Ro
En
Рy
Aneta Gonta, media expert
I’ll start by saying that I saw citizens present more often (even daily) in the news broadcast between March 1 and 25, 2018 in the Mesager newscast, with the source of images being indicated (with at least one regrettable exception, when the visual material was taken in its entirety from a private TV station). The change is welcome, commendable, but it is partial and insufficient for various reasons. First of all, because people have higher expectations from social news. They also have opinions on the (actual or potential) increase of pension benefits, allowances, salaries, envelope wages, quality of medical services, cheaper medicines, announced road rehabilitation projects, tariff changes or the arena to be built near Chisinau, not only about happiness, the ‘first home’ project, sleep or the level of pollution in Chisinau. In the same train of thoughts, the number of features about important decisions taken by officials (salaries / benefits / wage increases, tariff cuts on certain services, etc.), decisions which concern citizens directly, and which would include also their opinions, was still small. Last but not least, people have often been used to approve / salute the decisions / declarations of the authorities, which does not make the quality of the journalistic products higher. In this context, the public broadcaster announced on March 19 that it is the choice of the country to inform itself from Moldova 1 , referring to the data of a recent sociological survey — ‘Evolutie si preferinte privind mass-media din Republica Moldova’ [Evolution and Media Preferences of Moldova] 1 . The high degree of trust of citizens is / should be primarily a major responsibility, and if so, Moldova 1 should lend an ear to the fact that the majority of the participants in the survey are interested in social news (problems of ordinary people) 2. Ordinary people, however, have worries and concerns, and are certainly not always ‘glad / welcoming of/ thinking it is a good initiative’, regarding what they are asked about.
About What Should Be Avoided
It’s not good for the time dedicated for the main newscast on public television to turn into an arena for officials to talk back at one another. Undoubtedly, where there is a conflictual subject, both or all parties have to enjoy their right to opinion, but an almost-three-minutes-long piece of news (2 March, min. 13-16) in which the prime minister answers the president, and then the president answers back, on a general topic about the national army, using in the lead a statement of the Kremlin leader, a parable that the prime minister used to refer to the president, using tendentious language, does not represent, in fact, news. The novelty of this subject, I suppose, was either the summoning of the Supreme Security Council meeting by the president and the discussions, in this context, about the National Defense Strategy, or Igor Dodon's intention to hear the position of the defense minister on certain statements he made. Citizens, however, haven’t noticed (or hardly did so) these elements, because the focus was on the verbal ping-pong between the prime minister and the president.
Also, the public TV station, always focusing on the public interest, but also the novelty of a subject, should avoid giving unjustified importance to the statements and actions (personal or supporting those of the leader) of a party leader. For example, on March 3, a topic addressed on Mesager (min.7 ) begins as follows: It is a good thing that in the Republic of Moldova, especially in the last two years, there was political stability and a government that produces results... the statement belongs to the Romanian Senator Titus Corlatean, who, alongside... Andi Cristea met with the PDM leader Vlad Plahotniuc on Friday... the europarliamentarian (Andi Cristea) expressed his confidence in... and wished the democrats good luck in the elections. In his turn, Plahotniuc gave his thanks on behalf of the entire party for the continuous interest [which was showed]. ... After a few days, the station broadcast another statement by Cristea, referring to Franco Frattini's statements in Moscow about Russian troops stationed on the Transnistrian territory.
The news started as follows: We cannot play with the sovereignty of the Republic of Moldova and we cannot treat it as if it is participating in a complicated computing opportunity. This reaction came from MEP ... (7 March, min 11). After a few more days, the reaction of the DP leader to the same subject became news (13 March, min.22, succinctly repeated on 17 March, min.20).
Also, even if the declarations of the authorities are necessary and important, it is not good to interpret them in a news release. For example, if the Minister of Economy and Infrastructure states, via phone, in a news story the following: We very much hope that prices (for electricity) will not be increased, but on the contrary, be cut ... I cannot say when, the official also referred to the new pricing methodology and other factors to be taken into account in the calculation. The news lead should not include the conclusion made by the journalist following these statements, but the exact statement of the official, if any. The news, however, began as follows: Electricity could be cheaper for final consumers. Even if the new energy procurement price is higher than last year’s. The possibility of reducing tariffs was announced by the Minister of Economy ... (14 March, min.2). Along with such formulations, the ‘possibilities’ technique continues to be used by Moldova 1 in newscasts.
On What Is Regrettable
Last but not least, citizens expect accuracy in public TV channel news reports. For example, citizens should understand from the journalistic features if on 14 March, the composer Mihai Dolgan was born or passed away (14 March, min. 28), when the first underpass from Chisinau will be renovated (if this is known, and if not, to be stated this way, but not say that this will happen soon 12 March, Min.18) and shouldn’t watch a feature (replayed, indeed, but which can be edited to be accurate) broadcast on a day when it didn’t snow, but which informs about heavy snowing this morning (25 March, min. 32).
In other words, in order to stay on, but also go up on the citizens’ preferences top in terms of information, it is not recommendable for the main newscast of Moldova to allow the above-mentioned and other inaccuracies, which were not included in this report. A period of temptations will follow shortly (e.g. local elections campaign, and later for the legislative elections campaign), in which the professional code of conduct and the professionalism of journalists will be put to the test. I hope that in the electoral context, as well as beyond, the public television channel will unconditionally and in good faith respect the public and its own mission.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
