Kyrylo Bulkin,
independent journalist,
human rights and media program analyst of «Europe XXI» Foundation
The present situation in Ukraine is characterized by the sharp and multiple divisions of a society: the rich and the poor; the nationally-conscious westerners and the pro-Russian easterners; representatives of different ethnic groups, religions and so on. Is it possible to preserve peace and sustainable development of a society under such circumstances? And what can each of us do to ensure positive trends in further development?
The role of media in solving this problem is decisive because it is the main source of determining this or that vector of public opinion, developing one or another tendency in relationship between different groups. This statement is especially to the point for the field of inter-religious relations, which can become either the source of unpredictable tension or an example of a new type of relations, characteristic of a modern tolerant society that shares European values and praises cultural diversity.
There is a lot of evidence of media's influence on the inter-religious (and, generally, the social) relations — both positive and negative. For instance, L. Budjurova1 described one of the most eloquent examples of the negative influence, when the conflict between the Muslim and Orthodox communities in Morskoe village (Sudak region of Crimea), fuelled by the aggressive publications in Crimean newspapers, threatened indeed to grow into the armed collision. A. Kolodny2 provided other examples of press provoking inter-religious hostility and tension by just listing the titles of some publications in newspapers «Fakty», «Segodnya», «Slava Sevastopolya» and some others: «From Prostitutes into Priest's Wives»; «The Witness of Jehovah Raped His Daughter», «Plus Mormonization of the Whole Country», etc.
At the other hand, some positive examples should also be mentioned. Among them — respectful and tolerant coverage of the information concerning different religions in Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox newspaper «Nasha Vira», Roman Catholics' «Paraphiyalna Hazeta», Greek Catholics' «Arka», popular newspapers «Den'», «Dzerkalo Tyzhnya» and some others.
But one can ask: don't we violate the freedom of speech by limiting the journalist's right, for example, to criticize certain religious views or certain community? Why journalist should not express his point of view freely even if this point is intolerant to somebody? To answer this question, let us refer to the European experience. Beginning from the middle of 20th century, and especially in its last two decades different journalists', and not only journalists', communities have been actively using very interesting instruments to define what is morally acceptable and what is not and how to fulfil professional duties without violating rights and interests of a person or of this or that group of people — for instance, the religious group. These instruments are codes of journalist ethics adopted by national journalists' organizations and sometimes even by local journalist communities. Let me propose a kind of a comparative analysis of ethic codes adopted in different European countries, particularly in those items that concern religious issues.
At the Internet site «European Codes of Journalist Ethics» 3, journalist ethic codes of 34 countries are placed. Unfortunately, there is no Ukrainian code, although Ukraine also has such kind of document; it will be the matter of the further discourse. In two countries (the Netherlands and Czech Republic), journalists accepted the main international document on journalist ethics as their national guidelines. The title of this document is «Declaration of Principles on the Conduct of Journalists» (adopted by the Second World Congress of the International Federation of Journalists at Bordeaux on 25-28 April 1954 and amended by the 18th IFJ World Congress in Helsingör on 2-6 June 1986); it consists of nine items. In the rest of countries, journalists' organizations worked out their own codes, some of them much wider than the Bordeaux one (for example, Lithuanian journalists' ethic code consists of 63 items divided into four big sections) whereas others developed rather compressed versions (for example, Bulgarian code consists of only 5 items). It seems reasonable to suggest that in several of these countries there are, probably, no major problems with inter-religious tolerance in mass media, or that such problems might be not so acute: in the ethic codes of six countries the term «religion», as well as «denomination», «creed», «confession», «belief», etc. is not even mentioned. These countries are: Armenia, Denmark, France, Iceland, Portugal and Switzerland. However, the demand of journalists' tolerance to different religious convictions could be read «between the lines» in items concerning tolerating different views and specific features of people in the whole. For example, in Armenian ethic code there is no word «religion» but one of the items proclaims that «The journalist should oppose extremism and restrictions on civil rights» 4, and it can be easily extended to the terms of religious tolerance.
The items concerning the necessity of religious tolerance are differently formulated in the codes of different countries but one could clearly divide them into two kinds of demands. In both cases, religious views of a person are mentioned together with such features as race, sex, sexual orientation, ethnic origin or social status etc. Though the essence of these two kinds of demands is quite different. The typical formulation of the demand of the first kind can be presented by the item from the mentioned «Declaration of Principles on the Conduct of Journalists» adopted in Bordeaux. Here follows the item 7 from this declaration: «The journalist shall be aware of the danger of discrimination being furthered by the media, and shall do the utmost to avoid facilitating such discrimination based on, among other things, race, sex, sexual orientation, language, religion, political or other opinions, and national or social origins» 5. As a typical example of the second kind of demands let me quote item 10 from the first part («Rules of Publicity») of the Sweden ethic code (it is a part of a paragraph eloquently entitled «Respect individual privacy»): «Do not emphasize race, sex, nationality, occupation, political affiliation or religious persuasion in the case of the persons concerned if such particulars are not important in the context or are disparaging» 6. Speaking about the items that cannot be classified neither as the first nor as the second kind of demands it is worth to mention the item from the Italian ethic code, a part of the paragraph «Incompatibility»: «A journalist cannot accept tasks which conflict with the autonomous discharge of his own duties, nor lend his name, voice or image for advertising enterprises that are incompatible with the safeguarding of a professional journalists’ autonomy. He is allowed, on the other hand, to give, free of charge, services to advertising enterprises, for a social, humanitarian, cultural, religious or artistic task, or for a trade union. However, this must be without a speculative character» 7.
As for Ukrainian approaches in this area, one should mention «The Ethical Code of Ukrainian Journalist», which was adopted at the «Journalistic Ethics in Ukraine: Elections of 2002 and Future» Conference on April 14th, 2002. In that document (that consists of seventeen items), item 14 combines both types of recommendations mentioned above. It claims: «No one can be discriminated because of gender, language, race, religion or ethnic, regional, social origin or because of political preferences. This information can be pointed out only if it is a necessary part of the story» 8. Another document signed by Ukrainian journalists — «Declaration of the Main Principles of the Journalist's Work in a Multiethnic Society» adopted in Yalta in April 22-23, 2001- is even more clear-cut. This document states: «A journalist has no right to emphasise attention on the racial, national origin, political and religious views of the information subject. Only cases when it has the essential meaning in the context of the information prepared, could be the exception. This principle is especially to the point for the materials dealing with crimes, when mentioning suspect's or criminal's belonging to certain religious, ethnic or another kind of minority could provoke negative attitude towards those groups» 9. Unfortunately, the Yalta Declaration is not widely spread among Ukrainian journalists and could hardly be considered the well-known and recognized guideline.
Why the codes of journalists' ethics are not recognized widely in Ukraine and what to do in order to raise their importance is the subject of the separate discussion. However, one can hardly argue that they could become the strong instrument for promoting religious tolerance and easing tensions in Ukrainian society. So it could be worth trying for Ukrainian journalists dealing with religious issues to take into account all of the existing experience, and to develop a certain set of ethical norms addressing exactly inter-religious relations coverage. Except the two already mentioned kinds of demands, there could also be items dealing with the separation of journalist's personal attitude to this or that denomination from his/her duty to provide only objective and accurate information; the necessity to tolerate not only one's religion or denomination but also unusual customs, traditions and needs of people caused by their religious convictions and so on. The next important step to curb intolerant or abusive publications in Ukrainian media could be an approval of such a code by the leaders of the main religious denominations in Ukraine, for example, in All-Ukrainian Council of Churches and Religious Organizations. Advancement in this direction would by all means promote inter-religious peace and improve the international image of Ukraine.