“Teleradio-Moldova” dissatisfied with EP resolution and internal monitoring reports

The administration of the National Public Broadcaster “Teleradio-Moldova” denies the criticism leveled at it in the European Parliament’s Resolution on the situation in Moldova after the April 7 events adopted on May 7, Info-Prim Neo reports. The EP condemns the interruption of access to websites and TV stations, broadcasting of propaganda on public channels and denial to opposition representatives of access to the public media, saying that these actions are designed to isolate Moldova from public control and the control of the national and international press. “I don’t agree that the Opposition did not have access to the public media. We have the program “Contrapunct” in which all those that wanted could take part. We organized public debates before the elections, to which everyone was invited. There were persons that did not want to participate,” Mihai Scoarta, first deputy director of Moldova 1, said at Friday’s meeting of the Supervisory Board. Rodica Rusu, vice president of Radio Moldova, said that the editorial policy of the public broadcaster is determined by an artistic council composed of famous people. “No one (the Opposition – e.n.) can oblige us to make what they want. If we see that the moment is opportune and we are ready to hold a debate, we do it. It can happen that the moderator of a political program gets sick for example and then we will not do this program for a week, dear Opposition, because this is an author program,” she said. One of the five members of the Supervisory Board attending the meeting, artistic director of the National Theater “Luceafarul” Boris Focsa expressed his dissatisfaction with the fact that he is provided with “chewed” information. “You shouldn’t say that “we broadcast what we want”. An opinion is imposed on us. I am not stupid and can have my own opinion if you present me both of the sides. Why do you deprive me of the right to think? The public television and radio practically deprive me of the right to think,” he told Rodica Rusu. She replied that “it was as they usually do – provide two opinions”. In another development, the Board’s members expressed their opinions about the criticism thrown by the Electronic Press Association (APEL) in a case study on the covering of the election campaign. The study says that the Supervisory Board worked inadequately. The Board is accused of not monitoring the electoral programs broadcast by the public media and that it did not collect facts when it was sanctioned by the Broadcasting Coordination Council, but, on the contrary, acted as the company’s lawyer. Speaking about the study, Mariana Slapac, chairwomen of the Supervisory Board, said that she considers it partially biased and superficial. “It would be very useful if somebody monitored us and proposed constructive solutions how to work in continuation. It would be nice if Mr Dorogan (Alexandru Dorogan, the president of APEL – e.n.) said something good because the report contains only negative facts as if we are not Masters of Arts and Doctors of Science, but unintelligent, brainless persons. Those from the group of montors should see what everyone did in this life. I see no support in the criticism leveled for the sake of writing,” she said. Contacted by Info-Prim Neo, the executive director of APEL Ion Bunduchi said that the monitoring is a constructive factor. “The monitoring carried out by the NGOs under the aegis of APEL is designed to reveal the truth, not positive or negative aspects in the activity of the national public broadcaster. If the Supervisory Board wants to really address the problems, they should remedy the situation. The monitors consider that the Board was a lawyer for the public institution, not for the public,” he said “As regards the Opposition’s access to the public media, this fact is stipulated in the regulations of the Central Election Commission and in the Broadcasting Code. The public broadcaster cannot make reference to the editorial policy and provide access to the Opposition when it wants. The Broadcasting Code says clearly that there should be a socio-political balance in the news programs. The monitoring results point to this balance specifically. I don’t think there are more constructive data than the monitoring results,” Ion Bunduchi said.