In recent weeks, Gagauziya Radio Televizionu (GRT) has been mentioned in several reports by public institutions and media outlets, which have reported that the regional public broadcaster breaches ethical and legal principles when informing its television and online audiences. Most recently, the Press Council excluded GRT from the Register of Signatories of the Journalist’s Code of Ethics, and the Audiovisual Council, after numerous sanctions, decided to warn the People’s Assembly of Gagauzia about the irregularities committed in the parliamentary election campaign. Representatives of regulatory institutions and media experts say that these violations are not unique, but recurring in nature.
The Press Council excluded GRT from the Register of Signatories of the Code of Ethics on 16 October after a period of monitoring the Gagauzia TV station and finding repeated violations of ethical rules, including the lack of balance and pluralism of opinions, selective presentation of facts, use of manipulative techniques and promotion of certain political actors. ‘By their decision, members of the Expert Board (EB) of the Press Council sought to show that this company can no longer be tolerated alongside good-faith editorial offices and journalists from the list of signatories of the Code of Ethics, as it compromises the very concept of ethics. Thus, the EB wanted to inform the public, first of all, that such ‘journalism’ practiced by GRT is not journalism, and the self-regulatory institution is aware of and condemns this,’ Viorica Zaharia, the President of the Press Council, explained to Mediacritica.
In its decision, the Press Council noted that these findings are part of a series of sanctions previously imposed on the station by the Audiovisual Council (AC). For example, in April 2024, the AC fined GRT with 60,000 MDL for disinformation, hate speech and failure to ensure information security. Also in 2024, the broadcaster was sanctioned for taking over content from TV stations with suspended licenses and for insufficient programs in Romanian. In March 2025, the institution was sanctioned with 85,000 MDL for promoting the image of certain political actors, lack of balance and bad-faith reporting. During the September election campaign, the AC imposed two fines of 30,000 MDL each and ordered a one-day suspension of advertising broadcasts after finding similar violations: one-sided presentation of topics, explicit support for the Bashkan Evghenia Gutul and lack of alternative points of view, as well as dissemination of false information and incitement to discrimination, propagated on the Independence Day by Ilan Shor.
‘From what we notice following our monitoring of compliance with the editorial concept, this broadcaster has, for several years, significantly deviated from the concept it committed to. We are referring to both the volume of programs in the Gagauz language and their typology, as well as to the ratio between local programs and the share of programs imported from the Russian Federation – virtually retransmitted from state TV stations’, Liliana Vitu, President of the AC describes the current situation of the public station in the autonomy.
DOES ‘PUBLIC’ ALSO MEAN ‘FOR THE PUBLIC’ IN THE CASE OF GRT?
Local and international organizations have also reported violations in the activity of the public broadcaster in Gagauzia over the past few years. According to the Memorandum on Press Freedom, political control over GRT causes the editorial agenda to avoid critical topics, which would cast a negative light on the autonomy’s authorities. A monitoring by the Independent Press Association revealed that the public television in Gagauzia ATU, in a six-month period, broadcast only two topics about corruption, neither of which referred to corruption cases in Gagauzia itself. In February 2024, several media NGOs shared their concern over possible cases of censorship at the regional public broadcaster in Comrat. The reactions came after videos from an unannounced meeting of the GRT Supervisory Board were made public by an activist and later were taken over by the press. The images allegedly suggested existence of censorship practices within the institution.
Monitoring reports by the Independent Journalism Centre (IJC) also highlighted that during the electoral period, Gagauzia TV provided only a brief coverage of the campaign, offering limited access to competitors and showing major omissions, such as exclusion of the Inima Moldovei Party from the electoral race. The programs were unbalanced and biased, casting a negative light on the central authorities and the Action and Solidarity Party. ‘The regional public television station, Gagauziya Radio Televizionu, failed to property and impartially inform the electorate, choosing instead to discuss electoral topics mainly in shows whose content often included false narratives about the referendum and certain electoral competitors,’ according to the conclusions of the Civic Coalition for Free and Fair Elections.
Nadine Gogu, Director of the IJC, points out that the situation at GRT is not accidental, but reflects a broader pattern of dysfunctions: ‘The situation is serious because we are not just talking about unique deviations from legal provisions and ethical principles, but a systematic trend, confirmed by several monitoring by both the audiovisual regulatory institution and civil society.’ She also emphasizes that, in recent election campaigns, the station applied a subtle form of manipulation ‘by omission,’ avoiding accurate coverage of the electoral competition and thereby limiting citizens’ access to relevant information. While the news was presented in a formal and sterile manner, GRT’s programs were said to have a clearly partisan bias, as moderators favoured or penalized certain candidates. ‘This editorial behaviour seriously undermines the pluralism of opinion, contributing to misinformation and public polarization. Furthermore, the fact that a public station, controlled by convicted politicians and promoters of a foreign state’s agenda, operates without obstacles poses serious risks to the state’s information security,’ the expert warns.
Ion Bunduchi, Executive Director of the Electronic Press Association, states that GRT’s problems are just part of a broader failure of local authorities: ‘Today, GRT is the expression of the chain failure of the politicians who have governed and continue to govern Gagauzia ATU, a failure to understand what media freedom means and why only a free press can help develop a community. Instead, politics has been excelling in perpetuating the primitive, outdated and shameful approach to the press, an approach stubbornly dragged from the past into the present and, so far, unbroken either by the law, nor by taxpayers.’
OUTDATED AND AMBIGUOUS LEGAL FRAMEWORK
Gagauzia has its own regulatory audiovisual framework, which experts consider outdated and in conflict with national legislation. The lawyer Cristina Durnea recalls the local Law on broadcasting (television and radio) from 2016 — ‘a legal text that remains suspended between the past and the present – not updated, not aligned with national legislation and, in many points, in direct contradiction with the Code of Audiovisual Media Services.’ ‘GRT operates in a legal space marked by constant political pressures and institutional inertia of a legislation that has long lagged behind contemporary democratic realities. Legal strategies (judicial review of acts) and administrative measures (sanctions imposed by the Audiovisual Council) have proven to be insufficient to remedy the condemnable deviations in GRT’s activity. Chisinau has long viewed the regional audiovisual space through the convenient lens of a ‘problem that will resolve itself’. In the absence of a public policy vision and real oversight, GRT’s ‘autonomy’ has gradually become an elegant synonym for lack of accountability’, Cristina Durnea notes.
Liliana Vitu argues that the current legal framework leaves too much room for abuses and ambiguities. ‘Legal levers could be reconsidered. From what we see now, these legal levers are insufficient, because, on the one hand, we have the Law on Gagauzia Radio Televizionu, adopted back in 1995, on which national legislation – the Code of Audiovisual Media Services (CAMS) – has been superimposed, which, hierarchically, is superior. From the point of view of legislative technique, everything adopted later is considered to take precedence,’ she says. The head of the audiovisual authority insists that GRT is obliged to comply with the CAMS provisions, even though its founder is the People’s Assembly of Gagauzia: ‘The fact that this oversight, which should be exercised by the People’s Assembly of Gagauzia through a fair selection process, is not carried out as it should be, raises questions. The People’s Assembly should take care of the membership of the GRT Supervisory Board and, if there is conduct that does not meet standards, at least draw attention to these deviations.’
She also speaks about the limited powers of the AC in terms of sanctioning content distributed online by GRT, on its official website. The institution can intervene only when regulations concerning illegal speech, such as incitement to hatred or discrimination, are violated, and when the obligation to ensure proper information of the public is not fulfilled. ‘There is a very large unregulated online space, where the situation seems much more serious. If we look at the TV monitoring, the contents are, let me say, cautious – there is an editorial prudence, especially in the news. This is what we noticed during the election campaign, where the coverage of the campaign was virtually formal: participants were targeted only indirectly, that is, there was no electoral competitor speaking his/her voice, who could say anything. A formal coverage of the campaign, of course, cannot contribute to adequate informing citizens, so that they can make a well-informed voting choice. Therefore, the situation is serious because our regulation does not cover everything that happens online’, Liliana Vitu concludes.
REFORM OR RESIGNATION?
In search for effective solutions, some experts consider that certain measures already applied, although without immediate effects, could produce long-term changes, while others insist that only removing them from political influence could have an impact in the case of GRT.
The President of the Press Council considers that the decision to exclude the broadcaster from the Register of Signatories is potentially transformative. ‘Will this have any impact? In the short term, probably not, since GRT did not even respond to the invitation to participate in the meeting where the issue was discussed. But in the long term, I acknowledge that responsible managers may come to the leadership of GRT, for whom compliance with ethics will be a matter of honour, and they will understand how discrediting such a decision is, as well as others that have shown them to produce disinformation rather than information. A document issued by the EB on compliance by an editorial office with rules of professional conduct is taken into account when granting subsidies, creating partnerships with donors and, in general, in projects supporting journalism. With such a ‘passport’ of integrity in its possession, GRT will not be able to develop. So it will have to comply with professional standards one day, if it wants to exist and develop’, Viorica Zaharia says.
Ion Bunduchi is more categorical: ‘There is only one solution for GRT – to get it out from under the political lid. Someone should do this, but so far no one has been found.’
In this context, Nadine Gogu believes that ‘the possibility of getting GRT out of political influence is reduced in the short term, but possible in the long term, if concerted action is taken. The AC should continue systematic monitoring, documenting violations and applying cumulative sanctions, according to Art. 84 of the Code of Audiovisual Media Services. The results of these monitoring can be used to increase pressure from both national authorities and international partners. Development partners could condition their support for Gagauzia autonomy (including regional development projects) on the reform of GRT as a genuine regional public service.’
The MP Liliana Nicolaescu-Onofrei, former chairwoman of the Culture, Education, Research, Youth, Sports and Mass Media Committee of the Parliament of the Republic of Moldova, claims that, together with her colleagues, she promoted several amendments to the legislation in order to optimize the system of sanctions applicable to audiovisual media service providers. ‘I am going to propose to my colleagues to analyze how we can increase the accountability of public broadcasters for failing to fulfil the mission of their activity and their responsibilities, as provided for in the law, as well as for violating provisions on editorial independence,’ she adds.
NO REACTION FROM COMRAT
Media Azi tried to get comments on the issue from both the GRT leadership and the Supervisory Board of the broadcaster, as well as from the People’s Assembly of Gagauzia.
Vasile Dermenji, the Executive Director of the company, did not answer to phone calls. On the other hand, after they asked to come back later, both GRT editor Valentina Coroleac and Dmitrii Constantinov, the Chair of the People’s Assembly, did not answer the call. Also, the representatives of those institutions did not respond to requests for information, sent to their official addresses.
Svetlana Mironova, Head of the Office of the Ombudsman in Comrat, said for Media Azi that the institution she represents does not monitor the activity of GRT. ‘I work with normative acts, and last year we opposed the proposed amendments to the Gagauz legislation, which intended to introduce direct control over GRT by members of the People’s Assembly,’ she specified.