Ro
En
Рy
While the parliamentary commission for mass media announced about continuation of public hearings initiated at the end of last year regarding the draft of the new code, on February 26 the Parliament speedily approved a draft law signed by a group of socialist MPs, which stipulated modifications to the old Broadcasting Code, namely reduction of the number of licenses allowed to owners of broadcasting companies from 5 to 2 licenses. Although the civil society qualified the draft law proposed by the Party of Socialists as inconsistent and “contradictory” and asked President Nicolae Timofti not to promulgate the law, according to a participant of the Press Club, Prime Minister Pavel Filip presented it at Brussels as a victory, “suggesting that problems in Moldovan broadcasting have been solved.” “Are we simulating reforms or reducing concentration?” journalists wondered.
The meeting of the Press Club was attended by media experts and representatives of the Parliament, the Competition Council, the Broadcasting Coordinating Council, and other institutions. Ion Bunduchi, the executive director of APEL Association of Electronic Press, who moderated the event, started by asking several fundamental questions: “What shall we do with domestic broadcasting? What shall we do with concentration in the field? What shall we do with dominating positions in broadcasting?” He reminded that under the aegis of APEL, already in 2011 the draft of the new Broadcasting Code was presented to the Parliament, but only in 2015 it became a legislative initiative. “We wish such laws could also be voted within 2 weeks in the Parliament,” Ion Bundichi said, alluding to the socialists’ law.
“When a law is adopted in two readings in 20 minutes, questions arise: Why has it been done and whom does this law serve?” said Nadine Gogu, the executive director of IJC. According to her, transparency was not ensured upon adoption of the law: one draft law was published on the Parliament’s website, but in reality “something else was voted.” It made media organizations address a declaration to the President, asking him not to promulgate the law. “The presence of interpretable provisions is already a problem,” the IJC director warned.
Journalist Anatol Golea, another guest of the Press Club, found that “the law shouldn’t have been voted in two ad-hoc readings, without taking into consideration the modifications that were made in the meantime.” In his opinion, the draft law proposed by the Party of Socialists, which apparently was meant to reduce concentration in the media, did not take into consideration transition to digital television, and thus caused even more problems.
Discussion heated up even more when socialist MP Adrian Lebedinschi, one of the authors of the law, who participated in the meeting of the Press Club, recognized that the law had not been carefully prepared and that authors did not take into consideration transition to digital television. “I submitted a request, as rapporteur, refusing to sign the draft law that was to be sent to the President for promulgation,” he said. Thus, the draft law was delayed for 20 days, but Lebedinschi mentioned that after that term, the speaker of the Parliament can send the draft to the presidential administration, and the President has good reasons to sign it. The other MPs that signed the draft law did not withdraw their signatures. Adrian Lebedinschi addressed a question to the Press Club: “Do you think that this law should be promulgated or that we should make efforts for it not to go further? What solution do you see?”
Media expert Ion Terguta answered trenchantly: “You made a terrible mistake by adopting this law. When it was proposed to vote for it in the second reading, didn’t you realize that it was a trap? You gave to some people the opportunity to keep their licenses and to save their situation for 7 years.” According to Ion Terguta, the main defect in the socialists’ law is the fact that they did not take into consideration digitalization. Thus, owners of broadcasting companies will have to give up some of their licenses only when those licenses expire, but in the framework of transition to digital television they might obtain new licenses.
Petru Macovei, executive director of the Association of Independent Press, reproached Adrian Lebedinschi that the socialists’ initiative “has been faked, falsified, and something else has been voted.” “The current law says ‘majority shareholder or investor,’ while you left only the term ‘majority investor’ and annulled article 66. What were your reasons?” Adrian Lebedinschi could not answer this question, saying that he sees no difference between “majority shareholder” and “investor” – the important thing is for a television to make profit. Petru Macovei replied firmly: “Do you really not know that the majority of televisions in Moldova make no profit and are used by their owners only to wash people’s minds? They don’t even hope to make profit. They invest in them only to use them as political mouthpieces…”
In this context, Broadcasting Coordinating Council member Olga Gututui also shared her opinion: “After ownership transparency declarations were submitted, I noticed a problem and appealed to my colleagues, but everyone understands these legal provisions in their own way. There is a problem and we should find a solution, but I don’t see how this problem can be solved just by making an amendment and reducing the number of licenses.”
Another guest of the Press Club, Vitalie Calugareanu, who has recently returned from Brussels, where Moldovan officials participated in the second meeting of the Moldova-EU Association Council, said that “Prime Minister Pavel Filip presented this draft law as a victory, suggesting that problems in Moldovan broadcasting had been solved.” “I feel that things have already been pinned down and attempts to somehow return to this draft law are useless. The idea to build a new broadcasting legislation is much better,” the journalist concluded.
Press Club participants also had questions for another guest, Emil Gutu, deputy chairman of the Competition Council. He was asked why the Competition Council does not take note of the cases of concentration in mass media or monopolization on the advertising market and to what extent the situation on the media market is indicative of fair competition. The guest explained that the Competition Council, as a body responsible for the implementation of the law on competition, “sees concentration only under the economic aspect” and that “the law on competition does not cover the concentration of licenses, audiences, televisions, or radios.” Emil Gutu said that the institution takes action if there are “certain signs on the market that abuse has taken place… “I believe that at this point the Competition Council should take note. The law allows it, why don’t you do it?” asked expert Petru Macovei. Emil Gutu replied laconically: “The law allows it, but we must have signs.” “The BCC [Broadcasting Coordinating Council], as a mediator on the broadcasting market, makes no declarations, the Competition Council refuses to take note because there are no ‘signs’ for that… Then what should we do? Take action in the streets?”, Ion Terguta asked.
In this context, the Press Club moderator mentioned that good European practices, especially in the media segment, provide for a more drastic limit of concentration compared with other markets – 25-35%, “so as not to allow ideologization or imposition of an ideology by this means,” Ion Bunduchi said. Unfortunately, our legislation does not provide special limits for concentration in mass media. Experts put their hopes in adoption of a new Broadcasting Code, which would solve the problem.
“The solution consists in not to promulgating this law and in speeding up voting on the new Broadcasting Code,” concluded expert Petru Macovei.
This Press Club has been possible due to the generous help of the American people offered through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). The opinions here belong to authors and might not reflect the position of the USAID or the U.S. Government.
The Independent Journalism Center (IJC) is the first media organization that provides assistance to journalists and media outlets in Moldova. Its goal is to contribute to strengthening free and viable press by means of projects offering training in journalism and public relations, media campaigns, advocacy, research, and media education.
