I can’t help but ask. What are your thoughts after your latest visit to Ukraine?

The overriding impression is that, after last year, when many people in Ukraine were hoping for progress towards ending the war, practically everyone has now given up on those hopes. The country is preparing for something that may continue for a long time. What is very interesting to observe is the resilience of Ukrainian society. This is not a panicked response to the situation, but a mature one. People have responded by putting pressure on politicians, the president and those in positions of political responsibility, which has led to a number of demonstrations. There is an ongoing effort to make sure institutions function as effectively as possible and that people do not die unnecessarily. Sadly, it is clear that people will die. But there is strong public pressure to minimize the losses. Wherever robots can do the fighting, let robots do it, and let the country operate as effectively as possible.

So does the state essentially operate on two levels, along the lines of: Yes, there is a war going on, but at the same time, we still need to keep things running?

The war is being fought on many fronts. One is the front where people are shooting and dying. But when a war goes on for a long time, you realise that this is only its most visible manifestation. Ultimately, what also matters is which country has better organised politics and civil society, and which has managed to tackle corruption so that soldiers on the front line actually receive what they need. The war has taught people how the state actually works, and how important it is to be an active citizen and keep on demanding that those in power serve the public rather than abandon it. I often say that, despite all its problems, Ukraine may currently be the best technocracy in Europe. I do not mean that there is no corruption or abuse of power, but rather that citizens have an enormous awareness of what institutions are there for.

On a scale of 0 to 10, if there were a number expressing how Ukrainians perceive the importance of the state, what would it be? And what would that number be in the Czech Republic?

That’s a difficult question. Political representation is one thing, and the state itself is another. In Ukraine, there is a very strong sense of patriotism towards the state, coupled with scepticism towards politics. In the Czech Republic, we tend to link the two very closely, as we associate the figures at the top of the state with the state itself and its institutions. In my opinion, it’s healthier to think of them separately. The Ukrainians are considerably further ahead in this respect, and it’s something we could learn from them. They have a very high level of trust in the state and a very low level of trust in its representatives. We, on the other hand, have a relatively low level of trust in both the state and its representatives.

What role do the media, information and disinformation play in all of this? To what extent is this an information war, a technology war and a conventional war?

Every war has all of these dimensions. It is fought on multiple fronts. When it comes to technology, we are seeing something that is not discussed enough. The fact that Elon Musk disabled Starlink for the Russians is absolutely crucial. The fact that Ukrainians have Starlink and the Russians do not is one of the reasons why the war looks the way it does.

Can you elaborate?

Ukrainians use Starlink to operate drones. I was there when a unit was controlling a wheeled drone that was carrying supplies to soldiers in the trenches on the front line. If a human had been driving it and it had hit a mine, they would have been killed along with it. Now, only the drone is destroyed because it can be operated remotely without anyone on board.

Starlink also gives Ukraine complete situational awareness. It knows what is happening across the front, while drones transmit footage to command centres, allowing commanders to see everything in real time. Russia doesnt not have an equivalent system and has to rely on radio communications or cables instead. It is a complicated system, and there is effectively no competing solution. This technology is absolutely crucial in the current war.

And what about the media? Has the level of media coverage remained the same?

The media cover what people want to read about. During the first year and a half of the war, there was enormous interest in anything related to Ukraine. Gradually, people started turning their attention to other issues and that interest declined. The same goes with politics. When Donald Trump first took office, there were high expectations that the war would soon come to an end. But over the course of the year, people realised that this was unlikely to happen, and interest faded. Now it has picked up again because, since the beginning of the year, we have seen that Ukrainians are capable of carrying out major strikes.

As for media coverage, almost every journalist wanted to be in Ukraine at the beginning of the war. It was overcrowded with reporters. That is no longer the case, but it is great that there are still several permanent correspondents there, including those from Czech Radio and Czech Television, and that quite a few media outlets still send their reporters there.

Because they can report on what they see with their own eyes and what is actually happening. Which brings us to the issue of disinformation...

Exactly. Ultimately, war comes down to whether you are capable of fighting, whether you have the morale to keep going, and whether you have allies who need you. The Russians want to tell whatever stories suit their interests, so they try to take isolated incidents and portray them as something that is happening everywhere. They then present this as evidence that Ukrainians are either unable or unwilling to fight. In Europe, for example, the message might be: “Ukraine is on the verge of economic collapse, so there is no point in supporting it.” The aim is to undermine people’s willingness to provide support. This is where media outlets with journalists on the ground play an important role.

The narratives the Russians use often involve either greatly exaggerating things that are not particularly significant, or they are simply fabricated. This creates extra work for us as journalists. In addition to reporting on what is actually happening, we also have to explain that things which are not happening really are not happening. It overwhelms us. That is why try not to focus too much on it. If something is published by an unreliable source, there is no point in reacting to it because this kind of content is produced precisely to drain our capacity. We need to focus on other things. We try to shine a light on what someone else is trying to keep hidden.

That decision not to waste energy on things that could be disinformation is a pretty big step forward, isn’t it?

Yes, and we need society to understand this better as well. That is why it is so important to improve media literacy. If there is an online account operating under a pseudonym, with unclear sources of funding and no clear indication of who is behind it, we simply do not need to read it. It often makes sensational claims that no one else would make, but that is because they are not true. That is why we have established media organisations and public service broadcasters. They gather information under their own name. As a media organisation, we are responsible for the information we publish. We have established procedures and an ethical code. If we make a mistake, we admit it. This does not mean that we are able to uncover all instances of malpractice. But our job is to be fair, and when we discover that something is happening that should not be, or something that readers should know about, we report on it under our own name, under our own brand, and take responsibility for it. That is the difference between the media and disinformation projects.

As a journalist, do you ever wonder to what extent the average person is capable of reflecting on all of this?

The answers the media provide are only as good as the questions their audiences ask. The vast majority of people that answers to questions that interest them. That is why it is important for the Czech Republic to have high-quality media that report on world affairs. If we all read only The Guardian or the BBC, that’s all well and good, but those media outlets answer questions posed by the British public. As the founder of Voxpot, for example, I want there to be a strong media outlet in the Czech Republic that pays attention to international affairs and answers the questions of the Czech public, because these questions are specific. We have a different historical experience, different international political interests, and different political representation.

It is important that such media exist. However, we also need the entire media landscape: local media, public service media, investigative journalism, international reporting, and media catering to people with both left-wing and right-wing worldviews. People are different. They vote for different political parties, not because one side is wrong and the other is right, but because they view issues such as solidarity or freedom differently. The media then represent these perspectives and respond to them.

But more and more often, people are forming their views not directly from the media, but from headlines on social media or from summaries generated by artificial intelligence. This provides a breeding ground for disinformation while also making it harder for the media to remain financially viable. How do you view this?

I grew up at a time when the traditional media business model, namely funding through print sales and advertising, was collapsing. That gives you enormous power to produce quality journalism. What you’ve described is a problem, and I think we’re at a stage where we’re looking for answers as to what to do about it. We do not have them yet. Technology is changing, but so is the way people perceive the information overload they face. There is more and more content. It is quite possible that this overload will lead to a new need for clarification about the origin of given information. I think the media will once again have to assume the role of telling people what is real and what is not.

Will we need some sort of authority to help us make sense of it all?

Yes, because when content carries the brand of a trusted media outlet, you can be confident that what you are seeing actually happened and is not an AI-generated version of reality. I expect this could also bring back the strength of established media brands.

Right now, we are living in the age of personal brands, with people speaking directly to us through Instagram or YouTube, and that contributes to the information overload. People simply do not know where to start. We are increasingly tempted to have tools like Claude, Perplexity or ChatGPT generate a summary of the day’s events for us. But once you have told your friends something for the tenth time and they tell you it is not actually true, you may start thinking that perhaps you should approach it differently.

On the other hand, AI may improve and become a genuinely useful tool for gathering information in this way. But then there is a much bigger question: what happens to the media? AI does not pay media outlets for the content it uses. As a result, media organisations could lose subscriptions and the resources they need to produce new content. But AI would lose access to high-quality information.

The business model currently seems to work in a way where AI models take value from media outlets without compensating them. Eventually, those outlets may no longer be able to produce the same quality of content, which would also reduce the quality of information available to AI. This opens up the possibility, that large language model companies could start buying news agencies to secure a steady supply of high-quality, fact-checked information.

You mentioned that we are living in the age of personal brands. Several former journalists have already launched their own one-person media projects, and people who have never worked in traditional media are doing the same. What’s your view on this trend?

I keep hearing complaints that it’s all getting a bit much, and that one person simply can not afford to pay numerous creators every month and spend thousands on it. I therefore expect there to be a growing demand for greater syndication of content. In Slovakia, there has been an interesting attempt in the form of the Piano project, a multimedia subscription service. There was a similar initiative in the Czech Republic too, but it did not succeed. However, perhaps a bigger player will gradually emerge who can manage such a consortium. It depends on how subscription models and funding methods develop. These people are not running their own solo projects because they want to have their own at any cost, but because they want to be paid properly, have good working conditions and do what they love. That’s another reason why I think the big media brands might make a comeback.

If you had to give people advice on how to find their way through the information jungle, what would you tell them?

Personally, I think it’s important to first look at who owns the media outlet in question. A major problem in the Czech Republic is that a lot of media outlets are owned by oligarchs who have their own interests, for example in relation to the state. Then I look at the media outlet’s ideological stance, so that I know how to filter the information. And then I also look at who the individual authors are and what their background is.

Media brands have a huge advantage in that they guarantee the quality of a large number of journalists and content creators. Instagram, for example, guarantees nothing, and you have to find your way through a vast number of sources yourself, which is not easy for the average person. Whereas a media brand might employ, say, 30 journalists who adhere to certain standards, and I can rest easy because the media outlet’s entire editorial process guarantees quality.