At the end of 1998 a series of focus group discussions were held in Ukraine, looking mainly at the media and politics - where people received their political information from.107 This followed the legislative elections in 1998 and with the 1999 presidential elections in mind.
Some participants considered that there was a quantitative lack of information of any sort available, particularly to the rural population, because of the expense of newspapers and the frequent power cuts, which made access to television information more restricted. In their recommendations, many of the participants considered that publications needed to be cheaper and that some information should be available free. Participants in the focus groups were also critical of the fact that during election campaigns they were bombarded with information but at other times accurate information is singularly lacking.
However, of greatest concern in particular for urban participants was the lack of 'good quality' information. Domestic media were seen as totally financially and politically dependent. Many considered the mass media to be controlled by foreign interests such as Russian or American capital. The media are also unable to provide quality coverage because of censorship. Those who were most concerned to obtain reliable information looked to multiple information sources and particularly to the foreign press and radio, which are perceived to give more balanced reports. They looked to Russia and elsewhere for more accurate information, including from the BBC and Radio Liberty.
The participants considered that information was not presented in such a way as to be understandable to ordinary people. They were particularly critical of television which, despite being the most common means of obtaining information, provided little in the way of thoughtful, in-depth analysis, which was more likely to be found in the press and radio.
Opinions were sought on specific television programmes broadcast at the time of the election. There was a lukewarm but generally favourable response to the information programme on the electoral process put out by the government (Elections 98). Those who had voted were more favourably inclined towards this programme than non-voters, but that was to be expected as they had accepted its message of the importance of voting whereas the non-voters included in the groups had rejected it.
All the participants were favourable to a series of public service announcements presented by Alla Mazur, a well-known television announcer. They were impressed by the more professional presentation, with music and video sequences, as opposed to the formal presentation by the Central Election Committee Chairman chosen for the government programme. They liked the fact that the presenter was not someone who was identified with either the state or any political party and also that Alla Mazur was perceived as simply giving necessary information, and leaving the choice up to them of whether to vote or not. Voting sounded like fun. This contrasted with the government programme, which was seen as exhorting them to vote and had an off-putting effect on some people.
The same attitude came through in the participants' views of the TV commercials put out by political parties on which they were asked to comment. Political advertising in Ukraine is very new. In the 1994 election there was virtually none. The commercial put out by the Green Party was generally viewed favourably, in particular because of the non-partisan appearance of the commercial, even though they realized that party interests were behind it.
In similar vein, many people were put off by the emphasis on leaders, as opposed to policies, in an advertisement put out by the Social Democratic Party. They also favourably identified the more targeted approach of the Hromeda adverts (targeting those whose wages or pensions were in arrears.)
The participants suggested that the purpose of these political advertisements was much more basic than media reporting. The commercials simply reminded people of the existence of certain parties. Indeed, some said that it was only the advertisement that had made them realize that the Greens existed at all.
The overall conclusion was that political advertising helps voters reach a decision and, if done correctly (eg by aiming at target audiences), can mobilize electoral activity. This was despite the fact that political advertising was seen as being as irritating to the consumer as other forms of advertising. It was also despite the fact that campaign spending generally was seen as undemocratic and raised suspicions about the fairness of the electoral process.
The focus groups were asked to make recommendations to the Government as to how better to inform the public about issues facing Ukraine, the importance of voting and the process of voting. Many participants in these groups were negative and fatalistic as to whether anything could be done to improve matters. Those who provided positive suggestions emphasised, amongst other things:
- the crucial importance of the freedom of the press and an end to censorship
- the need for cheaper newspapers and essential political literature to be provided free of charge
- the need to address the insufficiency of information in the rural areas
- the need for an expanded network of district newspapers
- the need for TV programmes to be targeted at the youth (because of particular concern at the lack of involvement of young people in the political process)
- that central radio programmes need to be more interesting and spirited.
