Elena Bondarenko
Response from Elena Bondarenko, head of the supervisory board of the Ukrainian Media Holding, to the article "Anti-Ukrainian Media Holding" by well-known blogger Sergei Ivanov.
From the editors. Not long ago, Telekritika published an article by well-known Donetsk blogger Sergey Ivanov, titled "Anti-Ukrainian Media Holding," about the Ukrainian Media Holding (UMH), which, according to Mr. Ivanov, pursues a pro-Russian policy. Three weeks later, we received a response from Elena Bondarenko, head of the UMH supervisory board, which representatives of the holding demanded be published in "the same place of honor" as Mr. Ivanov's article. This harsh tone puzzled us somewhat, as we had immediately stated that the editors were prepared to publish the reactions of UMH representatives and other interested parties to Sergey Ivanov's article.
It's also surprising that both Elena Bondarenko and "independent journalist" Vyacheslav Pikhovshek, who previously responded to Ivanov's article, attributed Telekritika's intention to start a discussion about the presence in Ukraine of media controlled by the "family" and Russian businesses closely tied to the Kremlin to UMH alone. Are they thereby admitting that there are no other similar media outlets in Ukraine?
It's also amusing that Elena Bondarenko, following the same Pikhovshek, interprets Sergei Ivanov's opinion as nothing less than a commission, a harassment, an operation. Should we understand that in UMH's own publications, every opinion expressed is a targeted operation, with both commissioners and perpetrators? An unexpected admission, to be honest.
Moreover, UMH threatens to "mercilessly identify and expose not only those who ordered but also those who carried out this malicious act." In other words, Ms. Bondarenko, while championing freedom of speech and explaining to us, the ignorant, that "the blogosphere on a normal media outlet is a space for personal opinions, where diverse viewpoints can be represented," immediately denies both Sergei Ivanov and Telekritika the right to have their own opinions.
So, slightly perplexed, we're publishing Elena Bondarenko's opinion in full, without editorial edits. Breaking the monopoly on truth :)
Statements discrediting the reputation of the Ukrainian Media Holding (UMH) have become systemic and can be interpreted as either overt attempts to silence a large journalistic team or to "squeeze" UMH out of favor of another owner. Periodically, self-proclaimed media experts comment on how to "nationalize" the holding or return it to its former owner, who, incidentally, is now the Head of the Presidential Administration. So, we've been pondering for a long time who will shake off the mothballs from this outdated topic: Unian, MediaNanny, Censor.net, or TeleKritika. And now TeleKritika has become the public platform where this desire is once again being voiced. Judging by the introductory part of the article, this is only the beginning, and interest in such a provocative topic will continue to grow on this resource (and likely beyond!) in the future.
On Telekritika, a certain Mr. Ivanov wrote an article that bears all the hallmarks of an informational "attack." So, let's go point by point...
On the sale of the holding
The author claims the holding's former owner was allegedly coerced into selling UMH. The author was smart enough to cite the original source of this information, which turned out to be... RUMORS!!! "In particular, there were rumors that Lozhkin was forced to sell his brainchild under pressure from the Yanukovych clan..." writes Ivanov. "Nobody knows how it really happened." Yeah... Apparently, he's not really interested in the real story, since the version that suits him has already been voiced.
I imagine Mr. Lozhkin, having learned such in-depth knowledge of the situation, would be quite surprised!!! Incidentally, at one time, the very editor-in-chief of that very same TeleKritika, Ms. Ligacheva, gasped and groaned over what a deal of the century it was—Lozhkin's sale of the holding company to Kurchenko.
And now self-proclaimed experts on her website are trying to challenge this deal and argue that Lozhkin allegedly sold the holding company against his will.
About the content of the article
The author's selection of headlines, plucked from the news feed and used in his own article, was apparently intended to prove the alleged one-sidedness of the Korrespondent.net website. Clearly, the author deliberately selected news items from the extensive news feed and hundreds of pieces of content produced around the clock by our journalistic team that he disliked based on his ideological preferences. In this way, the author demonstrates his complete incompetence in the media, as he, as we see, believes that a website should present only one point of view, preferably one that resonates with him. The holding company's position has been, is, and will continue to be to break the monopoly on truth in Ukraine and serve as a platform where both the government and the opposition can express their views. Unlike other information resources, our news is based on real facts, not fiction. It's also worth noting that the screenshots the author provides are news items based on quotes from REAL people.
Mr. Ivanov's article is more about so-called matters of taste—he tries to portray anything the author doesn't like as "working for the enemy," and even rashly calls the holding company "hostile." It's reminiscent of a history textbook section describing the Stalin era, when there was an entire state program to combat enemies of the people, who were made out of ordinary people.
About blogs
The author's media illiteracy truly knows no bounds and reaches the point of utter absurdity, especially when he begins to silence bloggers who refuse to "jump" within the information mainstream and express views that differ from Mr. Ivanov's. "But the Korrespondent blogosphere is something else," the author explains. "It feels like its residents hold a regular competition for the 'Most Nasty and Mendacious Post about Ukraine.'"
S. Ivanov probably still doesn't know that the blogosphere on a healthy media outlet is a place for personal opinions, where various points of view can be presented, even those that the editor-in-chief or media owner doesn't like. Moreover, it would be strange if blogs lacked alternative viewpoints and criticism of the government's mistakes—that would mean the resource was unhealthy. Bloggers on their blogs are both editors-in-chief and journalists. Ukraine knows too many examples of blogospheres on other popular sites being strictly censored.
On the "Russian question"
It is quite amusing to watch the author's repeated attempts to expose the "Kremlin conspiracy" and accuse UMH of pandering to the interests of another country, in particular Russia.
It's strange that he doesn't make similar accusations against Mr. Poroshenko, whose factory (still not sold to another owner, as promised) operates in Lipetsk and produces the "damned" Russian candies. But for some reason, he's not happy with the Ukrainian media holding that has entered the Russian market.
His phrase, "key top management positions are distributed among citizens of the Russian Federation," is the height of chauvinism! In a normal democratic country, no one would ever prioritize nationality and citizenship when selecting a manager. Once again, it smells of the past—the Soviet era, when there was some kind of quota for Jewish admission to higher education institutions. So Mr. Ivanov's "Soviet" approach to personnel policy is somehow far from democratic.
Following the author's logic, it's worth paying special attention to such individuals as Pavel Sheremet at the UP portal, Sergey Dorofeev and Yevgeny Kiselyov at the Inter TV channel, and Savik Shuster with his studio at yet another Ukrainian channel (the only one left is 1+1, where he hasn't yet worked!). If Ukraine reaches the point where journalism is subject to lustration based on nationality or citizenship, what will the author do with his far more Russian surname, Ivanov?! UMH accepts employees solely based on professional suitability and competence.
Our holding employs Jews, Ukrainians, Russians, Moldovans, Belarusians, Georgians, and representatives of other nationalities. And it will always be this way! At UMH, neither nationality, nor surname, nor citizenship will ever be a reason to refuse employment to a talented and responsible person. The same applies to our brands! The holding has introduced Russian, American, and French brands to the Ukrainian market.
The conclusion is that the article is either a manifestation of banal pressure on objective democratic media, or an element of unfair competition against competitors, disguised as a concern for national interests, where hatred of other points of view is presented as love for the homeland, and brazen corporate raiding is disguised as a fight against enemies of the people.
The entire pseudo-analysis of the holding's work essentially reveals the author's caveman-like notion of freedom of speech, which boils down to the formula "write only what I like, and any other point of view is unpatriotic." It's precisely these people who are the true gravediggers of objective journalism in Ukraine. It's precisely these people who will condescendingly smirk at "denim for their own" and remain silent about fakes simply because they're playing into the hands of "their sons of bitches."
We suspect this won't be the last article, which is nothing more than an attempt to discredit a huge and powerful journalistic team. We know that other commissioned materials against the holding are being prepared, and we have an idea who the ultimate sponsor is. We also predict that various manipulation-based monitoring of the content of our websites, newspapers, and radio stations may emerge. There are speculations that the holding may "suddenly" face questions from the Prosecutor General's Office, the Security Service of Ukraine, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the State Tax Administration, and others, and that the majority of Ukrainian journalists will be told to "shut up!" if they dare to show journalistic solidarity in the fight against censorship.
We are prepared for this and know that the ultimate goal of these actions is to silence and destroy objective Ukrainian journalism. Articles like these only highlight Ukraine's key problems today: dwindling freedom of speech and the lack of a legal mechanism to protect any form of ownership, from newspapers to factories.
We will mercilessly identify and expose not only the masterminds but also the perpetrators of this malicious act. We will continue to defend and develop a democratic Ukraine in which citizens with diverse views can live and work comfortably and safely (!)
We would like to remind these pseudo-patriots that with their discriminatory, dirty maneuvers they are moving Ukraine away from its goal of becoming a democratic European country, equal to the members of the EU, whose motto is "Unity in Diversity!"
UMH has been, is, and will remain an island of freedom where pluralism of opinions is preserved. UMH will do everything to ensure that universal human values in Ukraine triumph over obscurantism, chauvinism, censorship, the monopoly on truth, and hatred of dissent.
President of the Ukrainian Media Holding Elena Bondarenko, Telekritika
Subscribe to our channels in Telegram, Facebook, Twitter, VC — Only new faces from the section CRYPT!