How TV Stations Covered the 2025 Parliamentary Election Campaign: CJI Publishes New Monitoring Reports Vrei să-l fac mai formal (pentru un ra
The Independent Journalism Center (IJC) released on Tuesday, September 16, its second monitoring report on the election campaign for the September 28, 2025 parliamentary elections. The report reflects the results of the evaluation of ten television stations—Moldova 1, TVR Moldova, GRT, Jurnal TV, Pro TV Chișinău, TV8, Exclusiv TV, Cinema 1, One TV, and N4—between September 6 and 12, 2025.
In addition to the main news bulletins and programs on these stations, in the second week of the campaign, the IJC also focused on the electoral debates.
Thus, the public television station Moldova 1 reflected the election campaign in a neutral and balanced manner, providing coverage for almost all electoral competitors. Since many materials—especially those of an indirect nature—focused on the actions of the central authorities or President Maia Sandu, they painted a favorable picture of the government and, by extension, of the PAS electoral competitor. The Alternativa bloc was slightly disadvantaged by the presentation of Ion Ceban, one of the party’s leaders, in the news with a negative context. The programs only touched on election topics, focusing on foreign and security issues, with fair moderation and no digressions.
In its news bulletins, the regional public television station GRT covered the elections neutrally, building its agenda based on information provided by the Central Electoral Commission. All electoral competitors had access to the news bulletins. The news reports did not include direct interventions by the candidates, with the television station compiling information taken from online sources. In its programs, GRT took a biased approach, with constant criticism of the PAS and the central public authorities, lacking diversity of opinion. The moderator took an active position in supporting the guests’ accusations, feeding them with his own opinions, which affected the balance and impartiality of these media products.
For the most part, TVR Moldova offered the public a neutral and diverse picture of the electoral process through news, providing documented information and, to a large extent, complying with ethical standards. However, there was a noticeable preference for covering the activities of central public authorities, which could be interpreted as an indirect advantage for the ruling party. The news coverage was generally neutral, while the programs showed signs of bias, especially in their negative coverage of the Patriotic Electoral Bloc and the Alternative Bloc.
Jurnal TV reported on the electoral process in a fair and balanced manner in its news bulletins, giving visibility to most of the candidates and maintaining a generally neutral tone. No clear signs of political partisanship were identified, although there were some instances of bias. PAS was indirectly favored by the predominantly positive coverage of the European process and the activities of central public authorities. During the programs, comments were more favorable to pro-European parties, especially PAS, while parties associated with the eastern vector, such as Patriotic Electoral Bloc and the Great Moldova Party, were predominantly portrayed in a negative light. The moderators maintained a broadly balanced approach, but did not intervene consistently to ensure the representation of all parties concerned, which partially affected the editorial balance.
Pro TV Chișinău covered the election campaign in a generally balanced and fair manner. The tone of the news was predominantly neutral. President Maia Sandu was portrayed in a positive light in several news items, which gave PAS an indirect advantage. During the program, the moderator did not consistently intervene to balance the discussion in the case of accusations or criticism of several electoral competitors, which led to editorial imbalance.
TV8 presented the election campaign fairly, both in the news and in its programs. Most of the electoral competitors were portrayed neutrally, although in some cases a certain degree of bias was noted in the selection and presentation of information. In some situations, public authorities were portrayed in a positive light, which could be perceived as an advantage for PAS. Although the programs were generally balanced, there were moments of bias in moderation in relation to Patriotic Electoral Bloc and tensions between guests.
Exclusiv TV was actively involved in covering the election campaign, both through news and programs. The station provided visibility to a relatively large number of candidates, and the topics were generally covered accurately, impartially, and neutrally. However, in the case of PAS, there were signs of bias, with the potential to disadvantage, while Patriotic Electoral Bloc benefited from favorable visibility. The programs provided space for diverse debates and opinions, but there were also cases of one-sided presentation, lack of the right of reply in controversial situations, and age discrimination by one candidate against colleagues from other parties.
Cinema 1 consistently reflected the election campaign, providing access to a multitude of electoral competitors, who were presented in a predominantly neutral manner. With a few exceptions, most of the news items respected the principles of neutrality and impartiality, but they were one-sided, based on a single source of information. Representatives of central public authorities had a high presence in the news, with the tone being mostly positive, which implicitly favored the ruling PAS party.
One TV covered the election campaign with neutral and balanced stories, some of which lacked diversity, focusing on the electoral process and avoiding giving competitors direct access to news and programs. The station did not report on the campaign activities of the competitors, who were mainly presented in the context of mutual accusations or conflicts. Several reports were biased in their selection of information, which cast certain political actors in a positive or negative light. The Alternativa bloc had the most negative coverage, while PAS was generally portrayed neutrally, but benefited from positive coverage of representatives of central public authorities.
N4 was involved in covering the election campaign through news, debates, and programs. In the news, the visibility of the candidates was low, as the station did not cover their campaign activities or statements, with the exception of PAS. The ruling party also benefited from a large number of news items about the activities of central authorities, including President Maia Sandu, in a positive context. The debates and programs broadcast were generally neutral and fair, with no obvious elements of bias.
The Independent Journalism Center (IJC) released on Tuesday, September 23, its third monitoring report on the election campaign for the September 28, 2025, parliamentary elections. The report reflects the results of monitoring ten television stations—Moldova 1, TVR Moldova, GRT, Jurnal TV, Pro TV Chișinău, TV8, Exclusiv TV, Cinema 1, One TV, and N4—selected based on criteria such as audience, form of ownership, and language of broadcast. The third monitoring report covered the period from September 13 to 19.
The IJC focused on the main news bulletins, direct and indirect election-related programs, and election debates.
Thus, the public broadcaster Moldova 1 covered the election campaign in a neutral manner, giving space to most of the candidates running in the election. Patriotic Electoral Bloc, PAS, and Moldovan National Party benefited from the highest visibility in the news, with the tone of coverage being predominantly neutral. At the same time, frequent reports featuring central and local public authorities referring to various achievements may constitute an advantage for the ruling party by transferring a positive image.
The regional public broadcaster GRT covered the election campaign in the news in a neutral and impartial manner. All electoral competitors were quoted or mentioned in the relevant materials, which included summaries of their electoral programs. The debates provided space for all electoral competitors, but the moderation did not always manage to ensure balance, which led to the PAS electoral competitor being placed in a negative context.
TVR Moldova covered the election campaign in neutral and balanced news reports, but the electoral competitors’ access to the news was limited. There was no obvious favoritism or bias towards any competitor in the news, and the debates were moderated fairly and impartially. At the same time, the editorial orientation in favor of topics with frequent appearances by central authorities in positive news items can be interpreted as an indirect advantage for PAS, the ruling party.
Jurnal TV covered the election campaign actively and, in general, fairly, giving visibility to a large number of candidates and largely complying with ethical standards. The station did not focus only on controversial material, but also on publicizing the electoral priorities of the candidates, without favoring or disadvantaging any of them. With a few exceptions, there were no serious shortcomings or deviations in the moderation of the programs, but there was a lack of pluralism of opinions.
Pro TV Chișinău actively covered the campaign in news and debates, without major deviations from professional and ethical standards. Controversial materials were balanced, and some of the news ensured diversity of sources. The station provided access to news and debates for most of the candidates in the elections. The tone of the coverage of the candidates was mostly neutral, with no obvious bias in favor of any candidate. The Patriotic Electoral Bloc, the Great Moldova Party, and the Alternative Bloc were disadvantaged by most of their appearances in negative contexts.
TV8 covered the election campaign in a generally balanced manner, without any bias, both in its news and in its programs. The station gave visibility to a large number of competitors, who most often appeared in controversial materials or in contexts other than the presentation of electoral priorities. Patriotic Electoral Bloc is the competitor with the most appearances in a negative context, both in news and in programs. The debates were moderated fairly, giving candidates the opportunity to present their priorities.
Exclusiv TV covered the campaign through news, debates, and election-related programs, without clearly favoring or disfavoring any electoral contestant. In the news, the station gave reduced visibility to the contestants, who were more present in programs and debates. Overall, the news respected the principles of impartiality and neutrality, but did not ensure diversity of opinion. In programs, the government and PAS were most often portrayed in a negative light.
Cinema 1 gave visibility to a large number of candidates, with the tone of coverage being predominantly neutral. Most of the material respected the principle of impartiality, although most was based on a single source. Representatives of central public authorities were frequently present in the news, with a predominantly positive tone, which generated an indirect advantage for the ruling party, PAS. The debates were organized under fair conditions for all invited competitors.
One TV covered the election campaign through news, programs, and debates. Less than half of the electoral competitors registered in the race had access to the news. PAS was the only party whose campaign events were covered, with the rest of the candidates being presented mostly in conflictual or critical contexts. The ruling party was also favored by the extensive presentation of the top 20 candidates on the list and by the transfer of the positive image of the central public authorities. On the other hand, cumulatively, in news and programs, the Alternative Bloc was most frequently presented in a negative light. During the debates, the participating electoral competitors were disadvantaged by the analyses of the experts present in the studio, and the rules imposed by the moderators regarding the language spoken limited the freedom of expression of one competitor.
N4 covered the campaign in news, debates, and programs. The number of news items featuring electoral competitors was relatively small, with the station failing to ensure sufficient visibility for electoral competitors. The coverage of the candidates in the elections was mostly neutral, with the exception of PAS, which was portrayed more positively. Central public administration was covered predominantly positively, with this editorial approach generating an image advantage for central public authorities and, indirectly, for PAS.
The Independent Journalism Center (IJC) launched, on Tuesday, September 30, the fourth monitoring report of the electoral campaign for the parliamentary elections of September 28, 2025. The report, the last in this series, presents the monitoring results of ten television stations – Moldova 1, TVR Moldova, GRT, Jurnal TV, Pro TV Chișinău, TV8, Exclusiv TV, Cinema 1, One TV, and N4 – selected based on criteria such as audience, ownership type, and broadcasting language. The report covered the last week of the electoral campaign, September 20–26.
The IJC monitored the main news bulletins, programs with direct and indirect electoral content, as well as electoral debates.
Moldova 1 actively covered the electoral campaign in news and debates, providing visibility to all electoral contestants. Most news items were correct and balanced, though there were also insufficiently documented materials. In news, PAS benefited from the highest visibility, including through repeated mentions of the BUN decision to withdraw in its favor and through the positive coverage of central public authorities, which indirectly favored the ruling party. The six electoral debates were, for the most part, conducted fairly.
GRT provided limited coverage of the campaign in news, granting restricted access to electoral contestants. The station failed to report on the court decision to suspend the activities of the Inima Moldovei Party, part of the BEP, and its exclusion from the electoral race, which can be interpreted as manipulation by omission. Many of the analyzed programs were characterized as unbalanced, biased, and partial, portraying the central public authorities and the ruling party PAS in a negative light.
TVR Moldova covered the electoral campaign in a neutral and balanced manner, without tendencies to directly or indirectly favor certain candidates. However, the frequency of materials about the country’s European vector, the presence and interventions of central authorities in these news items, and the tone of the monitored program may have provided a positive image boost for the PAS candidate through image transfer.
Jurnal TV reflected the campaign in news mostly neutrally, correctly, and impartially, offering visibility to more than half of the contestants. The most frequent appearances were PAS, BEP, and Blocul Alternativa. PAS was mainly reflected neutrally, while BEP and Blocul Alternativa were disadvantaged by several news items portraying them negatively. During the debates, the moderation of discussions was at times biased and lacked impartiality, favoring some contestants while disadvantaging others.
Pro TV Chișinău covered the campaign in news and debates with a neutral and balanced tone, with no violations of professional standards observed. Less than half of the registered contestants were mentioned/cited in news items, with the reflection being predominantly neutral for most of them. BEP, Alianța Moldovenii, and Blocul Alternativa also appeared in a negative context. The debates offered equal speaking opportunities to all candidates present in the studio, with no favoritism or discrimination observed.
TV8 provided balanced and neutral coverage, giving visibility to more than half of the contestants. For the most part, their visibility came from presence or mentions in controversial topics or news items based on debates. BEP and PAS had the most appearances/mentions, mostly neutral. Overall, debate moderation was balanced, though there were moments of tension between candidates or between moderators and candidates.
Exclusiv TV covered the campaign without favoring or disfavoring any contestant. News items were mostly correct and neutral, and debates were organized without deviations. However, the programs showed shortcomings in moderation, allowing some contestants to make accusations that were not always counterbalanced by moderators.
Cinema 1 reflected the campaign generally neutrally and fairly, both in news and debates. The station provided visibility to 21 out of the 23 contestants, with most materials presented in a neutral tone. PAS benefited from the most appearances, including through the activities of central authorities, which indirectly gave it a positive image advantage. Blocul Alternativa and BEP also registered numerous appearances, generally neutral, with some negative accents. Debates were organized fairly, with neutral and correct moderation.
One TV actively reflected the campaign in news, programs, and debates. Most news items were correct and balanced, though there were also biased materials that disadvantaged certain contestants. News coverage provided access to half of the contestants, with a predominantly neutral tone, except for Partidul Moldova Mare. PAS benefited from a relatively high number of positive appearances through central public authorities.
N4 reflected the campaign through news, debates, and programs. The number of news items on contestants’ activities was low, reducing their visibility. PAS and BEP had the greatest exposure. PAS was generally reflected neutrally, while BEP’s coverage was split between negative and neutral tones. Central authorities were mostly presented in a favorable light, indirectly strengthening the positive perception of PAS.