Ro
En
Рy
The mass media’s freedom of expression presupposes, as well, the freedom to search for, to obtain and to communicate the facts and ideas. Not only the printed media has the task to communicate the information of public interest, but the wide public is entitled to receive such information too (article 6 of the Law on Freedom of Expression). The freedom of reception of the information from the printed media allows the wide public to perceive an adequate image and to form a critical opinion on the society they live in and on the authorities they are governed by. But the journalist’s freedom to receive official authentic information determines, to an essential extent, the mass-media’s capacity to exercise its duty of the ‘watchdog’ of the democracy.
Real and quick access of the people and press to the information of public interest may also be realised by the information providers in an oral way, for instance, through participation in TV programmes, interactive talk-shows, round tables, etc. In other words, the public authorities in a democratic society govern the state affairs in the name of the people and the information held by such authorities belongs to the wide public.
In these latter days, we notice that boycott or permanent refusal to take part in certain TV programmes analysing the main events and problems of the Moldavian society has become a regularity for the public officers serving the people. ‘Thank you for your invitation to take part in the programme ‘X’. Regretfully, I will not be able to accept your invitation since I will be engaged in a range of actions that have already been scheduled for that day’ – this is a classical answer thereto. Thus, a citizen being also a final consumer of the public services and affairs, and having the right to be truly and timely informed about the issues of increased interest loses the relations based on trust and respect towards the official persons-exponents of a politic or public interest.
The laws on the freedom of information shall be governed by the principle of maximum disclosure. When analysing the available regulatory framework, we do state the absence of mandatory provisions for the ‘state representatives’ to take part in the TV programmes, to give interviews in the newspapers and to participate in round tables and in other events of increased public interest. For instance, the deputies as members of permanent commissions, parliamentary fractions and, as the case may be, as independent deputies may carry on various activities aimed to mediatisation of their actions in the Parliament and arranged with the help of the Media Relations Department of the Executive Office of the Parliament. The main means of communication with the media representatives are press conferences and press communiques. The official communiques on Parliament assemblies are made public only through the Media Relations Department (paragraph (2) of article 99 of the Parliament’s Regulations).
As for the public officers, according to the duties vested on them and in conformity with the laws on access to information, they shall be bound to ensure active, true and timely informing of the citizens about the issues of public interest, as well as to ensure free access to information (paragraph (1) of article of the Code of Public Officer’s Conduct). Hearing of the information that may be rendered orally is another way of access to official information (article 13 of the Law on Access to Information).
Nevertheless, in the majority of cases, the public officers redirect the invitations to participation in different programmes, to the Media Service as to an entity vested with the exclusive duties to communicate with the media. Participation of the public officers in TV programmes would diversify the options of access to information of public interest. In other words, the free information flow is the main principle of the democracy.
It is evident that (non)participation of a deputy in interactive TV talk-shows means, as a rule, (un)willingness of the people’s nominee. Some TV presenters conclude that the reasons for (un)willingness to accept the invitations to TV debates would be ‘awkward’ questions put.
Thus, the duty to accept the invitation to take part in TV, to give interviews to the newspapers or to take part in direct debates with the journalists is not foreseen by the available regulatory framework. As a consequence, we can rather speak about a moral and/or political duty of public officers, which they shall take into account, since, otherwise, denial thereof may encourage the bureaucratic behaviour, abuses and corruption at public institutions. Under such circumstances, the mass-media’s task to notify the wide society about the information of public interest cannot be fulfilled in an efficient way and the journalists are ‘forced’ to gather and distribute the third-hand information.
_____________
The article was published within the Advocacy Campaigns Aimed at Improving Transparency of Media Ownership, Access to Information and promotion of EU values and integration project, implemented by the IJC, which is, in its turn, part of the Moldova Partnerships for Sustainable Civil Society project, implemented by FHI 360.
This article is made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The content are the responsibility of author and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.
