From Oligarchic Control to Decentralized Media: Rethinking the Future of Independent Journalism in Ukraine
The suspension of grant funding for projects in Ukraine has exposed numerous issues, particularly blatant corruption and abuses by those who have long presented themselves as "completely independent media." In reality, things are far from this idealized narrative.
Oligarchs and Donors Erased Independent Journalism in Ukraine by Exploiting Civil Society
Independent journalism has always been a cornerstone of democracy and the development of civil society. However, over the past decades, Ukraine’s independent media have become the victims of the “successful” collaboration between oligarchs and international donors, morphing into their servants.
Instead of supporting free journalism, grants have transformed into tools for funding, sustaining, and strengthening oligarchic structures.
Imagine this: for years, American taxpayers have been indirectly funding not the growth of independent journalism in Ukraine but rather media loyal to oligarchs—outlets that amplify their influence and suppress true independence in the information sphere.
How Grants Destroyed Independent Journalism in Ukraine
Oligarchs Determined Grant Recipients
As the saying in an old joke goes, “The best goes to the children—the oligarchs’ children.” Oligarchs, leveraging their reputations, influence, and connections, secured grants for media under their control. Ostensibly directed at "developing independent media," these funds, in reality, covered expenses for outlets already integrated into large business empires.
Unfair Conditions for Truly Independent Media
Small, genuinely independent outlets that lacked access to grants or oligarch financing were pushed out of the market. Grant funding enabled pseudo-independent and publicly endorsed media to pour resources into advertising, massive salaries, large-scale projects, and PR campaigns, monopolizing the audience. Meanwhile, independent journalists surviving on enthusiasm or self-funding couldn’t compete and have resorted to guerrilla-like methods to survive.
Loyalty to Donors Over Ukrainian Audiences
Media receiving grant support prioritized fulfilling donor agendas over catering to Ukrainian audiences. This dependency on external actors’ priorities undermined the principles of true independent journalism.
Financing the Elimination of Competition
Effectively, U.S. taxpayers funded structures that not only worked in favor of oligarchs, and thus against democracy, but also actively ousted real competitors—independent media—from the market. This created a distorted, oligarch-controlled information space.
Case Studies:
Ukrainska Pravda
One of the clearest examples of an oligarch-controlled media outlet is Ukrainska Pravda, now owned by the businessman Tomas Fiala. As part of the Dragon Capital portfolio, this media outlet operates as a typical business project. Its acquisition proves its market value and profitability potential. Despite this, Ukrainska Pravda continues to position itself as independent and receives grants—even after being bought by a major investor.
This exemplifies the business model of "privatizing profits and nationalizing expenses," where grants cover costs while profits benefit the private owner.
Suspilne (Public Broadcasting): Unrealized Potential
The "Suspilne Broadcasting" project, heavily funded by international donors such as the U.S. government, was supposed to offer an alternative to commercial oligarchic media. However, its results remain disappointing. Significant funds were spent on administrative costs, while its editorial policy saw little innovation.
Despite its potential to be a true voice of civil society, Suspilne has largely remained a relic of state media, mired in inefficiency and allegations of fund mismanagement.
The Outcome: Total Media Monopoly
Today, Ukraine’s media landscape is dominated by hybrid structures controlled by oligarchs yet funded through grants, allowing them to claim the label of "independent." Independent journalists have lost their ability to voice their opinions as their voices have been drowned out by the well-funded campaigns of grant-supported outlets.
A Model of "Privatizing Profits and Nationalizing Expenses"
Risks and costs: Passed onto donors (i.e., American taxpayers).
Profits and benefits: Retained by media owners, who falsely claim to be "independent."
Is This Legal?
Technically, this situation is not illegal, provided grants are used within the terms set by donors. However, this raises ethical questions:
Why should American taxpayers finance the commercial projects of foreign businessmen?
Do these grants truly serve their stated purpose of fostering democracy or societal development when, in practice, they only benefit oligarchs?
Could donor aid be a form of covert subsidy for oligarchs?
Solutions: Can the Status Quo Change?
Realistic scenarios for reforming the system remain bleak due to the “money dictates rules” principle. To drive meaningful change, the following approaches could be considered:
Reform Donor Policies: Shift funding from large players to local initiatives, even if it requires more preparation and monitoring.
New Rules of the Game: Impose restrictions on large commercial structures in media, enforce strict transparency for ownership and funding.
New Entrants with Alternative Ideologies: If emerging political or civic forces decide to invest in media not just as propaganda tools but to create alternative information ecosystems.
Technological Disruption: Affordable technologies for content creation and distribution (e.g., Telegram, Substack) could enable smaller media initiatives to compete.
A Radical Idea: Decentralized Media
Inspired by blockchain and cryptocurrency models, decentralized media could offer a revolutionary alternative:
What is Decentralized Media?
It’s a system of content creation, distribution, and funding based on blockchain or similar technologies that ensure:Avoidance of control by oligarchs, governments, or corporations.
Transparent funding free from manipulation.
How It Could Work:
Funding via Cryptocurrency: Users donate directly to their preferred outlets or journalists.
Decentralized Publishing Platforms: Content hosted on decentralized platforms is resistant to censorship.
Transparent Rewards: Journalists receive payments automatically through smart contracts based on engagement.
Conclusion: A Hope for Change
While the concept of decentralized media faces technical and social challenges, it offers a vision of truly independent journalism—a system where control rests in the hands of the audience and creators rather than oligarchs or donors.
Ukraine’s potential as a pioneer in this field depends on whether its citizens are willing to invest in their information future.
Is this utopia—or a chance to rebuild trust in media?