Ro
En
Рy
At the Press Club discussion on the topic of Media Ownership Transparency: between monopoly and pluralism, Chiril Lucinschi, head on the parliamentary committee for culture, education, research, youth, sport and mass media, said that the draft law and the amendments proposed by MPs, civil society and broadcasters had already been examined by the committee, and the final version is well-balanced. According to Chiril Lucinschi, the proposed amendments are focused on two main aspects: disclosure of media owners and the sources of their financial assets. As for the problem of monopoly, it should be examined by the Competition Council and then drafted as a new law, he added. The head of the specialized parliamentary committee also said that the draft law was to be examined by the Parliament during the current week.
Less optimism in this regard was expressed by Vasile Nastase, the president of the “Apollo” association. In his opinion, the draft law on modifying the Broadcasting Code in terms of media transparency uses “half-measures”: “The amendments concerning the prohibition of the so-called “off-shores”, proposed by the civil society (Independent Journalism Center, “Apollo” association) and by some MPs, have not been taken into consideration. The provision concerning creation of a very clear mechanism for verifying suspicions about registration of broadcasters under the names of third parties has not been accepted, either. It is, however, necessary for verifying the financial income of an owner that we suspect is a third party: whether they paid taxes, where they obtained the financial and technical resources necessary to hold a large broadcaster, such as Prime or 2 Plus, etc. Unfortunately, it has all been rejected, which means that the attempts to identify broadcasters’ beneficiary owners are in fact being simulated,” Vasile Nastase said.
According to the president of the “Apollo” association, as long as the specialized parliamentary committee does not accept the amendments proposed by the civil society, “it is absolutely certain that some things have already been negotiated.” In his opinion, “a political game has been played by the political actors that have business interests in broadcasting, and those very people make decisions on this issue.”
Speaking about the importance of approving the draft law, Eugeniu Ribca, expert in media law, said that this draft law for the first time introduces the notion of beneficiary owner, which is much broader than owner. “The term beneficiary owner will cover all the persons that in some way influence the management of a radio or television,” Ribca mentioned. The term is attributed to any individual who, under the law and/or a contract, benefits or can benefit from any type of revenue from the activity of a broadcaster or service provider; has control over the broadcaster or service provider, either directly or indirectly, through affiliated persons; or is a member of the administrative body of a legal entity.
When asked about the likelihood of this draft law to be adopted in the second reading, Eugeniu Ribca said that before election campaigns sometimes draft laws that the society actually needs are adopted, too. “I hope that at least that will be the case for this draft law,” the expert said.
Elena Bedros, representative of the National Anticorruption Center (NAC), which produced the expert opinion report for draft law no. 240 on modifying and supplementing the Broadcasting Code of the Republic of Moldova, told to participants of the Press Club that the NAC will issue another expert opinion for the second reading, at the request of the IJC. “The NAC supports this draft law and welcomes the provisions concerning media ownership transparency, making sure, however, that the new provisions are not enabling corruption and cannot have more than one interpretation,” the NAC representative said. We shall mention that the NAC had previously issued a negative expert opinion concerning this draft law, which caused criticism from the civil society.
Angela Arama, general producer for Canal Regional and one of the authors of the Broadcasting Code (developed in 2006), believes that there is no need to replace the Code with a new one, because it would be much more difficult to promote and approve in the Parliament. Angela Arama supports the idea of improving the current document, especially Article 66, which refers to private broadcasters and which should clearly stipulate the number of licenses that can be owned by an individual or a legal entity. “We need to know exactly who direct or shadow owners of mass media are, who rules over media outlets and manipulates us,” A. Arama added.
The guests and participants of the Press Club meeting on 19 September discussed the latest information about the developments in the legal framework on media ownership transparency and public access to information about the owners of media outlets.
The Press Club meeting was organized as part of the Advocacy for Media Ownership Transparency and Access to Information project, implemented by the IJC, which is, in its turn, part of the Moldova Partnerships for Sustainable Civil Society project, implemented by FHI 360 with the support of the US Agency for International Development (USAID).
