Over the past few days, there has been active dissemination of information in the Ukrainian media space about the romantic affairs of the head of the Rivne Territorial Center for Recruitment and Social Support (TCK – is a military management body in Ukraine that maintains military records and conducts population mobilization). Specifically, the media have managed to publicize the faces of his alleged lovers, his wife, and even his child. This story has been presented in most cases under the guise of “public interest.” Let’s clarify whether there are boundaries to public interest and where they lie.
Details of the so-called “investigation” by Ukrainian “journalist” Shariy
The video first appeared on the channel of pro-Russian blogger Anatoliy Shariy and contains his “watermark.” The 37-second clip shows the chief of the Rivne TCK kissing at least two different women, none of whom are his wife.
Later, the video was republished by numerous media outlets (including “TSN News,” “Focus,” “Ukraine Today,” “Volyn News,” and many others). Some media, like “Babel”, did not distribute the video itself but provided a link to the unedited original. However, these media outlets did not blur the faces of the women in the video. Some went further and supplemented the material with a photo of the chief’s wife. Until recently, the materials also included a photo of their child together, but such images were later deleted.
In response to the public outcry regarding the incident, The Ukrainian Ground Forces stated that they would conduct an official investigation and also involve law enforcement agencies due to the unauthorized filming in a government facility.
It is noteworthy that after numerous media reports, excerpts from the video were used for memes by social media users, sparking public discussions. These “humorous” posts also contained images of women that could easily be identified. Did the media materials comply with legal requirements and ethical standards?
The law and ethics
The fundamental document regulating the media sphere is the Law of Ukraine “On Media” (which, by the way, turned exactly one year old on March 31, 2024, since its adoption). Article 4 of this law mentions respect for personal and family life among the principles of media activity. The somewhat archaic Law of Ukraine “On Information” also emphasizes protection from interference in personal life as one of the principles of information relations. Articles 29 and 30 of this law state that there will be no liability for disseminating confidential information if it is socially significant.
Article 307 of the Civil Code of Ukraine sheds some light on the matter. It stipulates that a person has the right to be protected from unlawful photo and video recording, and any such information can only be disseminated with their consent. Exceptions may be made in cases explicitly provided for by the legislation (with a key reference here being the Law “On Information” and the concept of public interest).
What does the Code of Ethics for Ukrainian journalists tell us? At the very least, it’s worth mentioning Point 3 of the Code, which directly addresses the issue of privacy: “A journalist must treat a person’s private life with respect. However, this does not exclude their right to journalistic investigation related to certain events and facts, if the social significance of the information being gathered and disseminated by the journalist is higher than the private interests of the individual.”
In practice, this principle allows for certain intrusion into privacy when the public interest outweighs the need to protect an individual’s private life. A typical example of such a situation is the lower level of privacy protection for public officials, state actors, or socially influential people.
In practice, the Independent Media Council (IMC) and the Commission on Journalistic Ethics (CJE) have dealt with cases related to such issues. For example, in a case involving the online media “StopKor” and journalist Marina Titova, the IMC emphasized the distinction between public figures whose intimate details become a matter of public interest and private individuals who are not of legitimate interest to society. Similarly, the CJE in a case regarding materials about the head of the Audit Chamber of Ukraine underscored that photos of public figures can be published when such publication relates to their professional activities (such as performing official duties).
Additionally, the CJE recently reviewed a case regarding a post in journalist Vitaliy Hlaholi’s Telegram channel about a New Year’s party in Zakarpattia with scantily clad dancers, concluding that there was a violation of privacy rights.
Therefore, the key to understanding whether standards were violated ultimately lies in answering the question: was there a legitimate public interest in disseminating the specific information?
What does EU legislation and practice say?
The Directive on Audiovisual Media Services and the recently adopted Media Freedom Act, like most other international regulatory documents, are overly general and only briefly mention the protection of private life, mostly making references to other, more specialized documents. A more detailed interpretation can be found in the practice of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), which has developed principles for interpreting privacy in the context of journalistic activities over the years. So, when does the public interest outweigh the right to personal life? Let’s consider a few cases.
- In Mosley v the United Kingdom, former head of the International Automobile Federation Max Mosley accused the media of violating his privacy by publishing photos allegedly depicting his participation in a Nazi-themed orgy (which turned out to have no Nazi connotations but rather resembled a BDSM party). However, due to the absence of any Nazi undertones and, consequently, a lack of public interest, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) emphasized that the publication of the images was unnecessary and therefore infringed upon the applicant’s privacy. Thus, the court noted that there must be a public interest both in the material itself and in the accompanying imagery.
- In MGN Ltd v the United Kingdom, the media published photographs of Naomi Campbell — a popular model and actress — leaving a facility for rehabilitating individuals with drug addiction, to illustrate a piece dedicated to this topic. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) noted that while the fact of her treatment is a matter of public interest due to her public status and significant influence, especially on young people, the visual component of the news was an excessive intrusion into privacy as it did not add additional substantive content and the material itself did not relate to the commission of a crime or a similar topic that would require evidence.
- In Dupate v Latvia, journalists spread photos of a lawyer who was the wife of the leader of a popular political party, at the moment she was leaving the maternity ward. In assessing whether the publication of images and information was in the public interest, the Court noted that the fact of childbirth could be significant to the public due to the identity of the father, but the details and images constituted an excessive intrusion.
- In all cases where the media published images of private individuals — Peck v the United Kingdom (regarding the publication of a video recording of a suicide attempt in a public place), Gurgenidze v Georgia (regarding an article about charges of theft of a historical monument), Kurier Zeitungsverlag und Druckerei GmbH (no 2) v Austria, and Krone Verlag GmbH v Austria (regarding the publication of photos in the context of divorce proceedings and child custody) — the Court emphasized that journalists should have been more cautious regarding private life and should not have engaged in such excessive intrusion considering that their actions did not harm the public or have a significant impact on it.
What conclusion can be drawn from assessing the judicial practice? The European approach suggests that the publication of images without blurring faces or concealing identifying details is important only in cases where such publication may indicate the commission of a crime, captures significant information in the public interest without which the media material would likely be considered unreliable, and when there is no possibility to present the material in a way that avoids excessive intrusion into private life.
What should journalists have done with the case of the head of the Rivne TCK?
First and foremost, journalists and responsible media editors should have investigated the value of disseminating such material regarding the head of the Rivne TCK. Specifically, they needed to determine whether this information overall indicates the dishonesty of the TCK head and how such information affected the organization’s functioning and society as a whole. It was crucial for the media to differentiate between the TCK head and other individuals featured in the video, especially women who became subjects of the material against their will, as well as the TCK head’s wife. Based on the analyzed standards, the following conclusions can be drawn:
- The information about the chief of the Rivne Recruitment and Social Support Center (TCCK) failing to perform work duties during working hours is in the public interest, and the video recordings confirm the fact that unethical behavior is taking place within the state structure at the workplace.
- However, the photos (screenshots) and video recordings of the faces of the women in the office and the wife of the head of the Rivne TCCK did not belong to the public interest and were in no way related to the failure of the official to perform duties or his unethical behavior. Therefore, the media should have blurred their faces when sharing the video recording.
Apart from the conclusions in this specific case, it is also important to remember that this is not the first time Ukrainian media has faced the dilemma of how to cover received information, especially if it has already become public through other sources (for example, private social media accounts). In such cases, several rules should be followed:
- Carefully consider whether the information, which is an intrusion into a person’s private life, truly serves the public interest and whether publishing such information contributes to addressing a pressing social issue, stimulating discussion, or otherwise influencing public life and welfare.
- Verify the reliability of the source of the information and ensure that the dissemination of such information is not a personal attack on an individual (which the media may inadvertently contribute to by providing information on a larger scale and publicity).
- Do not disseminate information that violates the rights of others, even if it has become public through other sources of information.
- If journalists and media believe that the publication appears incomplete or inaccurate without illustrative materials, they should ensure that their dissemination is done with all necessary measures to protect vulnerable individuals (such as blurring or overlaying a black screen on the faces of specific individuals in the material).
- When media illustrate scandalous cases related to the activities of public figures, officials, or other media personalities, they should ensure that journalists do not disseminate an excessive amount of information about their family life if it is not directly in the public interest (such as when relatives are suspected of aiding criminal offenses or similar unlawful actions).
- It is prohibited to distribute photos or videos of children without the consent of parents or other legal guardians. Even with such consent, similar visual materials should be very cautiously distributed, especially when they are part of scandalous cases or controversial situations.
The author: Tetiana Avdieieva, media lawyer, specially for Women in Media
Note: This material has been translated using artificial intelligence. If you have found an mistake, please inform us by email ngo.womeninmedia@gmail.com
This material was made possible by the New Democracy Fund (NDF) and International Media Support (IMS) as part of the project “Breaking Down Barriers: Bringing together public organizations, media, and state bodies to achieve gender equality in the media space of Ukraine,” implemented by the NGO “Women in Media.” Any views expressed here belong to the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of NDF or IMS.