Most of the media outlets continue to cover the election campaign in a more or less biased way, the editorial policy being influenced by the preferences of editors and owners. According to the third pre-electoral mass media monitoring report produced by the Association of Independent Press (API), the Association of Electronic Press (APEL) and the Independent Journalism Center (CJI), the situation as regards the balance of sources and the bias towards the election runners in the period between November 1 and 8 remained generally the same as during the previous weeks. The report was presented in a news conference at IPN on November 13.
As regards TV channels, APEL director Vasile State said that 37% of the conflict-centered news had only one source, while 16% of all the news items were biased. “Four TV channels ensured relative balance in covering the election campaign. These are: Moldova 1, ProTV, TV7, and N4. Moldova 1 and ProTV also ensured a greater diversity of the presence of election runners,” he stated. He added that in news items, Publika TV, Prime TV, Canal 2, and Canal 3 favored massively the PDM, both as regards the context in which the party’s representatives were presented and the frequency of their appearance. The Democrats were present in 46% of the news on Prime TV, 39% of the news on Publika TV, 45% of the news on Canal 3 and 30% of the news on Canal 2. On Jurnal TV, the PDM was presented in 45% of the news, but mainly in a negative context. On Accent TV, the PDM was also presented in a negative light. N4 and TV7 favored the PLDM.
API director Petru Macovei said the newspapers didn’t contain electoral education materials. Most of the news in papers were conflict-centered news and were presented with one source. Only half of the electoral materials were non-biased. The ratio of biased materials to non-biased ones at Nezavisemaia Moldova was 4:1, while at Moldova Suverana – 2.5:1. Nezavisemaia Moldova favored clearly the PCRM and presented negatively the PDM, PLDM, PSRM, PLR and the Party “Motherland” (PPP). Moldova Suverana favored the PLDM and presented the PCRM and PSRM in a negative context, sometimes also in a neutral context. At Ziarul National, the PLDM appeared only in a positive context, while the PSRM only in a negative context. Timpul favored mainly the PDM and criticized occasionally the PPP, the Electoral Block “Moldova’s Choice – the Customs Union” (BE-UV) and PSRM. Panorama favored the PPP and criticized the PLDM, PLR and PDM. Jurnal de Chisinau, Komsomolskaya Pravda v Moldove and Vesti Gagauzii presented the election runners mainly in a neutral context.
As to online media, CJI director Nadine Gogu said the news portals actively covered the election campaign, but most of them faced balance-related problems: in 73% of the conflict-centered news, there was presented only one source. The sources included mostly functionaries to the detriment of experts, politicians, ordinary people and men, the women representing only 10% of all the sources. This problem was met at other types of media outlets too. Though most of the portals didn’t clearly favor the election runners, Noi.md gave preference to PCRM, Deschide.md favored the PLDM and slightly the PSRM, Moldova24.info openly criticized the PLDM, while Jurnal.md presented the PDM and sometimes the PCRM, PLDM, PPP and PSRM in a negative light. Omg.md presented the PLDM and PDM almost always in a negative context, while the PPP and Renato Usatyi were favored both by the volume of airtime allotted and by the context in which they appeared. Omg.md also favored slightly the BE-UV and PSRM. Newsmaker.md, which was praised for its impartiality and balance in the previous reports, favored slightly the PSRM and put the BE-UV and PPP in a negative light. Politik.md favored openly the PPRM.
The radio stations were the most equidistant media outlets. However, Radio Plai favored the PDM, while Vocea Basarabiei – the PLDM.
The monitoring was performed within a project financed by the U.S. National Endowment for Democracy, the U.S. Embassy in Moldova and East-Europe Foundation with the funds allocated by the Government of Sweden through the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark (DANIDA).
