Close Menu
Market Data Newsletter
Thursday, February 19
Global Free Speech

CPJ calls for accountability in Ukrainian journalist surveillance allegations 

News RoomBy No Comments3 Mins Read1,462 Views
CPJ calls for accountability in Ukrainian journalist surveillance allegations 

Listen to the article

0:00
0:00

New York, February 19, 2026—The Committee to Protect Journalists calls for a swift and thorough investigation into the alleged monitoring of at least 10 Ukrainian journalists covering corruption. 

Ukraine’s national police opened a criminal investigation into the alleged surveillance to determine whether the privacy of journalists who cover corruption was violated, according to the February 11 Facebook post of Yaroslav Yurchyshyn, the head of Ukraine’s parliamentary committee on freedom of speech.

In November, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU), a government agency, published the findings of a special 15-month-long investigation named “Midas,” and said it had uncovered a “criminal organization” that allegedly included government officials and businessmen with ties to the government who set up a system for embezzling funds in Ukraine’s energy sector. 

The group allegedly collected personal information on politicians, government officials, employees of NABU and the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), as well as 10 journalists investigating corruption. Their names were found on digital devices seized as part of the investigation. 

“CPJ is deeply concerned by reports that 10 investigative journalists have been monitored in Ukraine,” said Gulnoza Said, CPJ’s Europe and Central Asia program coordinator. “CPJ welcomes the Ukrainian authorities’ decision to launch an investigation. Accountability is key in this case, which renews unwanted attention to Ukraine’s official corruption allegations. Journalists working to uncover corruption should be encouraged, not threatened.” 

On December 15, Yurchyshyn published the names of nine of the journalists, which were shared with him by NABU in a document reviewed by CPJ:

  • Maryna Ansiforova, a former journalist with independent outlet Liga.net
  • Yuriy Butusov, editor-in-chief of privately owned news website Censor.NET who is currently fighting in the Ukrainian army
  • Stanislav Rechinsky, editor-in-chief of independent news website ORD
  • Volodymyr Fedorin, editor-in-chief of the Ukrainian edition of Forbes magazine
  • Olha Chaika, a former journalist for Forbes Ukraine
  • Yuriy Nikolov, co-founder of investigative media project Nashi Groshi
  • Andriy Kulykov, journalist and head of the Commission on Journalistic Ethics, a self-regulatory body
  • Now-deceased Volodymyr Mostovy, founder of online newspaper Dzerkalo Tyzhnia
  • Now-deceased Oleksa Shalaisky, Nashi Groshi co-founder

The name of the tenth journalist is unknown. 

“This case is not about one name or a single episode,” Sevgil Musaieva, editor-in-chief of investigative outlet Ukrainska Pravda, told CPJ. “It is about the conditions in which journalists covering corruption scandals are working today.” 

Several investigative Ukrainian journalists have faced threats, violence, and harassment because of their work since Russia’s full-scale invasion of the country. In January 2024, investigative outlet Bihus.Info published an investigation that found that 30 members of the Department for the Protection of National Statehood — a branch of the SBU — had spied on its journalists. 

CPJ emailed Ukraine’s national police for comment but did not immediately receive a reply. 

Read the full article here

Fact Checker

Verify the accuracy of this article using AI-powered analysis and real-time sources.

Share.

The FSNN News Room is the voice of our in-house journalists, editors, and researchers. We deliver timely, unbiased reporting at the crossroads of finance, cryptocurrency, and global politics, providing clear, fact-driven analysis free from agendas.

Related Articles

Global Free Speech

Creators have only three seconds to hook users before they scroll away. Photo: Ben Iwara/Unsplash Short-form video is the medium of our time. The average teenager will spend hours a day on TikTok and Instagram reels, which are the main sources of news and entertainment for the 18-24 demographic. Adam Mosseri, head of Instagram, administers the most important algorithm in the English-speaking world. He is undoubtedly as consequential as David Zaslav or Rupert Murdoch – the CEO of Warner Bros and the owner of News Corp – but his name rarely makes headlines. On Mosseri’s Instagram, videos proven to hold users’ attention will be shown to more people. “Watch-time” is the basic currency of his algorithm. This has forced creators, many of whom earn a living on the platform, to abide by a golden formula: hook, secondary hook, payoff. The algorithm has spawned an entire coaching industry in which aspiring influencers pay veteran creators for crash courses in perfecting the formula. Each course teaches more or less the same thing: promise the viewer an answer to a question, keep promising, then answer at the end. Better yet, don’t answer it – promise to answer it in the next video. Where watch-time is the quantitative component of these algorithms, “trends” are the qualitative. If a particular word, image or sound appears to be trending among a certain data demographic, unrelated content will be algorithmically choked out of that demographic’s feed. This forces creators to cluster their content around proven trends. A trend is never a story. It is always a concept or feeling that can be immediately communicated within three seconds, because it is generally understood that creators have only three seconds to hook users before they scroll away. As influential creator coach Dominik Rieger will often remark: “The viewer must immediately know ‘This is for me’.” When Sean “Diddy” Combs trends, as he often does, it is never regarding a piece of evidence or a development in one of his trials. What is, on paper, a story about sexual coercion and exploitation of power is translated by the algorithm into a static portrait: a shame-faced Puff Daddy slick with baby oil. Searching “Diddy” will take you to a trove of baby oil related brainrot, and barely a single piece of factual reporting. Diddy’s actions did not create a story to be followed but a crude vignette to be gawked at. When US president Donald Trump’s shocking birthday letter to Jeffrey Epstein was published by The Wall Street Journal, it did not become a major trend on TikTok or Instagram because the only way to parse the story was by reading the letter itself, which takes more than three seconds. As far as the algorithm is concerned, if an event’s essence cannot be compressed into a three-second span, it may as well have never happened. The proliferation of short-form video has created a media environment structurally hostile to sequential reasoning. Young people’s attention is guided by an ever-narrowing algorithmic spotlight. Stories that are too big to be rendered by the spotlight are able to bask in pitch darkness and the people we allow to control the algorithms are not interested in changing that. In fact, Mosseri has been open about his efforts to speed up trends: “I want us to be better at trends. It takes still too long for things to pop on Instagram.” The political implications of this media environment are clear. If short-form video platforms continue to transmute real-world events into less-than-superficial spectacles, the rich and powerful need not manually censor anything. If all chains of cause and effect have found their terminus in the platform algorithms, and if public consciousness is held inert by the same three-second hooks, what will be worth censoring? READ MORE

Global Free Speech

Funding of just 8.9 million euro would only be sufficient to cover RTK’s basic operational needs. Photo: Arianit/CC BY-SA 4.0 The undersigned international media freedom and journalist organisations today express our serious concerns about the underfunding of Kosovo’s public broadcaster, Radio Television of Kosovo (RTK), and urgently call for legal budget requirements to be met. The Assembly of Kosovo is currently discussing the RTK budget, which is anticipated to be passed in two readings on 19 and 20 February 2026. According to the draft Law on the Budget for 2026, the parliament, based on the government’s proposal, will allocate only 8.9 million euros, which is sufficient only to cover basic operational needs such as staff salaries. The Law on RTK foresees that the public broadcaster should receive 0.7 percent of the total state budget of around three billion euros. This would mean that RTK should be allocated approximately 22 million euros. If passed, the current budget would be only 40% of this legally mandated total. A budget shortfall of this scale would seriously undermine the ability of the public broadcaster to operate independently and to fulfil its mission to inform citizens on matters of public interest. If RTK were to receive the budget it is legally entitled to, it would allow it to operate independently from any interference from the government and Parliament, while also enabling investment and development of the public broadcaster. We note that Article 5 of the European Union’s European Media Freedom Act (EMFA) requires Member States – which Kosovo aspires to become – to provide sustainable and adequate funding to public service media to allow for their stable and independent operations. The proposed budgetary system, which conflicts with the existing legal framework, would, if applicable, clearly violate this EMFA provision. We take this opportunity to invite the Government and the Parliament to initiate work on the implementation of the EMFA, as well as to begin discussions on reforming the funding and governance of RTK to ensure that its editorial and functional independence is guaranteed. Ahead of the pending budgetary decision, our organisations therefore jointly ask the Prime Minister and President of Lëvizja Vetëvendosje, Albin Kurti, and the Speaker of the Kosovo assembly, Albulena Haxhiu, to ensure that the public broadcaster receives the adequate and equitable budget in accordance with the law and that it is not subjected to political pressure through budget limitations. Signed: European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF) International Press Institute (IPI) European Federation of Journalists (EFJ) Index on Censorship Osservatorio Balcani Caucaso Transeuropa (OBCT) READ MORE

Global Free Speech

Students at the University of Essex discuss self-censorship and internet shutdowns at the Index magazine launch event Each generation has its resentments and irritations with the previous one. The baby boomers rebelled against post-war austerity, and their fury fuelled the student revolutions that swept the world in 1968. In some senses, they were the lucky ones. In the UK, free higher education and cheap housing made the boomers rich and comfortable. My own peers, Generation X, sneered at their smug complacency as we were hit by recession, the Poll Tax and Thatcherism. But some also benefitted from the unleashing of the free market, or rather the housing market. The millennials that followed were the first digital natives. They were hopeful and idealistic, but they were also the first generation to be saddled with crippling student debt. These generations had little in common, but one thing they rarely felt, in the West at least, was silenced. At the launch event for our Gen Z edition of Index on Censorship at the University of Essex recently it was striking how many ways the panellists felt their voices had been muffled and contained, if not outright censored. The speakers at the event (Has Gen Z Been Silenced On and Off Campus) could not have been more diverse, but they each felt restrictions on their free expression keenly. Sariah Lake, head of editorial at Essex Student Union’s Rebel Media said while she recognised that in some parts of the world, young people’s voices were being genuinely censored, for her the key issue was the influence of social media. “We are losing focus, we are getting distracted, we are just going to repost things,” she said. “Overcoming distraction, connecting with the real world, connecting with originality is what we can do to maintain freedom of speech.” Adil Zawahir, an Indian lawyer working on a master’s degree in human rights law, said the situation was different for overseas students. “In the West, and the UK in particular, the curtailment of speech is not due to a fear of repression, it is more because of the fear of social ostracization and the anxiety you may feel after you’ve spoken out.” He added that international students have a double problem. “We share the social anxiety, but in addition to that, every time we think about speaking out, in the back of our minds is our status in this country. It is a temporary status. We are always subject to what the government decides for us.” For Yelyzabeta Buriak, a journalism student from Ukraine who has written about her experience for the latest edition of Index, her situation as a refugee from a war zone brought with it extra concerns and restrictions. She said she avoided discussing the topic of Ukraine altogether for the first year in this country. “I’ve been carrying a feeling of guilt: for being safe here while my parents and friends are still in Ukraine in a very dangerous area,” she said. “You have this feeling of guilt, and you are always careful with words. You think ten times before saying something.” Sometimes, according to Buriak, the biggest silences are not caused by the law or university policy. “Sometimes it is self-censorship, sometimes it is fear, guilt and online judgement and sometimes its is paperwork and systems.” An important reminder of the wider international context was provided by Merick Niyongabo, President of the Politics Society at Essex, who celebrated the Gen Z revolutions in Nepal, Bulgaria and Kenya but also pointed to the internet shutdowns being used across the world to silence dissent. “It’s important we raise the voices of those who are not being heard, the voices of those in Iran and Russia, who are going through repression, but not able to publish what they are writing or express their views because of censorship.” A launch event for the Index on Censorship Gen Z issue was also held at Liverpool John Moores University, where the students mainly discussed a campaign to make LJMU a “Pro-Choice Campus”. A report of the event can be found on the Mersey News Live website, which is run by students at the university. The event at University of Essex was to launch the Winter 2025 issue of Index on Censorship, Gen Z is revolting: Why the world’s youth will not be silenced, published on 18 December 2025. READ MORE

Add A Comment
Leave A Reply