Executive director of the Centre for Independent Journalism, Nadine Gogu, spoke in an interview for the FES/APE foreign policy newsletter about how Moldova implemented the recommendations of the European Commission (EC) for a better regulation and functioning of the media. She said that, in general, Moldova is not doing badly in this respect, but that there are still gaps that need to be fixed. Read below the full interview:

What is the current situation with the freedom of expression for journalists in the Republic of Moldova? To what extent has the Republic of Moldova implemented the EC recommendations in this field?

The European Commission’s first recommendation for Moldova refers to a more effective protection of journalists against intimidation and attacks, and quality investigations by law enforcement agencies. We haven’t had many cases of journalists being physically, verbally attacked or intimidated, respectively, there have not been many cases investigated by the authorities. It should be mentioned, however, that the authorities intervened when the journalists from the TV8, Viorica Tătaru and Andrei Captarenco, were detained in Tiraspol. Thanks to the Moldovan authorities, they were released.

We have pointed out to the constraints in the report and argued that, in the future, the institutions need to investigate cases of harassment, abuse and cases of radio censorship. There was such a case last year at the Teleradio Găgăuzia.

But you cannot intervene when a journalist is intimidated online through bullying or other methods. And we know who is doing these acts of intimidation, but no complaints were filed with the police.

We can’t wait for the police to start monitoring everything and intervene. Complaints need to be filed and then we can follow whether the authorities took any action following the complaints by journalists.

Transparency of media ownership

What can you say about the transparency of the print and online media ownership, which does not exist unlike TV and radio media? How do you see this being ensured for the print and online media?

The second recommendation of the EC report regarding media was about the transparency of media ownership. So far, certain things have been done in the audiovisual area, but the recommendation was to extend the requirements also for transparency of the print and online media.

During the one-year reporting period, nothing was done in this respect, except for discussions being initiated on this topic. Therefore, a score of 1 on a scale of 5 has been given when it comes to the implementation of the EC recommendations in this regard.

I couldn’t assess this more positively, given that there is no document yet and very little progress has been made. According to the monitoring methodology, we could assign a score from 1 to 5, depending on what Moldova reached on this road.

In your view, what should be done to improve the self-regulatory bodies in the media, with obvious reference to the Press Council?

This is the issue that I monitored in the civil society report on Moldova’s implementation of EC recommendations. This issue does

not belong to the authorities, however, it was included in the report as a recommendation. It is about monitoring self-regulatory mechanisms. Here we gave the highest score. The self-regulatory mechanisms pertain to the civil society and the Press Council was registered.

The registration last year of the Public Association of the Press Council of the Republic of Moldova was successful. Certain things happened here and certain decisions were made, but not as much as we would have liked. Probably, because, there are many cases in which the Press Council did not react. And the Press Council did not react because it is not yet developed from an institutional point of view, as it has been registered recently.

Most likely, more people will be hired within the Press Council, so that this self-regulatory body can make a strategic plan, a plan of actions to be guided by in the future.

Here we must admit that the journalists in the Republic of Moldova are not united. Not all media institutions recognize the authority of the Press Council. It would be ideal that, after the Press Council has been registered and strengthened, various projects are carried out in order to bring more journalists from various media to the Council. They should understand that this institution, which represents the press, is very important in the Republic of Moldova. The Press Council should react when decisions concerning the mass media are taken.

We are also trying to self-regulate within the editorial offices, and the Code of Ethics, which still has certain shortcomings, will most likely be revised this year. Some changes will probably be made. However, much more activities could be done for newsrooms, including helping them develop their internal Codes of Ethics and organizing certain trainings for them, as well as solidarity actions.

Reducing media focus on TV but not online

Do you still notice a media concentration in the Republic of Moldova today? Are there still certain stations that are de facto run through intermediaries by runaway oligarchs?

From what I have observed, many stations will not reflect the electoral campaign, for example, a fact that caused hysterics with a part of society. The list of stations that will cover the presidential election campaign and the referendum was published by the Broadcasting Council, and somewhat hilariously, there are many stations that no longer have the right to do so.

They are on the list, but they don’t have the right to broadcast content, so there are far fewer stations left to cover the campaign, for example.

The online stations are expanding and we are seeing that trend. Particularly, in electoral campaigns, there will probably be an expansion of them, because the online media is not regulated. Oligarchs are investing in this segment so they can reach more people. Anyway, the online media from which the people have been increasingly informing themselves has ended up surpassing classic tv stations.

The Internet has become the most important source of information. Therefore, the oligarchs are present online, but they are not as visible on the classic television because those stations no longer exist. There are a few stations left that have news bulletins, but they don’t have shows. Generally, there are many TV stations, but they are niche ones.

Problems for the media in UTA Gagauzia

How do you see the situation of the media in UTA Gagauzia, where the media functions based on different principles compared to Chisinau?

There it is much more problematic than in Chisinau. I’ve noticed this over the past year. We have made several statements in that regard following the problems reported from UTA Gagauzia.

Journalists are either kicked out of public meetings or denied access. They are victims of online abuse and intimidation by politicians, political advisers or their supporters.

There were different situations in this sense, but also different strange local initiatives in Gagauzia to introduce certain barriers for journalists, namely for those who want to be active in the online environment, to be registered. They are trying to control the press. I mentioned above that a case of censorship was reported at Teleradio Găgăuzia, the public broadcaster in the region. A journalist filed a complaint, but surely the political factor influences and controls most media in Gagauzia, which they finance, including in obscure ways. But fortunately, there are still some independent media outlets that are standing up to the situation and continue to produce independent content.

There is also the phenomenon of self-censorship on the part of some journalists, especially those who do investigative journalism. They abstain from getting into the essence of suspicions of corruption among the current pro-European government, precisely for fear of harming the European course on the eve of presidential elections, referendum and parliamentary elections next year.

Yes, there is. We have had discussions on this topic several times with several fellow journalists about situations when you have to make an editorial decision and choose the lesser of two evils. This phenomenon exists and there is the perception that many fellow journalists are now self-censoring specifically so as not to harm the European course.

Thank you!