The Soviet press, to a certain extent, was very honest as it frankly declared that it disseminates propaganda and event did it with all its force, said expert Ion Bunduchi, executive director of the Electronic Press Association APEL. He noted that now the media outlets say they are independent, but actually have a strong hidden or open bias based on particular goals.
In the public debate “Anti-propaganda law”: necessity, advantages and risks”, organized by IPN News Agency and Radio Moldova, the expert said that in the conditions of the information era, it is hard to imagine that the people will be provided with aggressive and noxious propagandistic products that not only ignore, but also distort the public interest. “It should be noted that it is wrong to believe that the TV viewers watch what they want, not what they are being served. As a result of manipulating propaganda, we see that the right to vote, which is one of the basic human rights, is being eroded,” stated Ion Bunduchi.
According to him, by the proposed measures the state is trying to fulfill the obligation to ensure the people’s prospection, including the information one. “There is not crystalized experience in this field. It is known the practice of Ukraine, which imposed harsh bans amid the military conflict fueled by the Russian Federation. The Baltic States center on something else. The effort of Brussels is well known. As to the situation in our country, we should not expect that the quality of the information landscape will improve after February 12, when the new legal provisions take effect. The propagandistic messages can be further disseminated not only by news and feature programs, but also by culinary programs for example, in a camouflaged way,” stated the APEL director.
“It is serious that our state throughout its existence didn’t have a coherent information policy that would have been based on the public interest and would have educated a responsible consumer who thinks critically and has a critical attitude to the spread messages as propaganda cannot be banned. Therefore, the consumers should select the information that meets the public interest and fuels their conscious choice. We should think critically,” he said.
“I’m sure that after February 12 a large part of the public will be surprised not to find particular programs in the broadcast schedule. But the business entities will be most affected as it is impossible to negotiate and replace some 80 of the 100 retransmitted channels, for example, in the remaining period of time.”
The public debate “Anti-propaganda law”: necessity, advantages and risks” was the 86th installment of the series of debates “Developing political culture by public debates” that are held with support from the Hanns Seidel Foundation of Germany.
