I do not see citizen journalism as a separate branch of journalism. I do not actually wish to juxtapose professional journalism and citizens. There i… - Andrii Kulykov

In my opinion, radio is the most democratic means, the most democratic platform for organizing a horizontal discussion in society; it does not require the embellishments that television does. Some people argue that you can also be truthful on television. I agree, but to achieve a good picture, one must apply makeup—this alone reveals a lot about television. Radio, on the other hand, does not carry this burden. Paradoxically, although the audience does not see the people on radio, they can distinctly sense when someone is reading from a script or computer screen next to the microphone. Thus, radio by its very nature demands more sincerity and authenticity. Technically, it is also easier to create than television, which is another consideration. Moreover, it offers more opportunities for audience participation in programs; you just have to call, or sometimes you can simply write through a messenger, and your message will be read or reacted to on air.

Well, radio, and I have seen this with my own eyes and heard this with my own ears when I was in those areas [the war zone], radio sometimes is the only available means of getting information when you are close to the front line or other areas devastated by war or by some other disaster. You cannot get television service there, the internet does not work, and telephone is really dangerous because you can aim your rockets according to the telephone signal. And then there’s radio, which reaches far and deep, and which people tend to listen to.

Radio is a natural means of promoting democracy and offers the biggest possible means of communication among different people. It is very fast, and it does not usually impose ideas. It offers ideas to choose from.