Nadine GOGU, Director of the Independent Journalism Center: “Given The Existing Evidence, We Can Say That The Media in Moldova Is Monopolized”

At the start of the new year, we asked some media experts to make a retrospective of 2015 so as to see what was good in the media and what was not. We also asked them to make some predictions for 2016. Below, we are publishing their replies to the two questions asked by Media Azi:

• What are, in your opinion, the successes and failures of 2015?
• How do you think the situation will develop in 2016? 

• Speaking about achievements, the only important action that deserves mentioning was the approval of the draft law on modifying the Broadcasting Code in order to ensure media ownership transparency. Although it had taken nearly 2 years for the draft to become law, and although it does not stipulate prohibition of media outlets’ registration in offshore zones, it is important that we have legal provisions that allow us to see who beneficial owners are. Due to these amendments, we can finally say, based on the existing evidence, that Moldovan mass media is monopolized. Next, the BCC [Broadcasting Coordinating Council] should assume responsibility and not allow concentration. Otherwise, mass media last year was at the same standstill as in previous years. Authorities’ openness to cooperation with the civil society was mostly mimed, as they were guided by party interests to the detriment of the interests of the media. The media community is still divided on criteria of broadcasting language and political preferences. The partisanship of many media outlets revealed itself especially during the last election campaign and in the coverage of political events related to dissolutions and appointments of new governments. The quality of the media product is continually decreasing, too, while truly independent media outlets, which do not depend on the resources of authorities or political figures, are few and far between.
• It is easy to make forecasts in the situation when the country’s leadership is constantly involved in processes of dissolution and appointment of governments. Thus, since the problems of mass media are not among their top priorities, it is clear that they will remain unsolved. And in case of early elections, the draft laws developed in recent years, including those that come from the civil society, will remain in the shadows. Instead, we will have even more partisan media outlets that are ready to serve the interests of electoral contestants and see ethics, both general and professional, only as some theoretical notions. However, there is room for optimism, since sociological researches, including the ones performed by the IJC, show that many media consumers start thinking critically, so there are chances that they will be penalizing those who choose to serve their owners instead of the public. I hope that at least some of my colleagues in the media will finally understand that it is time to reset their priorities, because the press without a public loses its reason for existence.