The opposition has won. What comes next?

I would like to start this comment, as I did in other articles, with a story about a colleague of mine. Two years ago, when rumour said that the future NIA’s Integrity Board was supposed to include a journalist, I was talking to my friends about who could be suitable for this. ‘Maybe I will apply, too’, I joked. ‘Go for it if you want to, but remember to make sure that your property is clean, otherwise if I find out about it when you hold that position – I won’t spare you!’ my colleague said and though it started as a joke, I realized that her answer was very serious.
I do not intend to praise my colleague, but to rather speak about a correct approach all media should have under any circumstances, regardless of the government and friends that get to become part of it. Governments come and go, but we are the ones who are left and we – having worked in the media for years – understand it so well.

What are we left with?

Let’s recall what we were left with after 2009, when, exactly like now, the opposition came to power. Oh, we got so burned! Everyone was head over heels for the non-communists won and some journalists, pretty respected ones by the way, had very soon started to work for newspapers of the victor politicians (some of them might have aimed at political careers), to write investigations based on materials provided by the party’s MPs and, ultimately, when things went bad in the alliance, they started to investigate the businesses of the competitors from the coalition.
At that point, a part of the media (particularly some TV channels that have daily news) faced real difficulties, because the news stories about the government’s actions were turning out too positive. A news story is a news story – if the Prime Minister attended a craft fair and did not trip over anything, this is what you come back to the news room – with the image of a smiling politician, who made a round of the stalls with no incident. Some reporters felt upset for not finding anything they could pick up on, so that the news wouldn’t be laudatory. No bad intentions, they just did not want to be perceived as admirers or sympathizers of one government or another.

However, other media did not care of that at all. They promoted the politicians and did not comb through their purchases, property, business. Just the opposite. For instance, a newspaper was established, with a new editorial board, with large salaries, a part of which was paid under the table. The journalists working there haven’t actually questioned the fact of working for a politician (obviously, the official owner was someone else), perhaps believing that it was OK to work for someone who had just freed us from the communists and was leading our country towards Europe. I cannot know if any of them asked themselves where the money was coming from. Surely, the reporters from that newspaper never scrutinized their employers – who got into the government – the way they looked into the representatives of the government before. When the politician ran out of money, the editorial team fell apart too.

There was created an FM radio station, where the salaries were unimaginable, but it went down as the employers fell under criminal investigations. At the same time, the most accessed news portal was sold and started, subtly, to promote the new government too. Afterwards, gradually or all of a sudden, the journalists of these media agencies were left on their own; they struggled and still struggle to keep afloat their depleted editorial teams. Still, they’ve got stains on their reputation.
What lessons have we learned from this experience? When it comes to me, I know that politician’s money is ephemeral and if you want to be a journalist in the long run, do not get into bed with politicians. Our power resides in independence. It sounds pathetic, but it’s true. Nothing upsets politicians that have something to hide as a reporter with whom they cannot make a deal. A reporter they cannot convince to give up on a documented story, to whom they cannot suggest compromising facts about competitors, whom they cannot order directly who to show on the TV and who not to show, and to whom they cannot just send ready-made and ‘coordinated’ interviews for publication.

Every election is a maturity exam for the media and many fail it. Some journalists are craving after fame and can’t wait to become spokespersons of winning politicians or communicators in moneyed institutions that are part of the administration. I am afraid that it will happen this time, too. The Mayor’s Office and some municipal enterprises will probably advertise vacant positions of communicators or spokespersons. I hope that the journalists willing to fill them understand that hereinafter their name will be associated with the name of the politician they work for. It’s not a sin, of course, but afterwards it’s much harder to claim that you are an independent journalist.

On May 21, naturally, many journalists were sincerely happy, some of them crossing the unwritten line of decency, when the capital city ‘was not given to the socialists’. However this does not mean anything in terms of journalistic work. The victory of Andrei Nastase does not mean that the media should pay less attention to the public procurements the municipality will make, to the way land plots are granted (Chisinau’s biggest pain) or to the integrity of the mayor’s team members than the attention they would have paid if Ion Ceban were to win the election. Everyone should be measured against the same yardstick. So, regardless if it’s Maia Sandu, Ion Ceban, Andrei Nastase or someone else, the journalists’ duty is to treat them with the same vigilance, to keep looking into their wealth, business, diplomas, mistakes.

There is one more disease coming from 2009 – the excessive familiarity of ministers and journalists, which is actually a form of loyalty. Willing to show maximum transparency and also because they were good friends with the journalists when they were in opposition, some ministers from the governments after 2009 continued to have friendly relationships with the reporters. Journalists used to call ministers on their cellphones regarding just anything. Bypassing the press services, the dignitaries were providing information directly to the reporters, in a manner of confidence and complicity. This wasn’t necessarily bad – some complicated stuff was explained to reporters right from the source (unilaterally though), in some cases journalists obtained exclusive information this way... however in other cases reporters were used, unknowingly, to orchestrate information leaks. This weakened, at the beginning, the journalists’ vigilance in relation to the new ministers. After one or two years, when topics that were raised were unpleasant for dignitaries, the ministers were asking reporters not to write about them (we’re friends, aren’t we?) and then they were upset that reporters were listening to the opposition or that they were approaching them to get a response about some unpleasant matters. Fortunately, things like this, which I despised even at that time, do not happen often anymore. Nowadays only reporters from media belonging to the parties (pardon me, to people from the parties) have such close relationships with the dignitaries.

A journalist shall not be friends with the officials. Decent professional relationships suffice for correct communication that is not compromising journalists.
Of course, it is quite hard to be fair and vigilant under any circumstances. It is not easy to stand tall and not to get your head spinning in the rush of the truly abnormal events that are happening in Moldova. Staying incorruptible and not selling yourself when there’s just a few honorable jobs, the market being dominated by the holdings of those who have the power, is a trial not everyone is able to pass. However, quoting an African colleague of mine: ‘If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen!’.
-----------------------------
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.