Andriy Bistrov A Ukrainian journalist, editor, and media manager formerly in Ukrainska Pravda. Her career spans television, online media, newsroom editing and media leadership. Drawn first to the speed and adrenaline of TV news, Bystrove later turned to team management, editorial judgment and investigative influence. He emphasizes curiosity, quick thinking, and the discipline of asking “why” as key practices of responsible journalism in democratic and wartime contexts.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen Interview with Ukrainian journalist, editor and media manager Andriy Bystrov about television journalism, newsroom leadership and wartime media ethics. Bystrov explains why the visual power of television drew him to journalism, why strong presenters must first be serious journalists, and how editorial management became central to his work. He emphasizes curiosity, preparation, practical discipline and emotional restraint, arguing that journalists should inform the audience rather than dictate their feelings.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Why chose television journalism?
Andriy Bystrov: Now I understand why, but a few years ago it was probably more about feeling than conscious thought. Television had a large audience. Twenty years ago, YouTube was not the popular platform it is today, and television was apparently the most effective means of visual communication.
You can describe a destroyed children’s school with words, or you can directly show pictures. Television gives you more tools. I have many good colleagues from radio and those people understand the power of voice. It’s a different kind of work.
But for me television was the best format. Even now, if we talk about YouTube, the same rules and standards still apply. You still need visuals, infographics, words, hooks for the audience and ways to keep people engaged.
I think it is one of the best forms of communication. Maybe the next phase will involve something else entirely, 5G, immersive media, or even experiences involving smell or other sensory elements.
Jacobsen: People often mistake journalism as a narrow profession. In reality, it is very complex and divided into many specialties: photojournalism, television presentation, radio hosting, investigative reporting, opinion writing, news writing, interviews, etc.
Some people can do a few of these well. I don’t know many people who can do them all. It’s a very diverse skill set. But the underlying principle is communication.
This makes sense to me because human communication is much more than just words on paper, spoken language or images. Journalists work across the entire spectrum of human communication. In a sense, journalists are like short story writers or novelists who write only one chapter at a time.
I have always been interested in why journalists choose particular forms of communication. For you, as someone involved in television journalism, what makes a good television presentation?
Bystrove: Well, in my career, I have met many good editors and editor-in-chiefs. Those people were very intelligent and they understood the whole process. I mean politics, geopolitics, they had a very strong background.
Based on that premise, they created television content, articles, and other media products. So having an academic background or strong life experience is very important. I think this is the main skill of television journalists.
Because when you don’t understand something, the camera catches it instantly. If you ask me about some physics process, for example, people on television will quickly realize that I’m not an expert on it.
So the main idea is to build a strong foundation. Typically, that foundation is built through experience in news and news production: daily reporting, news writing, and similar work. This is the best school.
Jacobsen: Many television presenters come across as highly controlled and even-keeled. Once the makeup is on and the presenter is on screen, how do you make sure your voice is projected correctly, not too loud, not too quiet, the tone is inviting, the words are enunciated correctly, and, if you’re co-hosting, there’s enough back and forth to feel natural? This seems difficult in a highly controlled live environment.
Bystrove: Well, I have an answer for that. I have organized a lot of training for journalists, for young journalists at university and for those who just want to work in journalism.
Often, young people say, “I want to work on camera. I want to be a TV presenter. That’s my dream.” And I always explain that first you need to be a good journalist and only then you can become a good TV presenter. This is not a Hollywood movie.
You must understand what you are talking about. If you’re lost when discussing construction, or what’s happening in the European Union, you won’t be able to cover international news effectively. People will immediately understand that you are reading the words of your mouth with your eyes without engaging your brain. It was a joke to my editors.
You can always tell when a TV presenter really understands what they’re talking about. As an editor or editor-in-chief, you can see and feel that immediately. This person understands the text they are reading and presenting.
Very often, good television presenters prepare and edit their texts before going live. First, they are good journalists and good editors. After that they became good TV presenters.
Jacobsen: How has your television presentation changed as you’ve gotten older?
Bystrove: I actually worked more as a television editor than a television presenter. For me, moving into editorial and management work has become more interesting because you can plan, manage and think beyond just your own reporting. You manage a team.
It is more interesting for me when you have strong reporters, correspondents, TV hosts and editors and together you understand what is happening in a country or city. You can decide what to cover and what important points should be highlighted.
For me, editing and team management become more productive. You’re not just working in front of a blue screen. Leading a team as editor-in-chief or team leader feels more effective than just working as a television presenter.
Jacobsen: There’s a stereotype about Americans, and perhaps Canadians too, as being irrationally optimistic, with a kind of empty smile on their faces all the time. There is a stereotype about Eastern Europeans being overly serious, with a flattering emotional expression.
What is culturally appropriate when presenting to a Ukrainian public audience that may differ from a European or North American audience? And what common characteristics do you see among television presenters and journalists regardless of country?
Bystrove: First, I think it comes down to culture. After full-scale war broke out in 2022, we had many discussions about how we should interpret what was happening and what definition we should use for Russia, for example.
Imagine a television host saying on air, “Russian dog” or “Russian pig.” Is it normal? Maybe yes, maybe not. It is an emotional response.
I discussed this with my students, and there were many opinions. A person would say, “They’re killing us, so of course people react that way.” But then we must ask: Why is the TV host doing this? Conveying emotions to the audience.
For me, as a viewer, I don’t need advice or emotional guidance from a television presenter. Just providing information. I am a thoughtful person. When Russia invades Zaporizhia and kills 20 people I can decide for myself if it’s good or bad. I don’t need extra emotion, tone changes, or presenter tears to understand what happened.
So for me, it’s about culture. Good journalistic culture provides accurate information without imposing emotions on the audience. After hearing the incident I can control my emotions. I can cry all I want. This is my decision as a human being.
Jacobsen: It is the viewer’s decision without consulting the host. In some sense, if a host is constantly trying to evoke emotion in an audience, they no longer meet the criteria of a journalist as a preacher, because emotions—although stimulated by events—are directed by the host rather than leaving the audience to their own judgment. Thank you very much for the opportunity and your time, Andrii.
–
Scott Douglas Jacobsen A writer-editor for Good Men Project With over 1,900 publications on the platform. He is its founder and publisher In-Site Publishing (ISBN: 978-1-0692343; 978-1-0673505) and its editor-in-chief In-Site: Interview (ISSN: 2369-6885). He writes for International Policy Digest (ISSN: 2332-9416), humanist (Print: ISSN, 0018-7399; Online: ISSN, 2163-3576), Basic Income Earth Network (UK registered charity 1177066), Humanist perspective (ISSN: 1719-6337), A further investigation (substack), vocal, moderate, New lighting project, Washington Outsider, rabble.caand other media. His bibliography can be found through the index Jacobsen Bank In-Site Publishing has more than 10,000 articles, interviews and republications in more than 200 outlets. He has held national and international leadership roles within humanitarian and media organizations, held several academic fellowships, and currently serves on several boards. He is a member in good standing of numerous media organizations including Canadian Journalists Association, Penn Canada (CRA: 88916 2541 RR0001), and Reporters Without Borders (SIREN: 343 684 221/SIRET: 343 684 221 00041/EIN: 20-0708028), and others.
***
If you believe in the work we’re doing here at The Good Men Project and want a deeper connection with our community, join us as a Premium Member today.
Premium members can watch The Good Men Project without any ads. Need more information? A full list of benefits is here.
–
Photo by Andriy Bystrov
