When a media outlet affiliates itself with a political party it takes a first step towards its disappearance. Info-Prim Neo interview with Minister of Justice Alexandru Tanase

[ - In an earlier discussion, you said the press in Moldova should address real issues. Does our press omit such issues?] - The idea of real issues came to my mind when I realized that I has formed part of a government that did not have an Opposition. It is a unique case. Though formally there are Communists, in reality there was no Opposition because the criticism leveled by them at the Government wasn't heard, perceived and convincing to our supporters and vice versa. Their supporters are impenetrable. Such a situation is due to the fact that we live in a divided society with two communities and parallel worlds that do not intersect each other. We thus did not have an Opposition on our democratic segment. The press created certain difficulties in this respect. During many years, the press conveyed anti-Communist messages as they realized what the Communist administration was like and what limitation of the freedom of expression, pressure and attacks mean. Involuntarily, the press was sometimes forced to support the democratic change and it did it sincerely. After the Democratic forces came to power, the press continued to convey the same messages. One cannot change the messages in two days. Thus, the government was spared from the critical attitude of the press. The press anyway must have a critical attitude towards any administration. That's why I said that the press must address real issues. [ - Can you enumerate several real issues?...] - It is enough only to attentively follow the agenda of the meetings of the Government and Parliament and to try to analyze the projects that are promoted by the administration. We will see many subjects and situations when the press should have a critical attitude. For example, the adopted law on the budgetary-fiscal policy. As Minister of Justice, I disapproved of many proposals included in it. I provided arguments that all these proposals are ideas that belonged to Vasile Tarlev {(prime minister during the Communist rule – e.n.)} and reappeared as initiative of the Ministry of Finance. Though the executive expressed an interest in the the signals given by us, the proposals reached the legislative body and were passed. Now everybody is concerned. I think such a situation would have been avoided if the press had been more attentive and sounded the alarm that Tarlev's ideas may become law content in the Filat Government. Let's take another case, for example the reform of the Ministry of the Interior. I saw no article and approach in media outlets that would answer such a simple question as: how will the system of internal affairs look when the reform is completed? I tried to find out an answer from the documents I possessed, but was unable to form an opinion about the final objective. Replacing a department with another or merging a subdivision with another does not mean reform. The press did not show interest in this issue either. The electronic press, especially the Internet, lately cultivated an increased interest in sensational news that have no content. [ - If the press does not have real issues, what does it have?] - Not the press does not have real issues to address. The problem resides in something else. It does not devote attention to these issues because we are in a market economy. The press is selling its product. It is easier to sell an article saying 'an explosion occurred in the Alliance', 'a candidate argued with another'. Instead, a bill examined in Parliament is ignored. What is the essence of the government? The country is administered by laws, Government and Parliament decisions. The administration governs by them not by public appearances. This is an additional, promotional element. In a way, everyone has to sell their products and thus write news stories that can be sold. The simple and exclusive news sell better. But there is also another facet. Control over governance is therefore lost. [ - Another facet exists then – one can develop a category of consumers of superficial information...] - It is true, but the people in general assimilate what's more simple. We can make an assessment in any society, determine the ratting of an analytical program or an entertainment program based on funny stories of bad taste. However, the people perceive what is more simple. I do not want to criticize the press, but this is also a problem of the journalists. Their ability to catch sensations is overdeveloped to the detriment of the ability to catch important things with content. I attended the opening of the judiciary year at the European Court of Human Rights and had a discussion with the press when I returned home. It was an interesting subject for discussion. For the first time since we joined the European Convention on Human Rights, the number of complaints to the ECHR fell by one third. This means that our judicial system commits by one third fewer illegalities. I was sure that the subject will attract attention from the press. But nobody expressed interest. Later I discussed with a a number of reporters to see what's happened. They showed no interest. “The number decreased by 30%! The police say the crime rate fell by 50% this year and there are fewer criminals. Nevertheless, we are afraid to go out at night”. I think we must address the issues that do not look very well too. Otherwise, public opinion will not have control over governance and all kinds of promises will be made, but not fulfilled. [ - What do you think about the state of the Moldovan press today? As we are marking the Press Freedom Days this week, just how much freedom and legal protection can the press enjoy in Moldova?] - I think that the press is breathing much freer today than, for example, two years ago. The press is not suppressed anymore, at least in the direct meaning of the word. However, the press is facing another challenge now, that of self-censorship. It is a deeply ingrained belief that it's not good form to criticize the government. It's rather curious. During the Communist government there were instructions to intimidate those who express criticism of the government. Today everyone practices self-censorship and so we are returning to the point where the Communists left us. And this is the fault of the press, the democratic press. I think that the press is experiencing some state of frustration or fear in recognizing that what it had supported for quite a long period of time has proved to be not what it expected. Undoubtedly, in time all the media will learn to express criticism or look at things with a critical eye. This does not mean being an opposition press, this means doing your job right. Today the press feels much more comfortable and I don't think that we will ever return to a situation where the press is so throttled like it was in the past. In fact, it is likely that the Internet will gradually replace all the other forms of media, including print media. Bill Gates once said that within five years we would be laughing at today's television technology, because the Internet is going to revolutionize it. So who knows where we'll be in five years and if the state will be able to intervene to any extent, if at all, in the process of TV frequency distribution, if there will be frequencies at all, if they will be of any use. So a total control like during the communist rule is not possible anymore, today and in the future. [ - Even if the Communists return to power?] - I think that if the Communists were to return, they would not step on the same rake again. I've talked with many of their lot, and, believe me, many of them recognize the mistakes made under Voronin. I'd rather abstain from giving names, but some leaders of the Communist Party admitted that it was wrong to use the repressive state machine to take over businesses, to eliminate political rivals, to involve the police in political affairs. On the other hand, we also made mistakes which I'm sure will have painful repercussions us if they come to power again. I'm talking about the conjuncture-based legal amendments. If its suits us to elect a kolkhoz head with one vote, we change the law and give him that vote, if it doesn't suit us, we introduce a supermajority requirement. Rules must be rules and they should be predictable. The Communist Party, which originates from the Soviet system where the law was perceived as something rigid, didn't play with the legislative system, except for the abuses made in respect to the Election Code; those amendments were intended to disadvantage their rivals, by eliminating electoral blocs, by raising the electoral threshold, etc. [ - Let's return to the situation of the media. Some say that the press today has intermingled with both business and politics] - I don't think that there is a fusion between the press and the business. Very few businessmen invest in the media in order to promote their businesses, in fact, I really don't know any such cases. There is one media institution in Chisinau, a periodical belonging to a businessman, who uses the money from his entrepreneurial activity to finance that newspaper. But this is not done in order to promote his business. This is rather an instrument to protect his existence in an unstable country like Moldova. When you own a media organization you can protect yourself from attacks. In some way, you make the government respect your rights. This is why there isn't a fusion with the economic environment. On the other hand, there is certainly a coalescence with politics, because money is controlled by politics. This is a profitable business and of course politics cannot exist without media outlets; political actors are interested in financing and having control over media outlets. However, I believe that the affiliation of a media organization with a political party is a first step toward the disappearance of this organization. And there are dozens of such examples. [ - What will happen with the press in the foreseeable future, in a year or two or three?] - I believe that we will see an explosion of the Internet media. I think that many periodical print publications will reduce their circulations to the minimum and will migrate to the Internet. I also think that with the shift to the digital technology, television will experience spectacular changes as well. This will result in the appearance of many, cheap frequencies for anyone interested in starting a television business. I believe that we should intervene with legal amendments to reduce significantly and drastically the authority of the Broadcasting Coordination Council, to transform it from a police-like actor into a regulatory agency which helps televisions grow. The future of the press, I think, belongs to those who invest in the Internet industry. Let's not forget that Moldova, when compared to other former USSR countries, does pretty well in terms of Internet penetration rate and number of users. This is a very good sign. I really was impressed to found out that in a country with very poor roads and infrastructure like Moldova, the national operator Moldtelecom offers high-quality Internet services at speeds higher than in Europe. Moldtelecom also offers digital television, 54 channels, at very reasonable rates and terms. And this is just the beginning. This is the future of the press. Those who will adapt themselves and transform this challenge into an opportunity will prevail. [Valeriu Vasilica, Info-Prim Neo]