During the elections for the head of Suspilne Yevhen Hlibovytskyi gave Oleksandr Tkachenko a hard talk about censorship, the failures of the MinCult, and the “bad situation” on February 24, 2022. Hereʼs what Tkachenko replied

On April 15, Mykola Chernotytskyi was elected Chairman of the Board of the Public Broadcasting Suspilne for the second time. 10 members of the Supervisory Board voted for him. Six votes went to his rival, former Minister of Culture (MinCult) and former head of 1+1 Media Oleksandr Tkachenko. Two other candidates — former journalist and employee of the Administration of President Petro Poroshenko Volodymyr Horkovenko and former top manager of StarLightMedia Mykola Fayengold — did not receive a single vote. All candidates submitted their programs to the competition. In the second round of selection, all four briefly presented them and answered questions from members of the Supervisory Board. The most questions were raised about Oleksandr Tkachenko. In the program, he emphasized that Suspilne does not always fulfill its declared function (for example, it mainly shows dubbed series on the Kultura channel and often overstates its indicators, although it has the lowest indicators among all European public broadcasters). The most tense was the long discussion between Tkachenko and a member of the Supervisory Board, former TV presenter Yevhen Hlibovytskyi. Instead of the usual one or two questions, Hlibovytskyi asked more than ten. The result was an almost full-fledged interview with the former media manager and Minister of Culture — with accusations and unknown facts. We give an almost verbatim transcript of their conversation. Up until the moment when Hlibovytskyi suggested to the potential head of Suspilne Tkachenko to protect the broadcaster from Minister Tkachenko’s attacks.

Where will the international support [for Ukrainian cultural projects], that you are talking about, come from? What efforts or arguments will be used to ensure it? Why did you not provide such international support to the Ukrainian Cultural Fund when there was no money in the budget for its activities, when you were the Minister of Culture?

Thank you for the question. First of all, during the war we provided several tens of millions of dollars in aid to support Ukrainian heritage and other cultural institutions. I don’t know if you know or not, but regarding the story with the UCF, I had a conflict with the Supervisory Board, because some rather strange people got there. But the increase in UCF’s income was precisely during the pandemic — we increased their funding for providing grants by one billion. I don’t know, what kind of reduction is it about.

Regarding international support, I have experience, Suspilne has an extremely good experience, and I have spoken with several ambassadors who have provided and are providing support to Suspilne on this issue. I understand that they do not plan to change their approaches.

So you mean that your leadership will be a prerequisite for increasing international support for Suspilne, compared to what it has now?

No. First of all, I said about maintaining support at the current level. Of course, I wonʼt do this myself without the Supervisory Board.

Then the question in that you are proposing to change the funding shares of Suspilne budget and at the same time do not explain the sources — where will this come from?

The change in shares primarily concerns commercial opportunities and generating revenue from excise taxes and other non-core assets.

Which you have no influence on…

Which I can influence. Regarding commercial income, this is absolutely real and possible, especially during martial law. Therefore, redistribution is not within the limits of grants, but within the limits of additional income generation opportunities.

That is, you do not consider international grants as the main way to increase...

No. There are 150-200 million hryvnias, as far as I know...

Then explain how you influence excise taxes?

This is promoting, lobbying for opportunities to achieve these changes together with the deputies and the Supervisory Board.

That is, you are putting into your program the assumption that the Supervisory Board will do something together with you.

I am convinced in it.

In other words, you propose a solution in the program where you are not sure whether the third parties involved in the process will do anything, but you still propose it.

Look, if the Supervisory Board is against increasing the revenues of Suspilne, I think it will be an achievement for them, if they can say so. Secondly, joint work with deputies and the government allows me to hope for this.

We are from the same generation, and I remember Oleksandr Tkachenko from the Gart Studio. Then there was a wonderful whiff of fresh air “Epilogue”, a weekly summary program. And then there was a turn that indicated some kind of change of direction. Because Novy Kanal, which you headed, lost its editorial independence under your control. 1+1 consolidated the political management of news in manual mode, and this is visible from the monitorings almost with the naked eye. After all, we could even hear how it was happening, from the recordings of your conversations with the owner of 1+1. Then, as a result of your management of the Ministry of Culture, the Ukrainian Cultural Fund was actually crushed. When it was being destroyed, you remained silent and avoided responsibility. Violating the procedure, you did not approve the elected head of the Dovzhenko Center. The employees of Suspilne appeal to the members of the Supervisory Board with the fact that there will be mass layoffs if you are elected. Hereʼs my question: with such a legacy, why do you think you are a good candidate to lead an organization that is key to preserving freedom and pluralism in Ukraine?

Letʼs first separate some of the manipulations that you poured during the conversation, regarding what was and was not done. I will answer you on each point. On the "New Channel", when the owners changed, it was a group of a well-known businessman, there were certain questions regarding how the independent, high-quality news of the "Reporter" program would be broadcast. My only idea in terms of protecting the team from any influences was to reduce the amount of news. That is, we switched to an informative standard and there were no influences, because I showed people all these temnyky that came to the editorial room by fax. And we did not adhere to them. So what censorship things are we talking about here?.. I rather protected the team from being manipulated.

Shevchenko resigned when you were running Novy Kanal.

I didnʼt interrupt you. You can ask Andriy Shevchenko — he is both your friend and mine.

Also, regarding the “pluses” and some snatched elements that are being leaked to the Internet. These are fragments of conversations that you haven’t heard the end of. Additionally, about the influence on the editorial policy [of the “pluses”]. This is not so. An agreement was concluded with the owner [Ihor Kolomoiskyi] on an independent editorial policy for TSN. And during the Revolution of Dignity, everyone adhered to it, unlike what happened at the “pluses” during the Orange Revolution, where you worked then and where standards were not adhered to. Sorry, but that’s true. So, within TSN, two things that have always been the basis — a fact, regardless of whether someone likes it or not; and two points of view [that were presented] if not immediately, then after some time. Regarding the Ukrainian Cultural Fund, I have already told you about this, and these were my public speeches regarding the need to replace the Supervisory Board there. But the fact is that we continued to fund the UCF, including during the pandemic.

Can you answer the question I asked: what do you think makes you a good candidate?

First of all, extensive experience in the media. Experience in producing specific projects. And a sincere belief that independent media should not just exist, but thrive.

Your program and your speech actually show how much you, as a person with significant management experience and involvement in the decision-making environment, can strengthen the position of the institutions you lead. And here I have a question for you regarding your pro-activity. On February 24, 2022, museum directors in the combat zone found themselves virtually alone with the challenge of saving museum funds. Despite the fact that Russiaʼs escalation on the borders of Ukraine lasted longer than the budget process, the Ministry of Culture did not advocate allocating funds for evacuation. The Ministry did not develop an algorithm for saving funds. The Ministry of Culture then limited its responsibility only to museums that were directly subordinate to it. This is a direct violation of the purpose of the Ministry of Culture. I can quote paragraph three of the regulation on the Ministry [hereinafter the text of the regulation]. And here we have a consequence — the loss of a significant part of the funds. And then I have a question for you: What does this say about the quality of your leadership? About you as a far-sighted leader who will bear responsibility for taking into account security challenges, responsibility for the continuity of the Public Broadcasting Service, responsibility for, for example, the unique archive of video, film, and audio chronicles that Suspilne has?

Iʼm glad you had time to read the regulations on the Ministry of Culture, but do you know when the evacuation of valuables can take place, according to the law? Exactly evacuation? This is a different procedure than organizing exhibitions. Evacuation can only take place after the introduction of martial law, exactly evacuation. And the exhibitions you mention (that all this had to be done in advance) are a work that takes several months, because it was necessary to have a museum that would accept them; and then to agree not only with state museums, but also with museums that are subordinate to local authorities, that these valuables should be brought for a certain cost several months before the start of hostilities. And this is a big question regarding the political decision, whether it was worth doing it or not, which was made not by me, but by the National Security and Defense Council (NSDC). This was the first point.

The second point is regarding the removal of valuables when martial law was already in place. They were organized from all places where it was possible. Both through the efforts of ministries and the efforts of volunteers… And the fact that more than 500 thousand specimens were removed, or rather artifacts from museums that were in the danger zone, also says something. And almost no money was raised for this from the [state budget]. By the way, many things related to the packaging and securing of museums were done thanks to international support.

I will record that I did not hear an answer about the quality of leadership. I have a question for you...

You have a lot of philosophical questions.

Well, thatʼs great, because at this level, philosophy in management is important.

It is based on some distorted facts.

Look, it is based on the fact that as a result of your actions or inaction, responsibility fell on the shoulders of people who did not have the opportunity to make decisions of this level, but were forced to do so. And if — God forbid — the offensive continues and so on, the heads of the branches of Suspilne must understand whether they can rely on the head to competently and prudently calculate the risks, or not. Accordingly, I have another question for you. I want to put you in the place of the head of Suspilne. February 24, 2022, large-scale aggression begins. And then some people appear in the central apparatus of Suspilne who, on the verbal instructions of the Minister of Culture Tkachenko, arbitrarily turn off the channel, turning on the Rada TV channel instead. Tell me, as the head of Suspilne, what would you do in this situation?

And how do you know that it was on the verbal instructions of the Minister of Culture?

Do you want to turn this discussion into one where you say one thing publicly and another thing privately? Or do you want to answer the question I am asking you as a member of the Supervisory Board? I have simulated the situation for you. Please give me the answer.

Ms. Svitlana [Ostapa] reminded me of this story when I met her. I remembered and from that moment on I had the opportunity to recreate the facts that really happened during the first three or four days after the start of the full-scale invasion. There was indeed some kind of unfortunate situation regarding the Suspilne. Not only the Minister of Culture was involved, but also the NSDC and other security agencies. And the main thing I have to say about this story: I know for sure that I verbally asked the current head of the Public Broadcaster to join the “Marathon”, which was organized two or three days after the start of the full-scale invasion.

I am talking about February 24, and you are talking about what happened a few days later. And these people from the NSDC had a procedure through which they could make such decisions. Do you understand? And the people who appear in the central apparatus room and switch the channel are a completely different type of management. You still did not answer my question. You are the head of Suspilne. Some people come to you in the central apparatus room from the head on verbal instructions. And what do you do? How do you protect Suspilne?

I would call everyone I could to find out the reasons for the appearance of people in uniform.

Would you let them change the channel?

Well, if people in uniform come, I think they may have... No, I think I wouldnʼt allow it.

Svitlana Ostapa stopped the discussion and explained that this was a real story. On February 24, 2022, unknown people came to the equipment room of Suspilne, said that they had a verbal order from the Minister of Culture and ordered to transfer the broadcast to the Rada channel. Ostapa contacted Tkachenko, asked for a written order, but he said that he was “not into the papers”. When Ostapa directly asked whether Suspilne was turned off on February 24 on his order, Tkachenko replied: “No.”