Ro
En
Рy
Seen from this point of view, t
he press is not an exception. Concentration of capital is beneficial in this field as well. But only to a point.
To avoid abusive accumulation and centralization of properties, advanced democracies use a regulatory mechanism. In the USA, for example, the famous antitrust law is valid for the media, too.
Antitrust acts have also been adopted in the EU countries. In France, for example, one person can control not more than 49% of a TV channel. If they own shares in two TV channels, they can have only 15% in the second one.
Despite that, there still are lapses in old democracies, too. It is no coincidence that the phrase “berlusconization of the media” was born in Italy, where a former billionaire prime minister created several televisions, dominating the broadcasting market.
However, the recent situation in the Italian “boot” is incomparable with the situation in our country. In Moldovan mass media things got much worse.
Berlusconi’s empire, metaphorically speaking, was an elephant – a giant and strong animal, but an herbivore. The share of his televisions was definitely excessive. But they did not devour competitors, as it happens in our country.
Plahotniuc’s empire is a giant shark that turns into the white death of freedom of expression in Moldova. It controls not only the majority of televisions, but also quite a lot of websites and radios.
The media, experts, and various non-governmental organizations have been warning for years about the danger of suffocating monopolization on the media market. In 2014, for example, the Association of Foreign Policy made a study that showed that the deficit of transparency and growing concentration of the press in the hands of a small circle of moguls might jeopardize Moldova’s European course, which, unfortunately, did eventually happen.
The Broadcasting Code and other legal acts in our country are unable to restrain the media sharks. Still, solutions do exist.
There is experience, recommendations, debates at European level concerning the antitrust measures that are needed so as not to allow monopolization of mass media. Limiting the number of televisions that a person can own is not enough. It is necessary to quickly adopt regulations prohibiting cross-ownership for media owners, i.e. ownership of media outlets of different types (print, digital, radio, TV). In other words, one person shouldn’t simultaneously own a TV channel and a newspaper, or a radio and a distinct electronic portal.
All these laws are necessary, of course, but not enough. To improve things, it is necessary to have a more drastic civil control over the situation in mass media. The functions of some non-governmental organizations, such as the Press Council or the Independent Journalism Center, should be extended for a constant monitoring of media monopolization risks.
