The IJC released its second report monitoring ten television stations during the 2025 parliamentary election campaign. Conclusions for each station
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.
“With some exceptions specified in the report, in the news, most of the time, the context of presenting the competitors was neutral. In the programs, however, guests express their personal opinions, and the very important role of the moderator is to moderate in such a way that the viewer does not end up with the perception that one candidate benefits from a positive context and another from a very negative context,” 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. The IJC will release two more reports during this election campaign. The first report was released on September 9.
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.
