Ro
En
Рy
Nadine Gogu, IJC director, said that at the beginning of the campaign some media outlets were more aggressive than others, while closer to the middle of the election campaign the vast majority of media outlets engaged in political partisanship and even campaigned for certain election runners. Nadine Gogu noted that the indicators of some media outlets have slightly improved closer to the end of the election campaign.
Ms. Gogu reviewed the behavior of the media in the last week of the election campaign and presented the final data for the entire monitoring period (May 1 - June 14, 2015).
According to the report, the public broadcaster Moldova 1 was relatively balanced and unbiased, partly ensuring the diversity of opinion, as well as the diversity and balance of sources. In terms of frequency and the context in which the election runners were featured, the Democrats enjoyed most visibility; they often were also featured in indirect electoral news. The overall conclusion is that during the election campaign Moldova 1 did not favor or disfavor any election runner.
Prime TV and Canal 2 were biased and failed to ensure the diversity of opinion and sources. The TV channels campaigned for the Democratic Party in many cases. The Democrats had the most appearances and were featured in a positive light. The editorial policy of these TV channels was very similar; it focused on identifying problems in certain communities and then providing the solutions proposed by Democrat candidates, who were thus strongly favored. Canal 2 was the best of the monitored TV channels at ensuring gender balance (35% of the sources were women).
TV7 was relatively accurate, fair and balanced in covering the election campaign. The TV channels covered most election runners (16), of which the Liberals and Liberal Democrats had most direct appearances and were mentioned most, in various contexts, without clearly favoring or disfavoring any election runner. TV7 partly ensured the diversity of opinion, as well as the diversity and balance of sources.
Accent TV was the most biased in covering the election campaign. They failed to ensure impartiality and the diversity of opinion, the diversity and balance of sources. Accent TV disfavored strongly the Liberal Party and favored strongly the Socialist Party; they aired several campaigning materials favoring the Socialists in the last week of the election campaign.
As for the behavior of online news portals, media expert Petru Macovei said that they covered the election campaign “through the lens of electoral preferences, with some developments or regress”.
Omg.md was the most active of the five monitored websites; the texts they published were more or less speculative. Every third story referred to conflicts and/or launched accusations against some election runners; 82% of these topics were presented from a single perspective. The editorial policy of Omg.md throughout the campaign was focused on criticizing the ruling parties, particularly the Democrat Party, and on disfavoring the Liberal Party to the benefit of the Communist Party. Besides, Partidul Nostru (Our Party) was most promoted (111 times in a positive context out of 126 appearances and references). The other election runners were mentioned rarely or neglected in general.
If compared to Omg.md, Pan.md provided space to a larger number of election runners. “The published news was mainly unbiased; however, Pan.md published many analyses and comments that were biased (with rare exceptions): they clearly reflected the authors' views and their sympathy for a particular election runner”, stated Petru Macovei. Pan.md has also criticized the ruling parties (the Democrat Party and the Liberal Democrat Party), favoring the Socialist Party and Partidul Nostru.
Publika.md, according to the expert, has acted “as a party resource”, heavily promoting the Democrat Party – the leadership and the runners for various public positions – directly or indirectly, to the detriment of the other election runners. During the election campaign, Publika.md performed the best in terms of gender balance: 39.4% of sources were women.
With regard to Timpul.md, the authors of the monitoring report found that they were mostly unbiased. “Timpul.md disfavored the Socialists, while covering the Liberal Democrats and Democrats in various contexts – mainly neutral, but also in negative or positive light. The Communists were mentioned mostly in a neutral context; still, often the Communists were presented in a negative context. The Liberals were favored, as they were frequently presented in a positive light”.
Unimedia.info ensured the highest visibility of the Liberal Democrats (in a positive context) and of the Liberals. The Communist and Liberal election runners were most often mentioned in a negative context. Still, according to the report, “one cannot claim that these parties were disfavored, as the number of appearances in a neutral context is much larger”.
The monitoring report includes several case studies, which will be discussed later in another publication.
