Audiovisual: New rules, but the same players

For many years Moldovan broadcasters have profited from the ambiguity of legal provisions and from the lack of severe sanctions against violations, playing by their own rules. In the last half a year, however, the state has issued several restrictive legal documents aiming to regulate the audiovisual sector. First of all, the Audiovisual Coordination Council established that starting on 1 October 2017 the local media products should represent at least 8 hours of broadcasting, between 6:00 AM - 12.00 AM, at least 6 hours of local media products shall be broadcast during prime time hours, 4 hours of which should be in the official language. Used to parasitism based on foreign products rebroadcasting, making millions from advertising, without investing much in the local media market development, Moldova’s licence holders cheated: the formal quantity of local products continues to be ensured through retransmissions and even by broadcasting the same programs from several channels.

On 12 February 2018 the Law on completing the Audiovisual Code of the Republic of Moldova with norms meant to protect the information space entered into force. The Audiovisual Coordination Council required broadcasters and services providers from Moldova to adapt their audiovisual programs according to the provisions of the “anti-propaganda” law (...)

First week without propaganda

Gritting their teeth, rather forced than voluntary, threatened by high fines and even with loosing their license, the owners of Moldovan channels, broadcasting almost all programs of some Russian Federation TV stations, were forced to review their range of programmes. Thus, instead of Igor Prokopenko’s endless stories about the Russian army, allegedly the strongest and best equipped army in the world, and which can chase away the NATO sod soldiers only at the sound of their tanks’ engines, Moldovan viewers were able to watch the Star Trek series on REN TV in the first week after the new rules entered into force. After 12 February Dmitrii Kiseliov, also, will be unable to share his stories in Moldova via TV set screens about the fact that Russia is the only superpower capable of turning America into radioactive ashes. From the same date, the jokes of Tigran Kiosoyan will be followed by 3 million viewers less. (...) At the same time, unlike Ukraine, who has fully banned the broadcast of TV channels on its territory, Moldovan viewers continue to have the opportunity of enjoying Comedy Club, Davay Pojenimsea, Pusti Govoriyat, Pole Chudes and other projects, which don’t have a strong political or propagandistic connotation. Besides, the programs of certain “local” channels include almost exclusively films about the glorious soldiers of the red army and Russian series about criminals and policemen.

Money out of thin air

Both the initiators and the authors of the “Anti Propaganda Law” from the Parliament, and the members of the Audiovisual Coordination Council, who have adapted the Audiovisual Code to the provisions of the law have repeatedly reiterated the need of including such restrictions. I wonder however: when the same body - the Audiovisual Coordination Council - was issuing rebroadcasting licenses for REN TV, NTV, Pervyi Kanal, RTR, didn’t it know that all of these channels represent propagandistic instruments, subsidised and controlled by a state, which acted at least “unfriendly” towards Moldova, starting with the support of separatism on the left bank of Nistru river, and up to numerous embargoes against Moldovan products? What ideology and what values did we expect these TV channels to promote? The accessibility and the attractiveness of Russian media products make them in marketable, and capable of generating large incomes. This is why, the rebroadcasting of Russian content has so far represented a good business for pro-Russian politicians, but also for dedicated European integration advocates and even for the leaders of the fight against Russian propaganda.

Make place for the local product?

In theory, the two regulations (first - about increasing the proportion of local content in the broadcasting activity, the second - about banning foreign propaganda) should lead to an increased development of local content, which currently is almost missing. As the practice is in the civilized world, in Moldova there could also be independent production studios created, which could sell projects to broadcasters or develop commissioned content. At least for now, however, TV stations prefer to fill their program with talk-shows recorded behind closed doors, with a moderator and a few on call guests, which share their opinions about the events of the day/week, “analyse” and eventually (seldom) make some predictions. “Little money, high return” as Moldovans like to say. So what, however. Yes, the setting includes a desk and three chairs which don’t require much investments. But without filming outside, without editing and vox pops with people from the street - this isn’t television, this is televised radio broadcasting. In the recent years, I personally suffer more and more from a certain type of claustrophobia when I watch the Moldovan TV channels programs broadcast during the little time they have to broadcast own content, between the broadcasting of Russian productions and TV adverts sessions. But real life is beyond the walls of the studio. (...)

Replacing external with internal propaganda?

I am curious, after banning external propaganda will we ever adopt a law which will ban the use of television for party or image promotion by political leaders? The current situation, when TV stations became basically bodies of political groups’ propaganda, is unacceptable and shocking. And the messages disseminated in this way are more toxic than those coming outside of the country. The manipulators, denigrating the political counterparts of the funder (see the case of the 30000 Syrians), sinking down to vile labelling of people (“the fugitive”, “no.1 raider from the CIS”, “liar”....) on one hand, and exaggerated flattered labelling of owners, on the other hand, covering all activities of the charity foundation affiliated to them and all interactions of the leader and his entourage with the “population”; the programs of these party affiliated TV stations don’t aim to inform the public, but to form specific opinions in society. Joseph Goebbels would have envied them for using such brain washing mechanisms on millions of people. However, as long as the members of the Audiovisual Coordination Council and the Teleradio-Moldova Observers Council are appointed based on political criteria, nothing will change - laws will be adopted “with dedications”, and sanctions will be selectively applied and only when indicated to do so.
-----------------
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.