Silent protester is a powerful voice against official ‘lies’ From Jeremy Page in Kiev NATALYA DMITRUK’s silent protest was perhaps the least obvious of all the demonstrations in support of Viktor Yushchenko. But it was one of the most courageous.

For three years, the sign- language interpreter had dutifully translated the news twice daily on UT-1, the state-run television channel that is the mouthpiece for Viktor Yanukovych, the Prime Minister.

But when Tatyana Krav-chenko, UT-1’s anchorwoman, announced on Thursday morning that Mr Yanukovych had won a disputed presidential election, Mrs Dmitruk left the script.

“I am addressing all the deaf citizens of Ukraine,” she signed from the bottom right-hand corner of the screen, a ribbon of opposition orange tied around her wrist. “Our President is Yushchenko. Don’t believe what they say. They are lying.”

Then Mrs Dmitruk, 47, whose parents are deaf, went back to interpreting the report, before abandoning the script again at the end of the bulletin.

“My soul is heavy that I had to repeat these lies,” she signed - her colleagues still oblivious to what she was doing. “I will not do it again. I don’t know if we’ll see each other again.”

Mrs Dmitruk’s defiant gesture was one of a flurry of protests by staff at Ukrainian television channels that highlight the crumbling support in state institutions for the outgoing President Kuchma and the Prime Minister he backed.

When her newscast finished, Mrs Dmitruk left the studio and joined a strike by more than 220 journalists and contributors at UT-1 in protest at the one-sided coverage of the election and its aftermath.

Now UT-1 and other state-controlled channels have bowed to pressure to lift a ban on coverage of opposition protests, giving many people in Russian-speaking eastern Ukraine their first glimpse of the huge crowds around Kiev’s Independence Square.

Mrs Dmitruk told The Times that she had never dreamt of making a political statement until the second round of voting on November 21, which the Opposition and Western observers say was rigged.

“I was so frustrated that our channel was not telling the truth,” she said. “I felt responsible because the deaf rely on me for their information.”

Unknown to her bosses, Mrs Dmitruk had been joining the protests on Independence Square every day after work with her son and daughter.

“I wasn’t afraid because I felt that I was doing the right thing, that what was happening on Independence Square was right,” she said. “I am not a radical, but I believe in Yushchenko.”

None of Mrs Dmitruk’s superiors learnt about her protest until a viewer called in to complain and they saw reports about it on the independent television channel, Channel 5, later on Thursday. Yet, surprisingly, they have not dismissed her.

Other rebellious reporters have found sympathy among editors fed up with “temnyki” - instructions on how to report subjects - issued by the presidential administration.

Last week, 14 journalists at UT-1 and 1+1, a privately owned but pro-Government channel, went on strike to protest against biased coverage. On Thursday, journalists at 1+1 said that they had struck a deal with management guaranteeing editorial independence.

“We acknowledge our responsibility for the biased information that the channel spread after coming under pressure from various political forces,” the 1+1 journalists said. “From today . . . we guarantee that any information we broadcast will be complete and objective.”

Critics say that coverage on state-controlled channels is still far from balanced and could undermine Mr Yushchenko if a vote is held on December 12.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1381274,00.html