News

Inspectors from the joint project of the TVi Channel and the Civil Network OPORA Dear Deputies are telling about practices of parliamentary journalism and production of a new program.

Today, the program Dear Deputies is to launch on the TVi Channel. It is devoted to a control of journalists over parliamentary activities. Yuliia Bankova and Andrii Saichuk are TV presenters, already known to the public as hosts of the program Morning with TVi and the analytical weekly program Summaries with Vakhtang Kipiani.

Analytical component of the program Dear Deputies is provided by the Civil Network OPORA with Olha Aivazovska as the Head of the Board. Yuliia Bankova and Andrii Saichuk were also TV presenters of the program About Chosen, describing the election process in single-member districts, which was similarly created by TVi and OPORA.

http://oporaua.org/templates/opora/images/quot.gif); font-family: Georgia; line-height: normal; text-align: justify; background-position: 0% 5px; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat;"> 

http://oporaua.org/templates/opora/images/quot.gif); font-family: Georgia; line-height: normal; text-align: justify; background-position: 0% 5px; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat;">We would be glad to know that our audience is different from those of Savik Shuster's

The parliamentary election has ended, but we shouldn't sit still and wait till the next autumn, when Kyiv citizens are to choose new mayor and the city council, says Olha Aivazovska. The Head of OPORA is convinced that activities of parliamentary members should be constant, not only when there are breaking news. Besides that, Olha Aivazovska wants to preserve a firm network of activists in regions, on which information mass media based their reportings. Which issues the program Dear Deputies will cover, and how these materials are related to the work of parliamentarian journalists, developers of the program told in an interview to the Telekrytyka magazine.

Dear colleagues, how did you start working on the project Dear Deputies?

Andrii Saichuk: At first, we developed a program About Chosen together with the OPORA. We got convinced of the efficiency of such partnership during the election campaign.

Yuliia Bankova: OPORA has a strong representation in regions. They provided us with the facts and participated as experts in reportings about majoritarian candidates, the course of the election campaign, violations, and voter bribery.

What is the goal of this new joint project?

Olha Aivazovska: We want to explain the citizens and the voters in simple way, what the parliament is, and how it works. An information vacuum is usual thing after every election campaign, until the new elections start. It's a fault of journalists, civic activists, and the voters, which become indifferent to the politics, and parliamentarians, which are more than satisfied with this situation. There is no new effectiveness formula, but any deputy is motivated to be an adequate lawmaker only when successes or drawbacks of his activities are actively discussed by the public.

On these Parliamentary elections, we have organized a wide-scale monitoring campaign: 225 long-term observers in districts plus 3,5 thous. of short-term observers on the Election Day.

Now, when the new parliament is formed, we decided to keep the pace. During the election campaign we have made some unfortunate conclusions: citizens do not understand who members of parliament are, what duties they have, and how the parliament works. Correspondingly, they can't form the agenda of those they have elected. They hope, that they will have new lamps in their yards or painted benches near their houses, but they do not understand the level of responsibility and competence of elected deputies. Such information, as well as information about parliamentary activities, is often covered only by semiofficial newspapers. Therefore, we would like to emphasize those things, really important in everyday life of citizens and easily understandable, in the program Dear Deputies.

Yu.B.: It will be so-called summary of the Verkhovna Rada's activities. Deputies themselves, as we can see, do not think that they should report to anyone. Thus, we will try to provide such information on every Friday: what deputies were doing during the week, whether they visit their districts, whether citizens appeal to them, whether public receptions are working. Besides that, we will remember to explain people that it's a mechanism of influence, and they should use it.

O.A.: There is quite a lot of information about the parliamentary activities not available to the public. For example, the cost of their work. Citizens often don't know who MP's personal assistants are, and that they are hired by the cost of the state budget as civil servants: more than 32 million a month is spent on their salaries, and there are 1800 hired assistants. As you may know, relatives, friends, or acquaintances often held such positions. Unfortunately, the apparatus of the Verkhovna Rada has made this information secret since June 2012.

We have also requested to publish minutes of meetings of the Verkhovna Rada, as long as it's the center of deputies' activities. However, the employee of the apparatus has informed us, that such information is not socially important to his mind. Indeed, why do the voters should know the real use of a person which has a number of delegated powers?

Declassification of different information and materials – is one of the stages to overcoming barriers between citizens and the parliament.

Andrii Saichuk

"To make activities of MPs more comprehensive and open" in Ukraine – it is a reform already. Which methods are you going to use? Do you plan any investigations besides reporting and analytics?

A.S.: Our goal – is to show what is going on in the parliament and unravel the coefficient of efficiency of this machine, which costs quite a lot to the tax payers. In any case, we are not criticizing the parliament – we all convinced liberals, we are democrats, and generally support the parliamentary republic.

Yu.B.: We are not criticizing. We want to enforce the transparency.

A.S.: To reach it, we need to go to parliamentary committees and watch what they do...

Yu.B.: ...To arrive to the reception of a majoritarian candidate without notice and check whether he is present when he should be there. To look how many appeals and parliamentary inquiry were submitted.

A.S.: I think that explaining the functions of Administration of the President is a hopeless cause :) The Parliament is not that hopeless. We have chosen MPs, and we may influence their activities.

Yu.B.: Concerning investigations, they require more resources, time, and people. This weekly program will be developed by two journalists – me and Andrii. OPORA will mainly work with analytical materials. We will also visit the regions... If we will see any suspicious bill or a subject for investigation, we have people which will deal with that.

What is the structure of the program, and which themes are you going to cover?

Yu.B.: We plan some constant blocks – both serious and satiric. The themes will include analytical part. We will definitely count bills according to their quality and number. We will count money which is allocated to cover these expenses. We will evaluate these bills, watch the committees. Everything will be supported by video comments. All field materials from regions will also be present.

A.S.: We will try to inform about the committees' activities in every part of the program. Every committee – is a pile of waste paper, gathered during 20 years. We may find hilarious things there, for example: All reforms and bicycles were invented long time ago – so, let's just vote. The most important – is to remind this to the voters and MPs. The most important – is to show the quality if the policy and politicians. In order to have better results on the future elections...

O.A.: Of course, the project will have a variety of blocks and focuses – parliamentary, field in districts, in studio.

A.S.: We would like also to experiment with expert assessment. To my mind, there is no point in recording direct speeches of deputies like the other parliamentary journalists. Instead, we will present commentaries of journalists, which have been attending the Parliament for years and know the situation. We plan to talk not only with TV journalists, but also with other mass media representatives. For example, with Serhii Leshchenko who is not widely presented on TV.

Themes will be the same as Verkhovna Rada's working scheme: session week, work in committees, meetings with voters...

How do you plan to systematize all the information?

O.A.: We may assess the democratism of election in accordance with a number of documents, in particular, issued by the Venice Commission or OSCE. But Ukraine forgets that the other documents and standards also have influence on the quality of parliamentary activities. What is an efficient parliament, professional, open, and public – unfortunately this question is not even in the Ukraine's agenda. Journalists often draw attention to the attendance on parliamentary meeting, but it's just a little part of an efficient body. Nevertheless, the Verkhovna Rada is a legislative branch, and political balance in the country may be reached only providing that MPs will act independently and professionally.

Today, MPs still pay attention to opinions of journalists, civic activists. Therefore, we need to raise the issue of an efficient and qualitative work of the Parliament. The public should be interested in it, and motivate MPs to work correspondingly, make them closed to the world's standards. We will work on it from program to program.

How closely will the program consider the certain individuals? Who are "dear deputies" for you, and whether Mykola Kniazhytskyi is one of them?

A.S.: I think there is a pile of irony in the program's name. However, they are indeed dear deputies, because we think that the parliament and parliamentary system – is the only evidence of democracy in Ukraine. After all, we want to finish every program with a positive summary.

Yu.B.: "Dear deputies" implies not only material meaning. It may also be understood as an appeal: "Dear deputies, look what is going on". We will start with a general review of the politics, and end with a certain local problem in the certain place.

A.S.: Let's come back to the question. Not we take decision here, but OPORA, which has its scientific and objective methodology. They are choosing MPs according to their criteria, investigate their activities and include into ratings, and we only present the results. As mediators, we only shape and deliver this information. None of MPs is secured from OPORA's investigations. It's enough to neglect their professional duties. Of course, you will ask how we are choosing districts for our visits...

Yu.B.: There are certain doubts. We thoroughly discuss with professionals, whom to visit and which reception to knock unexpectedly. We hope that program continuity will be enough to visit all majoritarians. For now, we are choosing those at the center of public attention.

A.S.: There will be a balance.

Yuliia Bankova

Who will determine this balance, and which editorial principles the program has?

Yu.B.: The balance is determined by all of us. We absolutely trust each other.

A.S.: Of course, there will be a certain partiality. Any deputy, who will fall under our observation, may ask: "Why didn't you go to the other district and observe the other MP?" Because we choose you!

Which information will be of primary importance in analytical and other data for program? Which issues will you consider first, in which form? And, after all, which experts will be attracted by the OPORA?

O.A.: Analytics of the OPORA, I, my colleague who cooperates with regions, press-service, and regional activists – we hope that our activities will have the certain advocacy component. We will interactively receive information about issues which should be considered by a deputy from the voters and civic activists. Journalists of the TVi will put these very questions to the parliamentary members.

Concerning priorities, all issues are important for us. First – we check the Law On the Status of National Deputies, which determines all their duties, against the real activities. Correspondingly, we want to know whether representatives of the highest legislative body fulfill their duties. We will monitor legislative process, analyze content of draft laws. We want to keep up with law-making process and to answer the questions like: "If this politician promised to initiate changes in the social protection system, but now is working to the benefit of narrow business groups, do electorate in the district really need such representative?"

Second – is activities of the committees, which we want to make absolutely public and understandable.

Third – is, of course, the session hall: whether deputies work or not, and how do they work, what are their speeches about, and whether their political statements correspond to legislative initiatives... We will analyze all votes "for" and "against" from records of sittings, especially during consideration of resonant bills. It often happens that there are too much populism, when a number of MPs demand to support certain positions, but don't vote themselves, don't come to vote during the consideration of those important for them projects. The society needs to know how this "kitchen" really works. It's easy for any faction leader to come to a talk show and say: "We fell in the battle", when in fact, a third part of the faction was absent, and a half of those who came were out of the session hall during the voting.

And the fourth – is field monitoring of the situation in regions. It's our internal interest, because the OPORA wants to preserve those eagerness and enthusiasm which appears during the election observation. I personally have a depression after every election campaign, because after such involvement into the process you inevitably want to keep up the pace. And such slowing down is a shock – physical and emotional. Through initiatives like the project Dear Deputies, we manage to attract the best people to this process and socially useful work, to motivate volunteers to stay in touch with the OPORA.

How will you present analytical data?

O.A.: We will present it in charts, numbers, data, and, if there is such a need, explanations to recordings. We will also use many infographics. Numbers, ratings, and pictures make information easier to apprehend, and make deeper analysis.

A.S.: Besides statistics and numbers, we wouldn't like to tire our audience. The question is, how well we will be able to present it. We will try to use comparisons and metaphors.

We liked the job our colleague and friend Roman Vitoniv did. We would like to do something like that – a little bit of trolling. Of course, we will discuss important issues, but will venture on a little gentle raillery. Still, we are not going to mock well-known MPs to raise the rating, it's not a comic show.

Yu.B.: And we are not trolls.

A.S.: We just want to present things easily and make the audience smile.

Is the program expensive? How will it be financed?

A.S.: It's an absolutely inexpensive project, everything based on our enthusiasm.

O.A.: We are financing the project 50/50. Contributions of TVi and OPORA are equal and quite small.

Are you hoping for any other results of the program besides an enlightenment mission? In fact, the government hardly reacts on resonant journalist investigations.

A.S.: It would be naive to think that a 24 minute weekly program will bring major changes: MPs will stop selling their votes, vote personally and write good laws. If it was broadcasted on Inter Channel in prime-time, perhaps there would be better changes. The advantage of the TVi – is freedom. We can do it here, and we do, because we can. That's all. Besides that, it's interesting.

Yu.B.: Perhaps there will be certain results if we show pictures of deputies-shirkers, or announce names of lobbyists, or those who rarely pays visits to the district. We want to think that it will somehow bother them, rouse indignation, or even discipline.

O.A.: I'm always distressed when journalists say that investigations have no effect. It's not good to see things in black and white. If we, for example have started investigation of the certain issue, like misappropriation of budget funds, and the guilty official wasn't brought to account, it doesn't mean that nothing has changed in the attitude of citizens. Perhaps, the next purchase wasn't made with 20-300% markup... There are three knots which hinder harmonious coexistence of citizens and the government: situation, attitude, and culture. When journalists are publishing results of resonant investigations, they hope for instant change, but it's naive to think like that. First of all, the society should change, not the situation, and only then the government is motivated to influence the problem. When the attitude is formed, there is a chance that the culture of the society will form, where corruption would be intolerable. Unfortunately, more than a half of citizens in our country are justifying it, and the society doesn't move towards changes.

We will partly influence the attitude of the voters to MPs, and partly – inform the voters about possible communication with parliamentarians, and influence on them.

The MPs will receive an interesting picture from the voters. Wise parliamentarians will definitely respond.

In result, this program will be useful for everybody – for us as an organization which creates an interesting methodological base, which will be useful to the journalists, voters, and citizens which will be able to keep contact with MPs, as well as to politicians, which will have a chance to see drawbacks of their activities – providing they have a common sense and conscience.

At the same time, improvement of the culture – is much more important than withdrawal of MPs, desired by a lot of citizens. By the way, adoption of such law, and such measures against PMs – is not quite a democratic approach.

Maybe these very 24 minutes a week will change attitude of the voters to MPs, and of MPs – to the voters.

Olha Aivazovska

Which programs will you compete with? Or you are going to cooperate with them?

Yu.B.: Who can we compete with? :)

A.S.: It's not about competition. TVi occupies a special niche, and I with Yulia know parliamentary journalists from the inside.

Yu.B.: The only competitor on Friday for us is Slavik Shuster. The program is broadcasted from 9pm to 9:24pm, and at 21:20pm stars the program Shuster live. So, we should stand these four minutes...

Shuster live was the leader last week and managed to leave behind even Anna Bezulyk with her debut talk show Justice on Inter Channel.

Yu.B.: Well, it starts at 21:00. Nobody has chances at this time.

A.S.: Still, we would be glad to know that our audience is different from those of Savik Shuster's.

Yu.B.: I hope that many people will watch us on the internet. TVi is a specific channel. It's hard to say that we compete with anyone on TV, but many people watch us online.

A.S.: We would be glad to have quite young audience – from 20 to 49 years. Television is out-of-date for them. And it's important to find the right approach here. As for me, the best way to discuss the Parliament would be similar to those when I discuss it with my friends over a cup of coffee.

Yu.B.: The way you wouldn't dare to talk in news, for example.

Which mass media does OPORA managed to cooperate with? Particularly, during the Parliamentary elections last year.

O.A.: We were open to everyone. I think that we have provided a lot of important information thanks to observation activities. We cooperated with the Radio Svoboda, they were promoting our Map, and systematically re-broadcasted information about detected violations. We also provided information to the Kyiv Post, and weekly published articles for the Kontrakty.UA.

Still, we have no experience in creating TV projects. Mass media actively used our materials and information; we have noticed almost 6000 references to OPORA during the campaign period. Still, there were some TV Channels, which remained closed for us. Without any discussions. But we adequately accepted this fact.

A.S.: You must understand that what we are doing now – is genre and political non-format for Ukrainian television. And I doubt that such program could be broadcasted on any other, national channel.

Have you analyzed election coverage by Ukrainian mass media?

O.A.: Do don't conduct professional media monitoring. We only watch the usage of media information provided by us. Of course, the most active here were online mass media – up to 80%, information agencies are on the second place, and printed mass media, radio and TV – on the third.

I noticed, that political part of news paled into insignificance, presented together with materials about the culture or entertainment. In society, which takes so much information form the TV, it's irresponsible not to provide them full and qualitative data. If TV channels refuse to broadcast election news – it's irresponsible in long-term perspective.

A.S.: In countries of transitional democracy, citizens are quite interested in politics. It's hard to imagine that the project similar to Dear Deputies was broadcased in Poland for example, and the audience would examine activities of the Parliament. They know it's working, that's all.

It's normal not to know how the internal combustion engine works when you are buying a car. And in Soviet Union, every motor-car enthusiast knew how to take any component of Zaporozhets, and put something from meat chopper instead of it. Unfortunately, it's vitally important to know how the Parliament is functioning in Ukraine. Because now we are using a Stephenson train, not Mercedes.