The Picture of the Day in Mesager News: Why Do Authorities Matter More Than Citizens?

For almost one month (1-23 February 2018), I watched the main newscast of Moldova 1 TV channel and tried to find in the media content that social responsibility for the viewer, who is not only an information consumer, but also a citizen able to initiate democratic debates and exchanges of opinion among different categories of population.
The anchors of Mesager news broadcast say they outline the picture of the day and are waiting for us ‘every day, at the same time, with news that we need to watch and people that we need to know’. After watching 23 newscasts with a total of no less than 376 (including 321 national and 55 international) pieces of news, I have arrived to the key conclusion that the citizens and their interests fall almost all by the wayside in this ‘picture of the day’, while authorities, high officials and institutions are those who matter. The few subjects translated into the citizen's language and related to their life appeared in February and address the field of culture, consumer rights or entertainment. But this is in fact the content that the viewer of the public TV channel is mostly fed with:

Statistics, figures, survey results, and infographics, all in a raw form, often presented in a difficult-to-understand language (for example, on February 8th we are informed that ‘the Republic of Moldova fulfilled 66% of the National Action Plan implementing the EU Association Agreement’, reference being made to a report of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and European Integration. The screen is ‘filled’ with figures, and the journalist only quotes the ministry’s report, without explaining the relevance of those figures, or where the 66% were taken from, which are the performance indicators for these percentages, etc.). In February, such news was missing from (only) seven newscasts, while on some days there were even two pieces of news on such topics.

Recurring advertisements of an event that is to take place (for example: we were informed four times – on February 3rd, 4th, 8th and 10th during 23 days that the 112 Service will be functional since March, ‘nine months earlier than planned’, and three times – on February 1st, 11th and 19th – that the Romanian Prime Minister will come to Chisinau).

Events, future actions, that sound like electoral promises and statements made by authorities rather than concrete facts that happen/happened/will happen and that have a direct and real impact on people’s life (for example: the municipality will endow all new trolleybuses with air conditioning system (February 1st), over 90 cultural projects will be provided financial support (February 10th), the tariff for electricity will be calculated on a different basis (February 22nd), etc.)

Events that might happen, but no one knows when and how, and the citizen can neither check them, nor understand whether they are, might be or are not real (for example: a Romanian pharmaceuticals manufacturer wants to come to the Republic of Moldova (February 3rd); tariffs for gas might be reduced (February 21st); scholarships might be soon increased (February 21st); over 500 restaurants are willing to provide meals on the basis of vouchers (February 7th), etc.)

Plain statements of the PDM leader or of the PDM faction (the channel broadcast six comprehensive materials on six different days (February 6th, 13th, 17th, 20th, 21st, 23rd) that also included the statements made during press briefings, and an interview given by V. Plahotniuc for a portal, his Facebook posts regarding a US Congress Resolution, as well as regarding a meeting of the PD leader with the US Ambassador in Chisinau. Moreover, at least one text of the ‘news’ was almost identical to the one broadcast on Prime, Publika TV, Canal 2 and Canal 3 channels (February 17th, quotes from the interview for Tribuna.md).

A range of other topics which, inter alia, allowed for free statements (on February 10th we were told that ‘the income tax was higher in 2017. Which was due to higher salaries, experts say’. However, no expert appears in the material to declare or to explain these statements); inappropriate expressions (on February 6th the anchor informed us about ‘resignations coming off a conveyor belt at Balti Mayor’s Office... the runaway Mayor Renato Usatii‘), or shots taken over from other TV channels, without specifying the source (on February 3rd – from Publika TV channel, about the Moldovan citizen who survived the accident in Kaluga; on February 13th and 19th – from TV8 channel (about the resignation of Renato Usatii and about the testimony of Maia Sandu for NAC), etc.

This is the reason why the public service is not private – to prevent being tempted to act as commanded by a master/group of interests, and to think only of the citizens, to work for their benefit and to protect their information interests. Beyond ensuring a level playing field, a plurality of opinions, publishing independence, and other obvious and indisputable principles that a television paid out of public money is supposed to be guided by, credibility is a key element for such a service. But how trustworthy could be a channel, the news of which cannot be understood, interpreted and critically analysed by the citizens? (By the way, the lack of news tickers for each topic makes the understanding even more difficult). How trustworthy could be a public television, the news of which (selected topics and how they are presented) is strikingly and increasingly similar to the news broadcast by some private channels? These questions are always crucial, particularly in the 2018 electoral year.
-------------
The article was published within the Advocacy Campaigns Aimed at Improving Transparency of Media Ownership, Access to Information and promotion of EU values  and integration project, implemented by the IJC, which is, in its turn, part of the Moldova Partnerships for Sustainable Civil Society project, implemented by FHI 360.
This article is made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The content are the responsibility of author and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.