Things Must be Clearly Delimited: Politics has Its Own Interest, Journalism – Its Own Mission

The Independent Journalism Center (IJC) recently launched the ‘Moldovan Press Status Index. 2017 Report’. It analyses the status of the media in 2017 across the country, in the light of seven indicators: legal framework governing the media activity; political context, which might be favourable or unfavourable to the media activity; economic environment, namely, whether or not media outlets have an independent economy; professional environment; quality of journalism; information security from the media perspective and journalists security. The score for each indicator was very low. The total score was 23.69 points, by 2.97 points less than in 2016 (26.66), which means that the status of media in 2017 is critical.

Moreover, according to the last report of Reporters Without Borders, which published every year since 2002 the ‘World Press Freedom Index’ – a tool which reflects the degree of the media freedom in different countries, the Republic of Moldova ranked 80th, down by four positions as compared to 2016 and by four more as compared to 2015. ‘The Moldovan media is diversified, but extremely polarized. The editorial policy of the leading media outlets is correlated with the political and business interests of their owners. Therefore, the media independence and transparency is a major challenge’, the survey authors state. The place in this ranking is determined by certain indicators: media pluralism, media independence, quality of legal framework and journalist security while performing their job.
 
The results are worse than alarming, since they show that, on the one hand, most of the media outlets in the Republic of Moldova fail to pass the test in professional maturity and objective information of citizens, and, on the other hand, the politics increasingly undermine the media independence. Some perceive the media as a tool that serves the owner’s personal interest rather than as a business. Results such as these, are not compatible with the values of a democratic society, where media freedom, freedom of thought and freedom to access information are fundamental rights. In this regard, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe approved a Resolution on Ethics of Journalism, a document which inter alia, remarks: ‘Information is a fundamental right which has been highlighted by the case-law of the European Commission and Court of Human Rights relating to Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and recognised under Article 9 of the European Convention on Transfrontier Television, as well as in all democratic constitutions defining the citizens’ rights, one of which is the right to claim that the information provided by journalists is faithfully transmitted in the news and honestly commented, without any external interference either from public authorities or private bodies’.

The Letter of the Law Guarantees ...

The letter of the law guarantees: freedom of opinion and expression, pluralism of opinions, independence and editorial freedom, as well as the rights of program consumers to receive correct and objective information. Since 2015, the legal rules also provide for the transparency of ownership in the audiovisual area. Also in terms of the audiovisual, the law provides for a certain financial transparency. These provisions apply to the annual reports where the financial sources must be laid down in detail and which the audiovisual media service providers must make public every year and submit them to the Audiovisual Coordination Council. In addition, the law prohibits the political formations from owning media outlets. And then, we wonder: if the law guarantees this minimum required set of rules, why is the assessment score in the report declining in recent years?

What do the Assessment Experts Say?

As regards the assessment of the media legislation, the experts took into account the fact that legal regulations exist only for the traditional media, although they are not enough either. No legal mechanism is in place to regulate the economic activity of media. There are no special regulations for regional and local broadcasters operating in poor conditions, and, as a result of the last amendments to Article 11(2) of the Audiovisual Code, they are simply working in unfair conditions, compared to radio broadcasters with an incomparable production and financial capacity. There are no regulations to ensure a fair competition, no provisions to ensure the good operation of the advertising market and to put an end to monopoly practices on the media market.

‘Dumping methods and policies are used on our market, there are no independent audience measurements (especially in the audiovisual field), and the activity of the largest sales houses is also monopolised, as there are suspicions of cartel agreements among the owners of media holdings the purpose of which is to get rid of the competitors on the market’, experts say.  An audience measurement company was not selected yet in line with Article 66 of the Audiovisual Code.

Experts also say that media ownership is excessively dominated by politicians, which is very visible through the massive use of media outlets in electoral campaigns, as well as in pre-election and post-election periods. In this respect, we found all sorts of tools for manipulating and misinforming the public opinion: from headlines that have nothing to do with the text of the news, images, distorted messages and fake news, to products of hidden electoral advertising/politics nature. This is happening although Article 66(2) of the Audiovisual Code expressly provides that ‘public authorities of any level, public law institutions financed from the State Budget, political parties and formations, enterprises and institutions specialised in electronic communications may not be beneficial owners of private broadcasters.

Theoretically, according to legal provisions, political formations must not have any connection with the subjects of audiovisual media services. But, at the same time, the law does not prohibit the politicians from owning media outlets. Therefore, politicians, members of political formations own radio and television channels, and these become the mouthpiece of the political formation that the owner is from. 

Instead of Conclusions 

The 2017 Moldovan Press Status Index is alarming: the local media environment is slipping into a dangerous curve, and if this process is not stopped, we will see an even greater decline in the coming years. We need to assess thoroughly each indicator to be able to identify viable solutions together. Last, but not least – we need to align the local legislation with the international standards, on the basis of democratic values. Things must be clearly delimited: politics has its own interest, journalism – its own mission. Media outlets have no other mission but to provide the citizens with unbiased information on the events that take place in different areas of the society, including in the political one.
 
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.