{"id":13968,"date":"2025-10-22T14:27:20","date_gmt":"2025-10-22T11:27:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/media-azi.md\/presa-si-viitorul-prim-ministru-intre-dreptul-de-a-intreba-si-tentatia-de-a-tacea\/"},"modified":"2026-07-10T16:39:20","modified_gmt":"2026-07-10T13:39:20","slug":"presa-si-viitorul-prim-ministru-intre-dreptul-de-a-intreba-si-tentatia-de-a-tacea","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/media-azi.md\/en\/presa-si-viitorul-prim-ministru-intre-dreptul-de-a-intreba-si-tentatia-de-a-tacea\/","title":{"rendered":"The press and the future prime minister: between the right to ask and the temptation to remain silent"},"content":{"rendered":"

Victor Gotisan, media researcher<\/strong><\/p>\n

For the past few days, in the Republic of Moldova we\u2019ve been witnessing an interesting and revealing situation that shows how the relationship between the media, politicians, and public opinion actually works. After the parliamentary elections in September, a new PAS majority emerged in Parliament, allowing the party to assume responsibility for forming the government. Two weeks later, the name of the candidate for the position of prime minister was announced: Alexandru Munteanu. Nothing unusual so far. However, the surprise came immediately afterwards \u2013 almost no one knew who Alexandru Munteanu was. Neither the press, nor the experts, nor the public. An unknown name, with no public track record, no visible political involvement, no presence in civic discourse.<\/p>\n

From silence to a media storm <\/strong><\/p>\n

The reaction of the Moldovan press upon hearing the name of the future prime minister was one of curiosity mixed with suspicion, which is justified. Journalists wondered who the man who was to become the third most powerful figure in the country; what he had done so far; what his professional experience was; what values \u200b\u200bguided him; in what fields he worked and what relationships he had established up to this point. Therefore, they began to look for answers. They consulted databases, spoke with various sources, analyzed the professional profile, and compared information, data and figures. This is exactly how things should happen in a healthy democracy and how proper research on a topic of public interest is normally conducted. However, instead of being seen as a legitimate exercise in transparency, this investigation was interpreted by many \u2013 politicians, opinion leaders and representatives of the civic sector \u2013 as a way to put pressure on the candidate for the position of Prime Minister in Chisinau. It was suggested that the press rushed in with information too early, that it was not giving him the chance to prove himself, and that it was unfair to dig into his past, etc. In essence, nothing more was done than to convey a dangerous message: the press should remain silent until the candidate becomes officially Prime Minister. In other words, it should self-censor <\/em>(NB: more on self-censorship and its implications below).<\/p>\n

In this context, the \u2018Munteanu case\u2019 has reopened a series of discussions about the press and how it functions \u2013 old topics, but still highly relevant. Let\u2019s take them one by one.<\/p>\n

Where and when private life ends and public responsibility begins<\/strong><\/p>\n

The moment someone accepts a public office, their private life ceases to be entirely private. Not because the press would have any pleasure in invading people’s privacy, but because public office requires trust, and trust is built on knowing all relevant details about a person nominated or elected to a position.<\/p>\n

You cannot ask society to follow you in your mission as head of a Government simply because you were proposed by a certain politician or party, no matter which one. Public office comes with exposure, transparency, and the obligation to provide explanations for everything and everyone, including what you are and whom you represent. Therefore, the boundary between private and public life is not drawn by the press, but by the public office itself. The moment you accept to lead a government, you also accept the fact that the past, present, connections, family, relationships, business dealings, and previous positions become part of the public interest.<\/p>\n

Who sets the media agenda \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

The simple and direct answer: no one, only the press itself. The \u2018Munteanu case\u2019 highlighted a phenomenon that we seemed to have escaped: the temptation of politicians to control or influence the media agenda.<\/em> Instead of encouraging quality journalism, some prefer to give lessons about what \u2018is good for the press to write\u2019<\/em> or what is \u2018correct\u2019<\/em> or \u2018ethical\u2019 <\/em>for the media to publish. In this case, a kind of subtle pressure was created on the editorial offices, suggesting: \u2018Don\u2019t write too much, don\u2019t disturb too much, don\u2019t spoil the moment\u2019.<\/em><\/p>\n

What we need to start understanding (all of us!) is that, in a democracy, the press does NOT need the politicians\u2019 approval to cover a particular topic<\/em>, especially when it is of public interest. The press must fulfil its basic functions: informing, explaining, educating, entertaining, etc. In addition to these, the press has another (perhaps the most important) mission \u2014 the right to ask uncomfortable questions, to investigate and verify who those aspiring to key state positions really are. The attempt to blame journalists simply for doing their job is not only a misunderstanding of the role of the press, but a form of intimidation. A subtle way of saying: \u2018You have freedom of expression, but only within the limits that suit us.\u2019<\/em><\/p>\n

And yes, asking the press to be silent \u2018until the right moment\u2019<\/em> is equivalent to asking it not to perform its function. It\u2019s like asking a doctor not to diagnose a patient until it\u2019s too late for treatment.<\/p>\n

How \u2018harsh\u2019 should the press be or when the watchdog must bite<\/strong><\/p>\n

The press is often described as the \u2018fourth power in the state\u2019 or the \u2018watchdog of democracy\u2019. But a watchdog that only barks, without biting when necessary, becomes merely decorative. The role of the press is not to please those in power, but to monitor them. The press should not seek applause, but truth. Therefore, journalists have not only the right, but also the obligation to ask themselves about anyone who is going to hold a public office.<\/p>\n

If the media doesn\u2019t do it, who will? State institutions? The experience in the recent years shows that we cannot always rely on the authorities to filter the integrity of decision-makers. Whether we like it or not, most of the time, journalistic curiosity remains the only and most effective filter of the integrity of public figures. Investigation of someone\u2019s past and present, their connections and possible conflicts of interest by the press should not be seen as a witch hunt, but rather as a \u2018media pre-vetting\u2019<\/em> \u00a0\u2013 a guarantee that society knows who it entrusts with decision-making on its behalf.<\/p>\n

Freedom of the press and the three fundamental principles<\/strong><\/p>\n

To reiterate: the press is free to write about anything, anyone, at any time. It does not need to ask anyone\u2019s permission to address a specific subject. However, in exercising this freedom, there are also some major principles that the media must follow and take into account.<\/p>\n