So the elections have passed, new president has came to power. How will media act after the state will change and new people come to power? Will media occupy an independent watchdog position, or will they serve a news king, as they served the previous one? Will they change the approach, or will this approach remain the same?

After the repeat vote, when the results were not known yet, and even when they were known, but were still a subject of appellation there was some danger, that there could be the change of the media orientation to the opposite, or there could be some witch hunt. That there could be change of polarity, like now we have good president Yushchenko, let's work for Yushchnko, let's write Temniks, convenient for Yushchenko. There was some danger of this kind. However the reaction of the journalists community and reaction of some politicians upon the attempts of creating something similar in the regions, gave me optimism. There were attempts to start pressing on the side opposite to a new state.
Particularly in Rivne there was a newspaper "7 days" that supported Yanukovych during the elections, and there was a pressure on that newspaper and there were even attempts to close it. The situation went so far that it led to the gathering of a session of city council in order to consider the question. Actually the pressure on that newspaper occurred not only because of the fact that it supported Yanukovych, but also because it published falsified article of manipulation type and that was the main reason of the problems with the council.
In Chernovtsy there was a problem with one of TV channels that supported Yanukovych, and there was an attempt of regional state officials to close this channel, however they were not let to close it, and that was very positive because it didn't let some hot heads, or provocateurs to start political reprisals against their political opponents, under this image.
The second thing is that for the first time in Ukraine real discussions began regarding editorial policy of media. And those discussions were not on the level of ideas, but on the level of implementation of that editorial policy. Those discussions also included the professional standards of journalism, that should be in the editorial policy of media outlets, and that all three sides of media business, the owner or founder of the outlet, the manager and the journalists should guarantee the fulfillment of the editorial policy.
Never before Ukraine was so close to the attainment of some normal editorial policy. Of course at the present moment such things are not signed on paper yet, but this is a temporary factor, because we can't just copy the editorial policy of BBC or Reuters. Though de facto the implementation of professional standards among the journalists already happened, because everyone is ready for this.
Also Ukraine was never so close to the creations of Public Broadcast, and not only in a format of the transformation of UT-1, but also in a format of the public broadcast on the regional level of TV channels and on the level of the municipal media outlets. Now is the best opportunity for this, and in order to do this we need to find a correct way to reorganize state TVs, state newspapers, but not to commit follies. We already had a number of examples, not only in democratic processes, but also in economics, when we destroyed old structure before creating something new.
However in this case the society is ready to apply a different approach for the transformation, and especially to the human resources.
UT-1, despite it's dullness is not the channel that doesn't have professionals at all, there are professional people on that channel and they should stay there. Also there are positive technical, network, acknowledges and management accumulations. Everything that is positive on UT-1 should remain, but of course, everything, that is absolutely outdated, everything that fails to meet the present requirements, the present format, should disappear.
Also I'm happy with a clear non-aggressive, non-extremist approach on the lustration, that was implemented by the journalists community and by some politicians. There is a desire to analyze the situation and to find optimal and legal solutions which should solve any problems in a positive way. All the problems are being solved with that positive potential, that was given to us by Orange Revolution. It's quite indicative.
During the revolution there was quite an interesting example. My students were picketing Inter channel under an interesting slogan "We believe that you want to tell the truth". No one went on a picket to fling mud at someone, no one went to shout "Shame". They only wanted to say that there was a possibility and that they trusted in that possibility, and that was one the reasons why it happens the way it did.

Is there a possibility that new state, new government team, would use the trophies, the weapons of their rivals, against those rivals?

I don't think so and there are several reasons, why i don't:
First, not a long time ago during a press-conference dedicated to the creation of public broadcast, Yuri Artemenko (a member of a Parliament Committee for Information and Freedom of Speech) told that some Yushchenko's brothers-in-arms asked Yushenko why he didn't call Zamkovenko (the head of the Supreme Court) and why he didn't ask Zamkovenko to work on a complaint of Yanukovych's proxies to the Supreme Cort for three days instead of five, because everything was already known, why he didn't ask them not to draw the process, and Yushchenko replied that he could call them, but he would be not different from the old state then.
Second example is more deep and more serious illustration and is more serious argument.
That is the situation which journalists of 1+1, of other main TV channels in Kiev and in regions, ended up with, when they understood, that there was no way back, and if worse came to worser they would just quite their jobs.
Actually I don't want to judge my colleagues, but for many of them to quit their job is the same, as to commit the suicide. "I don't want to fight, it's easier to just die". I don't want to accuse anyone but this is actually a hopeless decision, just to quit the job and not to fight for the rights any longer. However the fact, that a big number of journalists was ready for such actions already meant, that any other state under any other color wouldn't be able to force journalists to do anything like they did before. It became impossible.

And what actions should be done in order to fortify current improved situation in the media? You already named one of them, editorial policy, what else should be done?

There are different ideas and methods, and they still are to be discussed. However it is already clear that professional and ethical standards as well as editorial policies based on them should be created. We could also secure those standards with a new law, for example of Swedish type, about the role and the place of media. There is a number of discussions regarding this topic, mainly regarding what should be left on a level of clear formalization, and what shall be left in a more public format. It's absolutely fair and it still is to be discussed, however the level of the informal agreements between journalists and their managers is already serious enough, that there won't be any way back.
Also the advertisement market should change and become more transparent then it is now. Those changes should minimize the possibility of advertisement used as an instrument of the political pressure. Also a number of changes should be applied to the transparency of media ownership. Now we call some TV channels as channels of Pinchuk, Medevedchuk, Surkis, Poroshenko, however in realty none of the mentioned persons de jure is the owners of a TV channel, those channels are controlled through other persons.
Some agreement should be found here, otherwise there won't be any progress in media sphere. The transparency should be achieved, and the situation in the media itself should be normal and transparent. Actually it could be even convenient to some media owners and a number of empty accusation against media outlets could be taken off. Though if those are supported by evidence, of course, they should have legal consequences such as reaction of the anti-monopoly structures etc. Anyhow some real actions, some real steps should be made and indeed now is the best time to do this.

What do you think about the lustration? During several months this topic was raised by a number of politicians and media outlets. Is it really necessary, and could it really help?

First, lustration in its classical way, as it happened, for example, in Wester Europe, or as it happened in Baltic States, is impossible in Ukraine.
It is impossible because classical lustration was actually the denazification of the Germany. Nazis lost the war, the idea was condemned, and those that were working for the regime were kicked out. In Czechoslovakia it happened in the other way: there was a pro-soviet totalitarian regime, then the revolution overthrown it, and the old officials were a subject of some legal actions.
Why is it not possible in Ukraine? The changes doesn't happen in one day. The lustration was possible in case if Orange Revolution happened simultaneously with the events of 1991, however after Ukraine got independence there was no decommunisation of the society, and now we can see among the orange side quite a number of old soviet communist activists.
If we are to speak about the classical lustration, then what have we to do with Zinchnko after what he did with Inter? What have we to do with TV Era and with Derkach family, the owners of TV Era, after problems with Naboka (a journalist and a moderator that faced pressure and was fired in 2002)? What have we to do with the activists of the communist party, and with the activists of Komsomol (Communist Youth organization), which are now with the right side? What have we to do with Tomenko, who was the head of Komsomol students movement in Kiev's university, and was a press-secretary of Kiev's mayor and was writing something like "temniks" on a local level?
For what period of time and for what actions should a lustration be applied?

So the lustration is impossible in Ukraine, isn't it?

Yes, lustration is impossible, because there are too many people, that should be affected by it, though now they are on the orange side. Of course some elements of lustration will happen, and they are really necessary. First, if we speak about media environment, it should be a public lustration. It shouldn't be a legal action, not like someone should be fired, imprisoned or become a subject of any other repressions. Though, in the journalistic team, that is quite a narrow corporate environment, it's quite visible and is not a secret for anyone who and how obeyed "temniks". Who was under pressure, like someone didn't have the apartment, someone had pregnant wife, someone had some other problems and that's why he was forced to look for some compromises. Though there were other people, that didn't just obeying a "temnik", but also were imaging some additional lies, apart the ones that were in a "temnik". Such thing are really hard to hide from colleagues. Do we need any legal actions in this case? Well, the journalists community is such a community in which if there are some people, who don't want to work with you, then you won't be able to hold tight to this job, because you won't feel comfortable among these people. Either you change and on some staff meeting confess that you were doing this and that, and you beg your colleagues for their pardon and they believe you and you work with them, or they don't believe you, and you are not able to work there anymore. This regards public lustration in a journalists community.
Also public lustartion can be done by Ukrainians themselves. Originally I'm from the same city Pikhovshek is, and on one of the last meetings of city's community, the inhabitants of the city declared Pikhovshek a persona non grata in his own city. Of course no one will place cordons on the roads where he might pass, no one will prevent him from coming to his native city by force when, for example, he will come to visit the grave of his parents, but that action was quite indicative.
However apart of this public actions there should be some legal actions. And first of all they should not be applied on executors or distributes, but on decision makers. Those legal actions should be applied against those, who issued those illegal orders, against those who forced that obedience. And if we look clearly, there won't be a large number of such people. I think it will be about 15 people on national level and several people in each region. If we take into consideration the representatives of the regional administration and Yanukovych's regional HQ, it will be about 5 people in each region.
However could be call the criminal prosecution of these people, the ones who violated the law, a lustration?
What is the lustration after revolution?
Before the revolution there were laws that acted in totalitarian society. Did state officials, journalists and any other people, that obeyed those laws, violate them? No, they didn't. The revolution happens, state structure changes, social changes happen, and people understand, that the laws are not the ones that should be. And then in order to punish those people, who obeyed to or created criminal laws, but also to remain within the limits of the law, lustration is applied.
People didn't come to Maidan because they were against the laws, they came to Maidan, because those laws were violated. Laws about elections existed, laws concerning print media existed, laws concerning TV and Radio broadcast existed, but those laws were violated. Do we need a lustration in order to punish people, that violated the laws? Do we need some special lustration functions in order to punish people, that were performing criminal actions and that were creating "temniks"? The law exists, so the General Prosecutor office and other law enforcement authorities should investigate the circumstances of those violation and punish those, who performed the violations.

And what should we do with those so called spin-doctors? What should we do with Kiselev, with Pikhovshek, the people, whose names are already known to Ukrainian people? Those people still remain on TV channels, Pikhovshek will be a moderator of a new show on 1+1 starting from March, while Kiselev is still making his program on ICTV. Those people are still on the air.

My personal position is that if in their actions there were any kinds of violations of the law, then this should be discussed in a legal way. However even if there wasn't any violations of the law from the side of Kiselev or Pikhovshek, the journalist community should react to this in a public way and force the top-managers of TV channels to do something. However the amount of people with such reputation is not really big. You've named only two of them. Who else? We won't be able to count a big number of people of this type.
Mustafin (Olexiy Mustafin, head of the news department of Inter channel), for example is a classical top-manager. Indeed he has his own program, however we can't compare him to Kiselev or Pikhovshek. His program "Poslezavtra" was nothing more then an attempt to be more public and more famous, while Kiselev and Pikhovshek were combining functions of top-manager with the functions of the authors of their own programs that existed for a long time. Now the journalists community, the journalist teams on the TV channels should do their best in order that both Kiselev and Pikhovshek will never come to the air, or at least for a long period of time. Those people should not come to air at least until elections 2006. However I don't want to connect it with elections themselves. They shouldn't appear on air before the society will get some sort of new stability and a new quality of a media product. At least after that discussions regarding separatism, the discussions regarding forming and reformation of the government bodies, and after the discussions regarding forming of a new parliament majority. Only after labors and editorial agreements are created and signed, after public broadcast is started, after the ownership of media and the advertisement market become transparent, only after all of these things happen, they should come to positions of top-managers of TV channels and propose their services, and only then the possibility of their future work on TV should be decided, based only on the professional point of view.

Let's switch from private TV channels, that are private property and that exist on commercial income to state TV channels, that are financed by tax payers. Despite the fact, that UT-1 got the best coverage in Ukraine, the rating of this channel is even worse then the rating of private TV channels that don't have national wide coverage. What is the reason of such low rating, and what should be done in order to improve the situation with UT-1?

Actually the coverage of UT-1 is now lower, then the coverage of Inter or 1+1.
The problem is in technical base, the transmitter doesn't have the relace lamps. Actually recently the channel wasn't supporting its own technical infrastructure.

During last months there are talks about the reforming of UT-1 into public TV, is there a point in such reforming and how should it be conducted?

Definitely, public TV based on UT-1 has to be created. Now, how should it be created:
First, a special liquidation commission must be created, and this commission should solve all that economical and personnel mess that was happening on UT-1. Particularly, it has to be discovered who really works there and receives only official salary, and who works there and receives official plus unofficial salary, like the money received from advertisement. The commission will also have to differ people that legally work there, and those who don't receive money, and never were there, while officially they are counted as the workers of the channel and their work-books are registered on that channel.
Second, the people that work on UT-1 should not suffer from the reformation. It should be done in a way that everything positive on a channel, first of all human personnel, professional and technical solutions, networks and infrastructure of the channel remain. Though everything that is outdated should be destroyed. However the work of liquidation commission shouldn't stop the public broadcasting project from being started, they should work simultaneously. Also the transformation of UT-1 should be happening at the same time with the transformation of state TV channels in the regions and other state-owned media outlets, that should be transformed into local media and municipal newspapers.
There is a coalition of various NGOs that deals with the creation of public broadcast. Of course UT-1 should be transformed first, but during the creation of a national wide public broadcaster another issue should be raised: What to do with regional state TV channels? I think the transformation of regional media outlets should be done in a parallel way with UT-1. The approach used within the coalition is quite simple, however it differs from the existing conceptions. Sasha Tkachenko, for example, had proposed his concept. That is good, but this coalition of NGOs differs from Tkachenko's team in only one thing:
They say, that they know how to do the transformation of UT-1, while we say that we don't know how to do it, and we do not propose any pre-made concept, we propose a forum for discussions, a place where all these new concepts should be discussed, so we'll be able to evaluate all proposed conceptions and to create an ultimate concept based on them. Only during the discussion we will see that some ideas are out of questions for everyone and everyone agrees on them, while some others ideas are questionable and should be discussed and changed during the discussion.
Particularly, we all agree, that public TV shouldn't be state-owned outlets, and that it could not be headed by any state officials. Also we all agree, that a public supervisory board should be created, though we haven't decided on the number of members that should be in this supervisory board, and this already is a topic for discussion. From one side there are proposals that this supervisory board should consist of 7-8 people. In this case supervisory board will be a mobile and well guided body. From the other side there is a proposition, that this body should consist of 90 representatives of public, NGOs, people representing different interests of Ukrainians, moral authorities, professionals etc. Of course in case of direct management it is quite doubtful that this body could be guided, though this body should deal more with strategical decisions. Of course something in between should appear out of all these discussions. For example, the supervisory board will consist of 90 member, but apart of this supervisory board there will be some body that will deal with daily problems.
Then another question appears: Should it be one powerful top manager in charge of a whole channel or should it be a group of managers responding to the supervisory board.
There is a great deal of different discussions going upon this matter, but I think that if a potent and powerful manager led the channel, despite how good this manager is, he should end up making UT-1 work as it worked before. Anyhow the subjective matter of that manager will influence the work of the channel. Such head of the channel shall feel that it is his own channel, and he shall rule it as a director of a factory does. And he will summon the heads of editors office, like the head of UzhMash factory, and will tell them how they should manage their decisions and how they should create public programs. This type of management is unacceptable for public broadcast. Though if instead of one manager there will be a team of managers, where each manager will be responsible for his branch, and each manager will respond only to the supervisory board, then this mechanism shell be both joint and transparent and, in my opinion, it would be a modern management style that will suite for current needs. In this case there will be no one capable of taking the lead and demanding that everyone responded to him.
Another topic for the discussions is the channels funding source. In my personal opinion there should be no other advertisement on public TV except of social advertisement. Any commercial advertisement product may lead to the fact that that channel will change from the format of public broadcast into format of public-commercial broadcast, with more priory of commercial broadcast.

So how do you think the Public TV should be funded?

Exclusively by the watchers.

Do you mean it should be direct subscribers payment for public TV?

Yes, it should be direct subscribers payment.

Though among the media experts there are different positions regarding how public TV should be funded, particularly, some of them say that some percent of the commercial ads, should go to the budget of such channel.

Yeah, yeah, there are still quite a number of variants, but mainly all the experts agree that it should be anything, except the money from direct advertisement on the channel.

However Olexander Tkachenko suggests that when TV channel will be still involved in a process of creation, commercial adds should be aired for some period of time in order to provide additional funding for a newly created channel, and only after the channel rises to it's feet, the commercials should be turned down.

No, this option must be ruled out. It will slow down the development process of public broadcaster from both political and commercial points of view. It will be an attempt to create another commercial TV under the disguise of a public one. Public broadcaster doesn't need to be commercially successful, it shouldn't create a popular product. It should study the moods of people and informational demands of viewers, and it might create a non-format production that is needed, that suits the demands of public. The fact of advertisement itself will change the format of the channel dramatically, and that format will be very close to the format of a commercial channel, and that is unacceptable. With commercial advertisements the factor of external influence on the policy of the channel, especially on the editorial policy will increase.
Also through commercial advertisement the possibility of usage of black cash inside the channel could appear. The funding source of public TV can be any, apart of this. Actually even direct payment shall demand from the viewers to pay about 2,80 grivnas (aprox. 0,40 EURO) per year in order to have budget about 100 million of grivnas per year (aprox. 14,5 mln EURO).

But will this amount of money be enough for a newly created TV channel?

Well, if we'll take into consideration, that at the present moment the state funding of UT-1 is 17 mln. grivnas per year (aprox. 2,5 mln EURO), plus, according to different evaluations channel also earned about 5,5 mln EURO on commercials, while the dominant part of those money were stolen, then 100 mln grivnas will be more then enough for a public national wide TV channel..

Are Ukrainians ready for new payments? Also when a new channel will be created it will require additional investments in order to improve the technical base, both on the channel itself and in the regions. Also the creation of new programs will requires additional funding, for creation of the studio, gathering of a new team etc. From the very beginning the channel will require additional funding in order to make a good start, and to get the viewer. Would those 100 mln of grivnas be enough to start a new channel?

From the beginning the channel could use the existing technical base, and change it gradually. Those hypothetical 2.80 from each viewer per year is many times more then UT-1 receives at the present moment. Also there is a method, how to make it interesting for commercial TV channels to invest money into the development of a public broadcast.
It's hard to imagine that public broadcast will be created by a method of a detector receiver.
And this in technical aspect means that public broadcast should be digital from the very beginning. How could it interest private broadcasters? It's the development of the infrastructure that they could also use. This type of developments is beyond the strength of any private TV channel, though if it were based on the efforts of all private TV channels together, this would be times easer and cheaper.
Regarding the funding, I think the direct funding could be combined with a tax on commercials, or be direct payment of TV channel of just a percent of TAX. Now people pay the taxes, and no one complains, how he feels about specific part of his tax, that goes on UT-1 funding, or on funding regional and district TV companies. At the present moment even old people, that live in the countryside, pay for the radio. They do not protest for that additional payment, vice versa, when the wires are being torn by the wind, they are the first, who complains, that their radio stations are not functioning, and they are ready to give a bribe , a bottle of spirits to a person, who will climb at the pole and replace the wires to return the radio to the countryside. As you see even the most conservative people are ready to pay.
First of all people should be ready to pay for informational product that suits their needs. Even if we are not taking into consideration practical experience and the needs of the people, the commercial TV first-of-all is hedonistic and entertaining. Even if there are some programs devoted to economics or politics, they are done in an entertainment format, in a format of a show. Of course public TV could also be an entertaining one, but this is not the main priority of it. It also should have an informational function, an educational one, as well, as cultural, musical, etc. Even a professional top manager won't be able to create a really high rating program of a program devoted to the theater. A children program or a cultural program also won't be a rating one. And there is a million of examples, a million of non rating topics existing in society, while the format of commercial broadcast is de facto an antagonist of the public broadcast.

Ok, let's return to funding. One of the options is direct payment, the other one is the percent of advertisement tax that shell be forwarded to the budget of public TV, also there is an option that public channel shell be financed from the budget. What of these options do you think to be best one?

I think the best option is the when the one who pays orders the music. And in our case it is not a politician or a businessmen, or a channel owner who pays, but the end-user, the consumer. It is the most honest and transparent topic, and there is already some positive experience with this approach, and a similar method is used in such developed countries as Germany or England.

Is the current state ready for the creation of a public broadcast?

They just don't have any other option. The society that brought the topic of public TV to the attention and supported that idea won't give the state any opportunity to use the idea of public TV in some other needs, and the reaction of the state is already quite indicative. Just look who was appointed as the head of UT-1 under this circumstances.

And whom do you consider to be a good a manager for a new public TV?

As I've already said, I hope, that the new channel won't be headed by one powerful top-manager. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. This top-manager will act in a format of a head of a factory, who says, that this is his channel and he's to build it. I think that should be a young team of 30 years old managers, that should build a new channel, those people, that don't have any negative top management experience. I think Andrey Shevchenko could be one of those top-managers, but as I've already said there shouldn't be one boss, it should be a top managers team, a corporate organ, that should respond to the supervisory board.

What do you think about Alexander Tkachenko, could he be in that top managers team?

Indeed he is a powerful top-manager, a strong professional, but this is main disadvantage in his candidacy. Alas, the fact that he is a strong manager and was for more then five years a head of a commercially successful TV channel will influence his management style in a negative way. Actually it could happen that he using his experience will create another commercially successful media product, but it won't be a format of public media. Under a disguise of public media he will create a new commercial project. Actually this is the reason why he is suggesting to place commercial advertisements on the channel for some period of time, this is the manager's logic, the logic of a successful and a professional manager of a commercial TV channel, and public TV is not his format. His caution, for example, that some times becomes a super-caution may be good for a top-manager of a commercial channel, but it doesn't suite the public TV channel. Alexander is a professional manager, but I can't imagine that while being a head of public TV media he will receive a phone call from the President, from Chancellery or from the Cabinet of Ministers and on their demands he will respond "get lost". It's impossible to imagine such situation.

And what should be done with state media in the regions? Should they all be transformed into the public ones?

There are different ideas regarding this matter and the most problematic question regards state newspapers. For example the Association of Publishers of Periodical Press recommends to close all state newspapers, especially in the regions, or privatize them, and force labor collectives of those newspapers to redeem what newspaper owns from the state including buildings and technical base, and then let them works as commercial ones. And to see which of those newspapers are capable to survive in the market, and which of them will perish in the concurrent war. Thus the commercial newspapers that are already successful on the market demand to put the newly created newspapers at the same conditions with them. The newspapers having no marketing experience are first demanded to find somewhere the money to pay for the property, and then to survive in a fight with those private newspapers.
From the other side, the position of the Union of Journalists is also quite senseless. Like Lubchenko says that those newspapers occupy quit a serious segment of a market, they have their own reader, so we are to support them, we are not against the privatization but let's drag it out for 10-15 years.
However in the light of recent constitutional changes the role of cities' self-government shall increase and the problems will be solved easily. At the present moment we are starting to run a big project that will perform some sort of public audit. After publishing the methodology and the list of NGOs that will be doing this in the regions, we will look at the media landscape in the regions and give a public evaluation of this landscape. An evaluation that does not oblige anyone to do anything.
But this public audit will show what newspapers in each region are ready to be transformed into commercial ones, and then maybe there will be a need to lobby these transformation, maybe to apply changes to the legislation, or even to cooperate with regional authorities in order to create some public fund. Because the newspapers will need to find some opportunities, either it will be a beneficial credit or just a one-time support, to transfer to commercial ones. Other newspapers, that are closer to the public ones, both by the format and by their opportunities, should be transfered into public media in the regions.
For example, when city or district community gains normal functions, then there will appear a need, for newspapers that will be the voice of that community, that will create forums for discussions, and will touch topics related to that community in their publications and will serve as a mediator between the regional state and community.
Of course this information won't be a commercial product but it will be needed. Even on the level of some TV company of a city it will be useful to tell pensioners in an old format about the changes in pension legislation. Those program shouldn't be created by the laws of TV business, they won't be a rating ones, they won't be made in a format of a show, but they will be created in a way those pensioners are already used to and that will be the best for them to comprehend. Is this type of program important? Yes it is. Are people ready to pay for this? Of course they are, and they are ready for this not only on regional level, but also on a national level, when it comes to some mass culture product. Is some old women ready to pay, for the fact that her precious serial won't be stopped by advertisement every 20 minutes? Of course she is.
By the same reason old people are ready to pay for their radio that is not modern by format, but gives some local news and covers local events of a district level. Of course we need to modernize this so that it will be both modern and interesting. Though it is also unacceptable that the whole format of TV or radio broadcast will be made only in a commercial way, meaning that the good income and top rating is the main goal of broadcast. There are different target audiences, and one should select the program that is related to his personal interests.
Thus in a public format the biggest problem of a private media shall disappear. The commercial media outlet product is averaged-out at maximum. In other words the ideal viewer for the commercial TV channel is a person without any special education and without any cultural tastes or preferences, then ones the managers call "shall eat". Commercial channels needs those people that will "eat" their product, and the more active they will "eat" this product, the greater will be the income from the advertisement.
While with public TV a different approach should be applied. Deferent people with deferent tastes should receive what they want, what suits their demands. In this sense in one area both public and commercial media should exist. For example, people will watch some show or some serial on commercial channels, though the programs about some things, that are touching their life, their problems, should be aired on public TV. Those programs won't be rating ones for some commercial TV channels, you won't be able to place advertisement there. Particularly, the advertisement won't work in some cultural programs but there is a need in such programs, and those programs are to be done in a professional way.

For last several years National Council for TV and Radio broadcast was quite a passive body, that was issuing licensees to the familiar people and was not issuing licenses to "strangers", and sometimes was used as an instrument of a political reprisal. With one of his last decrees Kuchma had fired Kholod, and now the acting head of national council Ponedilko started to speak about the mass violations of the license demands by all main TV channels. According to him National Council had conducted media monitoring, and found numerous violations of advertisement law. Does the suggestion of National Council to return to legal ways mean, that National Council finally started to play an active role in media, and will foresee the fulfillment of the law by media outlets?

I don't have any prepared know hows, though we have to do our best in order to make that future work of National Council for TV and Radio Broadcasts will not depend on active or non active position of its members due to the change of political situation or something else. The work of National Council should be set up in a such a way that in future not even a President or a Cabinet of Ministers or any other state body will be able to change the format of work of National Council. There should be a simple transparent system how the people are appointed there and on what base they act. The National Council should change from a half-soviet supervising inspection body into the instrument of a democratic society. In order to archive this we should use the experience of western countries, and to ensure that in any case National Council won't be used in a nontransparent way as a tool of some repressions or creation some benefits for giving licenses etc.
There are a number of discussions regarding the way how the members of National Council should be appointed. From one side there are suggestions that during the transient period there should be equal amount of people both from the President and from the Parliament. This provision was created before in order to maintain some sort of balance. However, at the present moment I don't think that this composition should remain in the future, we definitely have to change something. I think that the branches of the state, including the President, shouldn't have the opportunity to influence National Council.

So in order to improve the work of National Council we need only to change the way, how the members of national council are appointed?

Of course not, these changes require the changes to the law on National Council for TV and Radio Broadcast. And apart of already mentioned changes, there should be a number of other changes regarding the functionality of National Council, and the resolving principle should be excluded from its functions. It's a rudiment. What does it mean "a resolving-controlling body"?

What other changes should be applied to the National Council for TV and Radio Broadcast?

I think it will be the best, if National Council is changed into public control body. The body that foresees the whole processes in the information area and contains expert working groups that consist of professionals from different fields of life, like creators, sportsmen. Also we should listen to the arguments of the people that represent show-business. It should be representatives of a different audience and this composition will help to find out the decisions that will be suitable and convenient for everybody. Also there should be a well-ordered transparent system of licenses issuing. I think that in order to make some independent evaluations and in order to ease the coordination, media monitoring should be conducted by National Council. Though actually I don't know if there really is a point in creation of a specific monitoring division at National Council. Maybe it will cooperate with with some experienced NGOs that will be able to provide some professional measurements. Also there is a point to organize some cooperation with sociological companies, in order to react on informational needs, informational requests.
Anyhow it should be a public body, a body of public influence, and public control, not a licensing-punitive and securing body, because according to the current law National Council is a state body, a nondepartmental, but a state one, and National Council shouldn't be a state body under any conditions. Now it's a state body and members of National Council are state officials and that shouldn't be this way.

So Kholod is out, however the man, he was replaced with, Alexiy Gudko, is a person, who was responsible for editorial policy on UT-1 several years ago. Would his participation in the Council influence it's work?

I think this appointment is a temporary one. I don't know will his presence really influence or change something. Until those changes I was talking about will happen, even if there will be positive changes in the composition of National Council, these changes will be quite subjective. The main point of the changes is to exclude the personal factor at maximum. It shouldn't work in a way like good people were appointed - National Council is good, bad people appointed -- Council is bad.
We need to change it in a way, that it should work effectively despite any personal preferences.