Ro
En
Рy
Ombudsperson: Such TV shows may have a negative impact on children
After reviewing PRIME TV show during the meeting held on Friday, 17 May, where the broadcast regulator found no violations of children’s rights, Media-azi.md also requested the opinion of the Ombudsperson for Children’s Rights. The latter, however, disagreed with the Broadcasting Council’s position. According to Maia Banarescu, the questions journalists asked the minor violated the ethical norms. The Ombudsperson highlighted that such TV shows need to protect personal data and we shouldn’t accept a child’s revictimisation.
‘It’s obvious that journalist’s ethical norms and the rules for children’s media coverage were violated. Generally, when it comes to child sexual abuse, such materials should not be made public. In such situations the child should be interviewed in special rooms, in the presence of a special education teacher, following a list of questions clearly developed by the investigators. This is a child, not an adult. The worst is that this child was publicly exposed to feel those same feelings she had in her sexual relationship with the adult’, Maia Banarescu explained.
The Ombudsman added that such TV shows may have a negative impact on other children and therefore there is no need to discuss individual cases but to find other ways to address this phenomenon.
Maia Banarescu said she would continue to monitor this case and the course of the investigation to see if the authorities exercised their duties in this case.
Press Council’s reaction to BC’s decision
Note that BC monitoring established that the minor, her parents and grandmother, as well as the professionals present on set (priest, business woman, lawyers, sexologist and psychologists) stated their position. Measures were taken to protect the minor, i.e. a name other than her real name was used and she was interviewed in the TV show after a screen. The name of the settlement the minor came from wasn’t made public, while the sequences in which those present mentioned in some way certain clues that could lead to her identification were blurred. In the end, BC members only took note of the TV show monitoring.
The Press Council Chair was disappointed by BC’s decision, as ‘the Broadcasting Council is the first of the state institutions to sanction and discourage such practices’. According to Viorica Zaharia, at least two provisions of the Law on Child Protection Against the Negative Impact of Information (BC is responsible for its observance), were neglected when examining this issue. The PC Chair recalled that Article 4(2), letters (g) and (h) of this Law states that: ‘Radio and television programs shall be prohibited from disseminating information with a negative impact on children, containing: g) reconstructions of offenses, abuses and other negative contexts in which children are involved; h) interviews and statements asking the children for opinions about intimate family issues or issues that exceed their judgment power’. ‘The girl was brought to the show where she was asked about her intimate life and the intimate life of her parents, which is forbidden by the provisions cited above’, commented Viorica Zaharia.
According to PC Chair, the authors of this TV show violated all possible ethical provisions and certain legal norms. ‘Girl’s identity wasn’t really protected because, although her face was covered, the name changed and the name of the settlement where she came from was kept secret, she is identifiable because her parents and other members of the family appeared on the set without their image being protected. The girl can be easily recognized after her family. As far as the written consent of the parents and of the girl accepting to participate in the TV show, a consent the TV broadcaster pretends to have, note that this doesn’t always solve the problem. There are cases when parents don’t realize that they expose their child to discrimination, stigma and other suffering by accepting the media coverage of the case. Journalists were obliged to anticipate the possible negative effects of this TV show on the girl and to be guided by the best interest of the child’, Viorica Zaharia said.
The journalist believes that the authors of the TV show took advantage of the vulnerable situation of this family to make ‘a sensational talk show’. Viorica Zaharia said that the current Code of Ethics, with recent addenda, included a special provision for such TV shows – ‘3.15 The journalist does not take advantage of persons’ vulnerability or their lack of knowledge of their rights and freedoms, or encourage them to resort to humiliating actions and that harm human dignity’.
The Press Council Chair argues that if journalists wanted to discuss such a case, they should have first consulted with professionals in the protection of children’s rights, to ensure that they do not harm the minor and her family in any way. ‘Commenting on this case on the spot with random persons shows that the authors of this show wanted to produce a material that would be watched on TV at all costs, rather than address a real issue of public interest’, concluded Viorica Zaharia.
Note that in December 2018, the National Centre for Child Abuse Prevention (NCCAP) notified the Broadcasting Council about severe child rights violations in another episode of ‘Vorbește Moldova – Cine a lăsat-o gravidă pe Mariana?’ [Who got Mariana pregnant], broadcast by PRIME TV. Likewise, the BC took note of this and established that PRIME TV did not violate the broadcasting law in force.
