The stopped interview of BNR journalist Petar Volgin with Russian Federation Ambassador Eleonora Mitrofanova sparks anticipated reaction. The halted interview of journalist Petar Volgin from BNR with the Russian Federation’s ambassador in Bulgaria, Eleonora Mitrofanova, triggered the expected effect: embassies, politicians, media, the Association of European Journalists – Bulgaria, the Union of Bulgarian Journalists, and social networks reacted. Following the Program Council’s recommendation at the radio station not to broadcast the Mitrofanova interview on December 16 in the show “Politically Incorrect,” both the Ukrainian and Russian embassies issued statements—the former outraged that national radio would give a platform to a representative of the Kremlin regime, the latter upset that the words of an ambassador from a country with which Bulgaria has diplomatic relations were silenced.
Maria Zakharova, spokesperson of the Russian Foreign Ministry, wrote on her Telegram channel: “Can one still breathe in Bulgaria?” A flood of comments from politicians, analysts, media experts, and many others followed. Meanwhile, Petar Volgin reveled in his role as a “martyr” of free speech, a role he has passionately embraced for a long time.
This poorly staged scandal is difficult to understand for those unfamiliar with the internal situation at BNR. Therefore, it is appropriate to publicly raise a few questions that would clarify the picture for an unprepared audience.
The most important question is: does journalist Petar Volgin hold a special status at BNR? If so, an explanation should be provided as to why. If not, the management of the national radio and that of the “Horizont” program should respond as to why the journalist is so shamelessly absent from the so-called “briefings” (a term still used in the radio) during which topics and guests for various shows are discussed.
Furthermore, does Volgin have connections at high levels of government, and is this tolerated by the general director and all governing and advisory bodies of BNR, such as the Managing, Public, and Programming Councils? Additionally, why does the journalistic community at the radio silently accept his privileged position?
Without answers to these questions, it is impossible to understand the behavior of the journalist, who has repeatedly stated in his show that his voice is the only different one on BNR’s airwaves. With this argument, he justifies both his and his chosen guests’ one-sided perspectives on key topics discussed in “Politically Incorrect,” as well as in the “12+3” program when he is the host.
BNR must also answer numerous questions related to the stopped interview with Eleonora Mitrofanova in order to clarify whether this is a result of rampant anti-Russian censorship in Bulgaria or if it pertains to violated standards and ethical norms within BNR.
In its position, the Association of European Journalists has requested that the interview be published as text, so that the public can review it and judge for themselves whether it is impartial or serves Russian propaganda. The association rightly demands clarity on whether it is a precedent for the Program Council of BNR to make decisions regarding the content of an interview or another journalistic material and to recommend its removal.
An important question is whether the management of “Horizont” knew if the interview with Mitrofanova would be aired live or recorded.
Because if it was “live,” would anyone dare to stop the program’s broadcast simply because it displeased the Ukrainian embassy, Delyan Peevski, or citizens protesting outside the radio station dissatisfied with Russian propaganda?
And secondly,
it is certain that the interview would not have sparked this level of public reaction as it has now, because the ambassador of the Russian Federation would hardly express previously unheard positions on the (un)gratefulness of Bulgarians towards the Soviet Army, including towards its monument in Sofia (referred to as the “MOC”) or on the war with Ukraine. Furthermore, it is unlikely that she would surprise anyone in the BNR audience, which is bombarded every Saturday afternoon with anti-European and pro-Russian propaganda, along with hatred toward organizations and foundations that support the development of a democratic social and media environment in the country, all delivered in Volgin’s ironic tone.
Why was the interview recorded? Was it to spare the humiliation of Mitrofanova, who would have to navigate the BNR blockade with her entourage of bodyguards, or for other reasons that could have justified its stoppage? Notably, it was not someone else who stopped it, but Delyan Peevski—the notorious MP from DPS, the oligarch on the “Magnitsky” list, and a recent media mogul, whose yellow media easily trampled standards and ethical norms, while now positioning himself as a defender of freedom of speech, national security, and Euro-Atlantic values.
Therefore, no matter how much BNR denies that the removal of the interview is not censorship, it would be difficult to convince anyone that the decision of its Program Council was not made under political pressure.
Although a journalist from “Horizont,” who listened to the interview, described its content as “heartbreaking” due to the implications it supposedly contained—relating to the gratitude we owe to the Soviet Union for preventing Bulgaria from being “divided by the allies” and Pловдив being Greek today; about the war in Ukraine, which supposedly does not kill; about Russian media that (freely) criticize the Kremlin; and so on, all the way to Alexei Navalny, who is in prison for economic crimes but could one day be pardoned—it’s highly likely that Volgin did not ask Mitrofanova about the expelled BNR correspondent in Moscow and would certainly never—neither now nor in any other interview—pose questions to the Russian ambassador regarding the archives stolen by the Soviet Union from Bulgaria or about the destruction of our arms industry following the occupation, which caused damages to our country exceeding 2 billion leva, nor about the approximately 24 billion leva spent on the maintenance of the Soviet occupying army during the period of 1944-45.
As for the attempts at political interference in the editorial policy of the media, particularly at BNR, they do not date back to yesterday and are not isolated cases. As a journalist who has worked for 30 years in national radio, 18 of which were in “Horizont,” I have repeatedly experienced the pressure to be censored and even fired due to my critical stance toward those in power in Bulgaria.
In this specific case, the reaction of the Ukrainian embassy in Bulgaria and Delyan Peevski, who stated that it is “unacceptable for BNR to become an accomplice in Russia’s hybrid war,” calling on behalf of DPS for regulatory bodies to prevent provocation in national broadcasting and disrespect for our national sovereignty, positioned Mitrofanova and Volgin as those who are censored, in other words, as victims of political arbitrariness. Thus, the hybrid attack, carried out with the active participation of Peevski—whose political biography, like that of DPS, is linked to everything we call “the backstage”—released yet another dose of poison into the Bulgarian public sphere. Because when you cannot make someone love you, the best way is to make them feel disgust towards your enemies. In this case, when Delyan Peevski defends Euro-Atlantic values and freedom of speech, the effect is similar. But that does not make Petar Volgin a martyr of free speech.
Far from it.
The shameful incident that unfolded at BNR once again raises questions about the standards in national media and the role of the Program Council and the so-called Public Council, which should protect the interests of the audience. Unfortunately, a significant part of the commentary and analysis shifted attention in the wrong direction—toward the interviewee, in this case, Ambassador Mitrofanova. However, the problem is not her, as every ambassador has the right to publicly express their country’s position on one issue or another. The issue lies with the interviewer, who poses the questions, guides the conversation in one direction or another, and can, if sufficiently intelligent, create propagandistic implications instead of their interlocutor. This is likely also the main reason why the Ukrainian ambassador refused to participate in Volgin’s show.
The scandal surrounding the removed interview with Eleonora Mitrofanova brings the discussion about regulation in public media and the need for changes in the law back into focus. The rest is just much ado about nothing.
