This is the final of the media monitoring reports which were published in the framework of the project ‘Regional Voices: Strengthening conflict sensitive coverage in Ukraine’s regional media,’ funded by the European Union. The project was implemented by a media consortium led by the Thomson Foundation, and consisted of the European Journalism Centre, ‘Spilnyi Prostir’ Association, MEMO 98 and the International Institute for Regional Media and Information.
The total 24 regional monitoring reports on coverage of IDPs in the local Ukrainian media (regional monitoring reports, comparative cross-regional monitoring reports, comparative monitoring reports by monitoring periods and final report) will be prepared in between 2015 – 2017. The first media monitoring report assessed the findings from 1 to 23 October 2015, the second monitoring report assessed the findings from 15 to 28 February 2016, the third monitoring report evaluated the findings from 1 to 14 June 2016, and the fourth monitoring report assessed the findings from 10 to 23 October 2016.
(…) The monitoring sample consisted of a total of 204 monitored media (51 TV channels, 65 print media, and 88 online media outlets), in 24 regions of Ukraine divided into four main parts. (…)
Executive Summary
The monitoring of four different periods in all regions of Ukraine showed a lack of IDP-related stories in general and those with a more analytical and investigative approach in particular.In most of their stories, journalists merely reflected on the current situation with IDP, without aiming for a long-term vision or more profound public discussion on how to resolve problems of IDPs in a particular region.There were a few examples of materials that looked like they were paid for as they lacked some basic journalistic standards. Moreover, there were instances of using somebody else’s stories and their republishing in some local media.Journalists did not question official statements by authorities or ask them probing questions and avoided verification of the information submitted by the state authorities.Media, in general, avoided sensationalism when reporting on IDPs. In general, they used correct language and terminology when addressing internally displaced persons, without any apparent attempt to discriminate and used picture and videos in a proper way, in line with the portrayed topics and issues.There were, however, a few examples when media discriminated IDPs, featuring them in a negative way or referring to them as ‘refugees’.Media, in general, avoided sensationalism when reporting on IDPs. There were some positive examples when media focused on the human side of IDP stories.The third monitoring revealed that while the general lack of IDP-related stories was visible in all periods, there were a few instances of a more systemic coverage of IDPs. Some publications were initiated in the framework of different international projects.Especially in the last two monitoring periods, there were a few instances of better quality stories on IDP-related issues as well as materials that provided useful information to IDPs on social benefits.Anmerkung: Die Daten aller fünf Wellen der Medienauswertung dieses Projekts sind unter <http://www.prostir-monitor.org/reports/en/> aufrufbar.Quelle: “Media coverage of Internally Displaced Persons in the Ukrainian mass media”, Final Media Monitoring Report, February 2017, <http://memo98.sk/uploads/content_galleries/source/memo/ukraine/editorial-forum-2017/final-summary-media-monitoring-report_ukraine_2017.pdf>
