LETTERS TO THE EDITOR (01/31/93)

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Advertisement was offensive

Dear Editor:

This is to let you know that I found the ad that appeared on page 16 of The Ukrainian Weekly of December 20, 1992, to be in extremely poor taste and grossly offensive.

Outfitting, as this ad does, the Shevchenko likeness with some silly and ugly "shmata," in order to make a fast buck makes as much sense to me as doing the same thing to Jesus Christ, whose birthday, by the way, this vulgarity attempts to exploit.

And the "message" that this nondescript piece of apparel exposes on its front is nothing but, to put it mildly, an insipid verbal emetic.

Surely, the a-la-cheap-cocktail mix of the assorted booze-associated words with the two (Ukraine and Shevchenko) most sacred words in the Ukrainian language has very little to do with humor, common decency and everything else that matters!

You would be doing your readers a great favor by dissociating yourself from, instead of promoting this product on the pages of your rather highly respected newspaper.

Myroslaw Prytulak
Windsor, Ontario

Re: press bureau in Washington

Dear Editor:

During the past few months a number of letters to the editor calling for a press bureau have appeared in The Ukrainian Weekly. Before the issue goes any further, it is important to clarify a number of points.

First of all, to properly accomplish what has been suggested requires a fairly large and professional staff at professional salaries. Second, the cost of overhead in any office (clerical staff, publications, equipment, telephones, rent, etc.) is tremendous. Both the Ukrainian National Association (UNA) and the Ukrainian Congress Committee of America (UCCA) are currently funding Washington offices and are aware of these expenses. Is there an organization (one with financial assets is required because such an office cannot depend on the irregularity of community fund-raising) which can commit to these expenses?

More importantly, the mission of such a press bureau must be fully defined. Ms. Milburn in her letter (January 24) outlined that mission. However, much of that description entails representing Ukraine and is the function of the Embassy of Ukraine. It would be presumptuous of the Ukrainian American community to speak on behalf of Ukraine. If the bureau is to only represent the Ukrainian American community, who decides what the positions of the community are? Is there an organization that represents the entire community? Currently, the UNA and UCCA Washington offices represent not the community but their respective organizations.

If the press bureau does not speak on behalf of Ukraine or the Ukrainian American community, then it is reduced to just correcting inaccuracies in the media. While that is a worthy effort, is it worth the high cost of a press bureau? In addition, it should be noted that the media reacts not so much to an office in Washington or New York but to response from their local readership. Local "Letters to the Editor" have more of an effect on a newspaper then letters from a central office.

With regard to "monitoring and taking on" universities and colleges, a press bureau would have little effect. The academic world reacts not to the press or a bureau but to others in the academic world. This function is best handled by academics in Ukraine, Canada and the United States - not a press bureau.

Before we call for a press bureau which would cost at least $250,000 a year, we should give more thought on how to utilize our existing resources more effectively. Perhaps the first step would be to give greater support to the two Ukrainian offices, representing national organizations, that already exist in Washington.

Eugene W. Iwanciw
Washington

The writer is director of the UNA Washington Office.

Financial Times a refreshing change

Dear Editor:

As Ukrainians continue to lament about the coverage of Ukraine in the North American press, I would like to point out that I find reading The Financial Times a refreshing change. News about Ukraine comes from Kyyiv, not Moscow, and in a fair and neutral tone. What more could Ukrainians ask for?

Since Ukraine declared independence I have written The Financial Times five times and have received responses to two. The first came in June of this year. I brought to their attention the fact they were still using the words "Soviet Union" in the present tense when referring to either all the new states, or worse, when only speaking of Russia. I obtained a very positive response from the editor's staff. They were grateful to me for pointing out this inaccuracy and assured me that in the future the new states would be properly addressed. They have made good on their pledge. The word "former" now always precedes "Soviet Union" in their paper.

The second response came in the form of having a letter published in the Letter to the Editor section on December 3, 1992. I was replying to an article that attempted to use old USSR economic statistics as a means for defining how Kyyiv and Moscow should manage trade relations with each other. My letter argued that when the Soviet Union became obsolete, so did its economy. The old statistics, therefore, were no longer reliable for predicting the future.

I mention my efforts in the hope that other Ukrainians will write to The Financial Times. In particular, I would like to see members of academic or policy institutes submit articles to provide a Ukrainian perspective on issues affecting the former Soviet Union. The Financial Times regularly publishes submissions in a section called "Personal View."

Bohdan Skrobach
Toronto

| Home Page |