The presumption of innocence is guaranteed by the Republic of Moldova Constitution which provides that every person charged with a criminal offence should be presumed innocent, until proved guilty following a fair public trial, where the charged shall be provided with all guarantees necessary for his defense”.
The presumption of innocence, besides being a legal norm, is a journalistic professional norm. Therefore, the Journalist’s Deontology Code of the Republic of Moldova provides: “the journalist observes the presumption of innocence and presumes every person to be innocent until a final and irrevocable verdict is issued. However, reading what many journalists write, we can see that rules were made to be violated.
It would be good if the journalists and us, the readers, would know that in law there are three terms defining the legal status of persons under prosecution- “suspect”, “defendant” and “convicted”. The suspect, for instance, under the Criminal Code of the Republic of Moldova, “is an individual against whom there is evidence that he/she committed a crime, before such individual is accused”. The defendant, according to the same Code, “is the individual against whom a bill of indictment was issued”. The accused whose case was presented in court is called defendant. And the “convicted” is the person against whom the final sentence was issued.
In fact, we, the readers do not really care about how the journalist will call his character. But we should care about is if the journalist informs us, including about offences. Inform us, not issue verdicts! Let’s repeat: the journalist is not the one to decide who is a criminal, neither is the police or prosecution. Only the judge has this exclusive prerogative. Until a final sentence is issued, any suspect, defendant or convicted is protected by the presumption of innocence. The journalists, however, forget (or don’t even know) this fact and often believe that they have the right to present the suspect as convicted. Here are a few examples, of the many cases, suffocating our mass media, but particularly ourselves, the beneficiaries of media products. Even if you will see here quite a number of examples, there are many more, and what truly raises concerns is that these were collected from the media during only half of August 2015.
Thus, in August 12, Ziarulnational.md portal wrote: “The murderer of the mother of journalist Dmitri Ciubasenco sent to court. The prosecutors finalized the criminal prosecution and sent to court the criminal case of a concubine couple from the capital, accused of having murdered an old woman. The murder took place in November last year, on Dimo street, when a neighbor of the victim together with his concubine, entered the house of the woman who was the mother of the journalist Dmitri Ciubasenco. After a conflict, the old woman, 75 years old, was hit with a chair and died instantly. The convicted, 53 years old and his concubine, 29 years old are accused of intentional and extremely cruel manslaughter. If the court will find them guilty, they risk up to 20 years imprisonment or life sentence”.
Let’s remember: the criminal case was merely sent to the court, and the author of the news item already decided who the “murderer” is. No doubt, eventually the court might issue a sentence identical with the one of the publication. But, on one hand, it is not the publications who should issue verdicts, and on the other hand, what happens if the court finds the ”murderer” not guilty?!
On August 17, 2015, another portal - Realitatea.md was informing us: “A young man of 25 years old from Moldova, detained in Sankt-Petersburg for murdering a salesman”. Certainly, the young man has been detained not “for murdering the salesman”, but for being suspected of it, because, later in the article we learn that “the law enforcement officers are carrying out an investigation to determine the murder reason”. It means the investigation has not been completed yet, the case has not reached the judges’ table yet and the reporter already decided who the murderer is.
The same day of August 17, Timpul.md was announcing: “The principal of a gymnasium from Drochia detained for influence peddling”, only to tell us further in the text that: ”the man was recognized as a suspect and detained for 72 hours” and that ” if found guilty, the principal risks an imprisonment from 2 to 6 years and a fine from 3000 to 4000 conventional units”. Therefore, it would have been correct if the author would have written that the principal is detained for being suspected of influence peddling and not ”for influence peddling”, because it is the court that will decide if it did happen or not.
Unimedia.info portal was even more categorical writing about the same subject: 900 euros and 500 MDL. This is the amount claimed by a gymnasium principal for a baccalaureate diploma”. It is ridiculous to accuse your protagonist, and then add: ”if he will be found guilty, the principal risks imprisonment from 2 to 6 years and a fine from 60,000 to 80,000 MDL”.
On August 18, Politik.md portal was convincing us, without hesitation: “he was offering Moldovan visas for 4 thousand Euros. Lebanese citizen - caught by prosecutors”. Further, we find out that, in fact, the Lebanese citizen “was caught in the act by the anticorruption officers and prosecutors, being suspected of influence peddling. He claimed 4 thousand Euro from a fellow countryman, who was at that moment in Lebanon, saying that he can obtain the granting of a Moldovan visa”. Thus, it is about a citizen suspected for trying to obtain one Moldovan visa. Further on we read: “the foreign citizen has been detained for 72 hours. He pleaded guilty and at the moment he is detained within the CAN Prosecution Isolator” and “if he will be found guilty, the Lebanese citizen risks an imprisonment from 2 to 6 years or a fine from 60,000 to 80,000 MDL”.
Probably, the portal thought that the information provided by the law enforcement officers about the fact that the citizen “pleaded guilty” is sufficient to accuse him of trading visas, instead of the judge. Such media texts should alert us. It is obvious that the author of the material did not think for a moment that maybe the suspect was forced to plead guilty for something he did not do. Taking into consideration the soviet practices which we moved away from, but not far enough, you can expect anything. The journalist is responsible to doubt any information he receives and if he fails to fulfil this duty, then it is we, the readers who should doubt the information received from the journalist.
The same portal (Politik.md) on the same day of August 18 “was dealing out justice” in another case: “the police has found a robber hidden in the closet of a house he entered to steal goods from”. Then:” the patrol inspectors from Balti have been announced by a young woman that an unknown man entered her house in order to steal something”. The young woman believes that the man “has the intention to steal”, the patrol inspectors detain her/him and the portal decides he/she is a ”robber” and adds: ”the suspect is known to have violated the law before and he entered the house in order to withdraw personal goods” [11]. It is one of the many cases when, after reading, you wonder: if there are journalists, what do we need judges for?
The day of August 22, was full of verdicts issued by reporters, Unimedia.info first states: “a young man , retained for illicitly trading weapons and ammunition brought from the left side of Nistru river”, and then : “a young man of 24 years, from Chisinau, is suspected of illicit trade in weapons and ammunition on the territory of the country”.
Publika.md portal went even further:” the Transnistrian region as a source of illicit weapons, the police captured a dealer”. After qualifying the suspect as a ”dealer”, the portal returns to normality and tells us that it is about a suspect “retained while transmitting to a cover police officer a weapon which he planned to sell for 800 euros. If he will be found guilty, the young man risks up to seven years of jail”.
August is a “dead” month for journalists, because few events relevant for the public happen. In weekends “the information hunger” is felt even more. It is a reason why most of media institutions write about the same events, cases, situations. This explains why on Sunday, August 22, two pieces of information received from law enforcement authorities have been actively covered by media. The first was related to a theft of metals discovered by the police, and the second to a young man from Floresti, suspected of perverse actions towards minors. Any subject has the right to life. It really depend on the way it is covered. The two subjects were identically covered by most of the reporters, without taking into account the presumption of innocence. We will save text and time and will argue by presenting the example of six media institutions the manner in which they covered the first topic:
Unimedia.info: “They stole 26 tons of metal from a company’s territory. The damage amounts to 129,000 MDL. Two men, 47 and 64 years old, were detained for stealing metal worth 129,000 MDL from a company’s territory in Ciocana”.
Realitatea.md: “Two men have stolen 25 tons of metal from a company in Ciocana. See what penalty they risk to be given.” Two men, 47 and 64 years old, were detained for stealing metal worth 129,000 MDL, from the territory of a company in Ciocana”.
Ziarulnational.md: “MAJOR HIT caused by two men to a company from the capital. They were captured. Two men of 47 and 64 years old were detained by the police because they allegedly have stolen metal worth 120,000 MDL from the territory of a company in Ciocana”.
Publika.md: “They have stolen tens of tons and now risk years of imprisonment. The police discovered their plan. The police detained 2 men, 47 and 64 years old, suspected to have committed the robbery”.
Deschide.md: “Two men have stolen over 25 tons of metal. Two men, 47 and 64 years old, were detained by the employees of the Ciocana Police Inspectorate of Chisinau Municipality Police Department for having stolen metal worth 129,000 MDL from the territory of a company in Ciocana district, informs the press service of Chisinau Police.
Jurnal.md: ”Two men from the capital, detained by the police. They have allegedly stolen almost 26 tons of metal”.
Let us note what sticks out a mile: the first 5 portals approached the topic from the judge’s perspective and only jurnal.md- from the journalist’s one. On August 26 in a similar case, the same portal Jurnal.md “forgets” about the presumption of innocence and writes the following: “he stabbed his boss because he was not satisfied with the salary. Unsatisfied with the salary received at the end of the month, a 61 years old man stabbed his boss. The incident happened on Belinski street in Balti Municipality, where the 54 years old victim, owner of a transportation company was stabbed in the abdomen by his employee. The suspect was detained shortly after committing the crime, and if he will be found guilty he risks an eight thousands MDL fine or up to three years of imprisonment”.
Most of the media institutions acted the same way: “a dispute with serious consequences in Balti. An employee stabbed his boss”; “It happened in Balti! A man stabbed his boss, being unsatisfied with his salary”; “He stabbed his boss because of the small salary”.
Rarely, the authors of such materials name the source of information. While, by doing so they would mitigate the risk of such errors. It is one thing when it says: according to the police, two men have stolen 26 tons of metals„ and an entirely different thing when we write, without any right of appeal that “two men have stolen…”. When writing in such a manner, we have to accept the consequences, which can be numerous and very serious. Here are only some of them: we could compromise a man who subsequently could be acquitted in court; the compromised man can sue us for compromising him; we certainly lie to the reader/the listener/the viewer which the next time will have to keep away from us and look for somebody else who will not lie to him, for without beneficiaries mass media loses its legitimacy and reason to exist; we send a message to the reader that an universal value, established for 800 years ( the presumption of innocence), can be ignored and neglected, like in the sad times when the dictator and not the law was deciding who is guilty etc.
The neglect of the presumption of innocence is a huge problem for the local journalism and did not turn into a disaster yet only because there are still journalists who make real journalism. Here is an example to follow: “9 years of imprisonment for having allegedly beaten his father to death”. We read the headline and the first thought is that the author is very cautious. But we read further and everything returns to normality: “A man from Briceni district was sentenced to 9 years of imprisonment for killing his own father. The defendant, being often under the influence of alcohol was regularly beating his father. According to the law the sentence can be attacked”. It is a material form August 10. Its author has written it the right way. Until a final verdict is issued, the correct formulation is “allegedly has…” Such materials though, which are so accurately written, are fewer than those, which ignore values and rules. We need to be even more precautious when see them. In order not to waste our time, it would be best to read only the headline and the end of such types of materials. If the headline and the end are not logical, we should look for something that is worth our attention, something different from the information proposed by a reporter guilty in relation to the presumption of innocence.
Ion BUNDUCHI,
media expert
---------------------------------------
This material is published within the project "Freedom of expression and media development in Eastern and South-Eastern Europe and South Caucasus", implemented by CIJ during the period May-September 2015, supported by Deutsche Welle Akademie and financed by German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development. The opinions expressed in this material belong to the authors and do not necessarily reflect the financer’s opinion.
Astăzi nu există evenimente
Ro
En
Рy