Ro
En
Рy
Viorica Zaharia, media expert
The case of the woman neglected by the doctors at the Mother and Child Institute, which shocked the public in early January, has acted again as a litmus paper for the moral foundations of journalism in our country. In other countries, such a subject – which signals serious problems in a system – is normally taken over by the press and investigated to the smallest detail (see, for example, Hexi Pharma in Romania), as the journalist’s mission is quite this – to unveil the shortcomings of the system in order to protect people from any other abuses. Throughout the world, in pursuit of the truth, the voice of the victims of abuses is listened to before the one of the authorities. Such cases usually ensure and show the journalists’ cohesion capacity around the idea of a joint mission – to reflect the hidden facts and start a public debate.
What happened here? The press was again divided into two battle teams. While one was searching, checking and analysing the woman’s accusations, urging reactions and explanations from the authorities, another was disseminating subjective views of third parties, defending the system and blaming the woman who dared to speak.
Why have the journalists lost the sense of justice? Why do they stand aligned at the party’s flag, blindly pleading the causes of politicians, when great polemics arise, even outside the electoral campaigns? (...)
To find an answer, I will try to identify some reasons and categories of people. This is purely subjective, based on my own analyses and definitely not on an exhaustive research.
Journalists who cannot manage themselves in the independent, quality media, where the standards of journalism are much higher, work for the partisan press. They usually accept such a position for convenience reasons. I’ll explain this. A news reporter is required to have at least two topics a day. They have to find and propose them to the producer/publisher. In the independent press, the reporter calls the sources, asks about what’s new, looks for reportage ideas, checks documents and reports, verifies information, and when they have three acceptable topics, they share them with the producer. They convince the producer that the topic is interesting, the person is well-known, the station will gain public, the issue is newsworthy, etc. When they ‘get the green light’ to shoot, they go out in the field. In the evening, they might find out that a source or two are missing because some civil servant, not at all delighted to interact with non-house journalists, beat about the bush all day and eventually has not given the promised statement/information. The reporter ends up before the news program with a half-made material, without getting any credit from the producer. Not all reporters are morally and professionally ready to cope with such situations to go on. Those who fail find their place in another kind of news rooms. There, the agenda of the day is the agenda of the party that finances the TV station or the portal. The reporter is sent to get a statement or a comment from someone, they are told from the very start who to exclude from the news, what expert is ready to comment on the situation and thus the piece of news is perfect for the news program. The reporter did not come into conflict with anyone; on the contrary, they made friends and enjoy the goodwill of heads of institutions, ministers, MPs. Absolute harmony.
Very good journalists, but who compromised with their own conscience and the values of their profession, work for the partisan media. The reason – money does not smell or ‘anyway everything is relative and may be sold’. If they are involved in discussions about their work, they come up, at best, with excuses such as ‘I have credits to pay’ or ‘I have children to bring up’. At worst, they attack the rest of the media, arguing that they are also compromised.
Another category consists of journalists who did not leave on time. Some of them do not leave because it’s too late, and if they do, they take a French leave and do not dare to announce this publicly to avoid being subjected to attacks and questions like ‘Why did you keep silent so far?’.
There is one more category. Journalists who understand what they do and experience inner conflicts with themselves. Gradually, the justification that arises in ‘sold’ teams is believed by the stooges themselves, who cover up with it. ‘Every boss steals, but ours at least treats his employees appropriately’; ‘are the others better?’.
The ‘screen temptation’ category. This includes notably the young reporters, who still in the university see themselves appearing on TV, presenting does not matter what, but on the screen! Of course, anyone may have dreams, but unfortunately their dream does not involve any content. (...)
And the last one, left for the desert, is the small category of journalists who have made a career in the media outlets affiliated to political groups. When, from being a reporter at a newspaper or elsewhere, one starts working in a big company and becomes day editor, publisher or producer, that is a little boss, one does not ask oneself anymore if one’s job is journalism, but enjoys ‘the trust that was put in them’. And gradually one takes up not the ideology of the party (that would be less serious), but the patron’s interests, and one begins to sincerely believe that their interests are those of the society. Usually, such journalists end up by being ‘detached’ to the politician’s staff, where they systematically and committedly write news for the TVs of the house, untouched by the publishers, because it must be given in pure form, having the staff’s approval.
2018 is a year of elections. As previous campaigns have shown, it is especially during such times that the journalists, like their patrons, are struggling to use all kinds of ammunition to hit their opponents. Few of them concern themselves about providing the public with complete information about candidates and parties. In the media, the battle is about scandals and mutual attacks. In some cases, we find journalists on the lists of party donors, which means that some not only accept to work for them, but also to take part in their affairs. The question is: is it worth it, at the nick of time, to remind them about deontology and their duty to the public?
--------
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.
