The Problem of Media Concentration in the Absence of Political Will

The problem of media ownership in Moldova is not new. This topic has been discussed for years. Lately, discussions have been resumed with new intensity, particularly at the insistence of European bodies, but also of the Moldovan civil society.
Thus, on March 31, 2017, the third meeting of the Association Council took place in Brussels, where the progress in implementation of the Moldova–European Union Association Agreement was summed up. Participants in the meeting discussed, among other issues, the problems encountered by Moldovan media.
In the joint statement, the EU expressed its concern about the condition of the media, in particular about the concentration of media ownership and its polarization.
In the context of harmonizing media law with the standards of the European Union, of the Council of Europe and of the OSCE, our authorities were recommended to take into account the expertise of the Council of Europe and of the OSCE whenever they amend the Broadcasting Code, in order to protect pluralism and independent media.
Soon after the meeting of the Association Council, on April 14, 2017, the Moldovan Parliament, following the recommendations made in the Council’s final declaration, voted on Law no. 218. This law obliged those holding several broadcast licenses to keep only two in one administrative unit. The law came into force immediately after it was approved by Parliament, and the Broadcasting Coordinating Council (BCC) gave the owners one month to comply with its provisions.
In fact, only one person in Moldova falls under the provisions of this law: Democratic Party leader Vlad Plahotniuc, as only he at that time owned more than two broadcast licenses (television stations Prime, Canal 2, Canal 3, Publika TV and radio stations Publika FM and Muz FM).
After these changes were enforced, Vlad Plahotniuc should have remained with four of the six licenses: two for TV stations and two for radio stations.
Consequently, in order to implement this law the BCC decided on May 12, 2017 to approve Vlad Plahotniuc’s request for cession of Canal 2 and Canal 3 to a new owner, Oleg Cristal. It was probably considered that thus the problem of media concentration in the hands of one person would be solved. But who is Oleg Cristal? According to Moldovan media, he is the image counselor of the Democratic Party leader.
So what did this law, which was voted on and applied soon after the Broadcasting Coordinating Council meeting of March 31, actually change? Hardly anything, given that chances are high that even though Canal 2 and Canal 3 have a new owner, they will be actually run by none other than Vlad Plahotniuc.
In addition, some aspects should be clarified. The first question that needs an answer (first of all from the BCC) is whether this cession involves a conflict of interests.
Second: To what extent can this cession ensure media pluralism? After all, a duty of the BCC is to ensure media pluralism in the country’s broadcasting space.
Third: If the Broadcasting Code was amended in order to put an end to media concentration in the hands of one person but the editorial policy of the televisions ceded remains unchanged, what good are these reforms that make no change whatsoever?
The questions are rather rhetorical, as there is no conclusive answer from authorities in this respect.
In general, the problem of media in Moldova seems to raise more and more concern among European bodies. In recent months, there has been no meeting or important document where it wouldn’t be mentioned.
The fact that the situation of media in Moldova, including its concentration in the hands of a single individual – a politician, in fact, – appears increasingly often in official documents signed by European structures means that Brussels is really alarmed by what is happening in Chisinau. In the EU there seems to be some fears that our democracy might deteriorate again, like in the times when the Party of Communists headed by Vladimir Voronin was in power. And it happens in the context of the upcoming parliamentary elections in the autumn of 2018, which are again crucial for the geopolitical future of Chisinau.
In conclusion, we can say that freedom of the media in Moldova is brought into discussion on every occasion in meetings with European officials. On the other hand, Moldovan authorities haven’t tried to deny there is a problem. On the contrary, they adopted laws to solve the existing problems, but the situation has not changed, because these laws are implemented improperly. Therefore, media concentration in the hands of one person, although formally solved, will basically remain unchanged as long as there is no political will to fix things in the media sector.
_________________________________
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.