The launch  of Ukrainian Euronews was marked by a scandal: highlighting the opposition protest actions on the Independence Day, the channel understated the number of participants and generally gave rather selective image of the events. Oppositional Yulia Tymoshenko's Bloc appealed to the founders of the channel asking to prevent pro-government popularization. The head of Ukrainian office Fidel Pavlenko denied the charges of being politically committed and told that "hundreds" of participants instead of "thousands" of them appeared in the news due to some unpleasant mistake.

The word "mistake" appears regularly in those apologetic comments that we can see under online articles highlighting this situation. The activity of the White-blue was betrayed by Bankova's PR managers not being indifferent to the Ukrainian Euronews false start. It is not strange, as the government was first accused of manipulations with the Euronews long before they appeared in Ukraine.

The idea of the National Television Company of Ukraine (NTCU) joining the Euronews shareholders was presented by the Orange government in 2005. Ukrainian variant of this channel should have been promoting European integration, giving appropriate image of Ukraine to the world and"displacing Russian point of view on TV screens". Viktor Yushchenko, Mykola Tomenko and Taras Stets'kiv could hardly imagine that in six years Euronews executive director Michael Peters would thank Ukrainian government for cooperation , referring to Yanukovych and Azarov.  

During the five years of the Orange government this issue appeared in the media time after time, though it was not paid a lot of attention to. In 2008 the government - unwillingly - envisaged in the budget of 2009 Ukraine's joining Euronews. The cooperation started together with the negotiations: NTCU bought rights for translation and broadcasting of Euronews 15 minutes news selections, having postponed the formation of the national office till the time when it would have enough money. The broadcasting of this TV show started  in the prime time of Channel 1 in November of 2009. The heads of the governmental television company were not dutiful enough to pay in time, so they got into several million hryvnyas debt .

Suddenly new government repaid the debts and found necessary 85.5 million hryvnyas for Ukrainian office, having taken the money form the orphans and low-income citizens.

The opposition protested against such redeployment of budget funds, as well as against expected appointment of vice-head of NTCU Valid Arfush to the position of the head of the Euronews Ukrainian office. The government and Arfush desperately justified themselves. Meanwhile, the events were moving rapidly. On October 21, 2010 the agreement of Ukrainian office establishment was signed, in a few days the contract of journalists was announced. The actions and statements of NTCU during the preparation stage were rather calming: European standards, French editorial control, BBC journalist Fidel Pavlenko in the lead of the office. Everything was apparently decent.

But why did the White-blue government think that it was worth spending 5 million Euros per year? Why would Regions party need Euronews in fact?

The content of Ukrainian Euronews is available via the satellite, via ua.euronews.net (online broadcasting and video clips with text) and also via 6 minutes broadcast in the air of Channel 1. It is hard to define its audience in Ukraine. Cable and satellite TV companies have been broadcasting English and Russian Euronews for a rather long time, but our mass audience somehow has not shown extreme interest to the "internationals", especially it concerns the audience of Channel 1. And Ukrainian and post-Soviet news do not appear on the Euronews everyday.

In a new season a telltale time 3.15 p.m. was chosen for this curtailed broadcast of Euronews on the national channel. Broad day when everyone is at work. In the weekends, when people have greater opportunity to watch TV and finally see the Euronews on Channel 1, they could not find a place for it in the broadcasting. Previously mentioned 15 minutes turned into 6 minutes. So it is one more show that is broadcasted not to be seen.

A year ago the leaders of NTCU declared their intention to get broadcasting license for Euronews. The channel with government financing and powerful western partner could be a great rival to such companies as Real Estate TV or Pohoda TV in the struggle for a place in digital multiplex. But it appeared that Euronews broadcasting did not interest NTCU anymore, as they did not give an application.

It seems that Ukrainian party is more interested in being a part of Euronews network more than in spreading its Ukrainian content all over the country.

Perhaps the government intends to use this respectable news resource to improve its image abroad? Miserable Ukrainian other languages broadcasting does not suit this task, and advertising articles in The Washington Post or Le Figaro cost too much. Considerable part of budget is already assigned to the promotion of Ukraine via Euronews; first of all it concerns the promotion of Euro 2012 football championship, as the future success of the Regions Party on the parliamentary elections depend on its apparent success. It is not difficult to imagine what "sprytko" and "harnyunia" will be shown to the world by Yuriy Kaplunenko production. But at least a bit of "Ukraine with humane face" would be a success to the regime which has no sympathy, either on the East, or on the West. And it would add one more point to the humble list of Yanukovych's steps towards the European integration.

Besides, the Ukrainian government will sleep better if the audience of popular international channel learns about the events in Ukraine from Kyiv office under the supervision of Valid Arfush. And it will be even better if a European is in the lead of the office.

The hypnotism of foreign names and loud brands works on Ukrainians perfectly. In fact, our big shots and the leaders of NTCU play games with us when they call Euronews the golden standard of journalist impartiality.

Euronews means common point of view of many countries, and not only European, over the world events. In order to obtain coherent picture from different elements of this "facet eye", and in order for these elements not to be controversial, the materials indeed should be given impartially and without any political commitment. This is what basic services of the channel (English, French and others of Western Europe) really do. At the same time, the leaders of the channel are very tolerant to the national identity of, for example, Russian, Arab or Turkish services. Telekrytyka has already given the examples of this "identity". Or you may think of the story of different highlighting of the "egg attempt on Yanukovych's life" by different Euronews services.

And even more, highlighting such sore subject for one of the Euronews founders as genocide of the Armenians, that is denied by Turkey, almost all national offices are ready to moderate and ignore the facts that their neighbours would not like. This is not a rule however, and it is neither an exception.

Well, such approach is at least understandable. Euronews is not an "enemy voice" called for taking democratic propaganda to the totalitarian countries. Not only social TV companies are among the founders of the channel, but also state ones, as All-Russian State Radio and Television Company or our NTCU. It means that the governments of Russia, Ukraine, Tunisia, Algeria and Egypt indirectly own the parts of Euronews. If the channel is interested in broadcasting in these countries, it has at least to mind the interests and sore points of "shareholding" countries.

Thus, Euronews news consists of the common picture and the text that every service writes at discretion. Certain services make it on the grounds of professional journalisms, but others... well, they do it on the other grounds. What would happen if news turned to be perverted in one of the services? Nothing.

For example, here are the texts for Olexiy Pukach confession, given by English, Russian and Ukrainian Euronews:

The headlines show that Ukrainian service deliberately moderated the news. The report of the news in form of disproof is very common way of manipulation. It is obvious that the main news is that Kuchma was named among those who ordered Gongadze's murder and not the fact that ex-president's lawyers denied his guilt (oh, what a surprise!). Such accentuation in the news would be possible if the audience already knew about the shadow that was cast on Kuchma by the Pukach's confessions. But searching the Ukrainian version of the site gives no more results on the words "Kuchma" and "Pukach" but for this material.

Very first seconds of the material gave reasons to doubt the professionalism of the Ukrainian journalist who wrote the text to the common video. It starts with the words "Leonid Kuchma's lawyers claimed that they have proofs of ex-president not being involved" and for all these six seconds we see Gongadze's portrait on the screen. Voice-over says the name of murdered journalist only afterwards, when we see an unknown cameraman on the lawn of Pechersk district court and then - a police car.

The more the merrier. The text "On the Tuesday hearing Pukach named those who ordered the journalist's murder. The then President Leonid Kuchma, the then minister of the interior Yuriy Kravchenko and the then head of President's Administration Volodymyr Lytvyn were among them" is supported with the video of Olexiy Pukach' arrest. When voice-over names Kuchma, Kravchenko and Lytvyn we can see only close-up of Pukach on the screen. But when the text is about Pukach - we see Kuchma, that well-known video from Epicentre show of Vyacheslav Pikhovshek in which the then President has a hot discussion with Gongadze. The only person whose image matches the name in voice-over is Lytvyn.

According to the common video, given to the Ukrainian office, as well as to the rest offices, the story should be given this way:

1. The names of those who ordered Gongadze's murder (the picture of Gongadze)

2. Hearing in closed session (the court)

3. Who is Pukach and his words (the arrest of Pukach)

4. The accused Kuchma, Kravchenko, Lytvyn (Epicentre, Lytvyn on the rostrum)

5. Kuchma's lawyers deny his involvement

6. The background of Gongadze's case (the picture of Gongadze)

Russian and English materials more or less follow this layout. French material, that can be considered the source, also sticks to this. Ukrainians have turned it upside down in order to make the point of Kuchma's being not guilty the main one.

There can be no doubt that Fidel Pavlenko would find some explanation to this, as he did with irrelevant highlighting of the Independence Day events. And of course, one or two materials of Ukrainian Euronews are not enough to make final conclusions or to stick labels. No man is wise at all times.

Still the examined material can be great example of the fact proving that Ukrainian Euronews can be "different" and no French editorial control guarantees the absence of manipulations. Because the audience all over the world heard that "This crime was supposedly connected with the critics of the government in the materials of the journalist" (and what is it connected with now? Is it the prevention of the upheaval?)

Different factors may provoke the professional journalist to make "mistakes". It is especially well-known to those Ukrainian Euronews journalists who went through the Inter channel-school of survival in the profession.

There was a time when Russian opinion concerning the war in Georgia did not coincide with the Western European one, but it was no problem for the leaders of the news channel. They would accept Ukrainian "national identity" as they did with Russian one before, if it was necessary.

Moreover, according to Arfush, soon "local news about Ukraine" will be on air, broadcasted only on the territory of Ukraine. This is a great opportunity for the government to spread its propaganda under the respectable name of Euronews all over the necessary territory, without teasing Europe and diaspora. It needs additional financing from the government. And there is one open-ended question: Who in Ukraine is it meant for?

And one more point. Will the government continue to find 5 (or more) million Euros per year for Ukrainian Euronews in the budget after the parliamentary elections and football championship? Or will Ukrainian Euronews turn to be the first closed Euronews service?

Otar Dovzhenko for Telekrytyka