few of his close friends outside this journalistic fraternity - spent
last week trying to come to terms with the tragedy that has struck us.
We cannot believe that his death was just pure accident; although it is
reported that 8,000 people a year in the former Soviet Union die due to
their television sets exploding, we all believe that Vadim would have
survived this kind of accident.
We have gone through the story over and over. Most of us saw him in
Parliament on Wednesday afternoon; he was excited and invigorated by new
opportunities: he was applying for a National Foundation internship for
the spring in Washington, D.C., he was going to travel on business with
Ukraine's deputy prime minister. His dancing blue eyes were smitten
with the possibilities of new TV shows and programs in an independent
Ukraine.
None of us saw Vadim in Parliament on Thursday or Friday, February
13-14; he missed a few meetings he had scheduled on Friday.
Currently, there are many rumors flying around Kiev surrounding Vadim's
death, based on political, business and personal motivations.
Parliamentary committees have promised to work on an investigation,
although no special committee has been formed to investigate what many
democratic deputies, among them Les Taniuk and Stepan Khmara, have
labelled as murder. Some speculate that Vadim's TV work in Chornobyl
may have triggered an early death...
On Friday, February 14, Nezavisimaya Gazeta (Independent Newspaper) in
Moscow ran an interview with Vadim on journalists' responsibilities and
cooperation between Moscow and Kiev.
"At this time, we (referring to Russian and Ukrainian journalists) can
be friends, if we are honest to the end. We are currently living in a
commonwealth, the root of the word is found in the word "druh,"
friend... We will never become true friends, until we journalists
understand that we are the ones who can, who have the responsibility to
stop our peoples from total degradation, from the catastrophe that can
occur between our peoples," he said. "If we cannot prevent this we stop
being journalists. We will become persons who today do their work and
tomorrow, one by one, are destroyed."
Vadim's deep sense of responsibility, his courage and commitment to the
truth will always be admired by his friends and colleagues. And we are
all committed to learning the truth.
Given the suspicious circumstances surrounding his death, I can only
hope that his last interview prophecy did not become self-fulfilling.
Mr. Safer, you travelled to Ukraine looking for stories of persecution and violence
against Jews and Russians, you failed to find the evidence, but you broadcast the story
anyway. All the while, you were surrounded by stories of persecution and violence
against Ukrainians, but that plentiful evidence you ignored. In other words, you went
to Ukraine not to discover its reality, but to confirm your prejudice. You played the
role not of journalist, but of propagandist. Given the opportunity to make a
contribution toward protecting the lives of journalists in Ukraine by broadcasting the
story of Vadim Boyko, you declined. Showing anything on 60 Minutes that might win
sympathy for Ukrainians was contrary to your plan.
Had you managed to find a Jewish member of parliament and television broadcaster who had