Since 2013, Ukraine has steadily appeared in the news. Protests, the Russian invasion of Crimea, the political unrest, the economic struggle… Aside from the international coverage, citizen-produced, alternative media for Ukrainians says much about internal perspective, but also presents a good example of how people utilize media to communicate amongst themselves.
Ukraine has a complex history, which includes a 1991 independence from the Soviet Union, where Russian culture dominated all aspects of life. To this day, both Russian and Ukrainian are spoken, which creates a linguistic conflict. For example, in 2010, Alla Nedashkivska conducted a study of media texts consumed by Ukrainians. Her findings spoke to how people cultivate an identity through content they consume. People who aligned themselves with Russian or Ukrainian mainstream media were essentially choosing a side. This was a clear sign that mainstream media did not represent people as a whole, but often became divisive. In general, the media landscape in Ukraine today mostly consists of private owners, so there is not one central power regulating content. However, the profit motivation creates a barrier in the authenticity of content produced.
In 2016, Dariya Orlova also conducted an analysis of the Ukrainian media evolution where she noted the disconnect between media outlets and the people. Her explanation is the “Soviet Legacy,” which she defines this way: even with the freedom to tell stories that would better represent people, content creators may still feel restricted because of previous training and the regulations they’ve grown accustomed to.
The citizens aren’t blind to these issues. Since 2013 in particular, there has been an increase in citizens producing media for themselves through content that can be classified as “alternative media.” This particular class of media arises from content creators (often professionals) who are dissatisfied with media options available to them. They still care about quality and cohesiveness. They aren’t using an open, public platform to ramble or complain; their intention is to produce high-quality content for people to engage in. While they are the driving force, however, suggestions and inspirations come from within the community. Emails, letters, and calls from the public are frequently referenced in content, emphasizing citizen engagement and making people feel as if their voices are heard. The engagement of citizens speaks to the power of alternative media. Content is less focused on the “facts” of events, but rather on the opinions of the people regarding those events. This isn’t necessarily biased. Since content is used to spur discussion, information is not promoted as “fact.” Actually, it exhibits what Orlova calls “a cultivation of an identity” in that the inclusion of various, honest opinions helps people frame their own perspectives. Because these stories come from the people, polls often act as the evidence supporting news stories. This is different from mainstream media, which frequently utilizes the opinions of “experts” to legitimize stories.
One of the most notable contributions alternative media made to social change was exposing the flaws in mainstream media and drawing attention to the influencers, such as government leaders who own branches of “independent media channels.” This exposure emphasized how they could be using mainstream media to benefit their own platforms, even while they claimed their ownership is because media outlets are profitable.
The biggest effect on social change is linked to the timing of content released. Because alternative media outlets do not consistently churn out content, they are able to draw attention when they do. This trend mimics the way social movements gain traction. Alternative media is always produced by people, but is strengthened when a certain issue requires a lot of attention
While alternative media can be a powerful tool, it is not without limitations and challenges. The biggest challenge, of course, is funding. Traditionally, alternative media is supported through crowdfunding initiatives, but this model is unstable and inconsistent. Because content fluctuates as issues become more or less relevant, support is not constant. As a potential remedy to this, Orlova outlines the use of foreign grants to support the production of alternative media. However, this solution is not ideal as it opens doors to international influence for citizen-produced media. It is also inconsistent and not a long-term solution.
The other challenge is the inherent medium limitations. Often, social media sites become the launching platform for alternative media outlets, but this option is fraught with government restrictions, as well as restrictions by the actual platform. Independent platforms are a solution, but they limit audience exposure without additional promotion. Online platforms also present an audience limitation since people don’t read news as a group, so often, only one person is engaged at a time.
In the end, we are left with this paradox: alternative media outlets need support to produce content, but are only able to produce content when they have substantial support.