Mihaela Ciobanu
International observers note that during the election campaign, the media in the Republic of Moldova gave visibility to the candidates, but often through biased and politically influenced coverage. At the same time, social networks became the main source of information for citizens, in the absence of clear regulations and transparency mechanisms. These conclusions belong to the Joint Observation Mission of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly (OSCE PA), the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) and the European Parliament (EP), and were presented to the public on 29 September 2025.
BIASED COVERAGE IN THE ELECTION CAMPAIGN
Experts note that media coverage of the election campaign was biased and influenced by political preferences. According to the data, the Patriotic Electoral Bloc was the most visible competitor, but most broadcasters demonstrated a biased approach, either favouring or strongly criticising it. According to observers, the public television station Moldova 1 was noticeably more critical in this regard, with news reports that were neutral and negative in tone. “Moldova 1 generally refrained from producing its own analytical or investigative programmes that would have helped voters navigate the complex political environment. Instead, the talk shows monitored on Moldova 1 supported the pro-European narrative and highlighted the government’s anti-corruption efforts, indirectly favouring PAS and amplifying narratives critical of the Patriotic Electoral Bloc,” the conclusions state.
On the other hand, the regional public broadcaster in Gagauzia (GRT) ‘mainly abstained from media coverage of electoral competitors and instead focused on electoral processes and the activities of the CEC. However, the station’s journalists demonstrated a clear anti-PAS position in their programmes’.
Monitoring by international observers shows that the private broadcasters Jurnal TV and TV8 took an even more biased approach, strongly criticising the Alternative Bloc and the Patriotic Electoral Bloc in their news, talk shows and satirical programmes. Similarly, Jurnal TV indirectly promoted PAS through its entertainment programmes. Similarly, ProTV Chișinău’s news programmes took a more critical position towards the Patriotic Electoral Bloc and, to a lesser extent, towards the Alternative Bloc and PAS, giving all of them a mix of neutral and negative media coverage. Cinema 1’s news bulletins focused mainly on electoral events and statements by candidates, giving most of its coverage to PAS, followed by the Patriotic Electoral Bloc and the Alternative Bloc, with neutral and positive coverage, respectively. Cinema 1 also devoted considerable time in its news bulletins to government activities, indirectly favouring PAS. In contrast, the private broadcaster TVC21 devoted one-third of its election news to the Patriotic Electoral Bloc, with a more neutral or positive tone, while PAS received more neutral coverage. ‘Most of the guests on TVC21 talk shows, predominantly affiliated with the opposition, joined in the anti-PAS narratives promoted by the presenters,’ the experts conclude on this point.
The online sources monitored ‘also showed clear alignment of editorial policies during the election period.’
“In general, the media outlets provided electoral competitors with numerous opportunities to present their positions and opinions in debates, talk shows, current affairs programmes and news bulletins. However, biased coverage in most media outlets, combined with an approach to news reporting focused on events and statements, limited investigative and analytical material, and widespread misinformation on social media, significantly hindered voters’ opportunities to make an informed choice,” the authors note.
FINANCIAL DEPENDENCY AND MIGRATION TO ONLINE
According to international observers, the media landscape in the Republic of Moldova remains diverse and pluralistic, but faces an increasingly restricted advertising market, which directly affects the financial sustainability of newsrooms. In the absence of stable resources, many media outlets end up depending on the interests of their owners, companies or funding from donors. Meanwhile, social media has emerged as the main source of information for the public, followed by television and, to a lesser extent, online news portals. ‘After a number of television stations were suspended for security and disinformation reasons in 2022-2023, some of the affected media outlets migrated to the online environment, which is less regulated,’ experts say.
According to the experts, ‘the lack of public access to official decisions on blocking websites, as well as the lack of a single list of blocked websites, has raised doubts about the transparency of such processes’.
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION BETWEEN RISKS AND PROGRESS
Although the Constitution guarantees freedom of expression and prohibits censorship, recent changes in legislation raise questions, the observation missions note. Article 7 of the Law on Combating Extremist Activity, amended by Law No. 100/2025, introduces vague provisions that could allow for the suspension or even permanent closure of a media outlet for ‘extremist activities’ that are not clearly defined. At the same time, numerous interlocutors of the ODIHR Election Observation Mission have reported an increase in cases of intimidation and harassment of journalists, both physically and online, particularly by non-state actors, which highlights gaps in legal protection and institutional oversight mechanisms.
At the same time, observers also highlight positive developments: ‘Following the adoption of the Law on Access to Information of Public Interest, which entered into force in 2024, many ODIHR interlocutors noted improved responsiveness and cooperation with the media in providing requested information.’
Experts also point out that amendments to the Audiovisual Media Services Code, applicable from 21 August 2025, have implemented some ODIHR recommendations by increasing the role of civil society in the process of appointing the management of Teleradio-Moldova and the Audiovisual Council, while reducing parliamentary control.
The monitoring also shows that, during the election period, the legal framework imposed stricter rules on broadcasters, while the print and online media remained subject to general obligations of balance and impartiality. With regard to the online environment, experts point out that electoral activity on social networks remains largely unregulated, both in terms of the actions of electoral competitors and the responsibility of platforms.