The face of Zeinab Badawi, British broadcaster and program anchor, is familiar to television viewers of BBC World News and BBC4 from many countries of the world. In November 2009, London-based Association for International Broadcasting (AIB) named her “international TV personality of the year”.

The Commentaries met Zeinab Badawi after the debate “Free market capitalism has failed the former Soviet states” organized by the Foundation for Effective Governance in partnership with the Intelligence Squared. Ms. Zeinabi moderated the event.

Zeinab, hosting an English-speaking debate in Kyiv that will be broadcast by BBC World News for the international audience is an unprecedented event in Ukraine. Did debate participants speak good enough English?

Both the panelists and the audience had very good command of English. If we look at the debate as a media event that shows Ukraine to the world audience, this aspect gains special importance. I believe Ukraine needs the leaders who can duly present it on the international arena. None of the Ukrainian presidents ever spoke or speaks English. This is while Mikhail Saakashvili speaks very good English and has an opportunity to defend his policy in multiple interviews he gives to the Western media. For people who work for the mass media this is very important. For instance, while in Kyiv I could interview some people for my news program, but I know I will always need an interpreter. On TV, this is a weak point: it creates distance between the guest and the audience, who have to read the captions rather than concentrate entirely on the guest. That is why after its independence, Ukraine has resonated so poorly with the international audience. International mass media often view Ukraine through the prism of Russia, which has its English-speaking persona – if not a president, then at least a foreign minister.

But media’s biased attitude to Ukraine can hardly be explained only by a language barrier, can’t it?

No, it can’t. I would say that Ukraine suffers from its presentation by European mass media. Press, radio and TV make reports about different countries, and the subjects usually fall into several categories. You see the Middle East through the Palestinian problems, Islamism, terrorism, discrimination of women, etc. There are clichés how global leaders are shown by the media. Ukraine is no exception. All of us – journalists in Britain, France, Germany, the USA – have fallen victims to these clichés and present top stories in a much predictable way.

Has the Internet helped to get rid of these clichés?

The Internet has greatly expanded the horizons of perception and drastically increased the chances for people all over the globe to voice their opinions. The Internet has made information much more accessible and rapid. In our globalized world, we get to know about everything immediately hence it is no longer possible to hide something. There are so many Internet resources that provide information for the people. These are not only newspaper web pages, but also blogs written by common people, video services, twitter, etc. Thanks to these resources, people get access to the widest range of views and opinions. This is all good. However, these sources are not always trustworthy. Speaking of the so-called civil journalism, we may see a video on the Internet that shows antigovernment protests in Athens. There are, of course, cases where you can’t get video material other than from these sources.

Can civil journalism force professional journalists out of business?

I don’t think so. At present, these two types of journalists complete each other. We take an immediate picture of an event in progress, and all of us want to make it as clear as possible. However, in addition to the picture, you have to give the readers or the viewers some explanation. So far, civil journalists mainly take a picture, giving no details or broader context. Professional journalists know the broader context better. Additionally, they are used to be as truthful as possible, and this is their strong side.

What technical and technological innovations can take journalism to an entirely new level?

Hopefully, sooner or later technologies will let us shoot and transmit videos very fast. On the radio, if something happens, you pick up a phone and give your report. The same is possible on TV, but television needs a picture. Sometimes we can broadcast videos shot by civil journalists on an amateur video or web camera, but the quality is generally poor, so we cannot air them for more than a minute or two. On the other hand, we do not have studios everywhere; besides, satellite TV bridges are very expensive. I think that if technologies help us transmit high-quality video really fast, this will be revolutionary.

What lessons can mass media take from the financial crisis?

I think many of the lessons are already taken, although it is too early to speak of the long-term impact of the crisis. So far, the main discussion is held whether newspapers should charge their readers on the web. In my opinion, this may be an interesting experiment. Revenues from advertising have fallen and so have newspaper circulation, that is why we try to win by raising money from the online content. I think the reasonability of this initiative is still unclear. Additionally – and one cannot fail observing this – news agencies decrease a number of their foreign representatives. Often we have only one person in a country, and he has to shoot, edit, give phone reports, etc. all on his own. Of course, this puts this person under extreme pressure. At the same time, it also has positive sides: for example, on BBC World News we finally found time to think of our priorities and concentrate on the work we do best.

Did TV content change after the crisis?

On British TV it has become more market oriented. Television companies pay greater attention to rankings. Consequently, they make more popular shows, such as Big Brother. Popular television, driven by ranking and commercials, and information falling into “the common interest” category shape the market. Serious programs are barred from prime TV slot or avoided entirely. Everything is presented in an entertaining form. It is not bad, because it is an attempt to give the content of the Financial Times level in a funny, entertaining wrapping. If the audience receives the information that helps it understand what is going on it is no problem. The problem is when nothing more serious than Big Brother is produced. There is a lot of criticism about it. I like BBC World News especially because we still make very serious programs.

Is it reasonable today to speak about the educational role of television?

BBC’s motto is to inform, educate and entertain. It is very good if television takes all of these three components into account. Unfortunately, we currently observe that the entertaining aspect dominates information or education. I think that today we have to concentrate on the programs which do not tell ready-made stuff to the viewers, but offer different arguments which help them form their own opinion. This teaches critical thinking to the audience. And this is, in my opinion, a very strong point of mass media.