Ro
En
Рy10 June 2021
386 reads
Between May 24 and 30, Moldova 1 covered events mostly in a neutral way in the main daily newscasts. However, it showed slight predilection for topics related to Chisinau Municipality to the detriment of other regions of the country, and the representatives of Chisinau Mayor’s Office were slightly favored by the public television, according to a new monitoring report, released by the Independent Journalism Center on Thursday, June 10.
According to the research, out of the 154 news stories monitored by the IJC, about 25% addressed topics related to Chisinau Municipality, which is the region to which the public station refers most often in the Mesager newscast. Moreover, the municipal authorities of Chisinau were the sources cited most frequently, both directly and indirectly, and by the frequency with which they were presented in the news, but also by the slightly laudatory attitude, Moldova 1 favored the representatives of Chisinau Mayor’s Office, especially Mayor Ion Ceban and Deputy Mayor Angela Cutasevici.
“In almost every edition of the Mesager newscast there were at least 3 stories that targeted the Chisinau Mayor’s Office. During this monitoring period, the public television had a predilection for topics related to Chisinau, to the detriment of other regions of the country, thus creating the impression that Moldova 1 is a ‘municipal television’ rather than a public one,” explains the media researcher Victor Gotișan.
He also notes the tendency of Moldova 1 journalists to address many of the events on the agenda superficially: “More than half of the 154 news stories broadcast during the monitoring period either did not have directly cited sources, but only mentioned and/or cited indirectly by presenters or reporters, or included only one directly cited source. This fact shows nothing but superficiality in the coverage of information and topics of public interest, especially since experts were practically absent as sources in Moldova 1 news during the monitoring period. If they were consulted about some topics, they could have provided details and interpretations and could have helped the media consumer to better understand the context of the news or a certain issue.”
On the other hand, the author of the report concludes that Moldova 1 presented information mostly in a neutral and unbiased manner, without major deontological violations. Moreover, the moderators and presenters of debate programs were well prepared, had a neutral and unbiased attitude towards the people on the set, “the questions were correct and incisive, and the journalists did not hesitate to interrupt guests when they went off the topic.”
_______________________________
This report was made possible by the generous support of the American and British people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the UK. Responsibility for the content of this material rests with the Independent Journalism Center, and the text does not necessarily reflect the vision of the UK, USAID, or the United States Government.
According to the research, out of the 154 news stories monitored by the IJC, about 25% addressed topics related to Chisinau Municipality, which is the region to which the public station refers most often in the Mesager newscast. Moreover, the municipal authorities of Chisinau were the sources cited most frequently, both directly and indirectly, and by the frequency with which they were presented in the news, but also by the slightly laudatory attitude, Moldova 1 favored the representatives of Chisinau Mayor’s Office, especially Mayor Ion Ceban and Deputy Mayor Angela Cutasevici.
“In almost every edition of the Mesager newscast there were at least 3 stories that targeted the Chisinau Mayor’s Office. During this monitoring period, the public television had a predilection for topics related to Chisinau, to the detriment of other regions of the country, thus creating the impression that Moldova 1 is a ‘municipal television’ rather than a public one,” explains the media researcher Victor Gotișan.
He also notes the tendency of Moldova 1 journalists to address many of the events on the agenda superficially: “More than half of the 154 news stories broadcast during the monitoring period either did not have directly cited sources, but only mentioned and/or cited indirectly by presenters or reporters, or included only one directly cited source. This fact shows nothing but superficiality in the coverage of information and topics of public interest, especially since experts were practically absent as sources in Moldova 1 news during the monitoring period. If they were consulted about some topics, they could have provided details and interpretations and could have helped the media consumer to better understand the context of the news or a certain issue.”
On the other hand, the author of the report concludes that Moldova 1 presented information mostly in a neutral and unbiased manner, without major deontological violations. Moreover, the moderators and presenters of debate programs were well prepared, had a neutral and unbiased attitude towards the people on the set, “the questions were correct and incisive, and the journalists did not hesitate to interrupt guests when they went off the topic.”
_______________________________
This report was made possible by the generous support of the American and British people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the UK. Responsibility for the content of this material rests with the Independent Journalism Center, and the text does not necessarily reflect the vision of the UK, USAID, or the United States Government.
