The IJC released its first report monitoring ten television stations during the campaign for the September 2025 parliamentary elections. Findings and recommendations
The Independent Journalism Center (IJC) launched on Tuesday, September 9, its first monitoring report on the campaign for the parliamentary elections of September 28, 2025. The IJC monitored ten television stations—Moldova 1, TVR Moldova, GRT, Jurnal TV, Pro TV Chișinău, TV8, Exclusiv TV, Cinema 1, One TV, and N4—which were selected based on criteria such as audience, ownership, and language of broadcast. The report covers the period from August 29 to September 5.
As part of its monitoring, the IJC focused on the main news bulletins, as well as programs with a direct or indirect electoral character.
Thus, the public broadcaster Moldova 1 extensively covered the campaign activities of the candidates in its news programs, giving them equal access depending on their events and/or statements. The broadcaster offered viewers varied and balanced perspectives through its news bulletins, but not through its programs. News items directly related to the elections were produced in accordance with professional standards. However, frequent reports on Moldova’s progress towards EU accession and the presence of central authorities talking about various achievements may constitute an advantage for the ruling party, by transferring a positive image.
TVR Moldova reflected the electoral activities of most competitors and the work of the CEC in a fair and balanced manner. Both the news and the programs generally provided documented and objective information, in accordance with journalistic standards. At the same time, the editorial focus on European integration and the relatively frequent presence of central authorities in positive news stories can be interpreted as an indirect advantage for PAS, the ruling party. Overall, however, TVR Moldova managed to provide the public with neutral, diverse, and relatively balanced information about the campaign.
The regional public broadcaster GRT did not actively engage in covering the campaign in the news, limiting itself to reprinting press releases from the electoral authorities. The news was mostly dry and without direct sources, with cases of manipulation by omission being recorded. In this way, GRT blurred the electoral information, providing poorly documented content. With few exceptions, the programs were biased, with multiple ethical violations on the part of the moderators. The central authorities and the ruling party were portrayed exclusively in a negative light, sometimes through labeling and accusations, while the Patriotic Electoral Bloc and the Great Moldova Party were presented exclusively in a positive light. Therefore, neither through news nor through programs did GRT offer the public a documented, neutral, diverse, and balanced picture of the election campaign, but rather a biased and partial one.
Jurnal TV reflected the electoral activities of most of the candidates, as well as other events in this election, in a neutral, fair, and impartial manner. Both the news and the programs generally provided documented information, presented objectively and, for the most part, in compliance with ethical standards. At the same time, the higher number of news items about Irina Vlah – especially in the context of searches with electoral connotations and possible links to Ilan Șor – as well as about Igor Dodon – especially retrospective news covering the period 2014–2019 – generated a slight disadvantage for Patriotic Bloc. Overall, Jurnal TV managed to provide the public with neutral, diverse, and balanced information about the election campaign.
Pro TV Chișinău provided visibility to a large number of electoral competitors, which it generally covered in a neutral manner. The news and programs provided objective information, in compliance with journalistic standards. Some indirect electoral materials, especially about Moldova’s progress towards EU accession, could suggest an image advantage for PAS. In general, however, Pro TV viewers had access to a variety of accurate and balanced election-related content.
TV8 reported accurately and relatively balanced in its news coverage of electoral activities and related topics, providing visibility for more than half of the candidates registered in the electoral race. Most of the news and programs monitored complied with ethical standards, with minor exceptions where deviations from impartiality were found, including through the disproportionate presentation of some candidates. PAS benefited from a positive image transfer in several news items with or about central authorities, and the selection and illustration of information disadvantaged the Patriotic Bloc in several cases. Overall, however, TV8 managed to offer the public a diverse and relatively neutral image of the campaign.
Exclusiv TV was actively involved in covering the election campaign in news and programs, giving visibility to a relatively large number of competitors. For the most part, the topics were covered accurately, impartially, and neutrally in the news. In the programs, the selection of topics and certain formulations introduced some bias that put the ruling PAS party in a slightly negative light, while the Alternative Bloc and Patriotic Bloc benefited from slightly favorable visibility.
Cinema 1 actively covered the first week of the campaign, providing viewers with relevant information that covered most of the campaign activities of the electoral competitors. They benefited from a more neutral coverage, although predominantly from a single source. At the same time, positive news about the central authorities slightly favored the ruling party, while PAS appeared more negatively in the programs.
One TV provided visibility to a relatively small number of electoral competitors. In some cases, deviations from the principles of impartiality and objectivity were noted through generalizations and bias in the selection of information. Central public authorities benefited from predominantly positive coverage, which favored PAS through image transfer. PAS, as a party, also benefited from four appearances with a positive tone, while the Patriotic Bloc and the Alternative Bloc were predominantly presented in a negative light. Overall, One TV offered a partially diverse image of the campaign, with clear emphasis in favor of PAS.
N4 aired a relatively small number of news items featuring the electoral competitors, with the information provided being largely accurate and neutral. Direct coverage of the campaign was limited and concentrated at the beginning of the period, with the focus subsequently shifting to issues related to government activity and European integration. This editorial approach generated an image advantage for central authorities and, indirectly, for PAS. Accordingly, N4 covered the election campaign in a relatively neutral and balanced manner, but with certain shortcomings in terms of diversity of sources, pluralism of opinions, and moderation of programs.
“For all ten monitored television stations, examples are included to illustrate deviations from ethical provisions, with reference to the day and bulletin in which they were detected. Our reports, which focus on qualitative analysis, also include recommendations. We recommend that broadcasters use monitoring reports as self-regulation tools and eliminate shortcomings so that their activities comply with legal norms and the provisions of the Journalist Code of Ethics. More specifically, we would like them to inform voters accurately, impartially, and equidistantly, to ensure pluralism and diversity of opinion by including multiple perspectives on the subject in the news, but also to promote gender equality by citing more female sources,” said Nadine Gogu, executive director of the IJC, at the press conference where the report was launched.
The monitoring was carried out within the framework of the Civic Coalition for Free and Fair Elections. During this election campaign, the IJC will release three more reports.
This report was produced with the financial support of the Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in the Republic of Moldova. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position of the donor.