A Telethon That Lost Credibility: How United News Turned from a Beacon of Truth to a Source of Disappointment

When Russian troops invaded Ukraine in February 2022, the Yedyni Novyny telethon became a source of hope and truth for millions of Ukrainians who found themselves in the midst of wartime chaos. Having united the country’s leading TV channels, he promised to provide the society with verified and vitally necessary information about the situation at the front and inside the country. However, over time, the image of the “beacon of truth” has changed, and today many viewers feel disappointed and even distrustful. What happened to the telethon that promised to unite the nation, and why did its viewers begin to question its objectivity?

From strategic platform to ethereal void

Initially, the telethon had an ambitious and important goal – to become the only source of verified information for millions of Ukrainians who faced the chaos and uncertainty of a full-scale war. And indeed, “Edyny Novyny” became a real information weapon that united most national TV channels with one goal: to provide constant and reliable coverage of events. Current news, direct inclusions from the front, reports of government officials, important statements of the military — all this attracted millions of viewers who were looking for truth and hope in a sea of ​​panic. The ratings of news blocks in the first months of the war soared to unprecedented heights. TV channels gathered huge audiences both in the country and abroad. Spectators, holding their breath and falling in front of their TV screens, waited for the long-awaited news about the end of the war, about the victory of Ukraine.

But time passed, and instead of operational information, viewers increasingly began to watch some stories that had no value. Long interviews with little-known “experts”, reflections on abstract topics and many empty discussions of what is already obvious. The culmination was the appearance on the air of frankly marginal topics that have nothing to do with the war or the urgent needs of society.

It should be noted that the state allocated 1 billion 607 million UAH for the production of content for the telethon this year.

As you know, “Yedny noviny” includes 4 private TV channels, which received UAH 538,146,000 in 2023. The cost of one hour of broadcasting for each participant is as follows:

• “We are Ukraine” – UAH 195.63 thousand;
• “Inter” – UAH 124.27 thousand;
• “1+1” – UAH 140.72 thousand;
• “ICTV” – UAH 143.21 thousand.

According to the contract, the channels must fulfill the following requirements:

• production of live information programs;
• production of informational programs in the Ukrainian language;
• providing live broadcasting from the studio every day;
• direct inclusion of experts, journalists from the places of events, live broadcast of the briefing, etc.

And they formally fulfill these requirements. But in practice, it turns out that sometimes the quality of such content is very questionable, due to the lack of real monitoring and auditing by the state. That is, the money has been allocated, and then you can do whatever you want with it. Instead of focusing on coverage of events from the front, government decisions and international support for Ukraine, the telethon increasingly turns to secondary and even comical subjects. That’s why we have such projects as “Hidden Corner” with 10-minute stories about giraffe feces that turn into unique accessories, or about a 75-year-old bachelor who keeps his virginity from women behind a 4.5-meter fence.

And one of the airs of the telethon was even dedicated to the “expert” – quadrobershchi Annette Barsovna. A popular blogger informed the country that more than 96% of the population already belongs to the quadrober subculture, although they themselves have not yet realized this. She compared quad biking to a sport that strengthens the spine, brain and fingers, highlighting its benefits for the body and mind.

It is hard to imagine that such large sums of money are being spent on low-quality projects. Such materials not only seem inappropriate in the context of war, but also cause outrage among viewers, for whom the telethon was the only source of vital information. It is obvious that there is a serious problem with the control of spending of state funds on ensuring information security by the Ministry of Culture. After all, it should ensure effective and targeted use of budget funds, organization and coordination of the work of managers of budget funds at a lower level and recipients of budget funds in the budget process. In fact, money is thrown to the wind.

Rating of “The only news”

The information fatigue felt by the viewers has led to a significant drop in the rating of “Edynykh noviny”. According to the results research Kyiv International Institute of Sociology, there is a tendency to decrease public trust in the telethon:

• 2022 – 69% of respondents;
• 2023 – 43% of respondents;
• 2024 – 36% of respondents.

On the other hand, the share of those who do not trust the telethon stories increased from 38% to 47%.

According to media market research, the marathon audience has halved over the past six months. People simply stopped turning on their televisions, because what was once a source of true information turned into an absurd hodgepodge of useless plots and uninteresting discussions.

And the results research, conducted by InMind with the support of USAID, show that 45% of respondents expressed an opinion in favor of ending the joint telethon format. 43% of respondents do not trust the stories of “Edynykh noviny”. And, even among regular viewers, the level of trust has significantly decreased from 81% to 67%. Only 37% and 35% of respondents rated the accuracy and reliability of the information, respectively. Only 10% of respondents advocated the preservation of this format after the end of the war.

There are several reasons, and they lie both in the plane of organizational problems and in the loss of focus on the main thing. First, over time, the editorial teams of the telethon began to lose touch with reality. The war continued, but on the air, more and more attention was paid to secondary topics that did not meet the needs of the audience. In addition, over time, the number of quality reports from the front and direct inclusions from the combat zone has significantly decreased, which only reinforced the opinion that the marathon is losing its relevance.

Secondly, in the absence of new ideas, the creators of the telethon began to fill the air with what was at hand: a lot of low-content interviews, discussion of already known facts and frankly speculative plots. This led to the telethon ceasing to fulfill its main function of informing citizens. People who expected important news every day began to look for alternative sources of information on the Internet or through social networks, where news comes faster and, often, in a more reliable format.

Today, it is obvious that “Edyny Novy” has exhausted its initial potential. TV channels that participated in the marathon should draw conclusions and urgently rethink the format of its presentation. A return to clear, concise and objective journalism focused on the urgent needs of society can restore the trust of viewers.

Ukrainians deserve true, up-to-date information, not empty broadcasts that have nothing to do with their lives. If things don’t change, the telethon risks becoming just another page in media history that will be remembered as an example of how not to make news during wartime.

Are telethons popular in foreign countries?

Telethons in foreign countries are not as common as in Ukraine, especially in the format that unites several TV channels for continuous broadcasting on one topic. However, in some cases, telethons are used to cover important events, disasters or humanitarian initiatives, but they are usually short-lived and have a clear purpose, such as raising funds to help victims of natural disasters or global crises.

In countries with developed democracies and strong traditions of freedom of speech, such as the United States, Great Britain, France, and Germany, the media operate under market laws and compete for viewers’ attention. Abroad, instead of marathons, other formats are more common: emergency news releases, panel discussions, debates between experts and analysts, as well as thematic programs that highlight one or more current issues. Each channel has its own editorial approach, but there are usually no single, state telethon programs for constant control of the information flow, similar to the Ukrainian “Yedini Novyny”. Abroad, instead of marathons, other formats are more common: emergency news releases, panel discussions, debates between experts and analysts, as well as thematic programs that highlight one or more current issues.

In other countries, there is a wide range of media that represent different political, social and cultural views. This allows citizens to receive information from various sources and form their own opinion. Private TV channels, print publications and online media can advocate different positions – from conservative to liberal – which ensures a balance in the coverage of events.

In most democratic countries, the media operate independently of the government or other influential structures, and they express different opinions and alternative views. This allows various forms of journalism to exist: investigative, analytical, reporting, etc. Journalists can engage in investigations, exposing corruption, abuse of power or human rights violations. Even the most powerful government officials and corporations are subject to criticism, which is the foundation of a healthy civil society. In many countries, freedom of speech includes the right to openly criticize the government, its policies and leaders. This is an important tool of society’s control over the government. For example, in the USA, Great Britain and other Western countries, journalists have the right to criticize the president, prime minister or other authorities without fear of persecution. State TV channels or radio stations often also have independent editorial boards, which ensures freedom to cover topics without direct influence from the government. This contrasts with the control and censorship that exist in authoritarian states.

Freedom of speech is protected by law in many countries. In the USA, for example, this is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution. In other countries, freedom of speech is regulated by constitutional laws that guarantee journalists the right to cover various topics without fear of persecution. However, even in democratic countries there are restrictions on freedom of speech, in particular in matters of protecting national security, preventing incitement to hatred or defamation. In addition, there are media regulators who monitor ethics, prevent the spread of misinformation and hate speech. For example, in Great Britain, there is Ofcom, which controls television and radio broadcasting, ensuring fairness and objectivity. However, such regulators do not have the right to interfere with editorial policies unless they violate the law.

Is there freedom of speech in the Ukrainian mass media?

In a world where information warfare is gaining momentum, freedom of speech is becoming a critical element of democratic stability and transparency. There is a wide range of mass media in Ukraine, from state to private, which represent different political positions and views. There are independent journalists working in the country who conduct investigations, criticize the government and cover important social issues. At the same time, there are both media loyal to the government and critical publications. Especially important is the development of independent online platforms, which often become a source of objective and unbiased information.

But such freedom of speech is somewhat formal, and in the conditions of the war with Russia, it is becoming more and more limited. With the start of a full-scale invasion in 2022, martial law was imposed, affecting the media space. The authorities have introduced information control mechanisms aimed at protecting national security, in particular through the centralized news marathon “Edyny Novyni”. This was a necessary measure to prevent the spread of panic or misinformation, but it led to a narrowing of opportunities for independent coverage of some topics. And the quality of the plots of the marathon itself has significantly decreased.

Despite progress, Ukrainian journalists still face challenges, including pressure from oligarchs, influential politicians and businessmen who own much of the media. Often, owners use their channels to promote their own political or business interests, which can lead to information manipulation or censorship. In addition, journalists investigating corruption or exposing criminal schemes may be subjected to physical threats or attacks.

In Ukraine, there are laws that guarantee freedom of speech, but there are also legislative acts that regulate the activities of the mass media under martial law. State bodies, such as the National Television and Radio Broadcasting Council, monitor compliance with the law, but these mechanisms are sometimes criticized for possible political pressure or undue interference in the work of independent media.

During the war, certain restrictions were imposed on the freedom to cover topics related to security, military operations and the activities of the army. This includes prohibiting the publication of information that could harm national security or aid the enemy. However, even under such restrictions, many journalists continue to work on investigations and coverage of important public issues.

So, freedom of speech exists in Ukraine, but it often faces challenges and restrictions, especially in wartime conditions. At the same time, Ukrainian journalists take advantage of the opportunity to openly criticize the government, conduct investigations, and cover socially important topics. Civil society and independent media continue to play an important role in ensuring government transparency and accountability, even in the face of political and economic pressures.

However, the “Edyny Novyny” telethon, which was once a stronghold of truth in the maelstrom of war, today crashed against the rock of disappointment and mistrust of viewers. Instead of a unifying source of information, it has become a symbol of the challenges facing the media space in times of change. Formal content, not always objective, political bias and repetition became the factors that pushed away the audience, and with it, the initially unshakable trust. The telethon can revive its original potential only when it returns to the principles of objectivity, transparency and neutrality that were promised to viewers in the early days of the war.