW, “It is also important for the media to refrain from broadcasting or republishing material of POWs that violates the laws of war.”
When covering the topic of Russian POWs, the Ukrainian media also violated the Ethics Code of the Ukrainian Journalist.
In particular, demonstrating the face, publishing the name, date of birth, place of residence, and information about the family violates not only the Geneva Conventions, but also clause 3 of the Code: “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.”
Many journalists equate the concepts of “prisoners of war” and “criminals,” call prisoners of war “collaborators,” “murderers,” etc., thereby violating Article 4 of the Code: “Coverage of trials must be impartial to the accused. A journalist cannot call a person a criminal until the corresponding court verdict.”
The Commission on Journalistic Ethics believes that by publishing videos with logos “Military Intelligence,” “National Police” or “Coordinating Headquarters for the Treatment of Prisoners of War,” Volodymyr Zolking and Dmytro Karpenko abuse the status of the journalist and violate clause 2 of the Ethics Code of the Ukrainian Journalist: “Serving the interests of the authorities or the founders rather than society is a violation of journalistic ethics.”
The media that distribute video materials recorded by law enforcement agencies or special services without indicating the source and without an appropriate editorial comment also violate this section of the Code.
Recommendations
The Commission on Journalistic Ethics recommends that, while covering topics connected with Russian prisoners of war, journalists and newsrooms adhere to the Geneva Conventions and the Ethics Code of the Ukrainian Journalist.
- Although journalists are not legally liable under international humanitarian law, the media should never publish stories that treat prisoners as objects of “public interest” or put them and their families at greater risk. Personal data that can be used to identify the POW or their family should be avoided.
- The decision on whether to agree to an interview is made by the POW in the situation of captivity. The decision may be made under the pressure of circumstances, and the conversation itself should take place in the presence of employees of the institution where the prisoner is held. Therefore, the consent and the sincerity of answers will always be questionable.
- For an interview to be credible, journalists need to inform the audience about the circumstances in which the conversation was recorded, how the interlocutors were chosen, and other important details. For example, in its story about Russian POWs, Deutsche Welle explained that the administration of the institution allowed interviews only with those who have not been charged with war crimes or other crimes because otherwise the investigator should sign off the interviews as well. Reporting the conversation with the prisoners, the journalists noted that it took place in the presence of the guard, the institution’s psychologist, and other prisoners. However, the representatives of the institution were not listening to the conversation and kept their distance.
- The face of the prisoner of war must not be shown, even if consent for the interview was obtained. To achieve this, journalists can film the interlocutor from behind or apply a blur. Wide shots should not include identifiable faces. Signs or lists with names of the POWs should never be in the frame.
- Personal data, as well as images, can be shared only in certain situations — for example, when relatives of a prisoner of war talk about this person and demonstrate their picture.
- The institution where POWs are held should not be named, nor the information which makes the place identifiable.
- During the interviews, insults and pressure on the interlocutor should be avoided.
- It should be clear that interviews with POWs recorded in the interests of law enforcement or special services are not journalism. Interviews recorded by special services and distributed in the media are not journalism, either. Interviews recorded with a prisoner while he is receiving medical care or while he is blindfolded are not journalism. Journalists who perform such work abuse their status and violate the Ethics Code.
- Newsrooms should consider developing internal rules for covering the topic of POWs. A positive example of such a policy is the rules of Radio Free Europe regarding pictures and videos with prisoners of war.