Media monitoring reveals worsening of their behavior

The second report on the monitoring of mass media in the electoral campaign for the local elections in Moldova has found that the behavior of the majority of monitored mass media worsened: they showed tendentiousness, failed to cover the electoral campaign in all complexity and did not ensure the necessary degree of pluralism of opinions. Many of them either focused on intensive promotion of some electoral contestants or on disfavoring/discrediting political opponents of their favorite candidates.

The report produced by the Independent Journalism Center revealed that in the period of 15-30 May 2015 pluralism of opinions was vitiated by partisan editorial practices and unilateral coverage of topics, without alternative opinions. The majority of the materials that covered controversial topics failed to ensure the balance of sources or to offer the right to reply to the accused parties. At the same time, it was found that some of the monitored mass media showed better indicators in terms of gender equality, although the tendency of quoting mainly men as sources has persisted.

In the behavior of monitored mass media, experts found that:

Moldova 1 and TV 7 televisions had a relatively balanced and unbiased behavior, partially ensuring pluralism of opinions and diversity of sources. In terms of the frequency and context of electoral contestants’ appearances in newscasts, Moldova 1 showed a slight favoring of the Democratic Party of Moldova, while TV 7 slightly favored the Liberal Democratic Party.

Prime and Canal 2 televisions with national coverage massively favored the Democratic Party of Moldova, with their representatives being protagonists of the majority of their materials, mainly in positive contexts. In many cases, monitored materials could be described as direct electoral campaigning for an electoral contestant.

Accent TV massively favored the Party of Socialists by positive news from electoral events. At the same time, the channel clearly disfavored the Liberal Party, whose representatives were mostly presented in negative light.

Omg.md did electoral campaign for “Our Party” and its candidates Renato Usatii and Ilian Casu, while vehemently criticizing the governing parties, especially the Democratic Party, and the current administration of Chisinau municipality.

Pan.md openly favored the Party of Socialists and “Our Party”, which were mostly presented in positive contexts.

Publika.md intensely promoted the Democratic Party candidates for mayors and councilors, including by publishing materials of veiled electoral advertising.

Timpul.md frequently criticized the Party of Socialists and its candidates, as well as some candidates of the Party of Communists.

Unimedia.info clearly favored the Liberal Democratic Party of Moldova by the frequency and context of presentation of its candidates, leaders and representatives.

The goal of this project is to monitor and inform the public about mass media behavior during the electoral campaign, including electoral contestants’ access to mass media and provision of pluralism of opinions. The report is being produced as part of the Monitoring Mass Media During the Electoral Campaign project of the Independent Journalism Center with support of the East Europe Foundation, from the resources provided by the Government of Sweden through Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida) and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark/DANIDA. The opinions herein are those of authors and may not reflect the opinion of the East Europe Foundation, the Government of Sweden, Sida or the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark/DANIDA.