A Request for a Zelenskyy Press Conference or Political Activism: What the Statement by Eight Journalists Means
2 September 11:47
ANALYSIS 
Eight journalists from leading Ukrainian media outlets have publicly addressed Volodymyr Zelenskyy with a list of pointed questions regarding his inner circle, corruption scandals, personnel policies, and the future of his presidency. At the same time, a petition is being circulated on the president’s website calling for Zelenskyy to hold an open press conference with independent journalists. This was reported by "Komersant Ukrainian".
Petition to Zelenskyy
Petition No. 22/269406-ep , “On Holding an Open Press Conference by the President of Ukraine with Independent Journalists and the Public,” was registered on August 27. Its author, Anna Repina, calls for Zelenskyy to hold an open press conference with the participation of independent and critical media outlets and to allow journalists to ask questions without prior approval of their content.
Among the media outlets whose representatives are proposed to be invited are “Ukrainska Pravda,” Bihus.Info, “Slidstvo.Info,” Radio Svoboda, hromadske, The Kyiv Independent, “Suspilne,” NV, “Dzerkalo Tyzhnia,” BBC Ukraine, and Liga.net.
The petition does not specify the criteria used to select this particular group of media representatives or whether representatives of other Ukrainian media outlets could participate in such a press conference.
The petition requires 25,000 votes to be considered. As of September 2, it had gathered over 16,400 signatures. The petition will remain open until November 27.
According to journalist Danylo Mokryk, this document is not the first attempt to secure such a public conversation with the president. Prior to its launch, there were at least five attempts to submit similar online petitions, none of which passed the registration process.
“When was the last time you told the president the truth?”
On September 1, eight journalists also released a separate video appeal titled “Vova, Budanov, Mindich, and the Elections: Journalists’ Questions for Zelenskyy.” Participants included representatives from the following media outlets:
- Mykhailo Tkach from “Ukrainska Pravda,”
- Inna Vedernikova from “Dzerkalo Tyzhnia,”
- Maria Zemlyanska from Bihus.Info,
- Oleksiy Sorokin from The Kyiv Independent,
- Kateryna Nekrecha from “Espreso,”
- Iryna Romaliiska from “Censor.NET,”
- Yaroslav Volvach from hromadske, and Danylo Mokryk.
The journalists did not limit themselves to a general call for a press conference but formulated questions they would like to ask Zelenskyy.
Mykhailo Tkach asks the president when he will tell those in his inner circle to “stop stealing,” particularly in the context of casinos, call centers, the defense sector, and the tax system.
Maria Zemlyanska raises the issue of the “Dynasty” buildings and Zelenskyy’s responsibility for the actions of people on his team.
Oleksiy Sorokin asks who gave the order to raise funds for bail for defendants in high-profile cases, specifically Herman Galushchenko.
Yaroslav Volvach also asks Zelenskyy about the collection of money for bail for Andriy Yermak and Galushchenko, as well as about an official from the Office of the President who is referred to as “Kirilo” or “Kirilo Oleksiyovych” in the NABU recordings.
Watch us on YouTube: important topics – without censorship
Danylo Mokryk discusses Timur Mindich’s contacts with the Office of the President, which, according to him, continued at least until June 2026, as well as Andriy Yermak’s possible consultations with an astrologer regarding personnel appointments.
Kateryna Nekrecha asks whether Zelenskyy was truly unaware of the corrupt actions of his inner circle until the release of the high-profile investigative reports, as well as why the president rarely meets with critical journalists.
Inna Vedernikova returns to Zelenskyy’s long-standing promise to run for only one presidential term and asks whether he plans to keep that promise.
Iryna Romaliiska asks: if the war lasts ten years, does Zelenskyy plan to remain president for the entire duration?
At the same time, a separate discussion has arisen within the Ukrainian journalism community regarding this appeal.
Natalia Ligachova —a media expert, founder, and chair of the NGO “Detector Media”— and editor-in-chief of the “Detector Media” portal—stated that she has “mixed feelings”about the statement issued by the eight Ukrainian journalists. She recalled that in the past, major political statements by the media community—particularly during the “Stop Censorship!” movement—were usually prepared with the involvement of a broader circle of colleagues.
“On the one hand, the media community has been making strong ‘political’ statements for many years—ever since the ‘Stop Censorship!’ era—through mass movements. Therefore, from the very beginning, they had both greater strength and greater influence, but at the same time relied on the support of colleagues during their preparation. Now, in the Media Movement’s chat and mailing list, none of those who signed this statement have informed their colleagues about it. The call to sign the petition is directed primarily not at colleagues, but at citizens,” Ligachova noted.
In her opinion, this may exacerbate the tendency to pit one media outlet against another. She specifically refutes the claim that the president’s recent informal meetings with journalists were attended only by media outlets loyal to the government, which did not ask tough questions.
At the same time, Ligachova adds that the questions asked by journalists in the video are indeed pointed and concern issues that have long been debated in Ukrainian society.
“That said, the questions posed by my colleagues are indeed pointed. They are political in nature and are unlikely to achieve their stated goal (especially given our president’s character). In other words, it is unlikely that the president will hold a press conference and answer these questions. But, as I wrote above, my colleagues most likely aren’t expecting that—they’re simply stating their position. (I hope this isn’t just a desire to ‘show off,’ as Valery Kalnysh already wrote on Telegram.) “And this is where, for me, the fine line between journalism and activism begins,” Ligachova writes.
Ligachova points out that Ukrainian journalists have asked presidents similar questions in the past. Specifically, Giya Gongadze asked Leonid Kuchma, Serhiy Leshchenko asked Viktor Yushchenko, Mustafa Nayem asked Viktor Yanukovych, and Maryna Baranivska asked Petro Poroshenko.
But, in her opinion, the current situation differs fundamentally from previous ones due to the full-scale war.
“There is peacetime and there is wartime. In fact, that is precisely why I personally did not support Marina’s question to Poroshenko at the time. […] I do not believe that war means a ban on sharp criticism of the government. On the contrary: during wartime, oversight of the government does not become any less important. But during wartime, the stakes of public communication rise—and so does the responsibility for its potential consequences,” Ligachova writes.
She explains that harsh criticism of the Ukrainian government could be exploited by Russian propaganda, as well as by Ukraine’s opponents in partner countries. At the same time, Ligachova does not consider this a reason to remain silent about problems.
Read us on Telegram: important topics – without censorship
In her view, the current situation reveals an increasingly noticeable divide within the journalistic community regarding the role of the media during wartime.
“So what does this current move by my colleagues indicate, in my view? It points to an increasingly noticeable divergence within the journalistic community regarding the role of the media during a war with an external enemy,” Ligachova noted.
She also suggests that some media outlets may have shifted from journalism to political activism.
“In my view, certain media outlets have also embarked on a path of political activism, perhaps siding with certain emerging political forces in the country. As for their support—or that of the political forces they represent—this is a hypothesis, and it could be either a conscious or an unconscious stance on their part,” writes the editor-in-chief of “Detector Media.”
We cannot ignore tough questions
“You can’t go years without inviting certain media outlets to off-the-record meetings,” Ligachova emphasizes.
The lack of regular, direct dialogue, in her opinion, has largely given rise to the current situation.
“Nor can one pretend that, before high-profile cases came to light, the president had no idea about corruption in his inner circle. ‘The tsar is good—the boyars are bad’—that certainly doesn’t apply to Ukraine, where society always places personal responsibility on the leader, and not without reason,” notes Ligachova.
Despite her critical view of the statement’s form, Ligachova does not rule out that it will have a political and social impact.
“In one of the chat rooms, my colleagues were quite skeptical about the possible impact of this statement. I, however, don’t rule out that this ‘bursting of the abscess’—precisely because of the authority and independence of the publications whose representatives articulated it—could have tangible consequences. We’ll see,” she writes.
In her opinion, the best response from the Office of the President would not be a counter-information campaign, but an actual meeting with the journalists.
It won’t just go away
“Whether it’s this statement or others, or certain actions—the process of a gradual loss of trust in the president within the country has begun. And what’s most regrettable is that it’s not just being driven by opponents and hostile propaganda, but to a significant extent by the president himself.
And I personally consider this process dangerous during wartime. It makes Ukraine, no matter how you look at it, weaker. Therefore, the president is left with only one choice: either without ‘his own people,’ but with society. Or… I don’t even want to go on,” Ligachova concludes.
Kalnysh’s Opinion
Journalist Valery Kalyshyn supported the demand for Volodymyr Zelenskyy to hold a press conference, but criticized the questions prepared by journalists. In particular, he noted the near-total absence of questions directly about the war and stated that some of the questions seemed to reflect the journalist’s own position rather than being aimed at eliciting an answer.
“The fact that the head of state does not communicate with the domestic media is a problem and is wrong,” Kalyshyn emphasized.
He added: “It’s worth meeting with journalists—if only out of respect for them.”
Watch us on YouTube: important topics – without censorship
As a reminder, on August 22, Volodymyr Zelenskyy held a closed-door meeting with journalists on the eve of Independence Day. The meeting was attended by representatives of select media outlets, while journalists from a number of other news organizations were not invited. After the meeting, the journalists published its contents and quotes from the president, even though the format of the interaction reportedly did not involve an open press conference.
