Konstantin Starysh about freedom of mass media, mass-media. Deputy PCRM in the Moldavian Parliament gives the detailed analysis to a condition of mass-media in Moldova. Dear sirs deputies, colleagues-journalists, the European experts. The theme of today's parliamentary hearings is actual, first of all, because on an example of the situation which have developed in the Moldavian media most visually it is possible to be convinced of that, how much all is reversible, as it is easy to roll down to terry totalitarianism under banners of progress, democracy and the European integration.
Far behind those times when, switching channels, the Moldavian spectator could make objective and - the main thing - own, instead of the imposed point of view about a situation in the country. Television channel NIT closing has put an end to pluralism of opinions for which absence the unique oppositional television channel in Republic Moldova has been punished. Closing of television channels and furthermore - closing of oppositional television channels in one country of the world cannot serve as the proof and a sign of democratic character of a mode. A licence withdrawal result on an announcement of oppositional television channel NIT was that have appeared regulation principles in the media market are amazed, it has appeared the judicial system which in the conditions of force-majeur, - and closing of popular television channel is unconditional force-majeur is amazed, - some months in succession tighten removal of a definitive verdict and therefore interferes with the reference in the European court under human rights. It has appeared all present board which at all did not hide intention to finish with objectionable television channel is amazed. But it is the worse and most terrible, that the principle of pluralism has been amazed. In wide, basic, public sense of this word. Wide, existing in a society and the pluralism of opinions existing on air, is replaced by imitation of pluralism within the limits of certain debatable programs within the limits of each, separately taken channel. To these programs even periodically invite representatives of opposition. Often invited represent opposition formal, loyal. But even in that case when among invited there is a representative of real opposition, against it one is exposed three representatives of the power, by quantity of parties of an alliance, some by so-called experts who - behind the rare exception show hyperloyalty of the operating power. And if to take into consideration, as a moderator, as a rule, plays their party - it is clear - about what pluralism there is a speech. When seven against one, it - not the pluralism, is dishonest fight.
There was a total substitution of concepts. It is enough to switch channels to find out terrible, unworthy 21st century, a thing. The Moldavian aether has ceased to be various. Today on everything broadcasting in an aether, the Moldavian television channels speak same. Whether reminds you these are mossy times of so-called stagnation? When on two-three semi-official television channels there was one, the semi-official point of view, it - is unique true, and so-called enemy voices - were ruthlessly suppressed. Today we observe total a victory сусловских principles of the organisation of a television announcement, main of which - heterodoxy is a crime.
Meanwhile, during times which the today's power - in obvious calculation that at foreign partners old templates will work in historical memory, names «a communistic mode» - with 2001 situation till 2009 year in the media market was essentially other. It is a question at all what has been passed at this time the new law about аудиовизуале; what exactly at this time the State broadcasting company has received not only the status, but also all mechanisms of the Public company; that the coordination council structure on tele-radio broadcasting was typed by principles which assumed the broadest parliamentary so - a public consensus. It is a question, first of all that in those days on air of Republic Moldova the real parity between loyal the authorities and channels oppositional to these power was generated. Oppositional ORT, the Moldavian version of the First Russian channel, proprietors broadcast, management and which command - have created subsequently, having received from the state the licence for an announcement and the frequency, the oppositional channel of TV-7. At that time broadcast ultraoppositional television channel ABOUT-TV, on hearings and gamble about which closing some parties presented in a present ruling alliance, have constructed the whole pre-election campaign. Whether it is necessary to say, that in those days, unlike that occurs today, about the closing, let even very inconvenient the authorities, television channels speech basically did not go. People, spectators, the Moldavian society had a choice. They had possibility to observe essentially different two approaches in an estimation of activity of the power, had possibility to compare, do own, instead of the conclusions imposed to it. Today, in particular after television channel NIT closing, at them such possibility is not present more. The television panel which in all civilised countries spectators vote for this or that channel, for this or that content, for this or that creative, political approach to illumination of events has ceased to be a pluralism and freedom in choosing symbol. Today in Moldova not to formal signs, and upon - there is either no that, or another. Neither pluralism, nor a freedom in choosing. Sad, depressing Brezhnev's monotony.
Those channels which broadcast today on air which form, and are more true - impose public opinion, basically belong to oligarchical groupings, not simply accrete with the today's power, and being the today's power. Dear sirs the European experts, actual owners, real proprietors of these channels are today in this hall. On the whole, behind the rare exception, it is channels - дотационные, not earning on own maintenance. Money, wages, it is frequent - defiantly high against the general poverty, these channels receive from these people, the actual owners which ears stick out of the various offshore, but bodies and which interests are in this hall. Whether it is necessary to wait from these mass media though for any objectivity according to events occurring in Moldova. You often observed revolt of bees against honey? You can present yourselves a situation at which the journalist receiving directly from the owner very decent salary, will spend fair, unbiassed journalistic investigation concerning own employer? You can present yourselves a situation at which the television channels receiving money from representatives of the present power, will keep objectivity concerning opposition and its ideas?
Dear sirs the European experts, today it is necessary to address only to you as the present power does not take in attention, tries not to notice opinions of a huge part of the Moldavian society discriminated today by closing of oppositional television channel, not having possibility to receive the alternative point of view. You should understand, that than covered the power it is a crime against a society, it discredited democratic institutes in Moldova.
And the Moldavian society never will understand, if it suddenly happens under a rough applause of the European experts and officials.