Skip to content
Call Us Today! 212-533-4646 | MON-FRI 12PM - 4PM (EST)
DONATE
SUBSCRIBE
Search for:
About Us
UNWLA 100
Publications
FAQ
Annual Report 2023
Annual Report 2022
Annual Report 2021
Initiatives
Advocate
Educate
Cultivate
Care
News
Newsletters
Sign Up For Our Newsletter
Join UNWLA
Become a Member
Volunteer With Us
Donate to UNWLA
Members Portal
Calendar
Shop to Support Ukraine
Search for:
Print
Print Page
Download
Download Page
Download Right Page
Open
1
2-3
4-5
6-7
8-9
10-11
12-13
14-15
16-17
18-19
20-21
22-23
24-25
26-27
28-29
30-31
32-33
34-35
36-37
38-39
40
I f we apply these thoughts to Ukraine, we see that some o f the difficulties the country is experienc ing involves a media that is free to write what it chooses. The country’s journalists and reporters are experiencing the newfound freedom to voice their opinions. Many have not yet acquired the experience or wisdom to do so responsibly, objectively, or proactively. Many have not yet learned that, in a democratic world, people (even journalists and reporters) must take some responsibility for their deeds and words. Ironically, this is true even in long-established democracies like the United States, where many in the media have crossed the lines o f decency, accuracy, and integrity in the name o f journalism. As Ukrainian Americans, for example, we all know the story o f the spurious dispatches about the Great Famine that W. Duranty submitted to the New York Times. You suggest in your letter that Duranty’s lies about the Great Famine were caused by the Soviet stranglehold on free speech. Our response to this contention is that Mr. Duranty was not a Soviet journalist, but a journalist writing for The New York Times. Moreover, other journalists, working under similar conditions and in the same environment as Mr. Duranty were not deterred by the Soviet stranglehold on free speech; they reported the truth and felt duty-bound and honor-bound to do so, regardless of how much they stood to lose in the process. Your analogy concerning Ivan Franko indicates that such journalistic integrity is not only possible, but can and does exist, even under the most repressive governments. In her article, President Iryna Kurowyckyj cited a quote from a contemporary reporter who spoke of “the blessings and hindrance of today’s media,” a quote that cannot be construed as a condemnation of journalists but rather as a realistic assessment of the fact that reporters, like most other people, are often motivated by a number of things. This sometimes includes a self-serving agenda, a quest for a Pulitzer Prize or simply the limelight, or the desire and commitment to inform others, accurately and truthfully, about events or circumstances they observe. Mr. Duranty’s motivation, for example, has often been construed as a self-serving mechanism that permitted him access to high-ranking members of the Politburo and other perks that journalist such as Malcolm Muggeridge and others, whose reports about the Great Famine were truthful, were denied. The quote in no way suggests that Ukraine or the United States should “have the same complete control of newspapers, radio, and television.” It suggests, instead, that professional journalists (and perhaps the Civil Liberties Union) should consider a measure of self-control, self-regulation, and self-discipline. This is not to suggest that governments should be the arbiters of reality. But neither should journalists whose principal agenda is to attack everyone or everything indiscriminately merely for the sake of sensa tionalism or to spark controversy where none may exist. The true arbiters of reality should be journalists like Franko, or Muggeridge, or G. Gongadze, or any of the host of current reporters and correspondents whose mission is to report “reality” truthfully, objectively, and with a sense of decency that eschews yellow journalism or what can only be called “tabloidism.” In the second paragraph cited above, Mrs. Kurowyckyj makes this distinction quite clear: “. . . in a democratic world, people (even journalists and reporters) must take some responsibility for their deeds and words . . . even in long-established democracies like the United States, where many in the media have crossed the lines of decency, accuracy, and integrity in the name of journalism.” In other words, reality is reality. When reality is distorted, either by governments or by a free press that considers “freedom of the press” to mean the freedom to lie or report a reality that is based on insinuation rather than fact or innuendo rather than objectivity, it is no longer reality. It remains reality only if its arbiters are committed to the truth, not some slanted version of the truth (left or right). Thus, as you note in the concluding paragraph of your letter, “We need better journalism, not less.” Both President Iryna Kurowyckyj and I agree wholeheartedly with this statement. Sincerely, Tamara Stadnychenko
Page load link
Go to Top
1 
2-3 
4-5 
6-7 
8-9 
10-11 
12-13 
14-15 
16-17 
18-19 
20-21 
22-23 
24-25 
26-27 
28-29 
30-31 
32-33 
34-35 
36-37 
38-39 
40 
