Monitoring Report No. 4 Elements of Propaganda, Information Manipulation and Violation of Journalism Ethics in the Local Media Space

December 1, 2016 - February 1, 2017

The report was developed by the Independent Journalism Center within the Media campaign against false and biased information - STOP FALS!, conducted by the Association of Independent Press (API), Independent Journalism Center (IJC) and Association of Independent TV Journalists (ATVJI).

GENERAL INFORMATION From 1 December 2016 to 1 February 2017, the Independent Journalism Center monitored 12 media institutions – news portals and TV channels, to identify whether the broadcast journalistic materials contained violations of deontological rules and elements of informational manipulation. It was analyzed how these media reflected the events of public interest in politics, economy, and foreign policy, if there were respected the journalistic rules on verification of information from several sources, diversity of opinions, in order to ensure the balance of the conflict news, etc. Invoking the Journalist’s Ethical Code and the scientific reference works allowed to detect methods and techniques used by Moldovan media to influence the wide public by spreading manipulating messages. The Purpose of Monitoring To establish whether the media in addressing issues of public interest, respected the professional ethics or used procedures of manipulation, and to identify those processes. The monitoring was aimed, as well, to expose the mistakes of journalists, deliberate ones or not, in fact stating, so as that case studies and reports would have an instructive role. Another t purpose of the monitoring was to help to increase vigilance of the media consumers when it came to risks of unsafe information sources. Thus, the monitoring helps consumers to understand how the media can manipulate, to be able to distinguish between a manipulator journalistic product and a product that reflects equidistant reality. The selection criteria of the media outlets monitored were:  Coverage area – national;  Language: Romanian and Russian;  Impact – circulation and audience. Media outlets monitored: Audiovisual: Publika TV (news on the website Publika.md), Prime TV, Jurnal TV, Accent TV, RTR (newscasts prepared in Republic of ), REN TV; Online press: Ziarulnațional.md, Pan.md; Gagauzinfo.md, Novostipmr.com, Sputnik.md, Deschide.md. Note: Jurnal TV has been monitored until 15 January 2017, when, due to ammendments to program schedule, newscasts were suspended. Methodology There were selected political, economic and social events of major public interests, which occurred during the monitoring period, there was studied the way to reflect those events in the media. There was analyzed the language and images used by journalists, the mode of selecting events for coverage, accuracy of source quoting, tone of exposure etc., in terms of the Journalist’s Ethical Code1, of the guidelines and recommendations in the field of quality and responsible media2, and notions of manipulation and propaganda, in the sense offered by the Dictionary of Sociology3. Manipulation is defined as: "the act of making a social actor (person, group, community) think and act in a manner compatible with the interests of the initiator and not with his/her interests, by using persuasion techniques that intentionally distort the truth giving the impression of freedom of thought and decision. Unlike the influence of the rational persuasion type, manipulation is aimed not to a more accurate and deeper understanding of the situation but to imprinting in the mind of a convenient understanding, falling back both on the misleading by using forged arguments and on the emotional non-rational levels’." Propaganda: "the systematic activity of transmission, promotion or dissemination of doctrines, theses or ideas from the standpoint of a particular social group and ideologies, in order to influence, change, form concepts, attitudes, opinions, beliefs and behaviors. The propaganda is performed in such way as to lead to the realization of the goals and interests of the group it serves, and there is no value-neutral or objective propaganda." Main subjects monitored between 1 December 2016 and 1 February 2017:  Validation presidential elections results by the Constitutional Court, 13 December 2016;  Approval at the first reading of bills on tax amnesty and capital liberalization, 16 December 2016;  Education workers' strike, 17 December 2017;  's statement on the cancellation of the EU Association Agreement, 17 January 2017;  Government activity report for one year in office, 20 January 2017.

II. GENERAL TRENDS Monitoring data shows that some journalistic materials were made with deviation from the deontological rules. As well, following elements of propaganda and informational manipulation practices were identified:

1 Moldovan Journalist Code of Ethics, http://consiliuldepresa.md/fileadmin/fisiere/documente/cod_d_rom.pdf 2 Style Guidelines Containing the Ethical Rules for Journalists, API, http://www.unicef.org/moldova/Ghid_Etica_Jurnalist_RO.pdf 3 Catalin Zamfir, Lazar Vlasceanu, Dictionary of Sociology, Bucharest, 1998, p.332, p.457. http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/nccmn/images/1/1c/Dictionar-de-Sociologie-Catalin-Zamfir-Lazar- Vlasceanu.pdf/revision/latest?cb=20150813042511&path-prefix=ro Selective presentation of the facts - Publika TV, Prime TV, Deschide.md, Accent TV; Ignorance of certain facts when covering a subject - this deviation was identified on Publika TV, Prime TV, Accent TV, Pan.md, Sputnik.md, RTR, Gagauzinfo.md, Newspmr.com; Elimination of subjects 4 from the agenda of the media- Accent TV, RTR, Pan.md; Lack of diversity of opinions - break of the Ethical Code and Broadcasting Code found on Publika TV and Prime; Blurring - featuring non-relevant details or information to the detriment of core issues - Publika TV; Generalization - presentation of a sole opinion or idea as the opinion of the majority - Publika TV; Manipulation through images - techniques employed by Publika TV.

III. DATA ANALYSIS 1st Subject. Validation of presidential elections results on 13 November 20165 On 13 December the Constitutional Court validated the results of the second round of presidential elections, and Igor Dodon, the leader of Socialists Party, was officially affirmed as the President of the Republic of Moldova. During the meeting, representatives of the Action and Solidarity Party (PAS) whose candidate, , lost the electoral race on 13 November, lodged a formal objection to contest the elections results, alleging also the fact that thousands of from Diaspora were unable to cast their vote, thus requested to invalidate the election results. Same things were demanded by several young people from a unionist organization who protested in front of the Court. Publika TV, in their main newscast of the day, and Prime TV at First news (Primele știri) presented information in a selective manner, they announced the decision of the Constitutional Court and informed about the protest of young people, however they bypassed the objection lodged by PAS and the arguments supporting their claims. Given that after the second round, hundreds of Moldovan citizens living abroad brought a case before the court for alleging breach of their voting rights, and PAS took several legal steps on the breach of election legislation, the arguments for the invalidation on election outcomes put forward

4 HERJEU, Radu. Manipulation, Propaganda and Persuasion Techniques on TV, https://dorinpopa.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/herjeu-radu-tehnici-de-propaganda-manipulare-si-pers- in-tv.pdf 5 Case study 1, http://mediacritica.md/ro/studiu-de-caz-validarea-rezultatelor-alegerilor-prezidentiale- de-la-13-noiembrie-2016-omisiuni-si-abordare-selectiva/ by party's representative were relevant facts, without these facts the news story was incomplete. As well, the decision on the legality of presidential elections is one of the most important events for a country, therefore comprehensive coverage of all facts about that day, as well as appropriate background were a must. Both news stories were built on selective facts, some facts were ignored, and ignorance is an informational manipulation tactics. A similar technique of event coverage was employed during the newscast on Accent TV, where nothing was mentioned about the objection lodged by PAS and the protest in front of the Constitutional Court, Sputnik.md as well ignored several details. The portal informed in a selective manner about the validation of elections results, only party covering relevant facts. Also, online publication Pan.md, in both news reports about the event, did not pay attention to meeting details - CEC report or PAS objection. Other monitored media, by and large, covered the event in line with deontological norms, ensuring diversity of opinions and balance of sources. 2. Approval in the first reading of bills on tax amnesty and capital liberalization6 On 1 December 2016, a group of MPs, including , Speaker of the Parliament submitted two bills proposing that persons who own undeclared capital in form of goods, cash, stock or shares in trading companies, to declare it and pay 2% of given capital value, thus legalizing it, however without being punished for avoiding paying taxes. Both bills were approved in the first reading as a matter of urgency on 16 December 2016. NGOs in the field of economics, integrity and anti-corruption explained the main dangers related to the adoption of such laws. Also, several Opposition MPs stated that this was a way for the Government to legalize money they obtained through the 2014 bank fraud. Media covered this subject on 14 December when public debates were held in the Parliament and on 16 December the bills were voted in the plenary. On16 December, representatives of several NGOs protested in front of the Parliament, demanding to withdraw the bills from Parliament's agenda. Four days later, on 21 December, World Bank Office in Chișinău stated in a press release that the proposed provisions imply "a series of integrity risks." Publika TV and Prime TV broadcast a news story about the debate in the Parliament 'Bill on capital liberalization and fiscal stimulation. Statements of the Speaker of the Parliament,' which lacked diversity of opinions. The ration of sources cited in the news story - three government representatives favoring the amnesty and one expert with neutral opinion - reveal lack of balance and no diversity of opinions. As well, facts were presented in a selective manner; sequences where debate participants critiqued the bill were not featured in the

6 Case study 2, http://mediacritica.md/ro/studiu-de-caz-adoptarea-prima-lectura-proiectelor-de-lege- cu-privire-la-amnistia-fiscala-si-liberalizarea-capitalului/ news story. As a result, this story, which was supposed to be a news item, was not informative, as it didn't answer one of the main questions of a news story: why? Why did authorities propose new provisions, why this happens now, why these changes are necessary for the country and what are the consequences of such tax amnesty? In both cases and to the same extent, reporters of Publika and Prime - failed to deem it appropriate to reveal the bill authors and didn't say that one of them was Andrian Candu, cited as a source in the news story. This detail is important, because the proposed provisions were vehemently objected on the ground of their harmfulness to country's economics and integrity system. Additionally, the reporters also ignored the fact that the bills were examined as a matter of urgency, without requesting Government's opinion, which is a compulsory procedure, and without consulting development partners - IMF and World Bank. Ignorance was also employed in news story on Prime TV and Publika TV on 16 December, when both bills passed in the first reading. Reporters covered the event without mentioning about the protest in front of the Parliament and the debate in the plenary meeting, where Opposition MPs heavily criticized the bill. Deschide.md produced a news story entitled: 'Candu said during the debate: capital liberalization and fiscal stimulation are certain rights, and not duties ,' where the reporter extensively explained the meaning of these provisions and how these are going to work, however, the reporter bypassed critical opinions expressed by other participants, and only cited pro governmental officials who favored the bill. The reporter made only a passing reference to the opinion of economics expert Roman Chircă, who said "such an initiative is welcomed, however an important component is missing, namely people's motivation to declare their property." Therefore, due to biased selection of opinions and lack of opinion diversity, readers haven't received objective information, as they haven't learned that proposed provisions involve also risks that were presented in detail and argued by civil society representatives. Ignorance of certain subjects from the daily agenda is an informational manipulation technique frequently used. In their newscasts RTR Moldova has covered neither the debate on 14 December nor the bill voting two days later. However, they took over a news story from golos.md " 'Maia Sandu protested against the bill on capital liberalization (Майя Санду вышла на протест против законопроекта о либерализации капитала),' which said that Maia Sandu, PAS leader, joined civil society representatives in a flash-mob that was organized in front of the Parliament. The subject about the two bills was not covered by Accent TV on either 14 December or on 16 December . Nothing was mentioned on online portals gagauzinfo.md and newspmr.ru. Other monitored media, by and large, covered the issue in line with deontological norms, ensuring diversity of opinions and balance of source. 3. Education workers strike7 In the beginning of January 2017, Trade Union Federation of Education and Science Workers submitted to the Government a list of demands, including a 50% increase of teaching staff salaries. Trade union leaders discussed the matter during several meetings with representatives of the Cabinet of Ministers, and on 17 January several hundreds of teaching staff demonstrated on the Main Square of Moldova's Capital (PMAN). As representatives of the executive promised to change the methodology to calculate the salaries in education, adjust scholarships by 5%, increase single allowance for novice teachers, trade union leaders announced they terminate the protest and will wait Government to implement its promises. Publika TV covered the issue in several newscasts broadcast during 10-18 January. All stories were presented from governmental perspective, without clearly presenting the claims of teaching staff, which is selective presentation of facts. As well, the sequences of bargaining between trade union leaders and Prim- minister featured in the news reports on the TV channel, and later posted on their webpage, were selected in such a way that only Prim-minister's arguments were presented and none of the claims voiced the trade union leaders were featured. (For instance, news stories 'Greater salaries in education! Prim- minister Pavel Filip demands,' of 10 January and "Prim-minister Pavel Filip in dialogue with trade unions for education: solutions to five of six claims were found," of 11 January). In spite of the fact that the title and the lead of the second news story mentioned about six claims, further in the text, nothing is said what these claims were about and were the five solutions identified. As well, from this news story, media consumers didn't learn the opinion of trade union leaders who bargained with the Prim-minister the five solutions. The ignorance and selective presentations of facts - was again used in the news story tackling the same issue on 16 January: 'Pavel Filip, at the meeting with trade union representatives: Solutions can be identified while bargaining." On the day when teaching staff protested, at 16.47, a news report was posted on Publika.md 'Education trade union terminates the protest, without mentioning anything that earlier that day there was a protest in front of the government. On the same evening, in the day's main newscast on Publika TV, Newsroom, which started at 19.00, the event was mentioned, however without providing too much relevant information. Reporters said that demonstrators demanded "increase of teaching staff salary," without specifying the ratio of increase. The wage growth rate was not mentioned in either the text or in the few vox populi recorded by the journalist.

7 Case study 3, http://mediacritica.md/ro/studiu-de-caz-protestele-angajatilor-din-invatamant-relatate- cu-omisiuni-pentru-face-loc-laudelor-la-adresa-guvernului/ According to the news story, allegedly, after vice minister of Education, Elena Cernei, "stated that members of the Government looked into the possibility of increasing teaching staff wages," trade union leaders decided to terminate the protests. Specific information concerning solutions to teaching staff claims were presented in neither the statements of vice minister Cernei, nor in the reporter's text. Such coverage may be qualified as blurring. The channel attempted to hide away, as much as possible, the information that conveys the idea that during Filip governing there exist certain social problems and that somebody is unhappy about the way certain sectors are managed. News items covering the same issue on Prime TV we based on a sole source - of an official, thus expressing only Government's position: 'Prim-minister Pavel Filip in dialogue with trade unions for education: solutions to five of six claims were found' and 'New pay systems for teachers. Government negotiates with teachers' trade unions.' Other monitored media, by and large, covered the issue in line with deontological norms, ensuring diversity of opinions and balance of source. 4. Igor Dodon's statement on the cancellation of EU Association Agreement On 17 January 2017, in Moscow, President Igor Dodon stated that if his party wins parliamentary elections in 2018, Moldovan legislature will cancel the EU- Moldova Association Agreement allegedly because it hasn't resulted in any benefits for the country. Termination of the Agreement, which was signed on 27 June 2014, would mean the change of European vector of Republic of Moldova. Publika TV broadcast several news items concerning Igor Dodon's visit, however the information about the statement on Association Agreement termination was presented in the context of Vlad Plahotniuc' reaction on the statement ( of Moldova (PDM) leader). Thus, at 16.40, a news story was posted on the webpage Publika.md 'The REACTION of the PDM leader, Vlad Plahotniuc, on Dodon's statement on the termination of EU-Moldova Association Agreement,' which was a sequence from one of the newscasts on Publika TV. From this news story, audience learned first of all that Vlad Plahotniuc, PDM, and, in a passing reference, Valeriu Munteanu, (PL), objected the cancellation of the Agreement, and only after that it was mentioned that Dodon had such an intention. In this case an inversion of facts was employed, aiming to highlight and impose an opinion, in this case, that of Vlad Plahotniuc and PDM - to the detriment of natural flow of facts presentation: first there was a statement, then a reaction followed. News item 'Dodon, in Moscow: If PSRM will have a majority, I will cancel EU Association Agreement,' accompanied by the video from Moscow was posted on the website Publika.md only at 19.08. Further, Publika TV broadcast also the opinion of several experts invited to the studio, but also the reaction of Prim- minister Pavel Filip to Igor Dodon's statement about the Agreement. In the news story 'Prim-minister Pavel Filip comments to the international press the statement made by the President Dodon in Moscow,' reporters announced that Moldova's prim-minister told Associated Press that "he will not allow anybody to cancel Association Agreement," his statements were taken over by several media from the , and from Europe." However, of all links included in the news report, only two cite prim-minister's statement, other links were either inaccessible, or having no reference to the prim-minister. The way this issue was covered - through facts inversion and emphasis on the 'success' in the international press of the prim-minister from Chișinău, but also, lack of reactions of other local politicians who could have been interviewed by the journalists to comment President's statements, reveal that it was intended to create the 'rescuer' image of Vlad Plahotniuc and Pavel Filip, and not so much to inform and explain to the general public the context and the consequences of Igor Dodon's statements. Prime TV broadcast two news stories on this issue: the first one about Igor Dodon's statement, and the second one similar to the news item from Publika, Vlad Plahotniuc's opinion (two paragraphs), PDM position (three paragraphs) and one sentence from Valeriu Munteanu's reaction on . In turn, portal Pan.md did not post any news story about Dodon's statement in Moscow. Exclusion/ignorance from daily agenda of relevant issues or their replacement with other insignificant issues is a manipulation technique. Gagauzinfo.md covered Igor Dodon's visit to Moscow, his statement about the Agreement was presented in a video lasting 29 minutes, which was taken over by Gagauzinfo.md.As well, the portal ignored the reactions towards Igor Dodon's statements. Accent TV extensively covered the visit to Moscow, the statement about Association Agreement termination was inserted in one of news stories, along with other sequences from Igor Dodon's discourse. The TV channel failed to transmit the reactions of national politicians on the statements of President Dodon, including that on the Association Agreement. Also RTR Moldova, in their main newscast of the day, included the statement into a collage, described by the anchor as containing the most relevant statements of Igor Dodon and . Journalists treated the intention to terminate the Association Agreement as any other statement, and ignored the reactions that were generated by this statement in the country on the same day. As well, background information on this issue were missing. Other monitored media, especially Ziarul Național and Deschide.md - covered the event in line with deontological norms, ensuring diversity of opinions and balance of sources. 5. Government activity report for one year in office8 On 20 January 2017, Prim-minister Pavel Filip held a briefing summing up the activity of the Government he has been leading for a year, marked on that day. Prim-minister reviewed, in a positive light, the Executive's actions and addressed several messages to the Opposition, reproaching them, among others, for pessimist forecasts and that they did not believe the governmental team would succeed. Publika TV, in the main newscast of the day, Newsroom, broadcast a report made of several parts, including a live footage. Reporters passed on Prim-minister's statements and commented them, highlighting that actions listed by Pavel Filip were achieved 'due to team efforts he is leading.' In their messages and comments, Publika journalists, de facto, replaced Government officials, who, naturally defend their cause and fight against political opponents. As well, reporters ignored background information, which, in a news story, aims to complete the picture and help media consumers gain an accurate impression about the events. For instance, the news stories on Publika TV failed to mention that Filip Government was sworn in at night, in spite of massive street protests; also the fact that the Law on Prosecution, listed by the Prim-minister as a success, was voted by the Parliament, but not by the Government, and this this wasn't Government's initiative, but a condition set by European Partners. Also on Publika TV, on 21 January, a news story based on vox-populi was broadcast 'We are content! What Moldovans say about Pavel Filip Government,' In the introduction, the presenter stated that 'Government led by Pavel Filip passed the trust test' and that 'Moldovans gave a high score to the Cabinet of Ministers,' and the eight persons featured in the street interviews had only positive opinion towards Filip, which reveals that these opinions were selected on purpose to create the impression that there is a general (positive) opinion about Prim-minister's activity. As well, the anchor made a generalization by stating that 'Moldovan's gave a high score.' It is a false statement, or the opinion of eight people may not be considered as everyone's opinion. Additionally, in the same news report, people voices were twice used as a background for images with Pavel Filip and Vlad Plahotniuc, and behind them - a board with Democratic Party signs. Only once, in the news story, Pavel Filip was shown at the Government tribune and never together with members of the Cabinet. Thus, the message passed to the audience through such manipulation through images is that successful activity of the Prim-minister is an achievement of Vlad Plahotniuc, but also due to the fact that Pavel Filip is part of Democractic Party. TV channel Accent TV did not cover the briefing of the Prim-minister in either newscast, or Russian one. To note one more time that

8 Case study 4, http://mediacritica.md/ro/studiu-de-caz-bilantul-activitatii-guvernului-la-un-de-la- investire/#prettyPhoto ignorance of relevant public interest subjects from daily program is a manipulation technique.

CONCLUSIONS The tendencies of deviating from the deontological rules and use of techniques for informational manipulation in covering events of increased public interest, which were revealed by the 9 IJC report in 201610, were also present in December 2016 and January 2017, however to a smaller extent. This can be related to the timing of conducting the monitoring - post-election period, when the interests of politicians/groups that own media institutions were not so high as during the election campaign. As a consequence, fewer manipulation techniques were employed. The most frequent one was ignorance - when certain events or details that could disadvantage the owner of media owner or favor their opponents were ignored in the news story. Monitoring data revealed that certain journalists when covering public interest events aren't concerned about comprehensive, balanced and equidistant information sharing with the public, instead they either aim to highlight the achievements of certain politicians or denigrate their opponents. To the greatest extent, news stories broadcast by monitored media outlets were prone to feature certain persons, exclusively, in a positive light and to disadvantage others through facts selection, ignorance, exaggerations, blurring of negative elements. As a consequence, in many cases, facts were presented from a single perspective, without ensuring balance and pluralism of opinions. The elements of informational manipulation and propaganda were identified mainly in the news stories on Publika TV, Prime TV, Accent TV and not so much on Sputnik, Deschide.md, Pan.md și RTR.

RECOMMENDATIONS When selecting subjects for informative programs, media institutions should bear in mind the degree of public interest of each subject, but also its importance and impact on the society. When preparing news stories, reporters should start from a neutral perspective of a given issue, in order to reflect the reality in a proper way and to offer the objective, equidistant and clear information to the wide public.

9 Monitoring Report No 1, http://media- azi.md/sites/default/files/CJI_Media_Monitoring_Report_Nov.2015-Jan.2016_RO.PDF 10 Monitoring Report No 2,, http://mediacritica.md/wp- content/uploads/2016/05/Raport_trimestrial_de_monitorizare_CJI.pdf Media managers should demand from their employees, and if necessary train them, to observe the rules of the Code of Ethics and by the quality standards in journalism. Media outlets should refrain themselves from both praises and exaggerations, accomplished through various techniques, of certain politicians' merits outlining achievements of certain politicians and discrediting others. Through news stories, audience is supposed to be informed, not influenced. The journalists should abandon the practices of: unilateral presentation of the facts. The Coordinating Council on Audiovisual should monitor the way, in which the broadcasting organizations ensure the opinion pluralism and abide by the national laws, as well as to the European rules in the audiovisual sphere, when it comes to correct, objective and pluralist information sharing. It is important that the regulating body makes inquiries, if required. The media consumers are recommended to get informed from several media sources, in order to avoid the risk of receiving erroneous and manipulating information.