The new law on mass media. How is journalism of the future regulated in the Republic of Moldova?

The new Law on Mass Media is to be voted in the Moldovan Parliament soon, in the second reading. It means it will come into force by the end of the year. What does this document provide and how will journalism be affected after the new law?

This draft law aims to ensure the proper functioning of independent editorial offices and free journalists to serve the public interest, but also to discourage violations and abuses that harm journalism and the process of accurately informing citizens. Some articles in the draft law ensure this, but some of them should be reviewed and adjusted.

Today’s law will regulate tomorrow’s cognitive wars

Analyzing the legislative project in all its complexity, I find that a clearer vision of the information space of the future and the challenges ahead is needed. The effects of EU accession, the invasion of artificial intelligence, the development of algorithms on social networks, trends in journalistic activity on Big Tech platforms, fulminating digitalization, cognitive wars – all these macro factors, but also many other smaller influences, radically change the trajectory of information consumption. A media law adopted now must be a law for the journalism of the future.

I have analyzed the draft point by point and I want to note that there are new chapters that were missing in the old legislative acts, and that are very important for the present and the future. In addition to the chapters that ensure the rights and freedoms of media providers and journalists, pluralism and the prevention of media concentration, the law contains a chapter on the transparency of information providers on all platforms: from TV, radio or paper publications to the enormous digital space. The new draft law also includes a Register of media entities, which is to be kept by the Ministry of Culture.

Register of media service providers – pros and cons

For the first time in the Republic of Moldova there will be such a register, which is why this part of the new law is the most discussed. The register is one of the transparency measures, so that any media institution will have the essential data at hand: the names of the founders, editors-in-chief, address and contact details. Speaking of journalism of the future, given that Moldova is preparing to join the EU, this register is also a requirement for all member states of the European Union, each state being obliged to provide transparency to all media service providers.

Let’s admit that at the moment, in Moldova, transparency and integrity of editorial offices and journalists is not the required rule. On the one hand, TV and radio stations are obliged to submit data on owners and financing to the CA, but often this information is not found on their own pages. In contrast, media that provide journalism on websites and Telegram channels, YouTube, and other social media pages have no legal obligation to be transparent. Anyone is free to open one (or many) journalistic projects online without saying who they are, what their editorial policy is, where they get their money from, etc. In the era of information warfare, this opacity greatly affects citizens, and manipulation and disinformation projects cannot be combated without the knowledge of those who do it.

In states with an advanced democracy, anyone who provides a service must be transparent and accountable. Journalism is a public interest service, and citizens must know who exactly is providing them with information. So, a registry of media service providers has this purpose.

However, when we talk about freedom of the press, the first rule is that the state should not constrain the media in any way, that journalists should feel free to make critical analyses, including those directed at the authorities. Can this register harm media freedom?

Can the state coerce journalists?

As a case study, we can analyze Ziarul de Garda, which I manage. ZdG was registered with the Ministry of Justice in 2004, when it was launched. At that time, the state asked us for, and we provided immediately:  the identity documents of the founders, their home addresses, the personal documents of the administrator and the editor-in-chief, and their contact details. With the act confirming official registration of ZdG at the Ministry of Justice, we went to the tax office for permission to open bank accounts. We presented all our personal identity documents again. From that moment on, the state knew who we were, where we were, what accounts we had, who transferred money to us, whom we transferred the money to. From 2004 to the present, the Republic of Moldova has had a dozen governments, many of them very hostile to investigative journalism and to Ziarul de Garda in particular.

We knew that the state knows everything about us – that’s why we knew that we had to be absolutely correct in everything we did. For us, an extra register, after all the other institutions that know everything about us, no longer seems to be a problem. Moreover, we publish on our website, of our own free will, everything that a possible new state register would require: the names of the founders, the data of the administrator, the editor-in-chief, activity reports, sources of funding, editorial policy and many other data.

I follow with great concern what is happening to journalists and independent media institutions in countries where democracy is deteriorating or even being abolished: I have journalist friends in Georgia, Belarus, Russia, but also in European countries such as Hungary or Slovakia. In these countries, the state has caused a lot of problems for investigative journalists, but this happened with or without the Media Register. When a state wants to get journalism off the stage, it does so despite any legislative guarantees.

If someone were to ask me, I would prefer that this register be kept by a non-governmental institution, such as the Press Council, for example. Or I would prefer that professional associations mediate the placement of media entities in the register. I will explain why. My biggest concern is not that the state will collect and know the editorial and managerial data of the media institution, because this data must be known to all media consumers, including the authorities. My biggest concern is about the ability of the Ministry of Culture, or any other state institution, to discern and understand what is a journalistic entity and what is not.

Who and how decides whether an entity is a media service provider?

It will be wrong to include in the Media Register entities that declare themselves to be journalistic but are not, such as Sputnik, Russia today, but also many Russian outlets that have successfully created local offices and that present themselves as media. In this context, the institution that will keep the register will have to have  very qualified experts in the verification process. However, registration in the register also brings further opportunities, such as requesting grants from the Media Support Fund, and in past editions of the grant competitions we saw that there was not a very good understanding of the integrity of the media when the ministerial jury made decisions.

Another concern related to this register could come from the paragraphs of the law that provide for punitive measures for not presenting complete or timely information. There are risks of arbitrary punishments, which is why I believe it is good to have the mediation of professional associations, so that editorial offices and journalists do not feel alone in their relationship with the state.

At the same time, analyzing all the provisions of the new draft law, another important aspect was not clear to me: how will those who do not want to comply with the law, those who do not want to be registered and accept the transparency norms be held accountable? It is not clear whether the multitude of Youtube podcasts programs and Telegram channels, as well as the orchestras of accounts on other digital platforms that produce information content, that take money from advertising, open or hidden sponsorships, fall under the scope of this law. On the one hand, they provide informational, journalistic services, on the other hand – they do this without assuming the Code of Ethics and an editorial policy, without transparency regarding the income accumulated for the dissemination of information. Under these conditions, these sources cannot be qualified as professional media. Who could force someone to call themselves a journalist (and to comply with journalistic norms) if they do not want to?

Do influencers also need ethics and responsibility? But AI?

Maybe we need a registry of content creators and providers? Anyone who attracts and develops a community of readers must have rules of responsibility. The information space is a common space, where everyone has freedoms, but not everyone has responsibilities. Who and how will hold accountable the armies of pseudo-editorials on Telegram, TikTok, which distribute non-stop fakes, manipulations, but also aggressive attacks against journalists? Maybe we need a Law on the Integrity of the Information Space, which will have provisions regarding these slippages?

A more complex issue is communication with the large BigTech companies that own content distribution platforms (Google, Meta, TikTok, Telegram), which take money from these pseudo-journalistic entities, which manipulate algorithms in the interests of certain groups, but which do not ensure transparency on these issues nor demand integrity and ethics from those who provide informational services on these platforms. And if, through massive funding for social media accounts (which can be legal, having entities registered in Moldova, or illegal – which no one investigates), they manage to dominate online audiences (we already have such examples), how much does the new Media Law help us?

The new draft law only refers to artificial intelligence in two places, and that is insufficient, because the AI is already rolling at full speed on information platforms, trampling journalism, ethics and other norms. At the moment, there are AI bot farms that are targeted to invade the pages of independent editorial offices and suffocate them with hundreds of indecent comments per minute. A human journalist will never be able to defeat a robot, an algorithm, a digital tool used by someone well paid and with bad intentions. The new law should, at the very least, impose the marking of content created with AI, as well as the AI ​​tools used to generate accounts, comments, etc.

Could the new law protect responsible journalism?

Finally, we must note that a media law must protect journalists from abuses. Some of them are listed in the draft, but we want to make sure that together with the Anti-Slapp package, the Law on Access to Information, the package on the outrage of journalists, this new law will ensure safe working conditions for journalists and editorial offices of good faith, which responsibly serve the public interest.

For example, I would like to see a series of measures to ensure access for journalists to the Transnistrian region, just as journalists from Tiraspol have access to Chisinau. Journalists cannot be stopped by barriers and armed posts in a free country. At the same time, actions of detention and harassment of reporters visiting localities on the left bank of the Nistru River can no longer be tolerated.

I would like to see measures to protect journalists from digital assaults, endless slander distributed in cyberspace, threats, but also digital attacks coming from foreign territories – from Russia or even from malign entities established in EU states. And we also want to hold all participants in information processes and confrontations within cognitive wars accountable, not just journalists.

A list of observations and comments on the draft law was sent to the Parliamentary Commission for Mass Media on July 27, 2026.

Alina Radu, Association “Media-Guard”