Even a Spot of Rust Will Betray Your Trust, or What Their Own Monitoring Reports Serve for to Some BC Members

The first monitoring report regarding the way several media service providers reflected the election campaign for the parliamentary election to be held on July 11 was by far superior to the way it was discussed by some Broadcasting Council members. It is not for the first time that certain monitoring reports containing quite convincing results cause useless contradictory discussions among the members of the Council. Why are they useless? Because it is obvious that important notions are understood in different manners, even such key notions in the specific case as freedom of speech, connotation, balance, the right to opinion, etc. This is probably the most regrettable issue, as it demonstrates a lack of confidence of certain BC members in what their own monitoring service consists in and decreases the relevance of the monitoring results; besides, the exhausting effort of those in charge of monitoring and, consequently, the straightforward monitoring data do not result in any obvious consequences related to the issues such data reveals.

As to the first monitoring report, it demonstrates what we actually know without having accurate calculations in our hands in a measured, counted, and calculated manner. These calculations clearly reveal that four TV channels ignore both the legislation and their own editorial policy statements before the elections. Four channels had certain breaches, yet only one of them was sanctioned. Why? Did it breach the law to a greater extent than the other three? But which article and paragraph of the law stipulates that only the channel which has breached the law to a greater extent than the others is supposed to be sanctioned?! Besides, which law provides that the breaches committed by one channel are to be compared to those committed by some other channels instead of the legal provisions?! There is no law, article, or paragraph stipulating it, but certain BC members prefer (decisively, by voting!) choosing what they believe in instead of what the legislation prescribes.

It would not be a big deal if what they believed in and what the law prescribed coincided. However, it often doesn’t. Yet the damage is great. As an ordinary viewer, I expect to see correct and balanced news on the TV, where all the sources are listed and all the protagonists involved in the events concerning the news presented to me are mentioned. If I am offered electoral advertizing instead of the news, I expect the BC to intervene, because that is exactly what it is intended for. To intervene in order to stop electoral canvassing, not to stimulate it. However, the decisions following the discussions regarding the first monitoring report cannot in any way discourage or demotivate the party TV channels from acting as electoral propagandists.

It is similar to the pseudo-argument that a journalist, a show host, or a reporter can do whatever they want to on the screen. Sure, a journalist, like any other person, has the right to personal opinion, but it would be more appropriate to express it in the “Comments” section, not in the “News.” It would be even better to discuss it while drinking beer or in the kitchen. Why should journalists teach us, all the others, how to live?! For the only reason that, unlike us, they has access to the screen?! Is this reason sufficient? Is that what we want? Of course not! While discussing any issue/problem, let us consult the most knowledgeable persons in the field, yet a journalist is not God to know everything.

Politically affiliated unsanctioned TV channels apparently presented the election participants the way they did (massively or not quite) because these are hard times, and some contestants organize events, whereas the others do not. In fact, the monitoring report reveals that most channels worked honestly in equal conditions during the “hard times.” It would be absurd to justify election canvassing on the TV by the difficult times we live in. If we follow this logic, we can come to hard-time journalism and good-time journalism. As to the number of events organized by the election participants, according to the report, the channels in question selected mainly the “right ones,” according to the political affiliation, even if there were several electoral events, ignoring the “wrong” ones. It is exactly for this reason that imbalance emerges.

TV cannot create events instead of election participants, but whenever they do have events, TV is supposed to reflect them – not in a selective or a biased manner. This is stipulated by the law, and TV channels, by declaring their editorial policy, have committed to do so. Voters need information, not the patron party. The information which is not altered, without an obligatory comment from a reporter a host, if they have respect for the viewers and if they do not disregard them (the viewers are wise enough to know how to proceed with the information without requiring a journalist to spoon-feed them).   

Certain BC members, while discussing the monitoring report, expressed their disappointment that the current election campaign was amorphous; however, why should they be concerned about this issue during the meeting with another agenda and another subject to be considered?! Following the meeting, in the spirit of freedom of opinion, I would like to express my disappointment, stating that, during the current election campaign, the BC remains the way it was yesterday. So much the worse for the efforts made while monitoring.