Freedom of the press in Ukraine

[17] In 2010 it fell to the 131st place; according to Reporters Without Borders this was the result of "the slow and steady deterioration in press freedom since Viktor Yanukovych's election as president in February".

[18] In 2013 Ukraine occupied the 126th spot (dropping 10 places compared with 2012); (according to Reporters Without Borders) "the worst record for the media since the Orange Revolution in 2004".

[20] During an opinion poll by Research & Branding Group in October 2009 49.2% of the respondents stated that Ukraine's level of freedom of speech was sufficient, and 19.6% said the opposite.

According to the data, 62% of respondents in western Ukraine considered the level of freedom of speech sufficient, and in the central and southeastern regions the figures were 44% and 47%, respectively.

[26][27] Toward the very end of the 2004 Ukrainian presidential election campaign in November 2004, many media outlets began to ignore government direction and covered events in a more objective, professional manner.

[34] In 2007, in Ukraine's provinces numerous, anonymous attacks[35] and threats persisted against journalists, who investigated or exposed corruption or other government misdeeds.

"[38][39] In Ukraine's provinces numerous, anonymous attacks[4][40][41][42] and threats persisted against journalists, who investigated or exposed corruption or other government misdeeds.

[49] As of January 2009, Ukrainian Prime Minister, Yulia Tymoshenko refused to appear in Inter TV-programmes "until journalists, management and owners of the TV channel stop destroying the freedom of speech and until they remember the essence of their profession - honesty, objectiveness, and unbiased stand".

[51][52][53][54] Yanukovych responded (in May 2010) that he "deeply values press freedom" and that "free, independent media that must ensure society's unimpeded access to information".

[60] A law on strengthening the protection of the ownership of mass media offices, publishing houses, bookshops and distributors, as well as creative unions was passed by the Ukrainian Parliament on 20 May 2010.

[5] According to the US Department of State in 2009 there were no attempts by central authorities to direct media content, but there were reports of intimidation of journalists by national and local officials.

[40][41] Stories in the electronic and printed media (veiled advertisements and positive coverage presented as news) and participation in a television talk show can be bought.

[6] Creating some concern among Western human rights monitors was that under the impact of war and perceived extreme social polarization the Ukrainian government has been accused of cracking down on pro-separatist points of view.

[66] For example, Ukraine also shut down most Russia-based television stations on the grounds that they purvey "propaganda," and barred a growing list of Russian journalists from entering the country.

[80] In 2017 organizations like Reporters Without Borders, Human Rights Watch and Committee to Protect Journalists condemned then Poroshenko's government recent bans on media.

[89][90] According to a State Department report published in 2023 restrictions were placed on media freedoms enabling "an unprecedented level of control over primetime television news."

The outlets and journalists who were considered a threat to the national security and who undermined the country's sovereignty and territorial integrity according to the authorities were blocked, banned or sanctioned.

The head of the committee, Serhiy Oliyinyk, told Radio Free Europe that one particular reason was that Beevor had included information about Ukrainian militia killing 90 Jewish children on orders of the SS "to save the feelings of the Sonderkommando."

[127] The media environment in Crimea was completely transformed by the March 2014 Russian annexation of the peninsula, after the ejection of Viktor Yanukovych from power in Ukraine following the euromaidan protests.

Media outlets were shut down, broadcasts of Ukrainian channels were suspended, and journalists fled the region due to fears of harassment, violence, and arrests.

A December 2013 Russian law against separatism (carrying sanctions of up to 5 years in prison) was used to repress criticism of the annexation and calls for a return of the territory to Ukraine.

[128] NGOs, journalists' associations and citizen groups in Crimea became subject to restrictive Russian laws, including measures limiting foreign funding.

[128] Several human rights and civic activists chose to relocate to mainland Ukraine to escape restrictions, intimidation and harassment, providing information to the Crimean public via the internet.

[6] In July 2014, pro-Russian separatists in Donetsk tried to deter journalists from covering the downing of the MH17 airliner by threatening them with arbitrary detention and intimidation.

In general terms, the new regulation obliges broadcasts and program service providers to make public detailed information about their ownership structures and final beneficiaries.

[132] Also, the amendments prevent businesses and individuals registered offshore from establishing and owning broadcast companies and program service providers in Ukraine.

[133] Specifically, the new law amends article 12 of the existing Law of Ukraine on Television and Radio Broadcasting of 1994, establishing that national and local government authorities, individuals and legal entities which are registered offline, political parties, religious organisations, professional unions, and persons that were convicted by courts and that are still serving their sentences cannot be owners of a TV or radio stations in Ukraine.

Furthermore, the Law prohibits to physical or legal persons residing in a country which is recognised as an aggressor or occupier the right to own a television or a radio station in Ukraine.

[133] The Law provides a new definition of ownership which is closely connected to the exercise of a decisive influence in the management or business activity of the media outlet directly or through other persons and includes also final beneficiaries.

Among some commentators there are some doubts that the Law will be amended to address this issue, due to the strong lobbying efforts of TV owners.