Ro
En
Рy
According to the report, in the period between 1 May and 14 June 2015, pluralism of opinions was vitiated by partisan editorial practices and unilateral coverage of topics. Some of the materials on controversial topics failed to ensure the balance of sources or to offer the right to reply to the accused parties. At the same time, materials were not gender-balanced, since the tendency of quoting mostly men as sources prevailed.
Following a deep analysis of direct and indirect electoral materials, experts found that:
Moldova 1 television had a relatively balanced and unbiased behavior, partially ensuring pluralism of opinions, diversity and balance of sources. At the same time, the principle of gender balance was not complied with, since the channel’s sources were mostly men. Judging by the frequency and context of electoral contestants’ appearances in news, Moldova 1 provided the most visibility to the Democratic Party due to a large number of indirect electoral materials introducing the representatives of this party.
Prime and Canal 2 televisions covered the campaign tendentiously, failing to ensure pluralism of opinions and diversity of sources. At the same time, they partially ensured the balance of sources in materials about conflicts and gender balance (this indicator was the highest among the monitored channels). By the frequency and context of electoral contestants’ appearances, Prime and Canal 2 massively favored the Democratic Party, which was presented in positive light in the majority of materials. In many cases, reports were considered to have been direct electoral campaigning for an electoral contestant.
TV 7 channel with regional coverage covered the topics related to the electoral campaign relatively correctly and neutrally, partially ensuring pluralism of opinions, diversity and balance of sources. The channel presented the most electoral contestants, with the Liberal Party and the Liberal Democratic Party having the most direct appearances and mentions, in different contexts, without clearly favoring or disfavoring any electoral contestant.
Accent TV local channel did not ensure impartiality, pluralism of opinions, diversity and balance of sources in newscasts. At the same time, in terms of gender equality, materials were unbalanced and quoted mostly men as sources. The analysis of the frequency and context of appearances and mentions in news shows that Accent TV massively disfavored the Liberal Party (its representatives were mostly presented in negative light) and favored the Party of Socialists (in the last week of the campaign, there were several news stories of electoral campaigning in favor of this electoral contestant).
Omg.md had a biased behavior, publishing tendentious materials that used labels, made speculations and interpreted facts. The majority of controversial materials were unbalanced and unilateral. Sources were many, but not quite diverse, while gender balance was nearly completely neglected. During the entire electoral campaign, the portal’s editorial policy was focused, on the one hand, on harsh criticism of the governing parties, especially the Democratic Party, and on disfavoring the Liberal Party and the Party of Communists, and on the other hand on promotion of “Our Party” leader Renato Usatii, who benefited from a very large number of direct appearances.
Pan.md ensured impartiality in news stories, but failed to do so in analytical articles, which were nearly always tendentious and partisan. The majority of controversial materials did not meet the principle of balanced presentation of all the sides involved. The portal partially ensured pluralism of opinions, while the gender balance of sources was neglected. Pan.md disfavored the Democratic Party, which was presented the most, but mainly in negative contexts. At the same time, the portal promoted the Party of Socialists and “Our Party” during the entire electoral campaign, and their representatives benefited from the most direct appearances/quotes.
Publika.md had a biased behavior; it used estimating adjectives and emphasized with capital letters and bold font the achievements obtained and solutions proposed by the candidates supported by the Democratic Party in the electoral campaign, thus revealing the author’s preferences. The majority of conflicting materials were balanced, having quoted all the sides involved. The website partially ensured pluralism of opinions and diversity of sources, showing the best results in gender balance among the monitored websites. In terms of electoral contestants’ presence in relevant materials, Publika.md favored the Democratic Party: its leaders and candidates were intensely covered and openly and veiledly promoted. The Liberal Party and the Party of Socialists were often presented in negative contexts.
Timpul.md partially ensured objectivity, impartiality, pluralism of opinions and diversity of sources in news stories. At the same time, the majority of conflicting materials were unbalanced, and the gender balance of sources was not complied with. The number and context of appearances and mentions indicate that Timpul.md disfavored the Party of Socialists and slightly favored the Liberal Party through a large number of direct appearances in positive contexts.
Unimedia.info covered the campaign in unbiased materials, partially ensuring pluralism and diversity of sources. At the same time, many of the controversial news stories quoted a single side and failed to provide the right to reply. Gender balance was not complied with, either, as it was strongly inclined towards men as sources of information. The greatest visibility was provided to the Liberal Democratic Party and the Liberal Party. The large number of materials that presented the Liberal Democratic Party in positive contexts and frequent direct appearances/quotes are indicative of the fact that Unimedia.info editorially favored this party.
The goal of this project is to monitor and inform the public about mass media behavior during the electoral campaign, including electoral contestants’ access to mass media and provision of pluralism of opinions. The report is being produced as part of the Monitoring Mass Media During the Electoral Campaign project of the Independent Journalism Center with support from East Europe Foundation from financial resources offered by the Swedish Government through the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida) and by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark/DANIDA. The contents are the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of East Europe Foundation, Swedish Government, Sida or Denmark MFA/DANIDA.
