Journalistic attitude and self-censorship in wartime

Two weeks ago Andrii Tsapliienko, a war correspondent, scriptwriter, special news reporter for the 1+1 TV channel, was awarded the TV Press Favorite 2014 prize. In the past year, Den’s nominee has come up with superb reports, exclusive materials, and live commentaries from the Maidan, during the Russian aggression in Crimea, and, today, from the eastern front line. As a permanent expert of the TV Press Favorite, Den nominated Tsapliienko for his professionalism and public activism, while the jury approved this choice. Thirteen out of 20 prize experts voted for his candidature.

Andrii Tsapliienko recently visited Lviv. Den managed to speak to the war correspondent about journalistic attitude, professional standards, and self-censorship in wartime.

Andrii, you were recently awarded the TV Press Favorite 2014 prize. What is your attitude to this award?

“Naturally, I am pleased to have my work appreciated by my ‘writing’ colleagues in journalism. For, in my view, the print media are more perfect. Whenever you read a printed material, you are supposed to see an emotional picture that reproduces events even though you have nothing but paper and letters before you. It’s no use resting on your laurels after you’ve got an award. For you derive pleasure from what you are doing.”

Should Ukrainian journalists position themselves in some way in this war?

“I’ll put it simply: I think Ukrainian journalists should do so – unlike their foreign counterparts. In the very beginning, we did not want to be a side in the conflict, but my group and many others were reproached: you are a side in the conflict and, therefore, information war soldiers. It is not we ourselves who made soldiers out of us. If we are considered as such, then we have chosen our side.”

What about journalistic standards in a situation like this?

“It is a very difficult thing. In line with journalistic standards, we should not say ‘our side – your side,’ ‘heroes – villains,’ etc. Information standards are the same for all. But journalists sometimes tend to depart from them. This primarily occurs because it is our own conflict. And even foreign correspondents find it easier to understand this now. For many of those who begin to work here are aware that it is not exactly a civil war or not a civil war at all. They may be aware of this conflict’s crucial importance for the world. They thus begin to deviate from these standards. I have already cited an example, when the editor-in-chief of Ukraine Today suggested that I bring into my material some emotional theses that are very seldom used in Western informational journalism. We found a child from an orthodox Jewish family and conducted an interview. The editor suggested using approximately the following phrase: ‘This man destroys the common cliche that depicts the Ukrainian army as intolerant, racist, and fascist.’ This adds an emotional coloring. But the point is that we must shatter stereotypes. We were not the first to launch an information war, and if the latter did not concern us, we would not be sometimes departing from journalistic standards. Yet the main objective of journalism is to spread credible information about what is going on. And we are doing this: we supply information from the other side of the conflict and use a lot of sources to confirm information.”

You have seen very much in the ATO zone. Did you have a feeling of self-censorship?

“In Mykolaivka, our military unintentionally hit a building, killing somebody. We showed this. But, in general, there was not a single instance of the Ukrainian army intentionally shelling residential neighborhoods. This must be known. If you have some intelligence data, you will see that it is written ‘Shooting strictly prohibited’ if the rebels’ positions are near civilian dwellings. But this is a problem. You can show a shootout or a war crime if this is really taking place. But, in reality, these are isolated incidents. On the other hand, people may, as a result, gain an impression that it is common practice. The only way out of this situation is to show breaches of the customs and rules of war committed by not only our, but also the other, side. There should be trust in our military.

“When we were filming the bodies of dead Russian gunmen, there was a wish to show some close-ups. But we refused to do so. The point is they used to be live humans. If they treat in this [cruel] way our hostages, soldiers, and dead, this does not mean we must do the same. There was also a situation with a girl who lost her parents – we turned down the material. We could have insisted on showing, but we didn’t do so, for this might have done harm. This is the way self-censorship looks.”

How should the information war be counteracted?

“I suggested establishing a single coordination center on this matter. All we can do to neutralize the information war now being waged against us is to coordinate our actions. Volunteers are helping the army very much, but they often do it chaotically and out of proportion. Likewise, the actions of the media, not of individual journalists, should be also coordinated. Journalist should just do their work in a professional, high-quality, and balanced manner.”

You have covered a lot of military conflicts in various countries. What impact has the “home war” had on you as a journalist?

“The situation is extremely difficult and in no way homelike. The footage calls to mind the Caucasian, Ossetian, and Chechen wars. It is not comfortable at all. This war is an eye-opener of sorts: it is often clear to me that I knew neither Ukraine nor people. I used to underestimate some and overestimate others.”

In what does this war differ from the ones you’ve covered before?

“Although it is a 21st-century war, it resembles hostilities at the turn of the 20th century – it is artillery that really matters now, while the aviation factor has been reduced to the minimum. At the same time, they use computerized reconnaissance and information warfare tactics, and such a powerful thing as mass-scale neurolinguistic programming. So, artillery is a past-centuries’ technology. For example, the guys at a checkpoint told me they lived in a dugout and slept with mice. And, very likely, there are some World War One-time diseases there. At the same time, they use laser-assisted target designation, tablets, Facebook, etc. To see how a Ukrainian serviceman feels in a 2014 war, you should read Remarque’s books. It is an interesting cocktail of epochs.”