A report recently published by Amnesty International shows that self-censorship has become increasingly visible in the Moldovan media, against the backdrop of several restrictions imposed by the state authorities in order to protect the information space. “Among the pro-European media, the culture of self-censorship seems to be widespread,” according to the document released on November 17. The opinions of journalists and media experts on the subject are divided. While some speak of a certain level of hesitation on the part of some editorial offices to criticize the government, others draw attention to the risk of manipulation when attempting to generalize this phenomenon.
The authors of the study note that restrictive measures in the media sector, taken by the Chisinau authorities in response to security threats from the Russian Federation after the invasion of Ukraine, “encourage the practice of self-censorship and endanger media pluralism in Moldova.” According to the analysis, “these concerns have been confirmed by numerous cases of suspension of broadcasting licenses for media outlets that had editorial policies diverging from the priorities and discourse of the authorities.” “Even among media outlets that support the authorities’ stated intention to pursue the national security agenda in the media, these measures and the way they were implemented were perceived as arbitrary,” Amnesty experts say.
According to the document, representatives of some media outlets told Amnesty International that they “must exercise discretion when criticizing the authorities, analyzing their actions, or criticizing members of the ruling party.” Moreover, others believe that “the dissatisfaction of some members of the ruling party could lead to the loss of access to external grant-based funding for the media institution they represent.”
The chair of the Press Council, Viorica Zaharia, told the authors of the report that “many media outlets are ‘timid’ in criticizing the ruling party and its leadership.” Cornelia Cozonac, president of the Center for Investigative Journalism, also explained to Amnesty how political polarization and media vulnerability further exacerbate the culture of self-censorship: “The current authorities do not want to be questioned or investigated. They are very sensitive to these things. And we journalists are cautious about the [political] alternative, which is why we forgive them more than anyone else [any previous government] before.”
BETWEEN A MILD ATTITUDE AND VEHEMENT CRITICISM
On this subject, Cornelia Cozonac also pointed out, during the Media Forum in Southeast Europe, held in Chisinau on the evening of November 17, that, in her opinion, the withdrawal of licenses for several television stations has influenced the editorial behavior of some representatives of the profession: “I know journalists who resorted to self-censorship after the media outlets they worked for closed down or had their licenses revoked, and they were subsequently forced to reorient themselves. I know journalists who were pressured and gave up investigative journalism. I am not saying that this is necessarily pressure from the government, but there are situations that influence journalists.”
Present at the same event, the director of the Independent Press Association, Petru Macovei, emphasized, on the other hand, that generalization is a technique of manipulation. He explained that when certain incidents—which he admits are real, as is the existence of problematic situations—are presented as if they reflect a general trend at the national level, this approach becomes, in his opinion, manipulative. “I don’t remember there being so much criticism of a ruling party in Moldova in recent years. It is a party that controls both Parliament and the Presidency and the Government, and yet there is massive criticism from journalists, some of the material being well documented, some less so, some speculative, some commissioned. But I don’t remember there ever being so much criticism of the ruling party. Now, especially when you can easily make a vlog and say whatever you want, I think it’s wrong to conclude that there is a widespread problem of self-censorship,” he said.
Referring to his own professional experience, Cornel Ciobanu, deputy director general of the public company Teleradio-Moldova, said at the forum that he had never been called by a politician to be told what to broadcast or what editorial decisions to make. However, he does not rule out the possibility that self-censorship may exist: “I admit, without generalizing, that there are or may be journalists who take a more lenient view of the ruling party. Not out of fear, because I really don’t believe that the right to free expression is violated in the Republic of Moldova, but rather thinking about what might happen if the others came to power.”
Natalia Zaharescu, a Ziarul de Gardă journalist, commented on the situation from the perspective of the media outlet she represents, emphasizing that any topic can be addressed without restrictions, as long as there is sufficient evidence to write a well-documented and well-argued article. “What I have noticed from politicians – both in the opposition and in the government – is that everyone is happy when Ziarul de Gardă writes about their political opponents and much less happy when we write about them,” she added.
The issue of self-censorship was also analyzed by media researcher Victor Gotișan in a commentary previously published on Media Azi. He observes that, in recent years, the press in the Republic of Moldova has exhibited a subtle but persistent form of self-censorship. According to him, after 2021—when a pro-European and reform-oriented government took office—many journalists became more reluctant to criticize it. “While in previous years the press was more active and incisive, now we can see a caution born of a reflex to ‘not harm the good cause’. Perpetuated over time, this restraint – which arose from apparently noble intentions – risks becoming a dangerous habit in the long run. I don’t think this phenomenon was intentional. Most likely, the majority of editorial offices were not even aware of this slight shift. Self-censorship, as a rule, does not come about through a conscious decision, but rather invisibly, as an adaptation to the context – including the regional one,” the author notes.