Monitor Reporter Stephan Stuchlik over his research, who on 20. February shot on demonstrators and policemen and why the Ukrainian government and the media are not interested in declaration
Who were the deaths of the Maidan? This question is reporter Stephan Stuchlik together with Olga Sviridenko and Philipp Jahn for the ARD / WDR Political Magazine Monitor. On Thursday, the ARD beamed out the result of his research in a much-laid contribution (who were the focus of the Maidan?To).
Screenshot from a video of 20. February
Doubts about the bloodbath of 20. February this year was Fruh. During the western media has quickly been amed a governmental special unit is responsible for the massacre, emerging videos on the Internet, which suggested the suspicion that targeted shot was fired from the bearing of oppositional.
Stephan Stuchlik wanted to know what’s on the beams and has traveled to Ukraine. He has researched locally and quickly found: It appears "unlikely that the deadly shot on demonstrators outlined from the sides of the old regime". In the interview with Telepolis, Stuchlik meets his research, goes to the term "Conspiracy theories" and explains what has brought him to accept the matter as a journalist.
"The procurement of the western media with the question is precisely low"
: Mr. Stuchlik, they were recently in Ukraine and have researched in terms of sharpening on the Maidan. Why is that as a reporter a topic? Stephan Stuchlik: The question of who is responsible for the death thriss on the Maidan is, of course, an important question for Ukraine, in whose capital Zig people were shot dead, but it is mainly centrally located for the European politics: with it and falls a rough part of the Creditability of the new Ukrainian guided, with which the Europe wants to work together. Not for nothing you have in the agreement of 21. February, which also negotiated February Minister Steinmeier, one "outgoing examination" the tragic events even agreed by agreement. Measured in the enormous meaning of the debt question – just look at the ideological struggle that rages on the internet – the western media’s procurement with the question is precisely low. That was for us from the editors Monitor to say enough, we fly into Ukraine and research on site. How do you clarify that the journalistic research interest is obviously so low? After all, have already passed over seven weeks. Most uncritical, the notification of the Ukrainian Ministry of the Interior has been relieved largely uncritically, according to which the focus has begun. Stephan Stuchlik: Ukraine was also difficult to measure with mabs of Western States before the events of the last few months, in the current situation, it has become an unstable state in which there is hardly any normal places, including in government and administration,. In addition, in Kiev is hardly meets a conversation partner who does not take away from the events in one way or another or even traumatized goods. So: the question of guilt nevertheless pursue, is very moo and time consuming. Most media now have their interest in the current events in the east of Ukraine and the question "Conflict with Russia?" shifted, that’s lacking, but of course, seen in whole, a little short-sighted. We’ll just ame that you are looking forward to the news in terms of Crimea crisis, so re-conceive media. What is your impression: Can it be that there is what the current reporting in terms of Ukraine, Crimea, Russia, gives one or more blind spots in the media? Stephan Stuchlik: I’ve reported away from the Crimea for several weeks from the beginning of Marz, because you had to make alarming messages of one or the other side every day and clearly check out one or the other side – often with very surprising results. Also in Simferopol there was some basic questions to clear, which requires a very different approach than that of the current reporting. These questions – I call deputy only the one after the participation of Russian troops at the Occupation of Crimea – rightly take in discussions on the Internet a tremendous gross space, albeit of each of the pages (pro-Russian vs. pro-Ukrainian) are used extremely theories and alleged evidence. And: both the Ukrainian and the Russian media spread ideologically stained reports of these events. Why is almost stressed and discussed by all means? Yes why? Stephan Stuchlik: Because in addition to the current development the questions on the causal participation in both turning points of the current crisis (the sliding on the Maidan, the casting of the Crimea), of course, are the essentials to understand who is to blame? Who acted? Who reacts? At the Maidan massacre, I consider it a rough failure of the current public prosecutor’s office, not to determine. It was the same, many of the conspiracy theories were disappeared by themselves. But one should also ask himself the question in the editors how much we have a real research in these questions is still worth in an environment in which in such a crisis mainly focuses on fast journalistic reactions.
Much, which visually clearly comes from, has another explanation as the apparent.
Again to the focus: already suddenly there were various videos, statements of eyewitnesses and evidence that high probably not only from the front, was shot from the government buildings, but also from behind, so from an area in which the oppositionals were gathered. Now you can argue that one or more videos on YouTube are not yet proof of anything and you should not just give any videos found on the Internet as a serios working journalist. On the other hand, this is not one of the challenges that are made to journalists nowadays: also lack of doubtful information that will find themselves on the net and bring along the willingness to look at a second time and research themselves? After all, you have so now "Her" Get history that has found a lot of attention. Stephan Stuchlik: After talking around that we had started such a research in Kiev, my co-authors Olga Sviridenko, Philipp Jahn and I were pulled down with alleged evidence (audio / video / documents) from the Internet, after the broadcast we were insulted, Why we did not consider one or the other one. My clear opinion: in such a difficult situation such as the "Bloody Thursday" On the Maidan, for example, a video alone proves very little, with some image recordings we have even come to conviction that they were put into the grid with false date or location information. It sounds like a trough, but you have to check locally, how much a recording with the circumstances correlated there. I am wondering in this context, frankly, how uncritical just in the current reporting picture material is used – partly distributed about image agencies – whose origin and authenticity is difficult or not to be checked. When we learned about the fact that there should be an audio recording of the radio traffic of Yanukovysch’s arming woes, it was important to us to find the radio amateur and to meet the conversation, which should have recorded the conversation to see: Does he technically have an objectionable Declaration as he did? He can make us technical, how it works? Does he have other interests? He is party? Then we have answered the Jargon in which people talk to each other in radio traffic and then decided: The document is credible with rough probability. Try but try making such a mummy exam with the over a hundred video documents (individual of them are part of the age of an hour), which alone about the 20. February on the Internet are accessible or offered. There it is important to talk to the stakeholders, which are supposedly to be seen, and you will quickly find: much, which visually clearly comes from, has another explanation as the apparent. Who sees how one and the same image material with various commentations, for example in Ukrainian or Russian television, brought a complete different impression, which can imagine how important the talk is on site. They certainly noticed that there is a split between the reporting or. the opinion of many gross media and the opinion and views of the readers. Radish diving terms like False Flag, strategy of voltage, etc. on. The readers or. The media users, so it has at least the appearance, seem a lot rather the "Geostrategic component" thinking if she had such a serious political action, as is currently being observed in terms of crimean crisis, when it does such editing. The media users are now all consistant theorists? Stephan Stuchlik: As in every crisis of modern times in the media, especially the affected Lander rabs a veritable battle for highness about the picture and sound, one tries to prove that one is in law and the other in the wrong. That’s not a new knowledge. For me new and sometimes painful, how violently some colleagues in the West responded to our research, colleagues who apparently sudden as sympathizers of one or the other side. As much as I was committed by the pro-Russian side for my coverage of the Crimea, so much I am under the criticism of the opposite side. Therefore, it is important to me to determine here again: I make my job. If I suspected in the concrete case, that a Power General of the New Ukrainian Government is apparently do not want to pursue open traces in such an immense important question, I hook. Who believes critical reporting against the new guided in Kiev pity the inherent intentions of the revolutionaries, denies the political situation in the country, in which the new political class we criticize has been discontinued by the original revolutionaries. And: he denies the essence of our job. We should not be infected by the current opinion match in the way that we neglect the outgoing research. If someone makes mistakes and we believe that to have evidence for this, you should also have that in such an important question as that of the question of guilt in Kiev and unopolit you.