The Bill on Amending the Broadcasting Code Harshly Criticized by the Civil Society and the Media

A draft bill on amending the Broadcasting Code that was submitted on Wednesday, April 1, by a group of Liberal Democrat and Democrat lawmakers, to be discussed in Parliament in the first reading, raised a wave of strong criticism by the civil society and journalists. Although the authors of the bill claim that they are concerned about the security of the information field in Moldova, their critics question the intentions of the MPs and claim that the amendments were proposed with hidden purposes in mind, such as monopolization of the advertising market or limitation of the freedom of speech.

In a statement released today, April 2, media NGOs, namely the Electronic Press Association, the Center for Independent Journalism, the Independent Press Association, the Center for Journalistic Investigations, the Association of Independent TV Journalists etc. deprecate the amending of the Broadcasting Code without prior consultation with the civil society and request postponing of the bill adoption in Parliament.

"We share the concern of the lawmakers regarding real autonomy in the national information field, as well as regarding due respect for human dignity. However, we note with greatest concern that the bill includes provisions that, once adopted, would put in danger both the freedom of press and the freedom of expression. Here we refer primarily to the proposal to supplement the Broadcasting Code with Article 6¹," the statement says.
 
Democrat MP Sergiu Sirbu, one of the authors of the bill, justified in an interview for Radio Free Europe the need to adopt the amendments by the danger of Russian propaganda in our information field. "I proposed these amendments because last year brought plenty of evidence of such propaganda; it has been getting worse and worse and can no longer be tolerated. We all are witnesses to the geopolitical developments in the region. We witnessed the election campaign last year and are witnessing another one this year. It is imminent that we come up with such amendments," said Sarbu.

On the other hand, the civil society, opinion leaders and media experts argue that the protection of the information field is just an excuse and that there are vested interests behind these amendments. According to Pro TV Chisinau, "under the pretense of fighting Russian propaganda, they attempt at establishing a monopoly in the Moldovan media market, eliminating many of the current television channels and making it impossible for other investors to enter the market." In a commentary entitled "Why the Bill on Amending the Broadcasting Code Must Not Be Voted?", the TV channel said: "With regard to the argument that the bill provides solutions to prevent access to Moldova of programs 'jeopardizing or threatening the sovereignty, territorial integrity, independence of the state, national security [...]" or "inciting national, racial or religious hatred, mass violence [...], inciting to terrorism", we believe that the law provides all necessary tools to the Coordinating Council for Broadcasting to stop the broadcasting of any program (rather than TV channel) in the Republic of Moldova."

Many criticize the lawmakers for the haste in attempting to get the bill adopted in a non-transparent manner. Corina Fusu, Liberal MP, member of the Parliamentary Committee for Media, wrote Wednesday, April 1, on her Facebook page: "The alliance consisting of the Liberal Democrats, Communists and Democrats is extremely concerned about protecting the media field in Moldova. They want us to vote immediately bills that have just gotten out of the printer. These are the bills that we did not have the chance to read, that were not discussed with NGOs and media experts and that were not endorsed by the Legal Department of Parliament."

In addition, the Liberal MP drew attention to one of the provisions in the bill that, in her opinion, might seriously affect the public television: "Article 53 provides that "public broadcasters are prohibited to broadcast advertising, teleshopping and product placement, except for social and election advertising." This means that they want to destroy the public broadcaster by preventing it from gaining revenue, as well as get private TV channels – that have already monopolized the advertising market – even richer than they already are," Corina Fusu warned.

Other proposed amendments to the Broadcasting Code are also harshly criticized on the social media. Some of those provisions are: the author of information disseminated by any means of mass communication must be individuated and identifiable; evidence needs to be presented when broadcasting accusations of wrongdoings and illegal acts committed by certain people; the mandatory requirement that the moderators of audiovisual programs to inquire whether the persons concerned what to use their right to reply to accusations, etc.

Despite the haste to register the bill as legislative initiative, it has not been put on the agenda of the Parliament meeting on Thursday or Friday (April 2, 3).

"We are ready to exclude from the bill the provisions that have sparked criticism that may overshadow the substance of the bill," said Sergiu Sarbu, Democrat MP, in an exclusive interview to Radio Free Europe on Thursday morning.

The civil society also urges that the situation be discussed in a balanced equitable manner. "Considering the extremely sensitive nature of the issues the bill touches on, we request that proper public discussions are organized and conducted, to identify solutions that would ensure consistency and the deeply democratic nature of future legal provisions; the public discussion of the amendments ought not to be mimicked by formal consultation with inactive media NGOs that are affiliated politically or serve the interests of political forces," says the media NGOs' statement published Thursday, April 2.