Navigating the delicate balance between responsible reporting, self-censorship, information security, and timely government critique in the media landscape.
In recognition of World Press Freedom Day on May 3, Detector Media sought insights from Ukrainian journalists concerning their perspectives on maintaining information restraint during wartime, self-censorship practices, and instances where silence cannot be an option.
The majority of journalists participating in the survey consciously withhold certain information to prevent potential harm to the nation, demoralization of Ukrainian society, or helping the enemy.
Andriy Tsapliyenko, a journalist for 1+1 TV channel’s TSN daily news program, admits to self-censorship when reporting on matters related to the well-being, security, and health of Ukrainian soldiers on the battlefield. He explains his self-censorship approach: “I avoid revealing positions, discussing tactical plans, sharing information that could jeopardize military operations, mentioning names that might endanger lives, or displaying the quantity of equipment used in specific operations.”
Tsaplienko encourages fellow journalists to exercise responsibility in their reporting, taking a moment to review their stories before publication and ensuring that no harmful details have been inadvertently included.
He shares an anecdote: “Recently, while preparing a story, I overlooked a detail that could have influenced the situation. Fortunately, I was able to have someone else review my work, and the detail was spotted and addressed.”
Anastasiya Volkova, a military correspondent for the FreeDom TV channel, practices self-censorship when confronted with the possibility of giving the enemy a platform: “It’s evident that the Ukrainian military is also targeting Russian positions, which could theoretically affect the local population. However, I self-censor because I must not provide the invaders with a voice, defend their actions, justify them, or imply that the war goes both ways.”
Tetiana Nikolayenko, an investigative journalist for Censor.net, spent 27 days in occupied territory. She recalls that Russian soldiers threatened her with execution while demanding she discloses the positions of the Territorial Defence forces. If her captors had discovered she was a journalist, they might have executed her. Regarding self-censorship, Tetiana also adheres to the “do no harm” principle.
“The war has a serious impact in this regard. Had some events occurred two years ago, I would have certainly stirred up a public scandal. However, in this situation, I remained silent. I spent more time editing my appeal to [Defence] Minister Reznikov than writing it, taking care not to break any laws or cause harm,” said Tetiana.
Many journalists reference the “do no harm” principle, which some describe as a filter or commandment to assess whether a piece is necessary, beneficial, or detrimental to the nation. Anastasiya Shybiko, director of Free Radio in Bakhmut, mentions that they applied this informal filter even before the full-scale invasion, but now they scrutinize everything more closely.
“We do practice self-censorship. On one occasion, we removed a publication at the request of certain individuals, as it could potentially harm them,” Anastasiya elaborates.
Yuriy Nikolov, investigative journalist and founder of the Nashi Groshi project, also recounts instances of publications that had to be taken down: “Sometimes, government agencies request that our newsroom remove materials containing sensitive information. We comply with such requests, even if we believe the concerns are excessive. It’s better to err on the side of caution.”
Regarding self-censorship, Nikolov argues that it is appropriate to withhold any information that does not contribute to Ukraine’s victory. In other words, the criterion for publishing information is whether it will help the nation win.
“After the full-scale invasion, I was asked to investigate a land plot potentially suitable for constructing an underground military headquarters. I realized that if I were to pursue this story (which likely involved corruption) and publicize it, our enemy would learn about our plans for the headquarters. Consequently, I declined to investigate this story, along with numerous others of a similar nature,” the journalist shares.
Yaroslav Ivanochko, editor-in-chief of Zahid.net, emphasizes that striking a balance between freedom of speech and wartime censorship requires evaluating each case individually within the newsroom, considering potential impact and harm.
“National interests take precedence over traffic, even if it sounds pretentious,” Yaroslav Ivanochko clarifies.
Oleksandr Kharchenko, CEO of Ukrinform, asserts that chasing traffic and ratings is impermissible:
“Exploiting the war for sensationalism and manipulation is unacceptable. It’s impermissible to play on emotions and add stress to readers in pursuit of ratings and clicks, as they are already burdened enough. Predictions from ‘psychics’ about imminent city bombardments or pseudo-expert analyses regarding the timing of counteroffensives and the war’s end are not only irresponsible but criminal. Such information could potentially influence crucial life decisions made by those who hear it.”
Vadym Karpyak, host of the Svoboda Slova [Freedom of Speech] talk show on ICTV and the United News telethon, observes that the pursuit of exclusivity often supersedes adherence to moral and ethical standards. He contends that these boundaries are subtle and cannot be explicitly defined as rules or exceptions.
“A journalist faces these choices daily in various situations. The decisions are always personal and contextual. There are no universal guidelines. The only certainty is the identity of the enemy. Beyond that, one must discern and determine everything else,” Karpyak explains.
Does the “do no harm” filter apply to criticism of the Ukrainian government?
At the onset of the full-scale war, the government recognized that publicizing certain topics could aid enemy forces, prompting a shift to silence mode and restricting access to many public registers. These registers were crucial information sources for numerous media outlets, including those involved in anti-corruption work. Naturally, some Ukrainian officials sought to exploit the situation.
“The boundaries for criticizing the government lie exactly where the government’s activities (in particular, its corruption component) begin to threaten the security of the state and citizens,” says Tetiana Nikolayenko of Censor.net. “Journalists have not criticized the government for almost a year and have tried to be a united front. But within this front, there can be no room for the road construction scams of Reznichenko’s team [the former head of the Dnipro Regional State Administration, who was dismissed by the President of Ukraine after journalistic investigations into his activities - DM], nor the abuses of individual officials and businessmen in the procurement of weapons and logistics for the army. There can be no schemes with “black” grain, no blindness of customs officers, no eternal schemes of the “gray” tobacco market, and no creation of back offices at the largest companies.
Free Radio’s Bakhmut-based editorial office does not self-censor when frontline authorities conceal information or refuse to comment. According to director Anastasiya Shybiko, journalists cannot stay silent when someone attempts to manipulate or exploit martial law restrictions.
“For example, when they say that the publication of salaries of Donetsk region officials could harm the territorial integrity and security of the state. This is nonsense. We believe that we are talking about officials who are compensated by taxpayers and are public, so this information should be open,” explains Anastasiya.
Anastasiya Ravva, Espresso TV channel’s editor-in-chief, contends that the boundary between “do no harm” and a threat to free speech is incredibly narrow, with authorities often assigning too many processes to wartime situations.
“Everything associated with ‘do no harm’ is explicitly outlined and regulated by Order No. 73 of the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, which we follow,” she explains. However, this concept is frequently manipulated to cover up corruption, abuse, and media pressure, as well as complex issues that could influence government support or position. According to Ravva, addressing problems and not concealing crimes is crucial to avoid sliding into dictatorship, and self-censorship should not be practiced.
According to Anastasiya Ravva, the work of the media is based on clear standards and rules for working with information. Accordingly, if they are followed, there is no need for self-censorship: “When we start talking about self-censorship, whether we like it or not, we start accepting censorship itself as a fact. First, you restrict yourself, and then others will start to restrict you: the authorities, the owner, etc. And this becomes the norm. Censorship cannot be the norm in a democratic society. This is a clear sign that the wrong processes are taking place. First, they determine what can and cannot be said, and then they just try to shut you up. I believe that freedom of speech should not be forgotten, even in times of war. Especially during a war in which we are confronting a terrorist country whose first step on its way to dictatorship was banning independent, free media.”
Alisa Yurchenko, a journalist with the Bihus.info project, said that their editorial team found a solution to the dilemma of the limits of criticizing the Ukrainian government during the war with two internal rules: “The first is to keep a balance of topics and distribute attention. As an investigative newsroom, we cover not only the dark side of the Ukrainian government but also Russian military actions and war crimes. The topic of exposing the aggressor was our main focus in the first six months of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and now it takes up at least half of our content.
The second rule is that we cover those “anti-cases” of the Ukrainian authorities in which we have no doubt about the interpretation of events and the consequences of decisions made by officials. Roughly speaking, we choose those topics where the negative consequences of decisions, actions, or inaction of government officials are beyond doubt, where coverage can have a positive impact on cost savings or the efficiency of other processes within the state machine. Each case is, of course, considered individually, and it is difficult to impose one general approach on all stories.”
Oleh Paniuta, the host of the My Ukrayina TV channel, believes that the problem lies in the fact that government officials and journalists have different understandings of the degree of freedom and the need for censorship. According to him, government officials have always, and now even more so, believed that the less said, the better. However, Ukrainian society and Ukrainian journalists as representatives of society, while self-censoring, also understand the responsibility and feel the danger when they say “not at this time” instead of answering. According to the host, the degree of our freedom, democracy, and the possibility of journalistic work tomorrow depends on the questions of journalists during the war, as well as on the answers of specific officials. “The more we give them the opportunity to ‘screw us over’ now, the more difficult or even impossible it will be to return to normal life and remind them that the war is not an excuse to do their dark deeds and deals,” says Oleh Paniuta.
During the first six months of the full-scale war, many topics were postponed at the Kharkiv Anti-Corruption Center. Investigative journalist Pavlo Novik said that over time, the newsroom realized that they could no longer turn a blind eye. “There are problems with access to registers and responses to inquiries. Now there are fewer and fewer topics that are worth keeping silent about. But as for the military, it will be a difficult story. I can give you an example: a recent sentence for a collaborator. The verdict states that the person passed on information about the location of the military. The verdict also states that the soldiers were in the school building. And there is a dilemma: should we talk about the school or not?”
Until May 2022, the editorial office of the Odesa-based newspaper Dumskaya operated under a strict self-censorship scheme. According to editor-in-chief Oleh Konstantinov, it later became clear that some government officials began to use this suppression of information to the public’s detriment. For example, when the complete ban on the sale of alcoholic beverages was introduced at the beginning of the full-scale war.
“Most small shops in Odesa survive by selling such products, and some of the entrepreneurs started selling alcohol under the table,” explains Oleh Konstantinov, “So the police started raiding with fake buyers and simply seized the goods without drawing up any reports or protocols. This is just one example, and there were many such abuses. Even on the websites of local authorities, access to draft decisions was denied, lists of local council members and names of judges in the court register were unavailable, and the court register of criminal proceedings did not work for some time. The cadastral map and the real estate register are still down.”
For the first six months after the invasion, the founder of Nashi Hroshi, Yuriy Nikolov, was a member of an unofficial coalition of investigative journalists who decided to ignore Ukrainian corruption because the issues of physical survival and events on the battlefield were more pressing. But then his personal boundaries of what was permissible shifted towards the widest possible coverage of corruption:
“Because it has become apparent to me that the crisis is an opportunity, and the war may be our last opportunity to change the country from within, to change the relationship of the government and society with corruption, reducing tolerance to this phenomenon. Because if we come out of the war with the same corrupt ‘deep state’ as before, it will be even harder for us to change.”
Nikolov says that many officials are using the war as an opportunity to steal even more, while for a large number of them, the war has also become an excuse to forget about bad corruption practices, and this is evident in procurement.
“Today, you open information about a procurement where the price was guaranteed to be doubled before the invasion, and you see that everything is fine, even cheaper than in the store. So, publicity and journalistic exposés are having an impact,” the journalist said.
What should not be kept silent during the war
Inna Vedernikova, the editor of ZN.UA’s politics department, says that in the first weeks of the full-scale aggression, Dzerkalo Tyzhnia was more of a piercing summary of news from the battlefield.
“I found the strength to write my first text only on March 16,” says the editor. “It was my mourning of a friend who died of shelling in Irpin near the entrance to his house. We were all zombies on adrenaline, doing our work from the basements of high-rise buildings scattered all over Ukraine, from the cars we used to evacuate our children... We were all in one fist with our army, the president, mayors, volunteers, our neighbors.
Then the Russians were driven out of the Kyiv region and northern Ukraine, and we all exhaled a little together with the country. But only to consciously breathe in a new terrible reality, in particular, the post-occupation reality.”
It is impossible to remain silent when Russian troops are shelling Ukrainian homes and killing children. Anastasiya Volkova from the FreeDom channel recalled one of the shellings of Sloviansk: “A two-year-old child was being pulled out of the rubble. I was just torn up with horror and pain when I saw the mother screaming and crying next to me. At that moment, they pulled out the body of her husband, and there was the child too... And I understand that it is painful for an ordinary viewer. But you cannot avoid showing it because you see it with your own eyes, and you want to show everyone what a horrible thing the Russian army is doing.”
The journalist says that there were similar cases in Bakhmut when the crew saw the bodies of civilians: “I disagreed when they were blurred. I wanted it to be shown as much as possible, not just some white spot that was the body of someone who was alive an hour ago. We have a war going on, and I am faced with the fact that when I come from Donbas to Dnipro, Vinnytsia, or Kyiv, people ask me, ‘What’s going on there? It’s quiet here. Everything is fine here.’ It’s quiet here, but you have to understand that there are places where it’s not quiet every day.”
Serhiy Nikitenko, editor-in-chief of the Kherson-based newspaper Most, believes that it is impossible to remain silent in cases of tolerance of pro-Russian movements or politicians, especially by the authorities. In his opinion, there should be no legitimization of pro-Russian movements, parties, or other actors.
Alisa Yurchenko of Bihus.info is convinced that we should not remain silent when officials enter into contracts with significant overpayments from the state or local budgets, or when officials get appointed for their loyalty rather than for their competence, knowledge, and experience, when open competitions are disrupted for the sake of controlled candidates or when contracts are transferred to affiliated legal entities.
Oleksandr Yeltsov, host of the nightly news show “Suspilne. Resistance,” noted that Russia’s full-scale war against Ukraine has shown that there are no topics that are “not appropriate” and has exposed many unresolved issues. “Despite the tragic events in our country, our society is now developing and being reborn. Therefore, in my opinion, journalists should address all topics, even the most ‘uncomfortable’ ones: corruption at all levels, Russian money and business in the Ukrainian market, the presence and influence of Russian agents in Ukraine, the rights of the LGBTQ+ community, the rights of the military, and people with disabilities. In my opinion, the only topic that one should be very careful about is military operations. Here, I prefer to rely only on the information available from official sources,” says Oleksandr.
According to publicist and TV presenter Vitaliy Portnikov, the war limits the competence of journalists in military matters, but it does not limit the discussion of political issues when warranted.
“Since political life is virtually non-existent in wartime, there are not many political discussions,” Portnikov says. “Although there is obvious nostalgia on the part of politicians, especially the authorities, for a political process that does not occur and which is not known as to when it will begin. At the same time, I rely on another paradigm: the question of the existence of the Ukrainian state in the current circumstances is not resolved, and the state may be lost, and Ukrainians may be exiled if Ukraine suffers a military defeat. Therefore, we need to preserve institutions, realizing their importance for the survival of the state and their sustainability in the event of its disappearance from the political map of the world and its displacement into exile.”
