of great tension, which we all notice, we notice how in society there is a certain tension, a certain nervousness. of course, this is connected with the war, it is connected with, as we say, mass ptsr, but it is also connected with the fact that there are many domestic political issues these are the questions that we put to the government, yes, these are the claims that we make to each other and to the government, and questions that should be honestly discussed, but it seems to me that they are being silenced in order to preserve the unity of the country, for example, any criticism of the government today is stigmatized and is equated with destabilizing the situation inside the country, but on the other hand , it seems so to me. now we will ask larisa about it, but it seems to me that silence

will not speak - unspoken, unlegalized issues and contradictions accumulate and create this very tension, especially in many there is this feeling of inconsistency, the incommensurability of the victims on the front line and the political acceptance of such a dusty life larisa - do you agree with me? put from the point of view of ptsd, and our topic is mass ptsd, any trauma is primarily characterized by silencing, a victim of aggression, a traumatized person is silent about his trauma , and the way out of trauma is precisely speaking, speaking , such a frank conversation, so when we talk about the media during war and about the traumatized ukrainian society, traumatized by the war, but even before that there were

enough traumas that were not spoken about, so we understand that now, uh, any centering that does not refer exclusively to military issues, any centering conditionally those questions that arise in society it only harms it only increases the tension and, accordingly, sooner or later will lead to an explosion well, if we talk about trauma, what is the ukrainian trauma ? the government has always been, er, such masters in ukrainian, in general, in the ukrainian consciousness of the mass of ukrainians, the government is equal to the masters, but in fact, in the civilized world, it is not like that, the government is a construct, and the people who are representatives of the government are only a part of the structure and not the power itself, for some reason we have every ruler, every politician who or

an official who has the opportunity to exercise power, he considers himself to be the power, he identifies it with himself as this is the well-known state - this is me ludovika uh, that's about it it looks very. by the way, the russian approach. we remember how volodya , commenting on the figure of vladimir putin in russian history at one time, said it was the tenth or 12th year, it seems to me, before all of them, but the spirit of the head of state of the russian state duma, volodya said that putin is russia. this is the ukrainian society of ukrainians who have lived in this

structure in this system of government for generations. retermization took place, it is necessary to speak and here we see today's situation, where absolutely everything is subject to censorship. by the way, even things that have nothing to do with the war, such as the actions of certain officials moreover, even such a small er-e sliver of people's questions that concern, for example, well, it's elementary that you heard how the russian troops got into kherson, why was it demined? this isthmus was not demined. we do not know if it was mined, but the fact that there is no conversation about it is not conversations about how the funds are distributed, and we already hear doubts about this, manipulations , including those that sound like western goals, simply because it does not say this, and there is a plus , after all, paradigm is where the power really is

the service personnel are so equal to give the actual power to these very servants of the people yes, er, i mean now on the political power, and the actual scheme is so er, as if of liberal liberal thinking, er, we must give the service personnel a society er, a sign of what we we want and what we don't like is correct, we are accused not only by the authorities, but also by social groups. to criticize the actions of the authorities in the conditions but let's not violate and not split it is actually a big

mistake because precisely the silence precisely the impossibility of dialogue precisely leads to the split to a certain tension this is firstly and secondly a far mutual creation of mutual distrust and not trust now within ukrainian society in such a time can be deadly for us, for all of us, i mean for cancer, for the collective community, how to talk to the authorities, we also understand, in fact, this also has certain also has its basis in the behavior of the media and criticism of the media, which turns into critical conditionally when these or other emotional subjective statements are dispersed instead of the fact, where the facts and subjective opinion are equal to each other, we often see that journalism produces vivid materials. but if you look at them in relation to a certain structure that has to be present in the journalistic material. you understand that there are no facts here, there are no expressed opinions. there is nothing here except

conjectures and references to the named sources, that is, in principle, the answer to what it should look like information, what should informational work look like during the war? it appears in standard journalism, it is clearly spelled out, including we perfectly understand how we, as specialists , know that a column differs from a report , even in terms of writing, a journalistic investigation differs from some there is an author's program, news items are different from analytical ones, we all understand that these standards are written down and they are not harmful in my opinion, just the implementation of these standards when, for example it is impossible to publicize the conjecture of some such three thoughtful as i call it and pass it off as a fact and add to it some subjective journalistic interpretation to pass it off as the truth. yes , it is impossible, but it is impossible and it is a peaceful time,

in fact, that's why when we are talking about the fact that ukraine needs a certain change in the framework of the work of the media because of the war, no, ukraine needs a change in the framework of the work of the media even before the war, but it simply needs it because it is another country and it is moving towards its inversion development, we understand that oligarchic tv channels then a lot. all these things are no less than how they worked, all these discussions of posts on facebook instead of real news and a real deep social dialogue regarding the significant issues of the existing issues facing society here and now, we saw all this and it was arbitrary, i agree it must be removed, if we hide real journalism in ukraine, then you will only improve the situation. it is clear. you know what i mentioned. now you and i started talking. i remembered the wonderful opinion of the philosopher vahana, who was for

who says that true unity and solidarity is possible only in er democracy is real in a society of free people a-a totalitarian society authoritarian society it is always a society of atomized enemies i.e. people are always hostile to each other that is, only freedom gives this unity and solidarity between people think it's interesting, but it's actually the same thing, it seems to me that what you're talking about is so definite because in fact we we don't need to invent anything, all this has already been worked out by uh societies that are democratic societies that went through the same terrible times and won, and uh, societies that went through a war, that went through certain uh, tests are collective and at the same time preserved this potential potential

for growth and their own democratic institutions , they were told to develop them, there are many of them. this is the same israel is the same, who should read the second world war, britain and so on, we understand that there are unconditional nuances of the work of the media during the war, but these nuances cannot touch the basis of society where a free person lives in his free country defends his free country, if possible, simply give such an example, such a metaphor, so that it is clear in general why we are talking about this and why it is important, well, conditionally, if we are talking about any official from the president, starting with her to the head of the village council, as a representative of the government and not the government and that is, as for part of the structure, it is conditional. there is certain public money and it is not necessary to rebuild it. well, i am now fantasizing, it is necessary to rebuild some kind of city , town, but it is freed, and if this representative of the government considers himself a part of society, he is the first interested in journalism, media, people

discussing, what do the contractors who do this repair look like, this is reconstruction. where does the money go, or is it not stolen, that is, if a representative of the government identifies that he is a part of society, he understands himself, then he is the first interested in open information if he opposes itself society and unfortunately, this is the russian structure, the russian imperial structure, from which we all emerged as a society and what did it inherit, which we are trying to get rid of, right there, the government opposed to society opposed to a person there is definitely an interest in stopping the dissemination of information under one or another guise, that is why we insist on this, the government in ukraine, in free ukraine, for which blood is being shed now, it should be representatives of society and not something else, not something that dominates

on society and sooner or later in this domination risks turning into an absolutely hostile such a frozen despacito who destroys this society who subjugates it therefore freedom words are simply the basis of everything for which we are currently fighting. by the way, listen to larisa. i mention it very often. to be honest, i watch russian television at work and there is actually the creation of this parallel reality. this is exactly what you are talking about. completely detached from life, absolutely some kind of created capsule of reality , and even from the last century, or from the century before last, i actually want to talk about reality and unreality . recently, i read an interview with the british publicist peter pome, and he is very interesting said about the fact that during the war it is very important for the country to synchronize in order for the military and

civilians to breathe in harmony. he says that there is a risk if the soldiers see the front, then one reality and the media show another reality. then there is this gap and you need to look for it. the balance is between one and the other, on the one hand, to maintain the capacity of the fighting spirit, such is the mood, and on the other hand , to speak honestly with or with the readers or the audience, and if this balance is not there, as they say, it is reconciled, then there are risks of losing reality, then the soldiers see that society does not understand what is happening at the front, and the gap begins, the fragmentation of reality is a very thin river, says peter, and it is very complicated, and he says, i do not envy the people who have to make decisions, what should be said now, and what should not be said now , how to properly talk about losses in the war and how

do you uh what how do you rate the uh in which tony talks about the losses in the war in the marathon of national unity in the only news in the only telethon united well the fact is that we all agreed with what eh is a question about the number of e-e losses from the military are not discussed during this war. now, this is a very good decision , taking into account our experience, i am not sure that it is correct, but unfortunately for us, when there was manipulation of the number of dead in the zhylavalska debaltseve and this russian review shook society scared the society with these losses and tried to achieve those other decisions. this decision was

definitely taken. you know, it's so frivolous to the strength and danger of the enemy, i hear that many soldiers are slandering them when, uh, from the very beginning, at least when they made fun of the russians, they say they can't shoot, they don't have weapons, they don't have any clothes hahaha and they said listen, this is a very insidious and very strong enemy, and here is a military man, what does he feel at this moment, he feels that he is abandoned, that he is on the front line, and he was almost handcuffed, it happens in different ways, this is the same war, it is always an unpredictable situation, it does not happen of ideals, they are in any country, any most powerful army in the world with the best weapons, but nevertheless, a specific soldier in a specific trench on a specific front line understands that it is a nightmare right here and

now in this battle - it is a horror and when he comes out of this battle and he hears some fun and regarding the enemy and belittling, er, that er, that war that is being waged , he understands what it means. yes, he will, he understood that all these marathons and mines that are called these are not military names, they are just some such people. that is , what are you talking about talk from jokes to to to good ones russian ones are on the air except for military ukrainian ones. that is, how to speak. the fact is that , strangely enough, in our information space, we never learned to talk about a specific military man, about a person who took up a weapon and became an oak tree, as the only correct example for eh

imitation unfortunately, these people have the impression that this specific impulse in the soul does not weigh anything, somehow, the government, the west, everything in the world, we are talking, but this particular soldier who is now in the trenches, well, he is there, moreover, we we see that society is beginning to treat them , they say well, they are professional, they are professional soldiers . that the way our military is fighting, the way it is the volume of society for them is of course incomparable to the way the russian army looks like this, it is of such a soviet model, but this is incomparable to the

military as to their victory and to their struggle their military work is treated in the same way as the united states or israel when we hide them in a certain way when they are praised when they are awarded all these things they must be present respect there is no respect what about the state monopoly on the mass media is it possible to have a state monopoly on the mass media and what are the threats it carries, and we will start with the well-known e-e news that on july 11, oligarch rinat akhmetov announced that medigroup ukraine is giving up all broadcast and satellite television licenses of its channels in favor of the state, as well as the license of e-ed publications printed online and so on, and that is, the media group

of ukraine ceases to exist, and akhmetov says that this decision is dictated by the need to implement the law on oligarchs. of course, we all dreamed that television and media in general, but especially television, would cease to be oligarch but we did not say that so many licenses or media assets could go to the state in the near future, and the state or we have a council on the issue of television and radio broadcasting, which, as we understand, will depend on the president's office dispose of these licenses, and therefore state control over the media will increase as you mediate. how do you feel about it? how do you see it? well, the fact is that one of the points of ukraine's association with the eu was the promise that ukraine would not have a civil service

, so i am very worried not only about the possible state the control is not lateral to me, the fact that we are already moving further on the path of european integration, already receiving the status of the applicant, which, by the way, under the question, we still need to fulfill certain conditions , moreover, one of the conditions is freedom of media, no new the law on cops and instead of fulfilling the conditions and leveraging the media , we are actually starting to make them more independent. if the state plans to continue to create and support state media, then in principle this is a direct violation of the association, moreover, we saw these manipulations when the context of the channel is completely changed, the board of the tv channel is the board, although the law clearly states what kind of tv channel it is, we have seen that foreign language, which is definitely important for ukraine

, because russia spends billions on speaking abroad and to convey information, ukraine even got rid of broadcasting in several foreign languages , which are now available. some tv channels, in particular the rada tv channel, in particular the tv channel in the house, in particular the fourth channel, which was bought by nyakky kovalev, a people’s deputy from a servant of the people, who has now become a traitor and is a gauleiter. yes, in the south of ukraine, and in russian, and in fact my question is this, to larisa, may

god not call it state television, but in fact it will be either its own people close to the bank, or such conditional kovalovs, yes, or conditional tv channels called any yes, not state tv channels, but in fact they will be under political control under the control of the authorities, do you see such a threat? well, in this case, there is, i say that this is a multi-layered problem, because on the one hand, it is an influence due to the loyalty of the owners to e-e on the politics of the channels that are allegedly independent ones were not introduced under control, but the other - this creation is contrary to the law, a direct violation of the law of broadcasters that simply do not have to be in accordance with the obligations that ukraine has already assumed. we cannot have state television, that's all , not to mention the fact that any television 12 then this law about oligarchs that

talks about the tv channel is surprising, the question is not who owns the tv channel, the question is to what extent the groups that are on these tv channels, the employees of the channels can be independent and who should check how to write, we understand that in the west media is business and it is also an influence, definitely people who own the most disrespectful editions of the snakes of the world, they and the green are famous and they are respectable and definitely they are influential, they are influential people in their environment but nevertheless, are these the rulers, do they dictate the policy? no, there is no reason when we. we now tend to replace concepts instead of creating structures, to create rules that will allow us to work, allow us to develop, which will allow us to strive for certain things and achieve

we are starting to create simulators of certain civilizational standards, because in my opinion the law about oligarchs is just eye candy because what is it about? well , it won't be like a method, well, tomorrow it will be another channel, it could be nobody, we know, great the owners may have a person who has uah 5,000 there, all the funds are there, and she lives somewhere on the outskirts of m.m. in khrushchevka, it doesn’t matter, it doesn’t matter, what matters is how the media should work. unfortunately, we see that we are all resisting as a result to the question and how should the media work? we hear that the media should, er, silence information because there is a war in our country, and then we will have something else, and then it will turn out that any criticism is er, for example, a political process, although when you say about these or other social issues are discussed by the legislation says that these or other social

moments this is not about the government, it is about the life of society and criticism if it exists if it is based on fact if it is a presentation of these or other analytical alternative opinions e-e opinions and a the government's recommendations are a necessary tool for the proper functioning of a democratic society . supporters what difference does it make who voted for whom if we are not ukrainians larisa i have such thoughts or actually worries so watch in the conditions of marathons the only news in fact all tv channels except for three which uh which turned off digital broadcasting which were considered patriotic but opposed to the government,

so they are simply excluded from marathons from digital broadcasting, mostly all media groups are working now on uh, on a telethon, yes, on the only news , ah, what eh, what is the sense, let's say on the same end or something akhmetov himself is so loud. in kolomoisky itself, in the case of the lack of an advertising market , are there any problems with the advertising market now , so with the advertising market, should we invest in the tv channel or in the entire media group that speaks in to a single telethon and one way or another, hmm , it is controlled, we all understand it, in some way, you can say that it is controlled by the authorities, yes , it is not controlled on the seventh one, but the position is agreed upon. yes, it is not always in the general

national interest, it is sometimes purely interests domestic political so certain political power as from this what will be the way out of this so let's say tomorrow pinchuk will announce that he is also giving up on er from his media assets and that 's how you see how it will be how it will be after the fact is that, in my opinion , this single marathon should not be absolutely obvious that the state should have access to any tv channel for the dissemination of necessary information. i understand about single news, for example, i understand about briefings of the general staff. i do not understand what does the only marathon in which the information is completely censored, because the society, in addition to fighting, lives, there are many questions regarding funding and certain laws regarding

military salaries and compensation there immigrants, how to build these systems, there are a lot of topics that society can discuss, thereby relieving tension, instead, they give us some kind of single marathon, in my opinion, uh, such a very low-level product, because sometimes i , honestly, i can't do it it's easier for me as a person who constantly monitors the russian information space. i need it for work. listen to scavia. it's easier to watch. well, because he is completely disconnected from i don't see the answers to the questions that arise in my mind. what is this question, this question is not because i was so picky, i am a journalist, this question is now everyone's people are afraid for the future, they cannot plan for the future, they do not want to be in stylish anxiety and you do not need to suck them like small children and talk to them with gasps like you

do you see the return and do you understand how you see the return to information and in this situation how do you see because we have literally 3 minutes left after the victory or after some kind of normalization so how to return uh how to get on the path of independents medov how to save the independence of the media, in particular the independence of tv channels. i believe that with regard to normality, that is, to the construction of normal independent goals, it is necessary to return now, after the victory, because it is also a front, in fact , for ukraine - it is a front for ukrainian digital journalism, we understand that a necessary law is necessary about the media, which is clearly prescribed, will prescribe what wartime censorship and wartime censorship are , what it concerns, what it cannot concern, and it is necessary to return to work, a single marathon

it should be now, after all. if someone wants some tv channels to unite, it should be an unworthy state. it can be their personal initiative. and in their broadcasting, they should also do rebroadcasting, but from the point of view of the state, they should stop interfering in the work of the media except for those points. which relate to socially significant security military issues, and then this will lead to something like this. well, first of all, to a decrease in tension in society, to an increase in trust, well, that's my opinion, we should play around, well, the israelis will take the example of the same israelis mass media that work during the war in a country where political processes are going on and all this leads only to the strengthening of the country to the strengthening of its defense capabilities and not to the deterioration of the situation free press free media not