Ro
En
Рy
Broadcasting expert Ion Bunduchi made a review of the problem concerning journalists’ access to the Parliament meetings from the historical perspective and based on the experience of other countries. He reminded, that the first law that allowed public access to the meetings of a legislative body was adopted by the English in 1688, and the first TV cameras in the US Congress appeared in 1947.
According to the expert, the presence of journalists and TV cameras has a benefic effect on ensuring the transparency of decision making and on democracy in general. “Since televisions entered wherever they could, broadcasts from plenary meetings have been named a showcase of democracy,” Bunduchi underlined. He gave the example of the US Congress, which, after installment of video cameras, showed changes in the behavior of MCs, who became more disciplined. “Effect must consist in a better discipline of MPs,” the expert believes. He finds that, compared with the West, journalists in eastern countries usually react with boycotts to restrictions of access to such meetings.
In his turn, the technical director of the Realitatea TV television Denis Pintea spoke about the technical aspects of the problem, which are related to ensuring the broadcasting of content. According to him, the Parliament chose a wrong company for this purpose, because it is closer to the area of security, than to television. Pintea said that the use of the platform for direct broadcasts from the Parliament requires significant financial and human resources, which only large media companies afford. The direction that smaller media outlets choose is broadcasting via the Internet, says the specialist. He also finds that the Parliament has a problem related to Internet coverage, and he proposed that technicians be allowed to install special equipment for broadcasting content or to simply create a Wi-Fi zone. “For that, you only need a computer and a will,” Pintea concluded.
Well-known media law expert Eugeniu Ribca spoke about the legal aspects of journalists’ access to the meeting room. In particular, he drew attention to provisions concerning the duties of the Permanent Bureau of the Parliament, which adopts regulations on accreditation of mass media representatives. The expert expressed his doubt with the constitutionality of these provisions, which allow a group of persons to adopt regulatory acts on behalf of all MPs. “These Regulations, approved by the Permanent Bureau, harm the freedom of expression. Restrictions in the field of freedom of expression can only be approved by law. The Permanent Bureau is only a part of it, which does not adopt laws,” Ribca underlined.
The expert also mentioned two articles of the Regulations, one of them saying that Parliament meetings are public and the other listing the persons that can be present at the meetings.
Eugeniu Ribca also criticized the Regulations’ provisions concerning the accreditation of journalists, which entitle Guard Service employees to ask that accredited persons abide by security rules. In the expert’s opinion, the future Parliament should eliminate several provisions of this kind and to consult more often with the persons involved in ensuring various working processes of the legislative body.
Vice-President of the Parliamentary Committee on Mass Media Corina Fusu, MP, present at the discussions, voiced the opinion that all obstacles that journalists face in the Parliament appear because of some interested groups of MPs’ unwillingness to solve them. According to Corina Fusu, the MPs that have businesses in mass media wish to control the content that appears on television, so that people don’t see how certain laws are voted.
The round table was not attended by TV journalists, although the topic discussed concerned them directly, and it was expected that they would show greater interest in it.
Source of photo: http://newsmoldova.md/
