In October I agreed to give an interview to a journalist working for The Telegraph, a publication which I have always thought capable of presenting a variety of views on Ukraine. Since it had previously published both critical and supportive articles about Volodymyr Zelenskyy, I expected the interview to be handled in a similar manner.
At first Iona Cleave, the reporter, didn't show up, and a few hours later she told me that she had "plumbing" problems; she was then late for the second time in our online chat. Finally, we carried out the interview which lasted over an hour and I was left with the feeling that it had been a proper professional exchange. I had not expected praise, only accuracy.
What we got was a headline which stated things that I had never said—that is, that I simply want Ukraine to “surrender.”
The article even went on to say that I had claimed “Kyiv must surrender.”
Those phrases do not appear in any of the recordings or notes from our conversation since they were not actually said.
I have always taken a clear and open stance by opposing Ukraine's surrender. I favour diplomatic solution that would preserve Ukraine’s independence and sovereignty exactly because the other option—ongoing warfare under the current circumstances—might lead to a more disastrous result in which Ukraine would be compelled to accept terms set by Moscow, terms which could involve very substantial territorial losses. Such a situation fills me with sorrow. This is no invitation to give in; it is a warning against giving in.
The difference is important. Polling data from Ukraine, such as that quoted in the article itself, indicates that an increasing number of citizens (56%) would be willing to consider territorial concessions provided that the United States and Europe offer reliable security guarantees. Yet a significant minority (35%) still rejects any such concessions. It is one thing to report these facts; it is quite another to invent a quotation which reduces a complicated argument to a single, inflammatory statement. After the false claim had been published, it spread rapidly through international and Ukrainian media outlets.
Certain Ukrainian media approached the subject with greater restraint, concentrating on territorial issues rather than using the term «surrender». That said, the harm had already taken place.
I sent a letter to the editor of the newspaper; the Telegraph returned to me with the promise of investigation. It lasted till the evening, and I was informed that “it is not suggested that this was a direct quote from the interview” and that the newspaper alerted the tile. However, the alteration still suggests that I somehow insist of “surrender of Ukraine” and nothing has been changed in the text. I informed the Telegraph that by misinterpreting my position, the publication has jeopardized not only my reputation but also my security, as many people are now furious, including national radicals in Ukraine. The conclusion is defamatory and deeply inaccurate. So far, the Telegraph did not provide me with the recording as I requested. I hope they will be in touch and introduce more changes as I requested by withdrawing the word “surrender” and any synonym to it.
A mature veteran journalist told me he had heard about complaints from people who felt that they had been misrepresented by Iona Cleave. This case will show whether this is something that is being endorsed at the Telegraph for career prospects, or whether journalism is still something that matters to the Telegraph.
The new aspect is the speed and extent to which an invented phrase can be used to define a person's public position. Since trust in the institution was high, I had not recorded the interview; that trust has now been lost and in future interviews everything will be recorded and, if needed, made public.
This episode is just another sign of a fundamental flaw within journalism itself. In a large number of instances, accuracy has yielded to the demands of storytelling. Entertainment value and ideological bias are now taking the place of careful quotation and contextual reporting. The consequence is not simply unfairness on an individual level; it is a real and measurable decline in public confidence. If a reporter puts words into a source's mouth which were never actually said, the problem does not lie with "right-wing forces", "left-wing forces", or any other external party; it lies with journalism itself when it abandons its own standards.
Both readers and sources have a valid interest in knowing that the statements published under a journalist's name are exactly those which were actually said. If there is a failure in this correspondence, the appropriate response is not to remain silent or to provide more spin, but to make a correction and take responsibility. Until such actions have been carried out, the difference between what was said in the interview and what appears in the article amounts to a betrayal of both the source and the public for whom the profession claims to be responsible.