Negotiating the Boundaries of Legitimate Journalism in Ukraine

In transitional democracies, the boundary work of defining journalism and through this, ousting certain media actors as illegitimate and threatful to democratic stability or national security can hold a particular urgency. This article considers the sanctions against three Russia-affiliated TV channels by the Ukrainian National Security and Defense Council and the ensuing public debate on this decision as a particularly informative case of such boundary work. Using thematic analysis of materials from Ukrainian news sites and TV talk shows in February 2021 (n = 115), the article maps out how media regulators and representatives of the sanctioned and non-sanctioned media outlets competed over the authority to define the boundaries of legitimate journalism in Ukraine amid growing security threats. The findings show that the regulator labeled the sanctioned TV channels as “parasites of journalism,” situated within the Ukrainian media system, yet functioning in the interest of a foreign state. In turn, the sanctioned media actors styled themselves as repressed opposition media, attacking both regulators and non-sanctioned media for undemocratic intervention and a lack of professional solidarity, respectively. Lastly, non-sanctioned media actors have largely supported the sanction decision and rejected a considerable part of the sanctioned actors’ self-legitimation discourse. The study contributes to the literature on boundary work in journalism, showcasing how a novel theory of parasites can be used for the analysis of complex discourses surrounding antagonistic media actors, including in non-Western contexts.

The research team consists of Kostiantyn Yanchenko, Alona Shestopalova, Gerret von Nordheim