According to media expert Otar Dovzhenko, in the “Scheme” Natalie sedletska and Michael Weaver on the relationship between Viktor Medvedchuk and Petro Poroshenko, more exaggeration than evidence.
“Repeating the old thesis of the indispensability of Medvedchuk, but without explaining her real reasons, the power (and Petro Poroshenko, in particular) encourages people to discover those reasons on their own,” writes grant employee organization Detector.media in the article “Wizard nation. As “Schemes” investigated Alliance of Poroshenko and Medvedchuk”.
Another manipulation Dovzhenko calls using Maxim Kamenev as a “talking head”, although the quality of his review does not match the level of expert.
“Journalist Maxim Kamenev in the story – a “picture” of Michael Weaver: he voiced subjective statements, which the author cannot afford. Explanations of Kamenev expertise in this subject is limited to what it titrated as a “political commentator”. Okay, he really wrote the Medvedchuk. But most of the things the journalist “Gromadsky” said in the film “Schemes” are not facts or insider information, and the subjective assumptions of the analyst-observer,” – says the media expert.
Dovzhenko stressed that the authors of the program “Schemes” and did not provide any evidence or “at least hints at the fact that Petro Poroshenko has a General business or business interests with Medvedchuk, in investigation no.”
“All these “probably” and “seems to” have approximately the same relation to the journalistic standards as the already legendary “Coincidence? I don’t think the” Dmitry Kiselyov”, – emphasizes Dovzhenko at the discrepancy of the program “Schemes” of journalistic standards.
According to the employee of the Detector.media, the program “Schemes” filled with assumptions, guesses, the speed “seems” and “maybe” and a mass of invaluable material which has no right to call the investigation.
“Huge gaps between the few facts and evidence of interaction Medvedchuk with Poroshenko, drawn by Michael Weaver, filled with assumptions, guesses, “it seems” and “maybe” … and similar low-value material,” concludes BAM.
In the end, Dovzhenko comes to the conclusion that because of the exaggeration and manipulation of the program “Schemes” cannot be called “investigation.”
“In the title of its investigation, Michael weaver asks the audience: “Accomplices?”. But actually the right question here: “the Investigation?”, – with these words the author ends his text.