Media organisations say bodyguards superficial in replying to declaration on restricting media

Media organisations consider that the State Protection and Guard Service (PGS), by its reply, shows it has superficially examined the NGOs’ declaration on restricting the journalists’ access to events and drew no conclusion in this respect, Info-Prim Neo reports. A statement made later in January by media NGOs read that, by violating the provisions of the press law and exceeding their competences, the President’s bodyguards had forbidden the access of journalists from two TV stations and a publication into the National Palace, despite the existence of a beforehand agreement between the journalists and organisers as to mirroring the event. The journalists were forced to erase the pictures taken outside the National Palace, which contained images with president Voronin.” The signatories also referred to a similar case when a reporter was aggressed by the president’s bodyguards while filming Vladimir Voronin at the ceremony of inaugurating „The Country’s Fur-Tree.” The PGS recently replied to that declaration. Its chief, Igor Bodorin, maintains the fact invoked by the media organisations proved partially true. Yet he stresses the bodyguards only did their duties as provided for from their legal regulations. The PGS’s answer shows the journalists did not observe certain procedures in both cases. „You can see a terrorist in any journalist and you can cover his camera, but this is not just,” says Valeriu Saharneanu, the president of the Journalists Union, asked by Info-Prim-Neo to comment on the PGS’s reply. However Saharneanu insists journalists should make seen the documents proving their profession. They should know the law very well. He confirms such situations occur in other countries, too, given the fight against terror. The president of the APEL Electronic Press Association, Alexandru Dorogan, says the PGS’s answer shows clearly they drew no conclusion, although the service knows the facts pointed out by journalists proved true, if partially. The APEL president remarks the PGS’s answer does not indicate who is guilty of these cases and whether those people have been sanctioned. Also, one gets the impression they did not realise the facts per se, which are out of common. ”But this is but an impression, we have to see, if such cases happen again. I hope they won’t”, Dorogan concluded. Petru Macovei, the executive director of the Independent Press Association says the fact that an institution paid from public money dared to answer a declaration of the civil society is gladdening, a fact not happening so often. “Speaking for the form, it’s good they answered at all, but as for the contents, this answer is a formal one, wanted to tick off they listened to the call of the civil society,” he said. Although in the beginning of the letter, the PGS says the NGOs’ reasons proved partially true, below, it tries to persuade, on two pages, that all the SPP’s actions were legal in the aforementioned cases. Moreover, they suggest they are going to behave the same from now on. Thus, the content of the answer is totally discouraging for the effort of the organisations’ attempt to make the functionaries realise it’s inadmissible to bar the journalists’ right to do their job of informing the people,” Macovei concluded.