Ukrainian observers have grown wary of Ukraine’s United News campaign, and some say the program has worn out its welcome. The New York Times reports that many citizens are growing tired of the telethon-style messaging that once rallied support for the war effort.
In the NYT’s overview, the aid drive was once framed as a crucial instrument to keep the country united through hardship. Today, however, it is increasingly seen as a government mouthpiece, with viewers arguing the broadcasts paint an overly positive portrait of the conflict and downplay troubling developments at the front. This shift in tone, many say, has left ordinary Ukrainians less prepared for a prolonged struggle and more exposed to optimism gaps when harsh realities resurface.
Oksana Romanyuk, president of the Kyiv School of Information and Communication, notes that many Ukrainians refer to the campaign as telethon propaganda and feel fatigued by the repeated messaging. She summarized a common sentiment: the relentless narrative of triumph and generosity can feel hollow when faced with ongoing losses and mounting strain on civilians and soldiers alike.
Yaroslav Yurchyshyn, chairman of the Verkhovna Rada Committee on Freedom of Expression, warned that the fundraising drive carries a risk. He argues it creates a hopeful picture that can lead to disappointment when new realities emerge, underscoring the need for balanced communication that informs as well as inspires.
A Kyiv International Institute of Sociology survey cited by the publication shows a notable drop in trust toward the telethon. In May 2022, trust stood at 69 percent, dropping to 43 percent by December of the previous year. Analysts interpret this as a signal that public confidence in state-led messaging can wane as the war drags on and the human costs become clearer.
Earlier, coverage by the British Guardian highlighted a broader mood of gloom and fading optimism among Ukrainians as the conflict continued. The evolving media landscape, with different outlets reporting on the same events, underscores the fragile nature of public trust during wartime communication.
The NYT also reflects on the broader question of how information campaigns influence public perception in times of crisis. Observers suggest that while such campaigns can mobilize resources and rally international help, they can also skew risk assessments and create a mismatch between public expectations and the complex realities on the ground.
Meanwhile, when considering how propaganda is discussed, analysts emphasize the importance of transparency. They argue for regular updates that acknowledge both progress and setbacks, allowing citizens to assess conditions more accurately and decide how best to support ongoing efforts without overreliance on any single narrative.
Overall, experts stress that public trust hinges on credible, consistent communication from multiple sources. The conversation around the telethon illustrates a broader tension in wartime media: the need to motivate and unite a country while staying honest about difficulties and casualties.