During November 17-22, "Inter" and "Ukrayina" helped "Opposition block" affirm its role of a spokesman and advocate of the interests of the occupied territories, mercilessly criticizing the government for the decision to stop the work of “Oshchadbank” at the territories of Donetsk and Luhansk regions that are controlled by the separatists. The channels of StarLightMedia group tried to fight the initiative to ban advertising of medicines on television. The war on single-member districts did not stop, but became less important. The news aired ‘parquet” materials on Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk.

The order of news during daily programs was dictated not by social importance of the topics, but the owners’ interests. The talk shows presented tendencies that give hope for change in their quality.

Daily news during November, 17-22 (detailed monitoring)

On November 17, “Ukrayina” alongside "Inter" and STB protected judges from lustration. In the material, there is only one comment in favor of the abolition of the lustration law, and there are no comments of the law’s authors and supporters.

In the material on the investigation of Malaysian plane crush, “Sobitiya” manipulated the audience using the video of alleged conversation between Kolomoyskyi with prankster who presented himself as Hubariev. There is no reply from Kolomoyskyi not to mention the fact that the authenticity of the video is not confirmed. Akhmetov’s channel continues to praise its owner in every issue.

During the week, "Ukrayina" joined "Inter" and used the theme of hunger in the occupied territories as an opportunity to criticize the government. The materials air one-sided accusations toward government agencies. “Ukrayina" does not give the government the possibility to respond to criticism while promoting people close to Akhmetov like Donetsk mayor in exile Oleksandr Lukyanchenko or the deputies from “Opposition block" who do not lose an opportunity to criticize the government. The materials have no balance. Moreover, "Ukrayina" unreasonably uses the comments of "Opposition block" to discuss the coalition.

Alongside "Inter", Akhmetov’s channel participated in the war on single-member districts led by “Opposition block." On November 19, the channels supported Serhiy Sazhko.

On November 17, "Inter" published the first of a series about the difficult conditions of people who stayed on the occupied territories. Starting the following day, “Podrobnosti” used this topic to criticize the government and the National Bank for refusing to pay the money in the occupied territories. "Opposition block" joins the criticism, but the authorities are not given an opportunity to respond. The representatives of this political force appeared on the channel few times without any significant reasons.

In the material about the problems in the Ministry of Culture, the newsroom violates the standard of separating facts from comments. This channel addressed this topic twice a week. In the second video that had a huge critique of Euhen Nyschuk, the channel imitated balance by giving a comment of the Minister where he did not respond to criticism in the material.

The channel continued to participate in the war on single-member districts supporting the candidates Vadym Nesterenko and Serhiy Sahzko. In addition, it continued the black PR against Ihor Kolomoyskyi and accusations against his companies without the ability to answer to them. “Inter” also mentioned the alleged conversation of Kolomoyskyi with prankster who pretended he was Hubariev.

This week, “Podrobnosti” also had parquet material on the President, as well as corporate advertising in favor of the channel’s owner Dmytro Firtash.

Without a reason, "Inter" included Oleh Lyashko into the material on volunteers helping soldiers.  Serhiy Lyovochkin commented the coalition agreement.

November 17 was the first time when “1+1” aired a material about another participant of “anti-Kolomoyskyi” coalition Viktor Pinchuk. TSN described the luxurious home of Leonid Kuchma’s daughter Olena Pinchuk. The material violates the standards of reliability and separating facts from comments. In the same issue, TSN had unreasonable PR of the Deputy Head of Dnipropetrovsk Regional State Administration Anatoliy Adamskyi.

TSN supports former member of the Party of Regions and now, unaffiliated candidate Oleksandr Kuzmuk in the 38th district, and it uses the comment of his authorized representative only. The positions of other parties of the conflict are not shown.

"1+1" also addressed the topic of hunger in the occupied territories, but spoke only about people protesting against the authorities of self-proclaimed republics.

In the material of Ukrainians detained in Greece, "1+1" violates the standards of reliability and accuracy.

On November 21, TSN alongside "Inter" and “Ukrayina” started praising the President’s wife who accompanied the wife of the US Vice President Joe Biden.

"Fakty" on ICTV reported on the interview Poroshenko gave the German newspaper Bild, but this information was actually outdated and violated the standard of timeliness. The material on National Bank picket violates the balance standard.

Alongside other channels, ICTV joined the latest trends in broadcasting parquet news about the President. Together with STB, the channel also broadcasted the statements made by Yatsenyuk which had no information causes. Pinchuk’s channels also paid attention to the fact that their owner was awarded a medal in honor of Andriy Sheptytskyi for the development of Ukrainian-Jewish relations.

On November 18, the channel had a suspicious material about the legislative initiative of the party "Batkivshchyna” without experts’ comment and representatives of other political forces. On November 21, ICTV paid excessive attention to Yuliya Tymoshenko.

In the material on how the Cabinet banned large consumers to buy gas from anyone other than "Naftohaz», ICTV violated standards of authenticity and separating facts from comments. Also, "Fakty" aired unbalanced material on the ban of advertising medicines without the position of initiators of the ban. The material on this subject with the balance violation appeared at the end of the week, too.

STB and “Inter" were the only ones that did not cover the judges’ protest against lustration. However, STB covered the hunger issue on the occupied territories. The channel actively criticized the initiative to ban advertising of medicines on television. The position of the initiators is not shown.

"Vikna" described the disappearance of funds in Kharkiv communal plants, but the material did provide Kernes and Dobkin the opportunity to respond to the accusations.

The news on the First National showed some noticeable improvements; although there are still many parquet materials, there are more videos focused on particular people.

5th channel aired a parquet material about Petro Poroshenko.

The amount of “paid news” has stabilized with 40 materials within a week. A week before, there were 39 of them, and the week before the elections, there were 174.

“Ukrayina” had the most paid news (17), and then, it was “Inter” with 16 materials. Rinat Akhmetov paid for news the most (8), and then, it was “Opposition block" (7). Many videos were against the government and/or Ihor Kolomoyskyi.

Weekly programs on November, 23 (detailed monitoring)

The weekly news on November 23 showed one more time that the newsrooms aired materials not based on the social importance of the topics, but based on editorial policy that was often used as a mask to cover owners’ or ratings’ desires. In fact, when the newsrooms criticized the government for not changing anything this year, they did not mention the fact that their journalism did not change either.

Euromaidan anniversary was the main topic for all the channels expect “Sobitiya niedieli” on “Ukrayina”. Although the latter mentioned it, the channel did it involuntarily, as if speaking about usual anniversary. But the first half of the program consisted of the materials with hints of corporate advertising. The materials tried to: a) convince the audience that repealing social payments for Donbas residents was bad; b) one more time advertise Akhmetov’s charity showing that he supported the life in the region despite the pressure of the central government; c) use Holodomor anniversary as a manipulative topic as if prevent the possible threat of this tragedy repeating now.

"Fakty tyzhnia” on ICTV were restraint while speaking about Euromaidan anniversary, and were not very original, either. The material is based on chronological description of the events. The journalist Kateryna Zinovieva used this chronology and profiles of interesting protesters for her video.

In the material on Yanukovych supporters who fled the country, the channel showed an exclusive interview with Andriy Portnov, First Deputy Head of the Administration of Yanukovych.

“Sobitiya niedieli” on “Ukrayina” paid the least attention to the anniversary comparing to the other channels. The video on this topic came out almost at the end of the program. In the beginning (whether purposefully or no), the anchor Oleh Panyuta explains how Maidan led to Crimea annexation, events on Donbas, and the tragedy in Odesa that took place on May 2.

"TSN. Tyzhden" on "1+1" began the program with the material on Maidan, but spoke of war at the same time, making the anniversary appear secondary. The channel also used the topic of anniversary as a reason to analyze the changes of domestic and international policies. The newsroom spoke about Maidan participants who are now fighting in Donbas, and also analyzed the investigation of the February shootings. "TSN. Tyzhden " also paid attention to the fate of the assets stolen by Yanukovych associates.

"Podrobnosti Niedieli" on "Inter" dedicated the entire program to Maidan. Pluralism of opinions shown in the videos aired from different cities played a cruel joke on the channel. When a journalist asked the “voice” of Lviv protest Sofiya Fedyna about her mood while celebrating the anniversary, she spoke about the causes for the existing problems like the currency depreciation, war and so on. She also mentioned “Inter” as a cause. The anchor Dmytro Anopchenko responded to her statement by saying he could not comment the work of his colleagues because different journalists worked on the channel during Maidan.

During the broadcast, the anchor often speculated the topic of the possibility of a "third Maidan." Guests in the studio - Boryslav Bereza and Oleh Tyahnybok - contributed to this. Also, there was a material on the fate of Yanukovych’s former allies and their wealth. The newsroom practically ignored the absence of the investigations results of the executions on Maidan. Roman Bochkalo’s material about revolutionaries fighting on the East was quite similar to the video by Andriy Tsapliyenko of "1+1".

5th Channel is the only one that made events’ analysis more politicized. At the very beginning, there is a comment of the channel’s owner and the President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko, who sees the changes already. But the material is not only about positive aspects, but things that were not accomplished, too. The statements are supported with the various opinions of the activists.

"Chas. Pidsymky Tyzhnia” also analyzed the situation with the investigation of the February shootings. The conclusions are the same as for other channels: the investigation is not moving forward.

After long negotiations, the channels’ interest to the topic of coalition has dropped. “Inter” did not cover this topic. ICTV reported the end of the negotiations with a separate material where the journalist Volodymyr Sokolov subjectively chose the main parts of the agreement. He chooses the abolition of parliamentary immunity as one of the important points. However, for some reason, he says that it is “too early to rejoice” making people think that immunity abolition is a good thing although this issue is controversial.

The channel "Ukrayina" did not prepare a material about the coalition agreement, but in the middle of the program, Oleh Panyuta spoke about signing it. Panyuta focused on several promises set forth in the document, and added that the document will come into power after being signed by official deputies. The information is supported with the commentary by Arseniy Yatsenyuk.

"1+1" mentioned the coalition agreement in the material about Ukrainians expecting reforms and the current credibility level of the government. The channel is the only one that stated that coalition was finally signed after the visit of American Vice President Joe Biden. Also, the correspondent Serhiy Shvets correctly connects these two events, indicating that there is “high probability” that the American politician pushed Ukrainian colleagues to sign the agreement. However, this statement is not supported with any comments that could be quite convincing. 

"5th Channel" spoke about coalition agreement in the end of the program. According to “Chas. Pidsymky Tyzhnia”, the coalition agreement was signed not because of Biden coming to Ukraine, but because of the night meeting of the future deputies. The channel did not quite explain the position of Mykhaylo Havryliuk on the deputies’ immunity.

The newsroom of “Chas. Pidsumky Tyzhnia” does not provide many details regarding 70 pages of the coalition agreement. The journalist, similarly to the colleague on ICTV, presents a comment of the opposition, but in negative context mostly stating that the opposition decided to play in democracy and demanded some important sits.

Talk shows "Pravo na pravdu” and “Chorne Dzerkalo” on November 13-14 (detailed monitoring).

Pro-government speakers try to connect two controversial issues: they want to intimidate the citizens with the "Russian threat" and at the same time, convince them that the authorities are doing everything necessary to defend the country. Journalists are starting to ask staged questions.

On the show "Pravo na pravdu" aired on November 13, there were two officials from the President’s team:  Markiyan Lubkivskyy (Advisor to the Chairman of Security Services) and Dmytro Kuleba (Ambassador to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs). Among the experts, there was a former deputy Pavlo Zhebrivskyi, who was titled as a "chief sergeant of the 54th reconnaissance battalion of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, the deputy of the 4-6 convocations."

The prime minister’s position was presented by Andriy Parubiy, the candidate from “Narodnyi Front” and former secretary of the National Security Council. We can also add Petro Shuklinov here, the special correspondent of the Internet-media “Liga.net” whose colleagues Serhiy Vysotskyi also ran for the deputy on the list of "Narodnyi Front".

The position of the owner of "1+1" was represented (according to the author of this monitoring) by two people: Borys Treyherman, Advisor to the Chairman of Dnipropetrovsk Regional Administration, and Yuriy Butusov, the chief editor of the online media "Cenzor.net." Independent experts included human rights activist from Luhansk Kostyantyn Reutskyi, the chairman of Human Rights Centre "Progress", and the general Ihor Romanenko, Deputy Chief of General Staff of Armed Forces in 2006-2010.

Markiyan Lubkivskyi was clearly unprepared for the program, so instead of giving clear answers or being quiet, he tried to distort the facts and experts’ questions. Lubkivskyi’s answers that had no connection to the given questions annoyed even the host. The moment when Lubkivskyi tried to answer the question whether the intelligence services were ready to respond to possible scenario of a deliberate arrangement of artificial hunger on the occupied territories showed that Security Services spokesman was not ready to talk about it and used answers that were prepared in advance.

Yuriy Butusov, known for his highly critical attitude to the President’s and Prime Minister’s team asked the authorities general questions this time. Moreover, instead of acting as a journalist, Butusov suddenly used his right to comment for promoting his own beliefs on how we ought to fight with Russia.

Petro Shuklinov went further. His first question allowed Parubiy to criticize the President’s Administration. During the entire monitoring period, the authors have never seen such an example of “false objectivity" when a political representative is offered to comment on the actions of his political opponent. The next question also turned out to be staged.

Instead of analyzing the mistakes of the recent past, the members of the President’s team tried to clear themselves from all of the responsibility while the Prime Minister’s team tried to pressure the opponents with this responsibility.  Despite the superficial impression of objectivity, the representatives of “1+1” owner defended the Prime Minister.

The highlight of "Chorne dzerkalo” on November 14 had to be the presence of the Security Services Head Valentyn Nalyvaychenko. Yevheniy Kiselyov and Oleksiy Lihkman had to play, respectively, the roles of the good and bad cops. However, Likhman showed nothing, and the audience did not see a truly spicy conversation.

The reason for going so easily on Security Services Head became clear by the end of the first part of the show. Before Nalyvaychenko left the studio, Kiselov managed to ask him provocative question about his attitude toward lustration. In the next part of the talk show, his response was considered as opportunistic and unprofessional. Thus, the viewers could get the impression that the Security Services were headed by the person who does not understand or neglects the law in such an important matter. Instead of an announced talk about the government’s actions to prevent the threats for Ukraine’s citizens, the listeners saw well-prepared performance that was aimed to discredit the current authorities.

Talk show "Shuster Live» on November 21 (detailed monitoring)

The previous Savik Shuster’s program at First National aired during the anniversary of the beginning of Euromaidan. This fact, apparently, defined the program’s concept. In the studio, there was no one from “Opposition Block”, and the entire program was obviously conceived as an appraisal of “Maidan politicians”. It seems that the completion of a contract with First National makes the host drift closer to the current winners in order to show them his professional and political necessity.

The program provided a plenty of time to express personal emotions and memories of the Revolution events, and it all looked quite adequately on the screen. In the main part that discussed coalition agreement and perspectives for the new parliament, young politicians practically got carte blanche from the host in terms of the given time and extraordinary loyalty, which is something Shuster tends to demonstrate recently.

The program once again demonstrated characteristic feature of Ukrainian politicians - regardless of their political orientation, they always prefer the position of "bearers of qualities" to the position of actually “doing concrete tasks”. This was clear when the politicians were trying to discuss the details of the coalition agreement.

As for the young and newly elected deputies who gradually get used to the new status, it is important to say that they failed to use the program’s opportunity to express their opinions. Whether it was consciously done or not, whenever speaking on public, young politicians fell under magical influence of traditional beliefs on the behavior and speeches that are expected from a “politician in general”.

One of the compelling reasons, in our opinion, is a certain political naivety of the new deputies. It has two aspects. The first one is positive in the sense that they may have not yet deeply incorporated into the usual schemes of backroom agreements, and to some extent, it is the key to "fresh" approach to parliamentary activities.

Negative aspect is that this naivety to some extent inhibits the transition from declarations and good intentions into action. The right words in the program by themselves do not write bills and, moreover, they do not provide their successful passage in the parliament.

The access to the program should be used wisely; it is a simple but important lesson of the "benefice" of the young politicians. They were able to speak and said many important things signifying their interests in particular acts. But it is very important to have a professional preparation before the talk show and replace the usual demagoguery into the language of facts and suggestions in order to use the program’s participation for the promotion of specific bills and gaining broad public support.

People on this side of the TV screen seek specificity and accountability from the politicians. Those politicians who are the first to follow this trend have a chance to get extraordinary "dividends". And perhaps, they will be able to fundamentally change the format of the same political talk shows.

Talk shows "Svoboda slova" and "Shuster Live» on November 21 and 28. The summary of the monitoring during September-November 2014.

In his program on the First National, Savik Shuster chose two topics. The first one did not cause any reservations because the program appeared on the eve of the anniversary of the dramatic events such as the acceleration and beating of the students protesting on the Independence Square by the units of special forces called “Berkut”. The host created all the conditions for the invited guests such as former protesters and actually gave up his own role of the host, handing it to the singer and social activist Ruslana Lyzhychko. And he did not fail with this decision.

The talk show began with stories about the events of the previous year when there was an attempt to cancel Shuster’s program on “Inter”, and how the current president Poroshenko could then solve the problem on "the highest level"; and this topic choice was clearly not a coincidence just like Shuster’s remark during the program: “They want to close my program”. In most cases, it is not such a big sin to use one’s program to defend the media product, but we cannot forget that for many times, the program of Savik Shuster (who has got quite a colorful career on Ukraine’s TV) served as a ground floor to implement manipulative schemes of the former government.

Speaking about the chosen topic for the program - "Who is responsible for the acceleration of Maidan?", it is needless to say that there was no one to answer this question in the studio. Nominally, the role of law enforcement system was performed by the Interior Minister adviser Anton Herashchenko who was not prepared to answer this question.

The second part of the program unexpectedly turned into a discussion of candidates for ministerial posts in Yatsenyuk’s second government. In addition, the guests did not discuss the real candidates, but the representatives of the NGO of foreign universities' graduates called “Professional Government." Savik Shuster emphasized that it was just an "experiment", and although unintentionally, he also used a word "simulation" once.

Monday's program (November 24) of "Svoboda slova" on ICTV was much more convincing thanks to the experts in the studio. The discussion focused on the coalition agreement and demonstrated a good knowledge of the document (which is not that common for the talk shows), and experts actively pressured the politicians representing the pro-government coalition (Leonid Yemets and Taras Kutovyi). This, of course, did not prevent the two deputies from using prepared phrases when speaking about their political forces.

Expert activity obviously stimulated the host, Andriy Kulykov, to become much more active while questioning the politicians comparing to his usual, phlegmatic and haughty demeanor.

The conclusions based on monitoring political talk shows in September - November 2014:

TV-channels, the authors and talk shows’ hosts are obviously in a state of looking for a new interaction model both with the audience and the political establishment. The time for change has come, and it is necessary to use its opportunities;

The necessity to change the host’s role is becoming more obvious; the host should no longer be a moderator of the “fight”, but an active journalist who represents public interest and can break down technological "blanks" of the politicians when needed. Figuratively speaking, the host has to take the “nation’s side” instead of pretending to be someone who knows secret games of the politicians. Trite but true: every dialogue in the political talk show is a mini-interview which goal is to obtain the information the politician did not want to give. The rest is either PR or propaganda;

There are some hopes for the young generation of politicians who came to power "in the wake of Maidan." They have experience in public activism, journalism, and even combat; and all these things can have a significant and positive influence on the content of political statements. This influence is possible, but it requires hard work from each and every one of them;

It is necessary to have a radical refresh of unchangeable "expert performers" who participate in talk shows in order to make money. Unbiased and professional expertise is one of the key factors to provide the audience with the quality information.