The independence of media in Moldova – somewhere in the middle

Cornel CIUREA
Expert, IDIS Viitorul
 

The discussions related to the independence of the media during 2009-2014 are marked by the obsession with Moldova being held by oligarchs. Regardless of our attitude towards this phenomenon, we should mention that oligarchy dominating in our country transformed the local media into some cartels. Several groups emerged on the local media market, which are conventionally called: “the Plahotniuc group” with Publika TV, Prime TV, Prime FM, Canal 3, 2 Plus, Maestro FM (these are only some of the media institutions under the control of this businessman); “the Filat group” with TV 7, Vocea Basarabiei, EuroTv, AltTv, Unimedia; and “the Topa group” with Jurnal TV, Jurnal FM and several electronic media. The same applies also to political commentator, not only to media and journalists.

The process of turning media into cartel is much complex that it seems. The media institutions do not admit any political interference in their editorial policy; this is why we cannot state anything sure in respect of several newspapers and TV or radio channels, although it is more or less obvious that they are held by particular oligarchic groups. Thus, to talk about media independence in the Republic of Moldova means to be hypocrite. Media institutions claim to be politically non-affiliated, and the audience pretends to accept such self-identification. Here is a short list of media institutions suspected to have political affiliations more or less obvious, but their belonging to certain clans in still unclear:  Realitatea TV, Timpul daily, Ziarul Național, Adevărul, Accent TV, N4, and Radio Noroc. Thus, the entire media spectrum in the Republic of Moldova is affected by political and oligarchic influence.

To what extent is oligarchy in contradiction with the democratic principles? Surprisingly, the answer is not univocal at all. Oligarchy is certainly in contradiction with the idealized concept of democracy where media institutions observe the principles of pluralism and objectiveness in their editorial policy. We clearly don’t have such institutions any more. Nevertheless, we can admit that despite current oligarchy and cartels, information is provided by a pluricentric system, by means of which the main political actors promote their ideas and build bridges to communicate with the public, even if such communication is often manipulating. Thus, democracy survives the contact with the Moldovan reality, even if such democracy could be disapproved by purists and pedants dedicated to establish a democracy à la carte.

At the same time, the current reality obliges media institutions at the beck and call of politicians to touch their editorial policy, imitating independence and equidistance. To find credence on the media market, it is counterproductive to expose your boss and to parade privileging you political client. Thus, media institutions resort to their finest skills to cover and mask their position by occasionally broadcasting debates with political opponents and allowing speakers to express points of view in contradiction with their editorial policy. Such disguising manoeuvres make the products of these institutions attractive, seeming to meet the need of the public who opposes the general propaganda and seems to be rather interested in media products that provide subtle manipulations and insinuating half-truths instead of thrusting them, as well as staged political disputes that create the illusion of a live, unpredictable performance. 

Thus, contradiction, objection and resistance become part of the media products, but they are sterilized from the very beginning so as not to destroy the general picture the institution promotes. Media institutions are caught in game of democracy claiming a permanent detachment from the political factors controlling them and denying endlessly their affiliations.  Thus, journalists are forced to become renegades in order to seem credible, and to mystify their mission in order to preserve the value of their profession. They have to cover their political affiliation all the time and to become an obscure partisan. The dream of a democratic and equidistant media changes the essence of the media market in the Republic of Moldova and mitigates the oppressive effects of a fully feudalised media.

At the same time, the attempts of the civil society to achieve the democratic dream of an equidistant and impartial media fail when they are promoted by draft laws. Political parties continue to oppose the attempts of several NGOs to reveal the identities of the true heads of media institutions and reject such draft laws. This legislative failure proves that media independence cannot be regulated. It is the result of a continued fight between the inveterate tendencies of the oligarchy to subdue the Moldovan society and the citizen’s obvious and legitimate wish to uncover our political powers and their manipulations.

 __________________