Coverage of the election campaign in mass media
PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS 2014 - UKRAINE
Preliminary media monitoring report
Kyiv, October 24, 2014 – The Association ”Spilnyi Prostir”/Equal Access Committee, an
independent, non-profit organization dedicated to freedom of expression and the media, has conducted
systematic monitoring of media coverage of the 26 October parliamentary elections. The Association
seeks to evaluate the monitored media’s performance in providing objective and balanced coverage of
the contestants and their platforms so the citizens of Ukraine can make well-informed choices at the
ballot box. The main objective of the project is to inform the public about the conduct of media during
the pre-election campaign and to initiate a discussion about the objectivity and quality of the media
reporting.
In addition, to the media monitoring, the Association has also been implementing synergetic projects
on voters’ awareness, enhancement of standards’ and quality of communication aimed at development
of democracy and strengthening of informational society in Ukraine - thanks to the support from the
Council of Europe, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the US Embassy in Ukraine.
The project’s findings are not intended to support any one candidate or political party, but the integrity
of the media environment as a whole during the campaign season. The findings have been compiled in
four monitoring reports about the media’s behavior during the election campaign and have been
disseminated to the public, media, civil society, political parties, and international community.On
September 15, Association ”SpilnyiProstir”/Equal Access Committee commenced the monitoring of 8
national and 45 regional TV channels; 6 national and 76 regional newspapers, 4 national and 68
regional Internet web sites; and also 3 national radio stations.
The first monitoring report covered the period 15 September – 10 October and the second monitoring
report covered the period 15 September – 21 October - both reports can be found at:: http://prostirmonitor.org/foto/mtree/2014/10/REPORT_SEPTEMBER_english.compressed.pdf. Following is the
summary of the main monitoring findings covering the period 15 September – 26 October:
The final report that will include recommendations will be published on November 13, 2014.
Main findings
 The media environment in the run-up to the elections continued to be affected by the
ongoing crisis between Ukraine and Russia, with journalists facing intimidation and
harassment including killings, abductions, threats, physical and verbal attacks.
 The media as a whole nevertheless provided voters witha diverse range of information
about electoral contestants and other relevant political subjects based on which voters
could make a more informed choice. However, voters could form an objective view of the
campaign only if they followed several media outlets.
There were a few improvements in comparison with the 2012 parliamentary elections,
such as the debates between contestants on the First National Channel. These debates
enabled candidates to convey their messages to the electorate and allowed voters to form
opinions of the candidates.
 Similar to previous elections, the media devoted a significant coverage to the activities of
the authorities, many of whom were candidates in the elections. Unlike in 2012, however,
this coverage was mainly neutral and there was no apparent attempt, apart from a few
exceptions, to use such official coverage to support any one candidate. Moreover, some
monitored media (particularly newspapers) criticized state authorities, particularlyPrime
Minister Yatsenyuk.
 Despite the diverse media environment, most outlets remain under strong influence from
their owners and political patrons. For election coverage, this meant that a number of
media outlets were under some influence from candidates and political parties. Some
monitored outlets more or less openly showed their sympathies towards particular
political subjects.
 The enduring monopolization of the media market by several powerful groups and media
tycoons is a potential threat to media diversity, resulting in a generallackofindepthandanalyticalcoverageaswellasofinvestigativereportingthatcouldhelpthevoterstobett
erassessthequalitiesandprogramsofelectoralcontestants.
 While there were fewer cases of paid-for coverage in comparison with the 2012 elections,
this practice continues to negatively influence the media environment. The amount of
paid-for coverage gradually increased closer to the election day.These positive or negative
materials (produced to either promote or discredit candidates, depending on their
relationship to a channel’s owner, were mainly observed on Inter, TRK Ukraine and 1 +1.
 In addition, the qualitative analysis revealed other cases where media did not followthe
principles of journalistic standards. In connection with the coverage of the anti-terrorist
operation, the monitoring team observed that at times the adherence to journalistic
standards was substituted journalists openly expressing their patriotism.

2
(The figures on the diagrams are represented in percentage. The figures on the graphics
in column are represented in seconds for television and radio, in print signs for press and in
signs for Internet sites.)
National television
3
The monitoring results indicated that TV broadcasters mainly focused on the events related to the antiterrorist operation, foreign policy issues, the state of economy, etc. At the same time, however, the
amount of information related to the elections significantly increased in the run up to the election day.
In contrast to the 2012 parliamentary elections, the main national channels offered a diverse range of
views and generally did not blacklisted any politicians or independent experts from their coverage.
A share of election content from the general amount of information (%)
(indescending order)
Inter
TRC “Ukraina”
ICTV
TVi
1+1
Pershyi natsionalnyi/First National
STB
5-jkanal/5th channel
DIRECT SPEECH
Petro Poroshenko
(President)
ArseniyYatsenyukЯцен
юк (Prime-Minister +
Government)
OleksandrTurchinov
(Speaker)
“Petro Poroshenko’s
Bloc”
“Narodnyi
front”/“Popular Front”
“Batkivschyna”
“Radykalnapartiya”/”Rad
ical party”
“Oposytsiinyi
Bloc”/“Opposition Bloc”
“Hromadyanskaposytsiya
”/”Civic position””
“Svoboda”/”Freedom”
CPU
Samopomich”/”Selfhelp”
34%
33%
27%
24%
16%
15%
15%
14%
Inter
STB
1429
658
432
TVi
TRC
“Ukra
ina”
1+1
577
492
1541
Persh
yinats
ionaln
yi/Fir
stNati
onal
671
642
1952
3279
2123
44
146
76
39
3218
129
1564
646
121
2457
2611
5ICTV
jkanal
/5thch
annel
859
978
1543
1545
1861
876
69
284
106
2453
802
663
389
2176
706
1588
1483
105
167
904
63
0
743
16
1605
416
32
97
121
44
319
16
1395
37
4078
43
30
4477
56
0
69
1921
1387
21
36
243
29
0
0
81
736
10
11
12
41
82
1066
0
30
632
361
344
14
6
39
92
0
24
157
0
0
268
21
93
4
“SylnaUkraina”/”Strong
Ukraine”
1559
0
0
0
224
0
0
1086
(Figures in seconds)
In general, TV channels presented positions of various parties. In addition, TV channels attempted to
provided a certain balance as there was generallyno information programs which would only feature
one political party.
On television channels it was traced the plots with features of paid materials. Their number increased
especially in the mid-October – two or three weeks before the election. However, the paid materials
were not too much – their share declined in favor of so-called “corporate jeans” caused by the
interests of the TV owners.
Three channels took part most actively in the media wars: Inter, TRC “Ukraina” and 1 +1. The
confrontation between the current governor Ihor Kolomoiskyi on the one hand (he owns 1 + 1) and the
politicians and businessmen Dmytro Firtash, Serhiy Lyovochkin (the owners of Inter) and Rinat
Akhmetov (the owner of TRC “Ukraina”) on the other hand.
The owners of the channels influence over the editorial policy and use the media to their
advantages – both in business interests (the activity of mining industry combines, hidden advertising
of “Pryvat bank”, Odessa Port Plant, the resort “Bukovel”, etc.) and in political interests (positive
representation of “Oposytsiinyi Bloc”/“Opposition Bloc”, black PR campaign against
“Radykalnapartiya”/”Radical party”, tough criticism of the Government and the party “Narodnyi
front”/“Popular Front”), and in image interests (humanitarian aid of the RinatAkhmetov Fund).
The mass use of administrative resources and the posts during the election campaign can not
be traced. The authorities run in the elections not as one team, but at least as two political parties – the
presidential party “Petro Poroshenko’s Bloc” and the party of the Prime-Minister “Narodnyi
front”/“Popular Front”. This makes it impossible to use the vertical of executive power in one
direction as it was in 2012, when the Government of Mykola Azarov headed into election from the
Parties of Regions. Therefore, the use of posts for representing the positions of political parties was
not widespread. Mostly the opponents used the activities of the Government and the President for
criticism of their political parties. The amount of messages where the President acted as an agitator for
his party – 1% of the total amount of political information. The government officials campaigned for
their party (most members of the Government are running from “Narodnyi front”/“Popular Front”)–
2,4%.
As to the sympathies and antipathies of the TV channels, Inter, TRC “Ukraina” and 1 + 1
showed clearly such sympathies and antipathies to political parties. Other TV channels showed their
preferences not so obviously. The notion “sympathy” supposes the editorial policy of the channel,
system support of political party but not “jeans”.
Also the experts states that there were problems with access of information about political
power. The early parliamentary elections are being held after Maidan and Revolution of Dignity. It
was created three new political parties – the pro-presidential party “Petro Poroshenko’s Bloc”, the
party “Narodnyi front”/“Popular Front” headed by the Prime Minister ArseniyYatsenyuk and
“Oposytsiinyi Bloc”/“Opposition Bloc” to which a part of members of the Party of Regions was
included (the Party of Regions which was the largest parliamentary party in 2012decided not to run
for the parliament).Among the new, non-parliamentary parties –“Samopomich”/”Self-help” of the
Lviv Mayor Andriy Sadovyi and “Hromadyanska posytsiya”/”Civic position” ofAnatolyi Hrytsenko.
To the parties’ lists besides the politicians, the military commanders, the activists of Maidan and
journalists were included. The top five included not politicians, but the persons who were not still
5
associated with the parties. In the media the experts, counselors of top officials and public figures
began to appear actively. TV channels did not indicate often their political affiliation which was one
of the main features of this election campaign when it was very difficult to the audience to understand
who represented one or another party.
However, the experts state that practically none political power represented the election
programs on TV. The President Petro Poroshenko represented “The Strategy 2020”, which was
considered by the experts as the election program. However, the information about this program was
overall and not quite clear. Other policy initiatives had populist nature and television media did not
accentuate them and did not analyze their feasibility.
Regarding the quantitative representation, the monitoring results for the entire campaign show
that the television highlights the elections actively, but not quite in balanced way. In particular, the
position of Government (27%) and the President (18%) was represented most actively.
There were 4 leaders among the political parties, whose positions were represented most
actively, namely “Petro Poroshenko’s Bloc” (11.1%), “Oposytsiinyi Bloc”/“Opposition Bloc”(10.2%),
“Batkivschyna” (7.5%), “Narodnyi front”/“Popular Front”(5.8%).
Minimum information was about CPU (1%), “Samopomich”/”Self-help” (1.5%) and
“Hromadyanska posytsiya”/”Civic position” (1.7%).
“Radykalna partiya”/”Radical party” was devoted 4,7% of ether time,“Svoboda”/”Freedom”2,8% and “Sylna Ukraina”/”Strong Ukraine”»- 3,3% relatively.
The President and the Government received the most information in positive tone. Among the
political parties – “Oposytsiinyi Bloc”/“Opposition Bloc” (96% of positive information about the
“Oposytsiinyi Bloc”/“Opposition Bloc” was covered by two news channels – Inter and TRC
“Ukraina”) and “Petro Poroshenko’s Bloc”.
The Government was criticized most actively. Among the political parties
“Radykalnapartiya”/”Radical party” received most negative information (96% of negative information
was represented by 1 + 1), “Narodnyi front”/“Popular Front”and “Petro Poroshenko’s Bloc”.
The Government and the President were represented most actively in neutral tone. Among the
parties – “Petro Poroshenko’s Bloc”, “Batkivschyna” and “Oposytsiinyi Bloc”/“Opposition Bloc”.
The representatives of the Government, “Petro Poroshenko’s Bloc”and “Oposytsiinyi
Bloc”/“Opposition Bloc”received the most of direct speech; CPU and “Samopomich”/”Self-help”
received the least of direct speech relatively on television news.
Inter and TRC “Ukraina” were the most balanced channels according to quantitative figures.
Although their editorial policy can not be considered as impartial– here one can trace the sympathies
and antipathies to certain political forces. The relative balance can be traced on the channel ICTV.
Inter – the most of political forces are represented actively. Most critics is given to the
Government, most positive information is represented about “Oposytsiinyi Bloc”/“Opposition Bloc”.
6
(Figures in seconds – thousands of seconds)
TRC “Ukraina”- the most of political forces are represented actively. The advantage is given
to “Oposytsiinyi Bloc”/“Opposition Bloc”.
1 +1 – almost the same amount of information (and the most) –about the Government and the
President. Among the parties – “Petro Poroshenko’s Bloc”. The largestamount of negative
information – about “Radykalna partiya”/”Radical party”. This political party is actively criticized
only by 1 +1 – 96% of all negative content about Oleh Lyashkoon the television media was
represented by this channel.
7
“Pershyinatsionalnyi”/”First National” – more than 43% of political information is about
the Government, more 24% - about the President. “Petro Poroshenko’s Bloc” is the leader among the
parties.
Tvi- the most information is about the Government, 42%. Relatively in balanced tone–about
“Petro Poroshenko’s Bloc”, “Batkivschyna”, “Svoboda”/”Freedom” and “Narodnyi front”/“Popular
Front”. The rest of political forces was covered passively.
8
ICTV –covered the election campaign in a quite balanced way. The most information was
about the Government – but compared to other channels, this amount is less – 23.5%.Among the
parties “Batkivschyna”, “Petro Poroshenko’s Bloc” and “Oposytsiinyi Bloc”/“Opposition Bloc” were
highlighted most actively and relatively in balanced manner.
5-j kanal/5thchannel – with a clear predominance of information about the Government
(almost 38%) and the President (25%).The parties were covered less actively, but relatively in
balanced manner.
9
STB – the most information was about the Government (35%) and the President (almost 38%).
The parties were covered passively, but relatively in balanced manner.
National press
The national press covered the election actively and in quite balanced manner. The share of
election content in total amount of materials – 12%.In the newspapers “Petro Poroshenko’s Bloc” is
represented most actively – (12.5%), also “Batkivschyna” (9%), “Sylna Ukraina”/”Strong Ukraine”(7.7%), “Oposytsiinyi Bloc”/“Opposition Bloc” (7.4%) and “Narodnyi front”/“Popular Front” (7.2%)
were also represented actively. The least of information was about “Samopomich”/”Self-help” (0.3%)
and “Hromadyanska posytsiya”/”Civic position”(1.4%) were covered. The information about the
parties was represented mainly in neutral tone, and only “Petro Poroshenko’s Bloc” and “Narodnyi
front”/“Popular Front” were covered actively in negative tone (almost as much as in neutral tone). The
most positive information was devoted to “Petro Poroshenko’s Bloc” but he is also the leader of
negative information. “Batkivschyna” and “Sylna Ukraina”/”Strong Ukraine” became the leaders in
neutral tone.
The President, Prime Minister and the Government were mainly covered in terms of their
official activity, the speaker was mentioned occasionally. Only during the last week their activities as
the party members were highlighted - mostly in negative tone. The indicators of the President and the
Government are almost identical (18.1% and 19.2%). Much negative information was covered about
10
them – as much as neutral and positive information together. Their activities are the basis of antiagitation campaigns of almost all parties which caused the high negative indexes.
A share of election content from the general amount of information (%)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
“Vesti”– 7%.
“Hazetapo-ukrainski” – 17%.
“Dzerkalotyzhnya” – 13%.
“Kommentarii” – 12%.
“Segodnya” – 9%.
“Faktyikommentarii”– 11%.
In general it can be concluded that it would be difficult for the voter to understand the
information of various media, if he/her decided to use only newspapers. There are several reasons for
this:
1.the election campaign was going against the backdrop of hostilities. The situation in the east of the
country, the armed conflict and the presence of an external enemy left their marks on the campaign.
The figure of the President as a Commander in Chief and division of the parties as “parties of peace”
and “parties ofwar” cause the lack of discussion on the issues of development of the country. Often
the topic of war, decisions on making the ceasefire and resolving the situation became crucial. This
topic was also used by the parties for propaganda instead of developing and representing of their
platforms. The question is mainly about termination or continuation of active hostilities, restoration of
damaged regions, criticism of Defense Minister and Commander in Chief. The active coverage of the
events in Donbas has often manipulative effect of “psychological shock”.
2.
Inequality of the campaign. Some weeks were devoted only to the President within his official
duties in connection with his active foreign visits and peace settlement in the Donbass region. During
these weeks the topic of election was almost absent, or was present only due to anti-agitation –
adoption of the law by VerkhovnaRadainitiated by the President “On a special status of the Donbass
regions” and delay of implementation of association with the EU which became the key newsworthy
information for “jeans” materials of all competing parties.
3.
Anti-agitation. None political force represented the detailed program of its party, so the
newspapers had no material for analysis in order to provide the reader with necessary information to
make conscious choice. Some attempts of analyze of the existing program materials were
uninformative. The party built their messages not on the agitation, but on anti-agitation against the
President or the Government.
4.
Difficulty in identifying of the candidates. The presence in the lists of the combats of volunteer
battalions, journalists and experts blurred the boundaries of identification of the candidates. The media
don not often say that this or that activist is in the party lists. A striking example is DmytroTymchukas
a military expert (“Narodnyi front”/“Popular Front”) or OleksandrChernenko as an expert on elections
(“Petro Poroshenko’s Bloc”), Anton Heraschenko as an advisor of Arsen Avakov. Only during the last
weeks, some advisers were marked as the candidates (Irina Heraschenko, Olha Bohomolets – “Petro
Poroshenko’s Bloc”).
5.
“Jeans”. Around 60% of all electoral content was hidden advertising materials. Although
namely due to “jeans” almost all political parties were represented in the press, as they did not make
their own newsworthy information. The leaders of “jeans”are“Sylna Ukraina”/”Strong Ukraine”,
“Batkivschyna” and “Oposytsiinyi Bloc”/“Opposition Bloc” which caused their strong performance.
In the recent weeks, the “jeans” of “Petro Poroshenko’s Bloc” and “Narodnyi front”/“Popular
Front”appeared which increased significantly their neutral and positive figures as before they had
11
been mainly represented in negative tone. “Jeans” materials of “Radykalna partiya”/”Radical
party”,“Svoboda”/“Freedom” and CPU appeared less, but regularly. It should _y noted the creative
idea of “jeans” material was represented by “Sylna Ukraina”/”Strong Ukraine” when in the
newspapers it was posted the promotional material on how the migrants and residents of the Crimea
could vote and the informational support of the party on this issue.
Main trends of the election campaign in separate newspapers:
1.“Segodnya”, “Kommentarii”, “Hazetapo-ukrainski”, “Dzerkalo tyzhnya” devoted the most
qualitative attention to the elections. There were the author’s materials, voter’s education, qualitative
analysis of the party lists, investigations on individual representatives of the parties, experts’
comments.
2.“Faktyikommentarii” became the leader of “jeans” in relation to election content (80%). Except of
the paid materials practically the newspapers did not represent its own political content. The authors’
materials related mainly to the topics of hostilities, stories from the front.
3. “Vesti” is the most manipulative edition. The newspaper used actively the manipulations with
photos, titles, effects of repetition and “psychological shock”, forcing negativity surrounding the
elections, “half-truths”, misrepresentation, “false compliments”, “humiliation”, direct or indirect
attacks on political powers.
4. Impact of the newspapers’ owners on editorial policy is clearly perceptible in the newspapers
“Segodnya” and “Fakty i kommentarii”(through active coverage of the charities of Rinat Akhmetov
and Viktor Pinchuk, a sharp increase in coverage of the activity of “Oposytsiinyi Bloc”/“Opposition
Bloc”in positive and neutral tone in “Segodnya” during the recent weeks)
Sympathies and antipathies of the newspapers:
1.“Vesti” – an active criticism of the President and the Government, the Prime Minister; antipathy to
“Narodnyi front”/“Popular Front” and “Petro Poroshenko’s Bloc” through the prism of the President
and the Prime Minister.
(Figures in printed signs – thousands of printed signs)
2. “Hazetapo-ukrainski” – is a very subjective newspaper besides the “jeans”. The persistent sympathy
for the certain political parties have not been identified. It allows to cover both openly positive and
frankly negative assessments. It was traced a considerable criticism of the President because of the
laws “On the special status of the Donbas region” and the presence of his son in the lists, but there
was also positive information.
12
3. “Dzerkalo tyzhnya”. Fostering the negative image of the President as Commander in Chief,
criticism of the Government. None sympathy to any political parties have been identified - the election
were in whole highlighted not much.
4.“Kommentarii”. Neutrality or situational commitment to Petro Poroshenko as an official, criticism
as the party member. Antipathy to “Radykalna partiya”/”Radical party”, “Svoboda”/”Freedom”,
personally to Yulia Tymoshenko (“Batkivschyna”).
13
5.“Segodnya”. Sympathy to “Oposytsiinyi Bloc”/“Opposition Bloc” because of impact of the
newspaper’s owner on its editorial policy. Most neutrality, situational commitment and criticism of
Petro Poroshenko.
6. “Fakty i kommentarii”. It was not traced any sympathies of the newspaper. The criticism of the
President as the official (mainly because of the law “On the special status of the Donbas region).
Internet
Throughout the whole monitoring period the national online media covered the pre-election
process very passively and relatively not in a balanced way. The events related to the situation in the
east and the problems with gas supplies became certainly one of the reasons of the lack of on-line
media’s attention to the parliamentary elections. There were the favorites among the political parties,
that were provided with the most attention, and some parties that were mentioned in the context of
news on exit polls.
The share of election content among the general amount of news was less than a half. Most of
the coverage in Internet was neutral, the least coverage - positive. Imbalance in representing of
political actors, particularly in amount and tone, makes it possible to conclude that the on-line media
provided them with the lack access to the media.
The online media paid more attention to the actions and statements of the politicians, and the
political analysis of their programs was almost ignored.
14
The representatives of the Government, together with the President were often represented as
the performers of their duties than as the agitators.
The most materials were devoted to the party “Batkivschyna” and “Petro Poroshenko’s Bloc”.
Instead, the voters received the least information about “Hromadyanska posytsiya”/”Civic position””
and Samopomich”/”Self-help”.
Petro Poroshenko as the President received most criticism and sympathies in negative and
positive tone of the news.
The party “Batkivschyna” was often represented in the context of the news concerning Nadiya
Savchenko who is the first number in its election party list. The President and the Prime-Minister of
the country were highlighted in the context of the news related to settlement of the conflict with
Russia.
The leaders of political forces were often their speakers.
15
National Radio
A share of election content from the general amount of information (%)
(indescending order)
“Era FM”
UR1
Radio “Vesti”
8%
6%
4%
The national radio stations covered the election campaign relatively in not balanced way and
not actively. A share of election content in total amount of the news was about 6%. Most of the
information was covered in neutral tone, the least of information was covered in negative tone.
If in early September the election information was covered in the context of social research on
voters’ sympathies, the parties’ congresses, instructive information about the work of the CEC and the
holding of the elections in the troubled regions, by the end of September then it was traced the
increase of use of media manipulations and the amount of materials with the features of paid
materials.
It should be noted that in the most cases of announcement of sociological data the media did
not follow the professional standards and did not represent, for example, the number of respondents or
statistical error.
16
The most of airtime was devoted to Petro Poroshenko and ArseniyYatsenyuk as the officials.
They became also the leaders in amounts of sync. The officials were represented mainly as the
performers of their duties. Petro Poroshenko was covered as the agitatoron the radio “Vesti” (the
program dated from September 25, 2014) in the context of the press conference which he had held. In
particular, an expert Vitaliy Balabal said: “The main message was that my party is running into
elections and it will do all that I promise”. There were covered also the party members Oleksandr
Turchynov and Arsen Avakovin the plot of UR1 related to their visits to Mariupol. (It creates a
positive image of the politicians, though the specific statements were not presented, which gives us
the reason to believe that this information is not newsworthy).
It was paid much more airtime to the party “Batkivschyna” than to other parties: mainly in the
context of the case Nadiya Savchenko and the parliamentary work of the party. The most information
about this party was covered in positive and neutral tone.
Petro Poroshenko as the party member and the President was mentioned most often in negative
tone and also “Petro Poroshenko’s Bloc”, “Narodnyi front”/“Popular Front”, “Radykalna
partiya”/”Radical party” of Oleh Lyashko, “Batkivschyna”.
17
(The figures in seconds)
Regional mass media
Regional Television
The television channels of the western regions provided the larger share of the content
namely to the participants of parliamentary elections, not to the top officials. For the entire duration of
the campaign almost the same amount in positive tone was received by: “Petro Poroshenko’s
Bloc”(13.6%), the independent candidates to majority constituencies (13.3%), “Svoboda”/”Freedom”
(13.2%) and “Narodnyi front”/“Popular Front” (12,2%). The rest contestants were represented
significantly in more passive manner. There was much less of negative information, mainly to the
address of “Batkivschyna”, “Petro Poroshenko’s Bloc”, “Svoboda”/”Freedom” and also the candidates
to majority constituencies.
18
In the southern regions the officials did not also dominate in election content being
representedin minimal amount. Throughout the whole campaign there was the total advantage of
“Petro Poroshenko’s Bloc” (5245%); then there were “Petro Poroshenko’s Bloc” (15.4%), the
candidates to majority constituencies (7.7%) and “Narodnyi front”/“Popular Front” (448%). The rest
of contestants were represented more passively. As to the negative information, it was minimum and
only to the address of “Oposytsiinyi Bloc”/“Opposition Bloc”.
19
In the north during the entire campaign there was the total advantage of Petro Poroshenkoas
the President (36.1%). Among the election contestants “Petro Poroshenko’s Bloc”(16.9%), the
candidates to majority constituencies (14.9%) and “Batkivschyna” (13%) were covered most actively.
Negative information was represented mostly towards “Batkivschyna”, the candidates to majority
constituencies, “Narodnyi front”/“Popular Front”, as well as Arseniy Yatseniuk as the Prime Minister.
In the east throughout the campaign ArseniyYatsenyuk (50%) and Petro Poroshenko (41%)
were represented as the top officials and the executors of their duties. A share of electoral content was
as follows: CPU (50.7%), “Oposytsiinyi Bloc”/“Opposition Bloc”(20%), “Petro Poroshenko’s
Bloc”(16.3) and “Batkivschyna” (13%). The most amount of negative information was devoted to the
address of Arseniy Yatseniuk as the Prime Minister and among the parties –to “Batkivschyna”.
20
In the center Petro Poroshenko (26.2%), the candidates to majority constituencies (25.2%)
and ArseniyYatsenyuk (11.4%)received the most attention of the regional channels. As for the parties,
“Petro Poroshenko’s Bloc” (8.5%), “Batkivschyna” (7.6%) and “Narodnyi front”/“Popular Front”
(6.8%) were represented most actively. The most amount of negative information was addressed to the
President and the Prime Minister, and also to the candidates to majority constituencies and “Petro
Poroshenko’s Bloc”.
21
Regional press
In the western press the officials were represented not much actively, and among the
contestants there were almost on par the candidates to majority constituencies (18.2%), “Petro
Poroshenko’s Bloc” and “Batkivschyna”(15.8% for each party relatively), and “Narodnyi
front”/“Popular Front”(10%). The subjects of monitoring were represented mostly in positive and
neutral tone. The most amount of negative information was addressed to “Petro Poroshenko’s Bloc”,
“Narodnyi front”/“Popular Front” and also to the top officials.
22
In the south, “Petro Poroshenko’s Bloc” (26.4%) and the candidates to majority
constituencies (23.8%) were represented almost at the same level. “Batkivschyna”(10.2%) and
“SylnaUkraina”/”Strong Ukraine” (8.8%) were covered a little bit passively. Others contestants were
represented more passively. The positive tonewas dominant. Neutral and negative information was
minimum to the address of “Petro Poroshenko’s Bloc”, “Oposytsiinyi Bloc”/“Opposition Bloc” and
also the Prime Minister and the President.
23
In the north the top officials did not dominate in the election content being represented fairly
in a modest way. The candidates to majority constituencies were represented actively. Among the
parties“ Petro Poroshenko’s Bloc” (29.9%) and “Batkivschyna”(16.5) received the most attention of
the regional press. The information was mostly in positive and neutral tone, there was minimum of
negative information.
24
In the east the candidates to majority constituencies(37.5%), Petro Poroshenko as the
President (22.4%) and “Oposytsiinyi Bloc”/“Opposition Bloc”(14.9%) were represented most
actively. The information was represented mostly in positive and neutral tone, there was minimum of
negative information - to the address of Arseniy Yatseniuk as the Prime Minister.
In the center the candidates to majority constituencies(22.4%) were represented most actively,
and among the parties - “Petro Poroshenko’s Bloc” (14.6%) and “Batkivschyna”(9.8%). The top
officials were represented much modestly–Petro Poroshenko (8.8%), ArseniyYatsenyuk (8.1%).
25
Regional Internet
In the west during the entire campaign the Internet sites represented at the comparable levels
“Batkivschyna”(13.5%), “Petro Poroshenko’s Bloc”(13.3%), “Narodnyi front”/“Popular
Front”(12.9%) and Petro Poroshenko as the President (12.5%). The information was covered mainly
in neutral and positive tone, but there was also sufficiently negative information almost towards all
contestants.
26
In the south “Petro Poroshenko’s Bloc”(18.5%), the candidates to majority
constituencies(18.2%), Petro Poroshenko as the President (16.7%) and “Oposytsiinyi
Bloc”/“Opposition Bloc”(13.1%) were represented almost at the comparable levels. The information
prevailed mainly in positive and neutral tone, though it was noticeable a part of negative information.
27
In the north the candidates to majority constituencies(25.4%) were represented most actively.
“Batkivschyna” (11.3%), “Narodnyi front”/“Popular Front”(11%), “Sylna Ukraina”/”Strong Ukraine”,
Radical Party (8.3%), “Hromadyanska posytsiya”/”Civic position” (6.2%) received relatively the
same amount of information. Information was covered mainly in neutral and positive tone, there was
minimum of negative information, but practically to the address of all subjects.
28
In the east, “Oposytsiinyi Bloc”/“Opposition Bloc”(24.1%), “Sylna Ukraina”/”Strong
Ukraine” (18.9%), Petro Poroshenko as the President, the candidates to majority constituencies(15.7)
and Arseniy Yatsenyuk as the Prime Minister were represented relatively at the same level.
Information was covered mainly in neutral and positive tone, but also there was negative informationmainly to the address of the candidates to majority constituencies and the Prime Minister Arseniy
Yatsenyuk,the President Petro Poroshenko and “Oposytsiinyi Bloc”/“Opposition Bloc”.
In the center the candidates to majority constituencies (19%), “Petro Poroshenko’s
Bloc”(14%), “Oposytsiinyi Bloc”/“Opposition Bloc”(13.8%) were represented relatively at the same
level. Information was covered mainly in neutral and positive tone, but also there was negative
information almost towards all subjects.
29
Conclusion
The preliminary results of media monitoring reveals wide differences in the way political
subjects are portrayed. The results of whole media monitoring indicate that not all media follow the
same standards of balance and fairness. Some monitored outlets more or less openly showed their
sympathies towards particular political parties. This is due to the fact that the editorial policy of media
is still determined by the interest of owners and not the interests of the readers or viewers.
News reports were mainly driven by activities of politicians - journalists themselves usually
did not try to dwell on problems, single them out. There was an apparent lack of investigative
approach, and conversely reports were sometimes limited to superficial coverage. Voters would
benefit from a more analytical and in-depth coverage that could help them to better analyze and assess
the qualities and platforms of electoral contestants. The use of such a format as the National Debate
attracted the interest of the voters. That’s why the media need to be more proactive in setting the
formats of their election-related reporting and their general coverage of elections to better facilitate the
exchange of opinions, public debate, investigation and commentary that would offer the public fully
informed, analyzed and assessed views of persons seeking elected office.
The final results of media monitoring and final media monitoring report will be announced on
November 13, 2014.
Public monitoring of election coverage in mass media is held by the NGOs Association
“SpilnyiProstir”/Equal Access Committee under the support of a joint project of the Council of Europe
and the European Union “Strengthening Information Society in Ukraine”. This project is funded by the
30
European Union and the Council of Europe and implemented by the Council of Europe. The objective of
project is to strengthen the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms through greater
freedom, diversity and pluralism in the media; an open, inclusive, sustainable, people-centred and human
rights-based approach to the Internet on the principles of an effective system of protection of individuals
with regard to their right to privacy and right to control their personal data.
The detailed information about the project - http://www.coe.int/uk/web/kyiv/41.
31