Readers Sound Off

THE NEWSPAPER SHOULD WRITE ABOUT SPORTS AS PROFESSIONALLY AS ABOUT POLITICS AND CULTURE

“What do you think is now in the focus of society’s life? What worries the people you deal with?”

“I believe every individual is solving today his/her local problems. He/she mostly worries about his/her personal well-being rather than some major problems of this country or the world. We can say that people are now desperate about how to live further. But I think one must only live relying on his/her brains and hands, for an individual who has these can, in spite of all obstacles, find his/her happiness. One must critically perceive reality and analyze current events.”

“What do you personally like and not like in The Day ?”

“I like the way political and cultural events are presented. You can get to know some of them in The Day only. This refers, in particular, to European film festivals, painting exhibitions, theater premieres, tours of jazzmen, etc. Among the political materials, I want to mention Vitaly Portnykov’s articles on the developments in Russia, for it is difficult to get an unbiased view of them in other mass media outlets. It is also important that you can occasionally read articles from the world’s leading publications, i.e., get to know different viewpoints on the events in this country. “

“Which rubrics, topics, and thematic columns have exhausted themselves?”

“I think the Society page should be replaced by one dealing with the life of cities where the newspaper is printed. Such pages, dedicated to Kyiv and Lviv, existed earlier, but then they disappeared. I can argue for the return of this page by the fact that readers are most interested in city life and only then in the national and international problems. Secondly, readers then would not have to buy another, local, publication. I might be told in reply that there are local newspapers. But they, with a few exceptions, do not adequately cover national and international events.”

“What topics does our newspaper cover insufficiently and what subjects receive too much attention?”

“I’d like to dwell upon the topic of sports. I do not suggest you become the subsidiary of a sports publication, but still sports do not receive adequate treatment in the newspaper. In the past, you wrote much about sports, there were reviews of NHL and NBA games, but now you only carry occasional post-game commentaries on the Champions Leagues and the national soccer team games plus professional boxing with the Klychko brothers. I, as a reader, am interested in sport, in addition to other topics, because now it costs a great deal to buy several publications, but I would like to have a well- respected newspaper that would write about sports as professionally as about politics and culture. I suggest you carry reviews of games, including those in the NHL and NBA, with emphasis laid on the performance of our athletes. In conclusion, I would like to wish you to become a major publication respected, above all, in this country, for, judging by the number of Internet visits, the outside world knows and, in all probability, respects you.”

By Ihor LAPTIEV,
Kyiv

INSTEAD OF “I AM BETTER” TRY “HOW TO MAKE IT BETTER”

Your newspaper is mostly read by people with an innate inclination to think. Although even our universities and colleges do not teach abstract logical thinking, these people have mastered this kind of thinking on their own but, unfortunately, on an unscientific methodological basis. Yet, this is an achievement against the background of our conceited and stupid public opinion. In addition, they spend time reading Den/The Day not because of boredom but trying to ease, at least morally, their own plight.

To this end, it is advisable to limit the scope (duration) of reading one issue of Den by 90 minutes or so and up to 120 minutes with the Friday issue. This scope of thoughtful (!) reading can easily embrace six pages, including illustrations, of the present format. For a larger scope will overload both the readers and the editorial staff.

Moreover, most of your readers are people with far from the best eyesight. Thus at least topical materials should be printed in large characters and obligatorily in a functional type (like pragmatica).

On the criteria of selecting materials to be printed, Soviet (in terms of their outlook) journalists are now employing their old internal censorship. Moreover, as all normal Soviet people, they proceed from the priority and presumption of their own rightness. The point is it is not difficult to guess that among the readers (in your case, 50,000 educated and thinking persons) there are quite a few people more knowledgeable in a specific social problem than editorial employees. But Soviet mentality forbids this, for the journalist is always right in everything.

So I offer you different criteria for the selection of materials to be printed:

1. Try the criterion “How to make it better” instead of the currently used “I am better.” The difference is only negligible in form but fundamental in content and consequences.

2. Instead of maximizing your own rightness (including that of the whole editorial board), try to maximize the benefits you bring. For you sell your readers knowledge which should bring them more benefits than the rival mass media.

As your readers are people with a pronounced proclivity toward abstract logical thought, it is worthwhile for The Day to radically cut presenting its materials in specific emotional form. Leave this to other, quite numerous, publications.

Moreover, reflective people consume less concrete emotional knowledge, i.e., mainstream television productions, visual arts, crosswords, etc. Hence Den/The Day, too, should drastically reduce this.

It would be better if this were replaced with popular science materials (with mandatory illustrations), intellectual humor, the humor of other nations, etc. Such material will suffice even for a whole page of your daily newspaper.

Author’s materials should be printed with a date in the author’s text and the date when the editorial office received the material, plus the author’s contact data (in case he/she agrees).

You should also try to get used to the idea that plural liberalism is not the only (and not the best!) philosophical foundation, that only a scientific approach achieved with abstract logical thinking methods leads to the objective (truthful!) vision of social problems. And this has already been described on a level accessible to laymen!

Den/The Day’s last, sixth, page should be filled with science and technology news and intellectual humor.

Wishing Den/The Day more circulation and authority!

Yours truly, Dmytro KLETS,
Dubno district, Rivne oblast

THE WORD INTELLIGENTSIA IS NOT FOR US TO USE

I suggest Den/The Day discuss with its readers the following subject: Is there an intelligentsia in Ukraine and what is its role in the modern, post- Soviet, history of Ukraine? Earlier, the notion of a member of the intelligentsia implied education, decency, inner and external culture, tolerance, the ability to listen to and hear not only oneself but also others, and, above all, setting a personal example. However, later on the notion was adapted to the communist ideology and dubbed the Soviet intelligentsia. There were also “subdivisions,” such as industrial and technical (i.e., urban), rural, military intelligentsia, et al. Sufficed it for an individual to graduate from an institute, and he/she automatically became an intellectual. Filling out their resumes, those grown up in such families automatically referred their origin to “white- collar workers” (intelligentsia).

Nonsense pure and simple! The very essence of the notion was emasculated. Den/The Day recently carried an article on Andrei Sakharov. I can confirm he was an intellectual in all respects. I was privileged to once meet him. But this is a separate topic. How hard I hated those “intellectuals” who applauded the authorities and jeered Sakharov at Congresses of People’s Deputies! But Mr. Sakharov, by force of his internal intellectual character, never thought he was speaking in a void. Of course, his supporters were also present at that congress, but time showed they had been inspired by their common lust for profit, not their persuasions. I might say the same of the so- called intelligentsia now in Ukraine. Hence its venality. Can a member of this stratum, in the true sense of the word, change his convictions like gloves and adjust them to the powers that be and current fashion? Never. What is more, I think both rich and poor can be members of the intelligentsia. However, the former category of people is inclined to show the aristocratic, rather than the intellectual, manner of behavior. I cannot even compare a gentleman to an intellectual, for, in my opinion, being a gentleman is only a set of aristocratic manners, which need not necessarily correspond to a person’s inner convictions. But, as it is a more western notion, let us leave it aside. I will only suggest we drop the word intelligentsia as the definition for a whole stratum of society and only use the words intellectual and nonintellectual.

By Karen MIRZOYAN,