Hello! I would ask you right from the beginning to understand my natural subjectivity, giving that the article is being written from the perspective of my personal professional experience of the last 8 years, during which I built 2 television stations, 2 radio stations, 15 websites and worked with over 500 journalists and professionals in the field.
During the current year, the media space has been scandalized on a few subjects: the mandatory 8-hour quota of domestic (local) product for television stations with national license operating under the jurisdiction of the Republic of Moldova, the so-called "Anti-propaganda Law" prohibiting news bulletins, political talk-shows and military TV shows retransmitted including from Russia (from the countries that did not ratify the European Convention on Trans border Television), the concentration of TV advertising in Sales Houses, the change of television audience measurement and other topics.
I remember when in 2010 the appearance of Jurnal TV and Publika TV "revolutionized" the market with the local audiovisual content. A little bit later there were launched another 2 TV stations also based on local content – Canal 2 and Canal 3. After that, TV 7 is "forced" to switch exclusively to local content and transforms as a result into TV 8. Realitatea TV launches in 2014 with 15 hours of local content, but ceases broadcasting in 2018. During the last years, it could be noticed that more television stations appeared than disappeared, which is a clear sign that there exists desire and the minimum premises for the development of local televisions and there is enough people - who are creative and who are still living in Moldova. I do have a curiosity, why do we say it is impossible, when it's just complicated?
On the other hand, unfortunately, there exists a great impediment to the development of local televisions – 9 TV stations out of the most important 17 televisions located in Chisinau – are based on retransmission; 7 TV stations retransmit from Russia and the other 2 TV stations - from Romania. These TV stations represent about 70% of the TV audience and this way the effort to create a local product faces unfair competition, because the retransmitted content from Russia and Romania – two large financial markets (as well as from the point of view of capacity) invest much more in the quality of TV content. More than that, the local TV stations based on retransmission take advantage of the effort of the (Russian and Romanian TVs) and collect most of the money from the advertising market, because logically these TV stations have larger audiences and 75% of the advertising blocks on these TV stations is concentrated on the retransmitted slots. Moreover, another part of the money from the market (about 7-10%) goes abroad as payments for retransmission rights. I do have another curiosity, why do we indirectly fund the foreign content and not use the local money to develop the domestic market?
At the same time, the state, together with donors and international partners, are pro-actively involved in the development of local content. Parliament is voting amendments to the Audiovisual Code and establishes a minimum 8-hour quota for the domestic (local) product, while donors announce grants of over $ 2.5 million for producing local content, both in Romanian and Russian languages. On the other hand, namely the televisions based on retransmission, some of them even receiving grants, "alert" the international community and sometimes the national one, that 8 hours is too much and the market is not able for this effort, even if most of these TVs are active in Moldova for more than 10 years. I have recently read the „call” of RTR Moldova, PRO TV, TV8, Regional Canal, API and CJI to the international partners. I understand the logic and "motivation" of each of the signatories; even though it was strange to me how CJI "bit" it and signed it. I do have another curiosity, what should our development partners tell us - dear Moldovans, do not torture yourself and continue the retransmission, because you do it well?.
On the other hand, it has been a year since Parliament together with international development partners (Council of Europe, EU, US Embassy, Freedom House, Internews, etc.) created within the Joint EU /CoE Project “Promoting Media Freedom and Pluralism in the Republic of Moldova” the Working Group on Media Legislation, where national and international experts, representatives of media institutions and media NGOs, authorities, donors and interested persons contribute with expertise, knowledge and money to improve mass media legislation, through a complex approach to the field, for the first time in the 25 years of independence of the Republic of Moldova. The eight sub-groups have already generated several initiatives: the Audiovisual Media Services Code, the Information Security concept, the Law on Advertising, the National Media Development concept, amendments to the Law on Access to Information, the Law on Freedom of Expression, the Law on the Protection of Personal Data, the Law on Petitions, the Law on State Secrecy, the Law on Press, the Law on Postal Communications, amendments to the Contravention Code, the establishment of fiscal facilities for mass media by amending the Fiscal Code and several customs regulations, the Law on the Investment Scheme in the field of film and audiovisual works. All projects have been developed by media NGOs with the participation of national and international experts funded by development partners.
It was not easy to reach the Working Group solution and establish the objectives. The creation of the Working Group is a result of a compromise for the large volume of problems in the field, for the need of a complex approach to move to a new stage and, of course, along with the insistent demands of development partners fueled by the "complaints" activists from the field. Who and how participated and contributed to the activities in the subgroups and the Working Group I will not comment, as long as it is more important that things happen, that there exists progress and the legislation changes.I do have another curiosity, do we want or not to amend legislation and make the media market more transparent and functional, or we will continue the polemic without having any expertise?
My subjective conclusion is that a good part of these scandals are a ramification of the political struggle and the majority of the supra-vocals are caught up in this fight. I regret that only a few think about how to build a media market fairly and following the national interest, even though we have all the tools to rebuild the market such a way that it could operate on economic and pluralistic principles; following this paradigm 90% of the current discussed topics would naturally disappear and no longer exist. However, I also look forward to seeing the international expertise on the project Audiovisual Media Services Code, in order to understand if we are taking only a step forward to solve problems or jump into developing a new media market dimension.
The media market in Moldova historically formed itself as an atypical one and full of abnormalities. This is the reason for the main approach to the field should start from the objective of securing the informational space of the Republic of Moldova. The challenges are great, and at the moment Moldova does not have enough money to enter a competition on the quality of the product content, this is why the state must create conditions and protect the information space and the media market. I want to make it clear to everyone: we are arguing on how open or closed is the gate of the audiovisual yard, but in fact we do not have a fence: whoever wants may enter this yard and may do whatever wants.
The solution to this problem is both simple and complex – to give up to the retransmissions based on a domestic (local) television license.
Television is a business of social importance and media institutions should take the responsibility for correct information, for civic and patriotic education, for promotion of national values and many other things extremely important for the formation of a progressive and modern society.
Currently, only Moldova and some Central Asian countries still work with national licenses based on the retransmission of foreign TVs (RTR, NTV, ORT, TNT, REN TV, etc.) and this is an abnormality allowed and accepted in the 90’s because of the insufficient regulations in the field, but also because of the failure of the national market to assess the situation and develop properly. Although, if we were smarter and more patient for about two years, if we worked with inspiration and long-term predictions, today we would have had a more developed and competitive audiovisual. Anyway, at that time, "retransmissions" have quickly become a media business model, where the local financial and human effort is minimal, retransmit the program produced by others, and make enough money at the expense of others’ effort. This happens not only in TV but also in Radio. Here it would be worth telling when these phenomena started and who made business gifts to whom, but let the history judge them.
Please remember a very important truth: Television starts with money, it exists and it works for money, even close also because of money! This is true for any media institution around the world, not only for those located on the Moldova "planet".
If we're talking about money, I would like to open a parenthesis by telling you that there exist Sales Houses all over the world and this is a work mechanism in advertising; in Moldova the issue of TV money is related to advertising agencies and not to sales houses. In Moldova there are 3 Sales Houses, which cumulatively include 12 TV channels and accumulate about 82% of the TV audience in 2018 (the percentage decreased compared to 2017). In Romania, for example, there are three large TV groups (Pro - 47% Antena Group - 25%, Dogan Media (Kanal D) - 10%), that cumulatively collected 82% of the money from the market, with a total amount of 224 million Euros. Another thing I would like to tell you is that the Moldovan Online is operated by 5 Sales Houses - Numbers, Media Contact, PROdigital, Nova WEB and Interakt – that administer about 55% of the money from the market, while Google with Facebook and Odnoklasniki take almost 40% of the local money, which is about 4.3 million Euros in 2018.
Normally, we should have only local TVs (for example: M1, Jurnal TV, Publika TV, TV8, Canal 2, Canal 3, N4, TVC 21, Accent TV, etc.) and TV channels retransmitted originally as there are the hundreds of televisions provided by Moldtelecom, Orange TV, StarNet and the other over 80 cable TV and IPTV providers. More than that, cable TV and IPTV providers should normally pay to local TV stations a fee per subscriber, so that advertising and grants were not the only source of existence for televisions, as it happens for example in Romania where TVs receive millions or even tens of millions from cable providers, and as it happens in many other countries interested in developing their market.
I have to mention in this regard the experience of Ukraine and Georgia, where the decisions of local televisions to give up retransmissions happened overnight, but it revealed that in two years the native market becomes competitive and the audiovisual is developing in geometrical progression.
I will show you just a few effects and consequences of such a solution: it would boost to better harness the potential of journalists and the potential of creative and technical staff; it would stimulate wage and investment growth, develop the field through direct investment in local products, develop production houses with audiovisual content, increase the value of advertising and intellectual effort, help the advertising market expand by compressing audiences, diversify the advertising tools, eliminate unfair competition, diminish the influence of foreign propaganda content etc.
I would not like to comment on the anti-propaganda paradigm, because the fight against propaganda must be based on a very broad and complex approach, that would include and laws, and education, and systematic monitoring, and determined actions, and involved institutions, and international collaborations, and many other things. It's not a joke, because 95% of citizens have a TV set at home, 99% are watching TV daily because it's the cheapest form of recreation, and 76% of citizens want to watch movies dubbed in Russian.
Of course, a decision to give up retransmissions based on a local television license is categorical and requires a medium-term transition (2-3 years), which is an effort for those who manage television today, a training effort for all professions from audiovisual, an infrastructure effort for productions and many other things, but solutions exist. Legislation is changing, development partners are helping and supporting us; the will and the assumption of such a reform are important, because the states that had the courage to do it made great progress in the audiovisual industry.
Until then, our national audiovisual is only semi-national, and personal interests prevail over the national interest.
I do have a curiosity ... are we ready for all these challenges or we will continue retransmissions?
Dumitru Țîra
