[- 2008 was the second year since the Broadcasting Code took effect. How well does this law regulate the sector?] - It could regulate it even better, since its first article provides that the Code's goal is to institute democratic principles in the Moldovan broadcasting. But the law cannot regulate a sector by itself. Any law works through the entities charged with the task to enforce it. And there are people who know more or less in those institutions, with more desire to enforce the law and with less desire, more courageous (because you need guts, too) and less courageous. But there is an objective reason why these people cannot implement democratic principles – they simply haven’t lived the experience of democracy. This is why the way of trials and errors cannot be avoided. Generally I don't think that we have reached the moment when the number of successful trials exceeds the number of failed trials. [- An important task of the new code is to transform the former state-incumbent broadcasters into genuine public services, but the impression in society is that Teleradio-Moldova or Teleradio-Gagauzia still hardly manage to give expression to a multitude of social aspirations. Why?] - There are many reasons, but I’ll refer to this one: the degree to which the lesson of democratic journalism has been learnt. Judging the contents of their news programs, and I am a member of the team monitoring the newscasts of both Teleradio-Moldova and Teleradio-Gagauzia, I find that their authors practice a genre of journalism defined in theory as authoritarian. It resembles the totalitarian or Soviet journalism. Here is its essence: journalists can write about anything, can criticize anyone but the king (emperor, czar) or, in other words, save the authorities. The situation is as sad as weird. I mean the situation of the media and of the journalists worshiping this type of journalism, because the question is not only about the institutions you mentioned. Let's draw a parallel: the Soviet journalism criticized anyone and anything, including God. Save the leadership of the party-state. The Moldovan journalism we're referring to has two taboos: God and the authorities. Don't you find it weird?! The immediate conclusion: you cannot build a public service of radio and television unless by practicing democratic journalism. The latter is harder to practice, but a genuine radio and TV service cannot be without it. To my opinion, this is the most important reason. I do not underestimate the financial reason, but you can develop totalitarian journalism with money, too. [ - The whole world switches now to digital TV, as different countries record different progress. How serious is the Moldovan authorities' attitude toward this technological change?] - The digital era does not ask us how serious we are. It simply rushes on you and you cannot stop, nor ignore it, even if you wish. Moldova will have to switch to the digital system concomitantly with all the countries having committed to do so by 2015. Some countries in Western Europe have already done it, other are to do so in 2009, etc. After 2015, the analog system will not be protected any longer. So, there are no alternatives. It's a great challenge for the authorities and for the whole society. That is why the issues related to the digital TV should be addressed more often and to a greater degree. But, as far as I know, these issues were discussed only in 2008 and only twice. Foreign experts attended a conference on the issue in November. It's good, but not enough. The digitalization as a task, problem, objective does not have social visibility: Finland launched a helpine 4 years before the switch. The citizens were answered ... 600,000 questions about the issue. What can we say about the situation in Moldova? Certainly something is done. Proposals to modify laws are drafted. But as is the custom here, the information hardly goes from offices to citizens. It's a pity. There are too many unknown figures in this equation, albeit the estimative costs. [- How was 2008 in terms of developments in broadcasting, compared to the previous years?] To my view, involutions on massive segments have been more than developments on separate segments in broadcasting. The involution is marked by 'strengthening' the positions of a number of broadcasters (by expanding area, increasing own productions, etc.), which have adopted editorial policies implying a type of journalism attached to the authorities; to informational parasitism despite the Strategy on covering the national territory with broadcasts; implying infiltration of foreign advertising into the local market; interference of politicians into the work of broadcasters trying to practice other types of journalism than the one liked by the authorities, and into the work of the regulating authority, etc. The developments especially refer to the productions offered by local broadcasters; to enlarging the number of TV stations measuring their audience monthly; increasing the volume of advertising directed to broadcasters, etc. Since the spectrum of frequencies is somewhat used up, the numeric growth of broadcasters has relatively stopped, compared with the previous years. But we felt there was a fight to redistribute the already distributed. One may suppose it will last till the digital TV is implemented. Anyway, neither the year 2008 has increased the predictability of the actions of both the regulating authority and of broadcasters. So the degree of incertitude still persists in the development of the sector.