2
Mainly, five media outlets supplied Ukrainian people with the information about
the crisis: three nationwide television channels (Inter, UT-1, and 1+1), the daily
newspaper Den, and the Pravda Internet site.
The Internet site Pravda, founded by the assassinated journalist Gongadze, was
the only one media outlet that overtly sympathized with the opposition and represented
its political claims and demands. On the contrary, state-controlled UT-1 outlined only
official point of view and denied access to the medium for the protesters.
Three out of five media outlets (Inter, 1+1,and Den) declared centrist political
views, neither pro-presidential nor pro-oppositional ones, and represented the private
political interests of their owners. However, these media were not totally free from
ideological bias (Baker & Glasser, 2001). This could be explained by the fact that under
the circumstances of widespread corruption, it has been impossible to successfully run a
business in Ukraine (including a media business) without being closely tied to
presidential-establishment circles. It is worthy to note, however, that this kind of pressure
has little to do with the direct or overt censorship experienced by journalists in Soviet
times. Due to the presence of market-driven forces, there are no actually “closed” topics
anymore. Only the manner in which events are presented can be controlled, but far from
the full extent that was possible previously. This is due to the fact that new media barons
have their own interests and their desire is always to protect themselves.
Several questions arise. In what way did the different Ukrainian media cover the
crisis? How did the coverage of the crisis by private commercial channels differ from the
Convention