"...For six minutes, Prime Minister Maia Sandu was "bombarded" with 13 well-targeted questions. Maia Sandu resisted the bombardment, yet she didn't walk away unscathed, without her image being affected. That begs several questions and conclusions…"
---
In the margins of the National Awards ceremony, which took place two days ago, a phenomenon that requires special attention occurred. Prime Minister Maia Sandu was invited to the Republic Palace lobby for press statements, as it is usually done. However, what happened afterwards was out of the ordinary. Based on the number of microphones seen in the online recordings, we can infer that no less than seven media companies delegated their representatives to the event. 13 flash questions followed, asked in the course of 6 minutes by a single reporter, the representative of Publika TV and, probably, the representative of the entire media-holding, which is said to be close to the former ruling party, the Democratic Party of Moldova. The 13 questions were grouped strictly into three categories: 7 questions about the recent visit of the Russian Minister of Defense, 4 about Maia Sandu' s eventual visit to Moscow and a question about the "empty room" where have been handed out the country’s most important National Awards. Both the framing and the context of the questions were detrimental to the prime minister's and the ACUM bloc's image. From the available footage, it is not clear what the first question was, however, it is clear that it was addressed by the same reporter.
The Publika TV reporter made a good impression as a professional, in the sense that she knew what she wanted and she did her homework, whether or not she received "help" from people outside the editorial staff. She was consistent, persistent and she resumed the line of questioning when she felt that she did not reach her objective. Moreover, she chose a strategic position so that all the cameras were focused on her and Maia Sandu.
Maia Sandu stoically resisted the attack, yet she was able to lead the conversation only once. At the beginning of the questioning she managed to talk about the event itself, for which so many various resources were spent and from which the Government, naturally, expected media and perhaps even social dividends. Maia Sandu immediately felt that she was cornered and made every effort not to leave a bad impression. At one point, she asked for the "help" of other present journalists, urging them to ask questions about the event. However, that was in vain…
It seemed that Prime Minister Maia Sandu was "machine gunned" with 13 well-targeted questions, in the course of six minutes: more than 2 questions per minute. Maia Sandu resisted the bombardment, yet she didn't walk away unscathed, without her image being affected. That begs several questions and conclusions…
For example, we can see that the PDM continues, even after leaving the government, to have an active or even "aggressive" media policy, as former Prime Minister Pavel Filip, the interim chairman of the party, has previously admitted. The PDM continues to heavily rely on its own or affiliated media bodies, which means that the group continues to invest extensively in media, including from a financial point of view. Otherwise, the "media-holding", the nucleus and the orbiting structures that unofficially surround it, would have collapsed like a house of cards. The collapse would have certainly been felt by the specialists in the field. While in opposition, the PDM has lost the opportunity to insolently and aggressively attack and restrict the activity of "unfriendly" media, yet this "loss" can be turned into an advantage, because, as a rule, the public and media consumers favour the opposition party more than the government.
The question is whether the current government, especially the ACUM bloc, understands with whom it is fighting for "the hearts, souls, minds and votes of the citizens", for the "deoligarchization and decapture of the state", if it has a proper media policy and the personnel that would not have allowed the above mentioned situation to occur, or at least would prevent in the future similar situations in which the prime minister or other important government officials could be involved?
Perhaps the question could be posed to the fellow journalists, witnesses of this act planned to turn into the biblical "Massacre of the Innocents"... Or, perhaps, is it better for guild colleagues to individually ask themselves this question?…
Valeriu Vasilică, IPN
