A gesture of good will by an oligarch, or a cunning plan?
“Media Group Ukraine” oligarch Rinata Akhmetova will return to the state only broadcasting licenses, no other assets will be transferred to the state, said Nataliya Yemchenko, communications director of the SCM company. which she gave us) for broadcasting. All. … This is exactly what will be done. We will not transfer any other assets of the media group, except for these licenses, to the state – neither brands, nor libraries,” she wrote on Facebook.
Yemchenko emphasized that there was not a single word about the transfer of assets in the statement either. Akhmetova, and promised new details in the near future.
In turn, media expert Olga Zakharovain a comment, “Detector Media” noted that Akhmetov announced the refusal of licenses and the termination of the online editions of “Media Group Ukraine”, because in the current conditions, the media business has no chance of becoming profitable. She noted that Akhmetov's holding had a long-term strategy, the ultimate goal of which was to make a profit. However, the circumstances of the war made this plan unrealistic.
In general, the statement of the oligarch made a lot of noise in social networks. Political expert Andriy Smolii called the news alarming.
“I am not a supporter of many presenters who built the Russian world on these (and other) channels. However, what good is it if these channels turn into a solid “Council” or “House”? Nothing,” he wrote.
Smoliy indicated that currently all Akhmetov TV channels have stopped independent broadcasting and broadcast the marathon, including sports and regional channels, and expressed the opinion that in the near future they will either completely stop broadcasting in the near future sometimes the marathon will simply be broadcast.
Chairman of the Center for Political Studies “Doctrine”, political consultant Yaroslav Bozhko believes that the oligarch to a certain extent decided to compromise with the President's Office and recalled that in the autumn Zelensky stated that Akhmetov was allegedly preparing a putsch against him.
“Now the situation has changed fundamentally. And large TV channels in Ukraine are mostly non-profitable businesses in general. It makes sense to keep them only if there are political interests and only then. Therefore, it will be difficult to find another owner. At the same time, Akhmetov is obviously the furthest from power among the mastodons of Ukrainian oligarchs. … I can assume that Akhmetov makes a clear pass to other players: I am not an oligarch, I am a businessman. I am leaving the media sphere. And you, Ihor Valeriyovych, Viktor Mykhailovych and Dmytro Vasyliovych, please do the same now, or you will fall under the law on oligarchs,” he expressed his theory.
Politician Boryslav Bereza notes, that the Ukrainian media market simply started to survive other and disagreeable.
“But the most important thing is that it is not the channels themselves that are transmitted, but the license. So the channels will have to be created. From scratch. And also by ourselves. And Ukraine, Ukraine-24, NLO, Indigo and Football-TV will disappear from our airwaves. And after them, the rest. In general, soon we will only have TV channels Rada, Dim, 1+1, Kvartal-95 and possibly Suspilne. This is what the wonderful law on oligarchs does,” he wrote and added that in the near future there may not be any media left in Ukraine. which would not be subordinated to the state, or rather to the Bank.
“Or to those who are friends with VP. Like in Russia. So today, Ukraine has taken a big and confident step towards making our information space similar to the one created by the Kremlin in Russia,” he added.
Deputy Viktoria Syumar noted that Although the system of oligarchic media is far from responsible freedom of speech, it assumes pluralism.
“And this means the presence on the air of different points of view, positions and discussions. And it always drives political competition, development and democracy. And the authorities never liked it. None. She likes the Marathon – when only the government is on the air, and no one else, when there is a complete taboo on criticism and complete regulation of topics and guests. And this is a guarantee of high ratings. Always. As in Putin's time”, she pointed out the dark side of the situation and warned the current government against information monopoly and dictatorship in Ukraine.
Journalist Oksana Sokolova notes that there is a hidden side to the situation.
“Something I don't believe in voluntarily giving up media empires… And that Rynat Akhmetov would be afraid of the law on deoligarchization… I wonder what's behind the screen?…” she wrote.
Deputy and owner Mykola Knyazhytsky of his own TV channel believes that Akhmetov wants to shift the responsibility for the difficult economic situation in the media business as a result of the war to the authorities. He emphasized that the biggest thing that Ukrainians will lose as a result of the situation is football, which Akhmetov's channels have the right to broadcast.
“The rights belong to Akhmetov's channel, it will be closed or “handed over to the state”. If they don't even close, who will now pay crazy amounts for rights and broadcasts. No one. Therefore, Zelenskyi will be blamed for this,” Knyazhytskyi said.
“Akhmetov is handing over licenses to the state. But the state has no right to be the owner of the media. Otherwise, it is a dictatorship. OP dreams of it, but has not yet built it,” he added.
Journalist Bohdan Butkevich expressed the opinion that the refusal of licenses is Akhmetov's protest against the refusal of his TV channels to withdraw from the telethon.
“Because now the situation is such that the channels supposedly belong to Akhmetov, but in fact they work for Ze and Co. And the end of martial law is when. That's why Rinat decided to merge the non-working passive, which was no longer giving any political gifts. But for which I had to pay,” he wrote.
At the same time, he added that Akhmetov is by no means out of the game and can simply transform the holding.
Chief expert on media law of the Center for Democracy and Rule of Law Ihor Razkladai assessed the situation as follows:
“License refusal” is a banal cancellation of the registration of a printed publication. It's nothing more than that. They could not have refused. A satellite license is also a joke. Because, although it is a license, there is a lot of space on satellites – pay the big bucks and you'll hang there. That's why the state has what it has, what it doesn't have.
The most valuable is the terrestrial terrestrial digital license. Because this is the so-called T2. If the licensee returns the license, it means that someone else can potentially speak in that slot. Will anyone want to invest in a warring country soon?! Well, I don't know…
Online media – currently there is no regulation. They live in the maximum regulation of advertising, copyright and civil code. That is if you find them, of course.
To sum up: to give up in favor of the state is a big, big PR stunt.”
Journalist Tetyana Danylenko noted that Akhmetov's exit from the media business is “one of the giant steps towards a complete information monopoly.”
“Akhmetov's exit from the media business in 2011 would probably be great news. Today, this is one of the giant steps towards a complete information monopoly. No, not the state. And one political team. As you know, power corrupts even the saints, and full power corrupts absolutely,” she noted.
Anchor and journalist Ostap Drozdov, in turn, believes that Akhmetov's exit from the media business has nothing to do with the anti-oligarchic law, and its biggest destroyer left the media market.
“Akhmetov's media holding is a shameful and toxic phenomenon. A frank pro-Russian narrative; long-term Russification of the ether; prostituted service to politicians; complete subordination of broadcasting to the political goals of the owner; bet on the cotton viewer of the southeast… And now everything has changed dramatically. Monetized fun and entertainment content was covered with a copper basin. Plus, the structure of the audience has fundamentally changed: the basic audience is not under shelling, but under direct occupation. Akhmetov's holding has completely lost its audience base, and it is becoming dangerous to serve the remnants of the audience,” he assessed the oligarch's statement.
At the same time, Drozdov noted that the oligarchic media market will not be zeroed out, but “it will simply turn green to such an extent that it will become almost impossible to distinguish a Russian zombie fighter from ours”.
Well, of course, the question is not could not be ridiculed in the media space of Ukraine. So journalist Vakhtang Kipiani wrote that “Akhmetov called via Viber. Offered to buy Golovanov and Martirosyan on the cheap. At residual book value. And Shuster with a discount. No need.”
Comedian and musician Ivan Marunych also did not miss such an opportunity.
Read also: Venediktova personally joined the group of prosecutors in two criminal cases related to Akhmetov's business. forced decision” to withdraw from the media business, and his “Media Group Ukraine” will give up all broadcast and satellite television licenses in favor of the state.
