To know what is expecting us in the future, we must often study the past. A procedure of such a kind, in the context of the controversies related to the drafting, debating and approval of the Broadcasting Code, is suggested by broadcasting expert Ion Bunduchi, executive director of the Electronic Press Association APEL.
---
The broadcasting sector has two big headaches: a defective regulatory framework and an even more defective implementation practice.
White is black
The first broadcasting law was adopted in July 1995, not because the authorities wanted such a law. The Council of Europe simply recommended the newly independent states to use the mass media to strengthen democracy, including by building a public radio and television service. The Moldovan authorities that declared themselves democratic surely didn’t realize the importance of the free mass media for democratizing society. They simply followed the recommendations and adopted the Broadcasting Law in a hurry. The good point was that the broadcasting sector was to be ultimately government by a law, not by party decisions. The bad point was that the law was defective, while the ‘role of leader” of the party was (and remains in fact) what the authorities knew best. Practically, in each law and even in the Constitution, we can discover lexical-semantic samples and the law to which we refer is not an exception. Let’s remember that in accordance with the law, during about ten years the state-run company “Teleradio-Moldova” had been named ‘public broadcasting institution” . It is a way to say “white is black”, a kind of ostrich-camel. It actually continues to have the same status given that it is financed how as the Government wants. The flag was changed, not yet the bearer.
The Company’s work was to be coordinated by the Broadcasting Coordination Council (BCC) and it seemed that the national radio and television service was getting rid of state control. But it only seemed. In two years, Parliament amended an article (7(2)) and restores the right to name and dismiss the administration of the public television and radio stations, which was the prerogative of the BCC until then.
Who remembers Antena C?
The Broadcasting Law was amended over 30 times and every time ineffectively so that it became non-functional in several years as the provisions contradicted each other and could be interpreted as one wanted. Based on the same law, for example, the radio station Antena C (who remembers it) worked for several years and was then suspended for 70 days. In the period, it had to change its legal status, based on the same law. The fact that a good frequency didn’t work for the benefit of the people during 70 days bothered no one. I don’t say that someone would bother now.
Bill that appeared overnight defeats the one designed at noon
Civil society, concerned about what was going on with the legislation and in the sector, drafted several bills, in parallel with the translation and editing of all the Council of Europe’s recommendations concerning the mass media. But the bills became ‘non-flying birds’, as a chairman of the BCC said. This is fashionable in our country: the authorities assume commitments before the European partners, make resounding statements, are shown on TV and then forget about these. If someone, in this case civil society, tries to help fulfill the commitments, this is ignored. In 2001-2002, a bill on the public radio and television service was drafted and submitted to Parliament and… an alternative bill appeared the next day. They were both appraised by the Council of Europe. The civil society’s bill scored 9 out of 10 points, while the authorities’ bill gained 1 point. Parliament adopted the authorities’ bill called the Law on the National Public Broadcaster “Teleradio-Moldova”. It happened in the summer of 2002. Besides other things, it obliged the company to broadcast communiques of public interest received from the public authorities or to offer airtime for rapidly broadcasting official communiques of public interest to representatives of the public authorities, at request and free. The law had to be soon amended and the made changes ultimately resulted in redundancy, strikes, protests and abrogation of the law in two years because it became worthless.
“White” Code and “black” Code
In the spring of 2006, there was presented not a law, but a new draft Broadcasting Code. A similar bill was drafted by civil society, but this was ignored by the lawmakers. The representatives of civil society, as a matter of urgency, organized and held six public debates that resulted in over 400 proposals and recommendations for improving the authorities’ bill. Foreign experts were invited to five debates. The draft Code was about 80% modified and adopted by Parliament. Evidently, not all the proposals were accepted and these, which occupied 65 pages, remained outside the attention of lawmakers. If you remember, based on the Code, Antena C and EuroTV were to become private institutions, but, in fact, they were to become party-run outlets and they had been like this for many years, and the operation was described as ‘perfectly legal’.
One in the drawers since 2011, two baked at big fire
It became shortly evident that the new law does not solve a multitude of old problems. It wasn’t thus strange when, shortly after being adopted, the Code started to be repeatedly amended. But it didn’t become better. On the contrary, it became worse. The repeated appraisals of the Code clearly showed that a new law was needed. And this was formulated, at the end of the spring of 2011, and remitted to the expert parliamentary commission. It remained in the drawers until the spring of 2015, when it became a legislative initiative by a miracle. Meanwhile, the tragedy in eastern Ukraine happened and we witnessed an aggressive propaganda wave. The caring lawmakers started to immediately think about protection measures against propaganda. Bills to amend the current Code appeared and were appraised. In less than a year, this July Parliament has adopted in the first reading a new Broadcasting Code and… two more bills to amend the current Code. The last two were swiftly put to public debates so as to be passed in the second reading before the MPs’ vacation. Why was such a hurry needed? I don’t know, but this is suspicious.
Effects of the past and future broadcasting rake
The law of 1995 deformed the sector and undermined the freedom of the media. The law of 2002 made the institution of censorship at “Teleradio-Moldova” possible. The Code of 2006 placed restrictions on honest media outlets and allowed for unprecedented media ownership concentration. The destiny of the draft new Code that had been kept in the drawers for six years is not known. The bills to amend the current Code, whose declared goal is to combat propaganda, will not resolve the problems even if they are passed. But they could yet place new restrictions on someone.
We weren’t experts in making laws and this is explainable – before becoming independent, we were to adopt laws written by others. Instead, we skillfully made party decisions to accept, support and implement! But these skills play a trick when it is about the fastidious Lady Legislative Creation. And I don’t know how and, especially, when someone will be able to kiss its hand because the governments are for now changed, but their bad habits remain.
