On the occasion of World Press Freedom Day, which is marked annually on 3 May, the non-governmental media organisations, signatories to this memorandum: Emphasize that free, independent and pluralistic media is one of the fundamental components of a democratic society; Reiterate that maintaining and strengthening media freedom and independence must be a priority for a state aspiring to democratic change; Stresses that free and independent public media play an essential role in consolidating democracy, maximising the involvement of civil society in public debate and the democratic participation of citizens; Notes that journalists in the Republic of Moldova continue to face a multitude of obstacles and impediments when carrying out their mission of informing citizens on issues of public interest; Points out that, during the pandemic period, the specialised public authorities responsible for implementing government policy in the health sector have been reluctant to communicate bilaterally with representatives of the press; regrets that the media are frequently used as a traditional propaganda tool and that, particularly as regards the public media, the principle of editorial independence and institutional autonomy from political parties and interest groups remains illusory; Considers that the trend towards concentration of media ownership in conglomerates is a threat to the freedom and pluralism of the audiovisual media; Stresses that impunity affects not only press freedom but also the daily work of journalists, creating a climate of fear and self-censorship; Notes the reluctance of the public authorities to counteract and sanction illegal practices of physical and verbal intimidation of journalists. Insists on the urgent need to draw up and implement a plan of measures capable of: reduce the influence of the political factor on media activity; facilitate the effective implementation of the National Concept for the Development of the Media; ensure fair and transparent conditions of competition in the activity of media institutions, able to protect them from the danger of bankruptcy and disappearance; reduce the existing gap between the requirements of the media market and the supply of journalism training institutions; develop real media pluralism in line with new legal requirements, including by stimulating the emergence of new thematic audiovisual media services at local/regional level, and by exploiting the potential of non-linear media services; strengthen institutional capacities and professional skills to prevent, expose and/or counter propaganda, disinformation and media falsehoods. "RECORD" DECLINE IN PRESS FREEDOM (3 May 2020 - 3 May 2021) Between 3 May 2020 and 3 May 2021, the state of press freedom in the Republic of Moldova was in an alarming decline. The pandemic crisis superimposed on the political instability and economic crisis in the country has generated serious repercussions on the media sector. Thus, the problems of past years have dramatically increased. Economic stagnation has reduced the ability of media institutions to ensure their financial sustainability, increasing their vulnerability to political "bidders". The autumn 2020 election campaign has fuelled the phenomenon of political partisanship in the media and has led to information battles against the opposition, civil society and independent media. The failure of the authorities to ensure correct and timely information to citizens allowed the deliberate pollution of the information space with falsehoods about the pandemic situation. The lack of government concern to improve legislation and the inadequate application of existing legal rules have led to the undermining of journalists' rights and freedoms. The terrestrial frequencies, which are a national public good, continue to be used to the detriment of the national interest, while the domestic audiovisual space remains invaded by foreign media products, some of which are clearly toxic. In addition to the increase in the number of cases of verbal and physical attacks on journalists, during the period in question the press became the target of multiple lawsuits, mostly aimed at intimidating investigative reporters. At the same time, the alarming number of hate speeches by high-ranking dignitaries against the press, as well as their public threats, have fuelled journalists' insecurity. This state of affairs is also confirmed by the State of the Press Index in Moldova in 2020. The diagnosis of the local media sector reveals alarming indices and shows an anti-record in the barometer of the state of the press in the last five years. CONDITIONS OF PRESS (IN)SECURITY Journalists, beneficiaries of illusory guarantees The increase in attacks, threats and intimidation against journalists by politicians and public officials is leading to a decrease in the level of security for journalists. At the same time, the lack of an adequate response to these cases by law enforcement bodies is the determining factor in perpetuating these practices. Thus, journalists are not effectively protected and impunity may encourage further attacks on media professionals. The following cases show that the overall situation cannot be described as one of complete security for the exercise of the profession of journalist in the Republic of Moldova. In a speech in the plenary of the Parliament, Deputy Speaker Vlad Bătrâncea accused journalists of committing illegalities, while expressing his dissatisfaction with the fact that media outlets, in the process of documenting journalistic material on the pandemic situation and the establishment of the state of emergency, contact staff of medical institutions. Media NGOs described the MEP's speech as defaming the status of journalists and inciting hatred towards media outlets. Ion Chicu, a former prime minister of Moldova, has launched defamatory messages in the public arena against the media, in particular Pro TV. The former adviser to the ex-premier, Vitalie Dragancea, has also previously, in statements made to Ziarul de Gardă, launched inadmissible messages against journalists. Natalia Cebotari, a journalist with the regional newspaper "Znamea", was held responsible after the reporter published information on a series of irregularities committed by an employer in ensuring decent working conditions for employees. The Nordnews.md team was restricted access to the Drochia District Council, where President Igor Dodon was meeting with representatives of local public administrations, and where reporters from a PSRM-affiliated TV station had unfettered access. Instead of answering the questions of TV8 reporter Natalia Ghețu, PSRM deputy Anatolie Labuneț made licentious expressions against the journalist, which offended her honour and dignity. Employees of the State Protection and Security Service (SPPS), exceeding their duties and using physical force, brutally prevented TV8 reporter Mihaela Dicusar from approaching former Moldovan President Igor Dodon, Parliament Speaker Zinaida Greceanii and former Prime Minister Ion Chicu and from asking questions after the flower-laying ceremony at the monument to Stephen the Great. Journalists Viorica Tataru and Andrei Captarenco were intimidated and assaulted by a soldier of the troops deployed at the security posts on the Dniester while on a professional assignment near Molovata Noua. He hit the journalist, stripped her of her mobile phone and deleted multiple files from the device. Later, after the journalists boarded the floating bridge to cross the Dniester River, three peacekeepers forcibly stopped the boat in order to arrest the journalists. Together with other passengers, they were stranded for about an hour until the police arrived. Employees of the SPPS, on guard duty for the President of the Republic of Moldova, blocked the journalists' access to the exit of the CEC building, thus preventing them from asking questions to Igor Dodon, who had come to the institution's headquarters to register for the presidential election. SPPS employees physically abused a Pro TV reporter as she tried to ask questions to Igor Dodon who was participating in a march to support his own candidacy in the presidential election. Journalists Viorica Tataru and Andrei Captarenco were blocked by military peacekeepers at the crossing of the Dniester river in the village of Gura-Baccului. The peacekeepers were unhappy that the reporters, in the course of their professional mission, had made video recordings and asked them to delete all the footage they had filmed, threatening them with detention. TV8 reporter Cătălin Goria, who was in a locality where citizens from the left bank of the Dniester were voting, was illegally detained by representatives of the forces under the Tiraspol administration. They deleted the images he had managed to film from his mobile phone. Jurnal TV reporter Iulia Sarivan and a cameraman from Pro TV, who were on duty at the farmers' protest in front of the parliament, became, along with some demonstrators, victims of aggression by the forces of law and order who applied tear gas. In the Transnistrian region, Larisa Calic, the author of a collection of interviews with young people who have completed their military service, was accused of extremism. These examples, which are not exhaustive, reveal the insecurity of the press. We stress that editorial offices and journalists are forced to document and report on sensitive subjects at their own risk, in the absence of effective state protection, and that reprehensible cases in relation to the media remain ignored by law enforcement bodies. LEGAL REGULATORY FRAMEWORK (Un)justified legislative interventions and poor implementation of legislation Between 3 May 2020 and 3 May 2021, the national legal framework regulating media activity has not been completed with new laws necessary for the field and adjusted to the needs of the sector. The consequences of the incomplete regulation of some areas of media activity were pronouncedly felt, in particular, during the presidential election campaign in autumn 2020. Despite the fact that the need for adequate regulation of the process of election coverage was revealed by previous practices (general local and parliamentary elections), remedying the problems in this chapter, it seems, was not a priority for state actors invested with the prerogative of amending the law. Instead, the attention of the legislature has been focused on the Audiovisual Media Services Code. As a result, less than two years after the entry into force of the law, it has undergone a series of inappropriate, dangerous interventions that run counter to the commitments undertaken by the Republic of Moldova in ratifying the European Convention on Transfrontier Television. The annulment of the ban on retransmission of propagandistic audiovisual programmes and the exclusion of the compulsory quota of European works in audiovisual media services substantially diminished the quality of the current legal framework and demolished a reliable mechanism for protecting citizens from possible attempts at disinformation and manipulative information from outside, as well as from media aggression directed against the Republic of Moldova. During the reporting period, the practice of interpretation and application of the media legislation, in particular the legislation regulating the use and protection of the right of access to information, was extremely uneven. With the entry into force of the Administrative Code, both information providers and information seekers have encountered difficulties in determining the legal rules applicable to the legal relationships that have arisen. Moreover, judicial practice, which is designed to ensure uniformity in the application of the law and to give litigants the possibility to choose the appropriate legal conduct, has seen conflicting solutions in cases concerning violations of the right of access to information. Alternating states of emergency during the pandemic crisis period meant not only working under special security conditions for journalists, but also restricted access to information of public interest. In addition to the absence of policies to proactively inform citizens about the pandemic situation, public authorities, especially central ones, were also extremely reluctant to provide information of public interest. In addition, media activity has been hampered by the extension of the legal deadline for obtaining public interest information. First, by the decision of the Committee for Exceptional Situations (CSE) of 18 March 2020, the deadline was tripled (45 calendar days instead of 15), and on 15 April 2021 the CSE decided to double it (30 calendar days instead of 15). Misinterpretation of data protection legislation is another barrier to media activity, with journalists facing a significant number of unjustified refusals to provide information requested on the grounds of personal data protection. The administrative practices of the providers reveal a flawed approach to the law, with "protection of personal data" being mechanically invoked as a pretext for reducing transparency in the work of some public authorities and institutions. Abusive sanctioning of journalists for the contravention of Article 70 of the Contravention Code (libel) is another problem with enforcement. In practice, people who consider themselves defamed by the publication of journalistic material opt for lodging a complaint with the police rather than taking legal action. Such an option, left to persons of bad faith and with influence over the investigating officers, especially at local level, becomes an easy and convenient mechanism to exert pressure on the media. Although national legislation guarantees the media the right not to reveal their sources of information, during the reporting period, the vicious phenomenon of pressurising journalists to give up this right has intensified. The numerous summonses and visits by police or prosecutors to editorial offices reveal a practice that is contrary to the law, which makes it inadmissible to force journalists to reveal the identity of their sources in civil or criminal proceedings. All these circumstances drastically diminish the ability of the media to fulfil its social mission in a democratic society. POLITICAL CONTEXT The challenges of the "inconvenient" press to politicians: threats, intimidation, unfounded court claims and selective reporting The pronounced political instability in the country has had damaging repercussions on the normal and natural work of the media. The political context, unfavourable to the independent press, perpetuated the practice of inadequately informing the electorate through the politically affiliated media in the presidential elections. The government succeeded in turning many media outlets into sounding boards for its own messages and the independent press was subjected to intimidation tactics by political interest groups. The political factor has been guided mainly by electoral goals to the detriment of ensuring political stability conducive to proper media activity. According to Promo-LEX estimates, the number of hate speech cases in the 2020 elections has increased by more than 40 percent compared to the 2019 elections. The situation has become alarming, as a good part of hate speech, including against journalists, was promoted by high-ranking people in the state. The political context in 2020 has allowed pressure and discriminatory treatment by politicians towards certain media outlets or journalists, both at central and regional/local level, and has favoured the amplification of the war between media outlets directly or indirectly belonging to different politicians. Through them, orchestrated attacks have been launched on several non-governmental media organisations, as well as against the media and independent journalists who are uncomfortable with power. In this context, among the factors revealing the damaging situation for the local media are: selective attitude of information providers towards journalists; intimidation of the media through multiple unfounded lawsuits. Even if most defamation cases that reach the courts have a favourable outcome for journalists, it is nevertheless evidence that the purpose of taking legal action is to put pressure on the media; Filing of complaints with the police for allegedly committing the offence of libel by journalists; Denigrating messages by high-ranking dignitaries against media institutions; Use of the Audiovisual Council as a "political stick" to temper critical voices of some TV stations and as a means of tolerating violations committed by providers serving politicians. We stress that the unbalanced reaction of the authorities to journalistic investigations revealing illegalities points to the phenomenon of the intangibility of some political actors. For example, sometimes, when press revelations target opposition politicians, law enforcement agencies use the material documented by reporters to file cases, and when investigations reveal illegalities committed by politicians in high positions in the state, the revelations are left without reaction from the authorities. ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT Financial vulnerability of the media to political "bidders" The economic crisis, deepened by pandemics and social-political instability, has seriously damaged the activity and development of the media as a business. The lack or fragility of the economic independence of most media institutions has also had a negative impact on editorial independence. Among the main reasons for the fragility of the financial sustainability of media players are: lack of competence in the work of the authorities managing the media sector; lack of a coherent policy for training media managers; weak institutional capacities for managing the sector, resulting in its chaotic development, including an exaggerated share of media institutions in the capital compared to rural areas; lack of a functional institutional framework that would ensure fair competition and prevent the emergence of dominant positions in the formation of public opinion; lack of policies to encourage internal and external investment in the development of the media sector; the lack of transparency in the management of the sector and in its economic activity; the lack of legal provisions to support the media, especially the local/regional media, which, in times of crisis, leads to the disappearance of media institutions and thus reduces the possibilities for informing citizens; delays and failures in managing the transition to digital terrestrial television; the lack of a functioning national body to coordinate policies for managing the entire media sector. In the context of the many problems causing the economic precariousness of the media sector, there is also the attempt to sabotage the economic activity of media institutions founded by NGOs with the entry into force of Law No 86 on non-commercial organisations. The legal prohibition for non-commercial organisations to provide services (free of charge or for a fee) to electoral contestants was hindering the possibility for some media outlets to earn revenue from the broadcasting of paid election advertising. The prohibition has been removed with the Constitutional Court ruling on 8 October 2020. During the reporting period, the print media faced additional problems caused by the temporary suspension of the distribution of periodical editions by "Poșta Moldovei" which, in the context of the pandemic, invoked the urgent need to provide citizens with pensions and social benefits. The epidemic situation also led to the closure of newsstands selling newspapers. In such circumstances, the authorities were not concerned about the decrease in the level of information available to citizens, nor about the possible bankruptcy of the periodicals. Although the Audiovisual Media Services Code (AMS Code) contains additional provisions that could help to ensure the editorial independence of the national public media service provider, they do not work. In this case, it is not the inadequacy of the legal framework that can be invoked, but the outdated administrative reflexes. INDEPENDENCE OF THE MEDIA SECTOR Turning media institutions into sounding boards for political parties Between 3 May 2020 and 3 May 2021, the quality of information in the media space in the Republic of Moldova continued to deteriorate, mainly due to the interference of interest groups in media activity. The lack of a legal "shield" that would counteract the practices of dictating editorial policy by political actors led to the pollution of the information space with disinformation and manipulative messages generated with the aim of improving political ratings or discrediting opponents. Concentration of ownership in broadcasting is one of the main causes of undermining the principle of ensuring pluralistic information. Even if the legislation provides for the possibility of a single holder holding only two licences in the audiovisual sphere, the impact of this legal rule is negligible. The Competition Council, which is obliged to assess the media market on an annual basis in order to prevent or counteract possible dominant positions, does not honour its obligation, so we do not know the real situation on the market. During the reporting period, the phenomenon of consolidation of the holding companies associated with former President Igor Dodon and other PSRM leaders (First in Moldova, Accent TV, NTV Moldova and Exclusiv TV) continued. Two other holding companies, controlled by the former leader of the Democratic Party, Vladimir Plahotniuc (Prime TV and Publika TV) and the leader of the Shor Party, Ilan Shor (Central TV which changed its name to TV6 and Orhei TV), continued their activities, despite the fact that their owners are no longer in the country. It should be noted that all IJC monitoring reports on elements of propaganda, information manipulation and violation of journalistic ethics show that during 2020, politically affiliated media directly and indirectly favour politicians and parties behind them. As a result, the public has access to almost identical editorial content, lacking diversity and pluralism of opinion, in some cases manipulative and propagandistic. The political entrenchment of some media outlets and their promotion of political parties and actions to discredit political opponents has led to a continuous reduction in the quality of the media product. However, the behaviour of the media in the autumn 2020 presidential elections demonstrated the political commitment of many media outlets. Monitoring by non-governmental media organisations reveals that some of the most watched media outlets, including national broadcasters, were politically partisan, substituting journalism for propaganda. Media patron-politicians have become heavily involved in the editorial policies of media outlets, encouraging self-censorship, and media outlets have fed biased, incomplete, often manipulative information to media consumers. The national media information space remains insecure. During the reporting period, new factors were added to the usual ones influencing the quality of media products: the presidential elections and the pandemic crisis. The situation became even worse after the annulment of the so-called anti-propaganda law, which opened the door to the damaging influence of foreign, propagandistic media content on the information resilience of Moldovan citizens. Television channels watched in the Republic of Moldova, such as NTV Moldova, RTR Moldova, Primul in Moldova, REN TV Moldova, TNT Moldova, CTC Moldova, etc., continued to parasitize on audiovisual programmes retransmitted from the Russian Federation during the reporting period, some of which were propagandistic. This has not only failed to strengthen information security, but on the contrary has further weakened it. In the cable networks of the three main market operators, media services continue to be dominated by Russian TV channels, which account for a majority share. Although some of the programmes retransmitted by the providers, and some of the media services included in the distributors' offer, are in total disharmony with the requirements established by the CSMA and undermine the country's media information security, CA's attempts to change the situation have been neither sufficient nor effective. The massive presence of foreign media products, in addition to the danger it poses to information security, distorts the advertising market and ultimately discourages investment in local media production. Freedom of the press in the Republic of Moldova - a priority for the state (?) The role of the press in shaping public opinion and consolidating democracy in the Republic of Moldova is extremely important, as the media help to ensure that citizens are informed accurately, promptly and impartially about issues of public interest. Any functioning democracy presupposes guaranteeing freedom of the press, and ensuring the harmonious development of the media sector can only be done by aligning social, political and economic factors in a balanced way with democratic mechanisms and facilitating ethical relations between them. In order to encourage and protect the free press, as well as to ensure the impartiality of media communication, we recommend that the Government, as the public authority representing and exercising executive power, and the Parliament, as the supreme representative body of the people of the Republic of Moldova and the sole legislative authority of the state, by virtue of their legal powers, develop, legislate and implement democratic mechanisms capable of ensuring: Preventing and curbing acts of threats and/or aggression against the media, as well as holding perpetrators accountable; Monitoring cases of intimidation and aggression against journalists, and informing the public about the measures taken by law enforcement bodies; Intensifying the work of the Working Group for the Improvement of Media Legislation, established under the Parliament of the Republic of Moldova; Implement in good faith the National Concept for the Development of the Media; Implement public legal and economic policies to ensure conditions of fair and transparent competition in the activity of media institutions, able to protect them from the danger of bankruptcy and disappearance; Promoting transparency of media funding sources as an important factor of credibility; Reducing the influence of the political factor on media activity by enlarging the independent media sector; Reducing the gap between the media market requirements and the offer of journalism training institutions; Developing real media pluralism, including by stimulating the emergence of new thematic audiovisual media services at local/regional level, and by enhancing the potential of non-linear media services; Supporting and encouraging investment in the diversification of media products offered to the public; Strengthening institutional capacities and professional skills to prevent, expose or counter propaganda, misinformation and false media. Centre for Independent Journalism Association of Environmental and Environmental Tourism Journalists Media-Guard Association Independent Press Association Electronic Press Association Investigative Reporters and Editorial Security Centre Centre for Investigative Journalism Press Freedom Committee