There are 96.5 thousand NGOs, two thousand public unions, and another 20.5 thousand charitable organizations operating in Ukraine. Many are active participants in the country’s public life. They work in various areas such as defending the rights of Ukrainians, advocating for reform, developing democracy, researching the economy, helping vulnerable populations, etc. That is, they engage in socially valuable activities.
However, some do not appreciate the work of public activists. Those in opposition to activists are mainly individuals unwilling to see positive changes in Ukraine. Opponents of the so-called “Sorosists” are a notable example. “Sorosists” is a derisive designation that began to be used to label those who at least once received funding from the International Renaissance Foundation founded by George Soros’s Open Society Foundations. Eventually, the term took root, and almost all those who actively advocated for reform and European integration, as well as those who fought against any manifestation of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, started to be called “Sorosists.”
Yet while the absurdity of the statements about some ephemeral “Sorosists” has long been apparent, those fighting against smoking recently fell victim to an attack on the public sector. On January 22, Channel 5 aired the Special View program, dedicated to anti-tobacco activists – and far from a positive angle.
We looked closely at the episode in question and analyzed all the manipulative techniques used by its authors when designing the program. We present a manual on tarnishing public activism — a harmful advice collection that can be used to build up any such story. A striking example of such a story is Special View’s discussing the anti-tobacco law signed by the President.
This article was prepared in collaboration between VoxCheck and the Center for Democracy and Rule of Law. Details of the cooperation are provided in the Memorandum between CEDEM and VoxCheck.
What was the program episode about?
The reason for attacking anti-tobacco activists was the adoption of bill No.4358. On January 6, 2022, the President signed it into law No.1978-IX.
The provisions of the law clearly classify tobacco products, expand the list of places where smoking is prohibited, and update the rules on warnings on tobacco packaging. The law also prohibits any form of advertising and sponsoring tobacco products, including electronic smoking devices.
MPs offered numerous amendments to delay the law’s adoption. For an analysis of the 515 amendments to the comprehensive anti-tobacco law, read the article “Tobacco Amendments: Who and How in Ukraine’s Parliament Proposes to Make Smoking Easier.” There was also a similar bill (No.4212) designed as an attempt to weaken the provisions of the law. Why the provisions of this other draft law were worse in the comprehensive fight against tobacco, we analyzed in the article “A competitor is out there: they recommend that Parliament adopt a weaker ban on tobacco advertising.”
In 2006, Ukraine ratified the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, ratified by 181 countries – home to about 90% of the world’s population.
“The European Union and its member states, which have ratified the Convention to strengthen its implementation, are further implementing tobacco control at a national level. One such measure was the adoption by the European Parliament and the EU Council of Directive 2014/40/EU concerning the manufacture, presentation, and sale of tobacco and related products. Implementing the provisions of this Directive was Ukraine’s obligation under the Association Agreement,” said Hlib Kolesov, lawyer and director for the Smoke Free Kyiv project at the Center for Democracy and Rule of Law.
Therefore, all new law requirements fully comply with European standards and the directive regulating tobacco. In fact, they are part of Ukraine’s European integration.
The law was also positively assessed by iMoRe experts, who assigned it a reform score of +1.0.
Techniques from the “manual”
Facts were only a tiny part of the story. More screen time was devoted to emotions and escalation than to factual statements. All that to make the viewer draw a single conclusion: such public activism only stimulates the shadow market. Next, we will describe the methods that helped the journalists convince their audience of this idea.
Add more epithets and metaphors
The story’s authors used a lot of emotionally charged phrases. They are easy to remember, have a stronger effect on emotions, and create a closer connection between the viewer and the story.
Phrases such as “metastases of altruism,” “fake caring,” and “a wide front of combat performances” take on a negative emotional coloring and seem to suggest how the viewer should feel towards those featured in the TV story.
Overall, excessive recourse to emotions is one of the most common media manipulation practices among pseudo-experts or politicians. By contrast, facts take precedence over artistic techniques in balanced and well-prepared journalistic pieces or expert comments.
Scholars have repeatedly argued that emotions affect us more than dry facts. For example, researchers analyzed posts on Weibo, a Chinese social network similar to Twitter, in this study. It turns out that aggressive messages spread faster than positive stories. In other words, aggression is the most “viral” emotion on social media.
The authors of this American study tested the mechanism of news dissemination using the articles in The New York Times. They argued that content evoking emotions was more popular. However, researchers suggested that strong positive emotions (e.g., enthusiasm) might be more “contagious” than anger or aggression. At the same time, aggressive messages produced a bigger impact than sad stories. Stories without emotional reinforcement generally had the least impact.
In this paper, researchers presented a review of 45 different studies dealing with the effect of characteristics of social media content on behavioral engagement (comments, likes, sharing). According to preliminary results, emotional content had more content engagement. However, the authors noted that further research was needed to understand this relationship better.
An analysis of posts in the Japanese and American segments of Twitter showed that cultural values also influence our behavior on social networks. Users tend to create or share content that supports their values. At the same time, content contradicting our values and provoking outrage and anger may have a more substantial impact on us than positive content supporting our worldview.
Even more authoritative authority
The media outlets often use experts to confirm a story’s main point rather than truly analyze or assess a situation.
And that is precisely the case. Commenting in this program episode were Oleh Hetman (expert group coordinator at the Economic Expert Platform), Vadym Denysenko (executive director at the Ukrainian Institute for the Future), Oleh Havrysh (first deputy editor-in-chief at The Page), Borys Kushniruk (chairman of the expert analytical council at the Ukrainian Analytical Center), and Taras Zahorodniy (managing partner at the National Anti-Crisis Group).
Some of them are so-called “universal soldiers,” i.e., able to comment on various, unrelated topics in the media. For example, Taras Zahorodniy of the National Anti-Crisis Group does political PR and comments in the media on political issues, the budget, the IMF, tariffs, the Minsk talks, and healthcare reform. Borys Kushniruk writes blogs and comments on topics ranging from wages and public procurement to energy and judicial reform.
Oleh Havrysh, a Ukrainian journalist and currently the first deputy editor-in-chief at The Page was introduced in the program as an “economic expert” and “authoritative economic expert.” Havrysh comments on nuclear energy, reforms, and the budget. Tobacco legislation is now also among his topics.
The Page had repeatedly published partner pieces together with IQOS. In its review of tobacco issues for September-November 2021, Detector Media found that partner pieces posted on The Page in collaboration with British American Tobacco emphasized that the transition to smokeless products was good for smokers’ health. Another article said that many people considered e-cigarettes more harmful than conventional ones and that this was the fault of an “aggressive minority,” which most likely meant anti-tobacco activists.
Oleh Havrysh is often introduced as the director of a research center in the field of fuel and energy. However, Google and even his own Facebook page know nothing about such an organization. A YouControl audit found no Havrysh as a director or founder of any such entity.
So if you have to make an awkward conclusion, the solution is simple: let an “expert” say it. They followed this principle throughout the episode. Accusing activists of having connections with illegal cigarette manufacturers and smugglers was veiled by the phrase “according to experts.” And the “experts,” for their part, often said unprovable things.
Present value judgments as facts, do not look for evidence
The authors and speakers often made emotionally charged and unprovable statements during the program.
Vadym Denysenko said: “And if there’s a lot of money in this business, there’ll definitely be further attempts to make money on it” (referring to activists).
The journalists wrapped up the story’s several quite good ideas in emotional phrases to obscure the facts.
“It’s not known how many times the experts at the parliamentary CSED (the Chief Scientific and Expert Department of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine Secretariat – ed.) slapped themselves on the forehead reading “pearls” in bill 4358, such as a ban on tobacco packets with rounded or beveled edges,” said an off-screen voice.
Oleksandra Ustinova and Olha Stefanyshyna filed proposals to ban packets with rounded and beveled edges. Their amendments were rejected. However, Directive 2014/40/EU states that “rounded or beveled edges should be considered acceptable, provided the health warning covers a surface area that is equivalent to that on a unit packet without such edges.” Thus, manufacturers can use a non-standard shape to make warnings less visible or distracting. In other words, drawing special attention to such non-standard shapes makes sense, not a ban.
This technique is often used on talk shows where speakers do not offer facts but describe their own emotions and conjectures. We checked out one such show on a now sanctioned channel here. By the way, they also talked about NGOs and activists receiving grants there.
However, not all statements made by experts are completely nonfactual. Some can be verified. Anyone can do it, not just fact-checkers. For example, anyone can use VoxCheck’s Anthology of Deception or simply google it.
In the episode, Borys Kushniruk said: “When people write laws without proper education, it’s “legal spam.” Those who start dealing with this topic have no relevant expertise. <….> One of the problems with NGOs, and I even took the trouble to check them out to see who has legal, economic, and medical education there. It turned out that there was no one. In fact, people do PR.”
That is a manipulative statement. First off, most of the members of the NGO Life featured in Channel 5’s story are lawyers and political scientists, not PR people. Second, one does not have to be an economist or physician to implement the WHO Framework Convention. Third, they do not submit their bills or amendments through MPs – they offer their findings, and the MPs decide how to use them.
“Life’s team members collect data from the WHO, conferences of the parties to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, and implementation experience in Ukraine and other countries. They analyze all this data and share it with experts, government officials, and parliamentarians,” said Dmytro Kupyr, the NGO’s executive director.
In addition, NGO members turn to relevant experts for quality data analysis, including the Center for Public Health of the Ministry of Health of Ukraine, Kyiv International Institute of Sociology, the WHO Country Office in Ukraine, Kyiv School of Economics, the Center for Democracy and Rule of Law, and the Reanimation Package of Reforms. Representatives of the Center for Democracy and Rule of Law have law degrees and are professional lawyers. That is why they participated in the Verkhovna Rada Committee on Public Health meetings working on bill No.4358 and advocating its adoption.
Oleh Hetman said: “It’s impossible to force smokers to quit through strict bans. That is, it’s impossible in any country in the world. That’s why these countries use various sophisticated tools for this purpose. They suggest to switch to nicotine plates (patches – ed.), lower-risk products, and lots of other measures, rather than impose a ban bluntly.”
That is not true: in reality, a strict ban works if enforced by building or business owners and law enforcement agencies. For example, Iceland imposed a ban on point-of-sale tobacco product displays in 2001. Tobacco products are allowed to be placed on shelves behind special shutters or doors that shut off cigarette packs or in special boxes, and information about available tobacco products and their prices is published in the same black-and-white tables on display or at the checkout counter. This ban significantly decreased cigarette consumption among children and young people. In 1999, before the ban was in place, 28% of young Icelanders smoked (at least, in the last 30 days before the survey) (p.152) versus 10% in 2011, i.e., 12 years after imposing the ban (p.12).
In Singapore, sales of single cigarettes (loosies), small packs of cigarettes, smokeless tobacco and hookah tobacco, tobacco products through vending machines, and the Internet are prohibited by law. As are the sales of tobacco products to individuals under 21. In 2010, they also banned the sale, import, and use of smoking devices and liquids, imposing high fines for violations (e.g., a man was fined a record 99 thousand Singapore dollars (about USD 70,000) for selling e-cigarettes online in 2019).
Pavlo Yavorskyi analyzed more studies of this sort in the article “Putting the Best Foot Forward: a connection between good “cigarette displays” and the number of smokers.” See also: “Seven-year plan to increase excise taxes on tobacco products: where is Ukraine now and where is it heading? ” to learn how an increase in excise duties affects the reduction of tobacco consumption.
Blame activists for selling themselves to the U.S. Department of State, Soros, and Bloomberg
The program’s viewers were repeatedly told that NGO Life receives funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies.
That is indirectly true. NGO Life received 56% of its 2020 funding from Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, a nonprofit organization funded inter alia by Bloomberg Philanthropies. However, this does not mean that Bloomberg can influence what the organization publishes. Nor does Soros influence whom the Renaissance Foundation should fund, much less what its grantees publish.
Activists do not hide information about their funding sources and publish it annually in their reports. Yet, the story’s authors present this connection as something initially negative.
They also view the salary payments received by people promoting anti-tobacco laws as a sign of anti-state activities or criminal behavior. The TV story goes on to say: “While some give the shirt off their back to Ukraine, others earn well, doing activism.” In addition, according to Oleh Havrysh, NGO Life “does it just for money,” while Borys Kushniruk noted that “the more activities they conduct, the more money they get.” Although just the opposite usually happens: the more money an organization receives, the more plans it will be able to implement. Feel the difference?
This is not the only case where someone tried to “embarrass” activists with their earnings. In 2017, a similar information attack was directed against Vitaliy Shabunin, head of the Anti-Corruption Action Center.
By the way, this manipulation was not the most effective one in the program. A Center for Communication Modeling study has shown that Ukrainians have a positive attitude towards working and earning in NGOs. Thus, 80% of Ukrainians like it that talented young people can study and earn money thanks to donor grants. 70% believe that foreign funding of NGOs does not mean they do not work in the interests of Ukraine (p.9)
It should be noted that any work needs to be rewarded and adequately appreciated.
Mixing apples and oranges
The easiest way to confuse the viewer is to combine two topics with nothing in common. These topics should be painful or met with mixed reactions from the viewing public.
The authors argue that “the money from the shadow cigarette market could be used to rebuild the border with Russia.”
However, that is manipulation. First, one cannot say unequivocally that a ban will lead to an increase in the black market. The experts did not provide a meaningful explanation. The TV story contained no references to studies or estimates based on data to prove that a total ban would increase the black market’s share. However, if there is insufficient control over compliance with the rules, and the black market’s existence continues to be fueled by corruption, a ban could indeed increase the “shadow part”. Therefore, it is important that Ukraine continue anti-corruption and law enforcement reforms alongside innovations in tobacco reduction.
Second, Ukraine’s black market volume has not been precisely calculated. Kantar, a marketing research company, talks about a UAH 14.4 billion in budget shortfalls. But according to the Bureau of Economic Security of Ukraine, the shadow market is 14.4% of the legal market, meaning the country fell short of around UAH 13 billion in 2021. If the entire black market “whitened,” some portion of this amount would remain on the ground as an excise tax on retail sales. In other words, it would go to territorial communities. The head of the State Border Guard Service, Serhiy Deyneko, estimates the “Wall” project (i.e., all engineering and technical works at the border with Russia) at UAH 2.5 billion. According to him, there is enough money for it. Last year’s state budget deficit amounted to UAH 168.4 billion: over ten times more than these shortfalls, meaning this money could be used on anything.
Oleh Havrysh says: “In our country, anyone can make a decision (…) to change their sex, from the age of around 16, but they can only buy cigarettes when they’re 21.”
This comparison is also wrong because human self-identification has nothing to do with developing a bad habit. It should be noted that it was not the first time that “horror stories” about gender reassignment appeared in the media space. Two years ago, the media began to publish articles with scary headlines, arguing that teenagers wanted to be allowed to change their gender from the age of 14. At the time, they were criticizing bill No.2684 that aimed to enshrine in law the term “adolescent” and allow them to choose their doctor and receive complete information about their health and treatment methods. There was no talk about changing their sex at all.
The authors tried several times during the program to shift the responsibility for smuggling and illicit tobacco trafficking in Ukraine to activists. “The aforementioned law makes no mention of what has to be done with the illicit circulation of cigarettes,” said an off-screen voice. However, the law is not about illicit trafficking in the first place. It focuses on protecting public health from the harmful effects of tobacco use. That is, it creates rules for legal sellers. Second, law enforcement should eradicate illicit trafficking, not activists.
The program featured a survey by Info Sapiens requested by the Center for Political Consulting to illustrate the ineffectiveness of the proposed unification of cigarette packs or of enhancing medical warnings. According to the survey, only 2% of respondents started smoking because of the packaging design.
Even though such a survey does exist, and its results are correct, its usefulness is questionable. First, sociologists surveyed only 605 people, while trusted polls should have 1,500 – 2,000 respondents. Second, the journalists probably ignored the sampling error, which is 4% (an allowable error for 605 respondents). However, all the results below 4% are not statistically significant.
Other in-depth studies show that health warnings on cigarette packaging still affect smoking decisions. For example, this and this study have shown that more graphic and textual images on cigarette packs encourage smokers to think more about quitting. Another randomized clinical trial of 2,149 adult smokers found that pictorial warnings on cigarette packs could increase quit attempts by 18%. It is important to emphasize that people may not be fully aware of the impact of certain incentives on them, so surveys can significantly underestimate the effect, even if they are conducted using a sufficient sample size.
The need to update warnings on the packaging has been under discussion since at least 2017. At the time, the Global Adult Tobacco Survey, conducted with the support of the Ministry of Health, the WHO, the National Academy of Medical Sciences, and the Kyiv City Institute of Sociology, found a decline in attention to cigarette packs in Ukraine. Simply put, smokers had gotten used to the available warnings. Therefore, the report recommended that medical warnings be updated on cigarette packs at the legislative level. It became possible, in particular, thanks to law 1978-IX.
Conclusion
All these points of the “manual” create a sort of “alternative universe” for the viewer. Only the activists helping the army look good in it. The rest are just profiting from the problems of Ukrainians. Yet they should also fight against smuggling and, at the same time, avoid getting involved in state affairs. Every word of the new law’s supporters is queried (e.g., “it took the bill two years to be developed — that long because they kind of had to overcome the resistance of the tobacco lobby, said MP Lada Bulakh”). However, the experts participating in the telecast were not asked to provide factual evidence.
When assessing the market, they also referred to tobacco companies that were directly interested in not restricting the distribution of cigarettes and HTPs.
The main conclusion the journalists were trying to make is that activists were allegedly promoting the growth of the black market and the distribution of counterfeit products. However, the methods used in the program to back up this point of view with arguments were mostly void of facts or downright manipulative. Therefore, the general conclusion could not be accurate. The journalists and invited experts did not mention any studies based on data that would clearly show that restrictions on tobacco use lead to an increase in the black market.
The journalists also “failed to notice” the real and positive impact of anti-tobacco campaigns. According to the State Treasury Service, excise revenue to the State Budget amounted to UAH 63.47 billion in 2021: UAH 8.75 billion, or nearly 16% more than in 2020. This resulted from bringing the excise duties on HTPs in line with those on cigarettes from January 1, 2021. Thus, the joint work of “anti-tobacco” activists and the state impacts budgetary revenue (the effect on smoking can be estimated in a few years). Anti-tobacco activists also communicate the risks of the growing illegal market and distribution of counterfeit goods under the guise of duty-free goods, calling on Ukraine to ratify the Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products. However, the journalists deliberately turned a blind eye to it when working on the TV story.
So, if you’re willing to create a low-quality, biased, and very dubious piece, make sure you follow the advice from our sarcastic manual. However, if you don’t feel like being an embarrassment to Ukrainian journalism and you feel like sticking to high standards and facts, do just the opposite: avoid emotions and personal judgments, invite the real experts in the field, make accurate comparisons, analyze the problem from different angles, and choose sources of information carefully.
Attention
The authors do not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have no relevant affiliations
