Mi sono imbattuto in questa decisione della Corte Europea dei diritti dell’Uomo che se non fosse scritta da Giudici tanto autorevoli potrebbe apparire uno straordinario pezzo di satira politica sulle vicende di casa nostra…

Ne propongo qui di seguito qualche stralcio - scusandomi per non aver ancora trovato il tempo di tradurla - perché ritengo che la straordinaria sovrapponibilità tra l’impietosa fotografia della libertà di informazione in Moldavia scattata dai Giudici della Corte e lo stato del sistema radiotelevisivo italiano, sia circostanza che deve far riflettere.

“Teleradio-Moldova” (TRM) was created by Presidential decree as a State-owned company on 11 March 1994, out of the previously existing State broadcasting body. TRM’s statutes were changed in 1995, 1996 and again in 2002, when it was transformed into a public company and was registered as such on 26 July 2004.
In November 2004 a privately-owned Moldovan television station (NIT) began broadcasting nationally. Until that date, in addition to TRM, only one Romanian public channel (Romania 1) and one Russian public channel (ORT) could be viewed throughout Moldova.
Verrebbe da chiedersi se le altre più modeste realtà radiotelevisive operanti in Moldavia appartengano, appartenessero o fossero comunque riconducibili al leader del partito politico espressione della maggioranza di Governo e Premier del Paese…
According to the applicants

(i ricorrenti, ovvero, un gruppo di giornalisti licenziati per aver partecipato a scioperi e manifestato in nome di una maggiore autonomia nella determinazione delle scelte elettorali),

TRM was subjected to political control throughout its existence. However, after February 2001, when the Communist Party

(a volte ciò che temiamo di più è ciò che più ci rassomiglia!)

won a large majority in the parliamentary elections, a number of senior managers at TRM were removed and their positions filled with persons loyal to the Government. The restrictions on journalistic freedom of expression allegedly then became acute.
The applicants alleged that the information disseminated on the news bulletins was strictly controlled by TRM’s senior management

(Vorrei fare qualche esempio italico ma non riesco ad isolare la regola dall’eccezione!).

Whereas it had formerly been part of the first applicant’s job to select news items and write the script for the part of the bulletin which she presented, after 2001 this task was taken over by the Head of the News Section, who would decide which items should be included on the basis of a schedule prepared by the State news agency “Moldpres”. The selection was submitted for approval to the President of TRM and the Director of Radio and Television. Material covering parliamentary, governmental or presidential sessions as well as local visits by official bodies would be given priority

(Incredibile! Ma davvero in una tv di Stato possono accadere certe cose? Personalmente, da italiano, non l’avrei mai neppure immaginato…).
Only a trusted group of journalists and technicians

(Chissà se questi “eletti” in Moldavia sono più o meno numerosi che da noi?)

were used for interviews and reports of a political nature. Whereas before 2001 the journalists had had a large measure of editorial control, they were now given instructions as to the tone and direction that the piece should take; occasionally the entire script was dictated to them. Interviews and other reports which were not broadcast live were selected and edited to present the ruling party in a favourable light

(al riguardo credo noi si sia, ormai da tempo, piuttosto avanti e si abbia molto da insegnare!).
In accordance with TRM policy, reports on the activities of pro-government bodies and officials would last between 3 and 5 minutes. Reports about other events would last between a maximum of 60 and 90 seconds. As a result two-thirds of the time allocated to news bulletins would be dedicated to reports on Government issues.

(Riuscire a disporre dei dati per verificare quale sia l’entità della sperequazione tra la presenza in tv dei “buoni” e dei “cattivi” - decidete voi chi sono gli uni e chi sono gli altri - sarebbe già un risultato da festeggiare ma credo di poter dire,  spannometricamente, che i numeri e le percentuali del “non-pluralismo” sulla nostra TV di Stato non sono molto diversi).

Any conflict within the country or events organised by the opposition, non-governmental organisations or people with views other than those held by the ruling party would not be reported

(Ma ieri la manifestazione di Piazza Navona non è stata trasmessa a reti unificate da tutti i TG RAI?).

No opposition party had access to air-time and a “black-list” was composed of prominent persons from political, cultural and scientific life who did not support the Communist Party and who were not, therefore, allowed access to TRM programmes.

(Ma il famoso editto era bulgaro o moldavo?).

On the rare occasions when an opposition politician was given air-time, the interviews were truncated or the speech was overdubbed with journalistic comment or text provided by the Government news agency, Moldpres.
Programmes other than the news bulletins were also subject to censorship. Controversial topics were forbidden; the identity of guests and studio audiences were controlled; live and interactive programmes were avoided and incoming telephone calls were screened. The weekly broadcasting schedule had to be approved by TRM’s President. Programmes which he did not approve were omitted from the broadcasting schedule without prior notice to the viewers or the participants in the programme and without any explanation

(Anche su questa prassi non credo si possa riconoscere ai moldavi alcun primato o diritto i privativa!).
No comment - Senza parole:

From 9 January to May 2002 the principal opposition party at that time, the Christian Democratic People’s Party, organised daily demonstrations against the Government’s decision to modify the school history curriculum and reintroduce the compulsory study of Russian. The demonstrations, in the Square of the Great National Assembly outside the main Government building, involved tens of thousands of protesters (see further The Christian Democratic People’s Party v. Moldova, no. 28793/02, ECHR 2006-II).
According to the Government, the demonstrations were reported in TRM news bulletins, principally in feature reports by the applicant Corina Fusu. The applicants, however, alleged that coverage of the demonstrations was very limited and strictly controlled so that, in particular, it was forbidden to give any information about the reasons for the protests or the views expressed by the opposition during the parliamentary debate.
On 25 February 2002, 331 members of staff at TRM signed the following declaration of protest:
“We, the employees of Teleradio-Moldova, note that after the Communist Party’s victory in the elections, our freedom of expression has been impaired. Our viewers and listeners have been deprived of the right to accurate and impartial information. In fact, the authorities have restored, in national radio and television, Soviet-style political censorship, prohibited by the Constitution of Moldova. As a result ‘Teleradio-Moldova’ has become an instrument for brainwashing and the manipulation of public opinion, а mouthpiece of the ruling party. We protest against these totalitarian actions, which infringe the rights of television viewers, radio listeners and the freedom of the press as a whole. Breaches of democratic principles of this kind are dangerous, because they destabilise the political situation within our country. We express our solidarity with the actions of the demonstrators, aimed against the forced russification and deliberate destruction of the democratic system. We demand the abolition of censorship within the State Company Teleradio-Moldova and respect for the people’s right to accurate, reliable and impartial information. We demand that the authorities respect the democratic and pro-European policy which the people of this country have chosen.”
On 26 February 2002 the declaration was forwarded to the news agencies and several thousand people gathered in front of the TRM headquarters to protest against political control. Later that day, during the recording of the 7 p.m. news bulletin, the fourth applicant, Dinu Rusnac, refused to read from the script which he had been given which omitted any mention of the protests outside the TRM headquarters. The news crew began to broadcast a report about the demonstrations but, after a few minutes, the bulletin was interrupted and replaced with a documentary film. Military personnel were summoned to the studio. Larisa Manole was not permitted to present the Romanian language news bulletin at 9 p.m., because of her involvement in the protests.
On 27 February 2002 a group of TRM staff decided to go on a “go-slow” strike and a Strike Committee was elected for that purpose. The Strike Committee sent TRM’s President and the Government a list of demands, including the abolition of censorship, and the editors and news-casters decided to start producing uncensored news bulletins. A group of approximately 700 demonstrators gathered outside the TRM building.
That afternoon (27 February 2002), the President of Moldova came to TRM and met with representatives of the Strike Committee. He stated that he was also opposed to censorship. However, he rejected a demand to offer the opposition one hour of air-time, on the ground that the demonstrations in the Square of the Great National Assembly were illegal.
On 5 March 2002 the fourth applicant, Dina Rusnac, included in the script of the 7 p.m. news bulletin an item about the response of the Strike Committee to certain declarations of the President of Moldova and also an interview with the leader of the Christian Democratic Peoples Party, Iurie Roşca. The Head of the News Section deleted these paragraphs from the script. During the programme, which was broadcast live, Mr Rusnac made allegations of censorship and held the redacted script up to camera. Immediately, the Section Head ordered the technician to cut the sound.
Dejà vù:

Following the events of 27 February 2002, the first applicant, Larisa Manole, who had formerly read the news in Romanian every evening, was permitted to present it only one or two evenings a week. On 6 March 2002, on the ground that she had made a mistake while reading the news, she was demoted from the position of editor and senior news-reader to that of a junior reporter and was no longer permitted to present the bulletin.
She brought employment proceedings against TRM and on 11 September 2002 the Court of Appeal held in her favour, ordering TRM to reinstate her in her previous position of news-reader. TRM did not, however, comply with the judgment and Ms Manole never got her former job back. She was not given enough work as a reporter and was allegedly subjected to harassment and censorship, to the point where she was no longer able to earn a living and had to resign on 13 November 2002. She then worked for a press agency and for another television company.
On 7 March 2002 the fourth applicant, Dinu Rusnac, was subjected to a disciplinary sanction in the form of a severe warning (”mustrare aspră”) for having departed from the authorised script of the news bulletin on his own initiative. In addition, he was demoted from his position of news-reader and deprived of the right to present any news programmes.
He brought proceedings against TRM and, on 23 September 2002, the Court of Appeal annulled the disciplinary sanction on the ground that Mr Rusnac did not appear to have breached any contractual obligation by departing from the script. It rejected his claim to be reinstated as news-reader, however, since it found that he had no contractual right to this position which he had filled on the basis of an oral agreement only. On 25 October 2002 TRM withdraw the disciplinary sanction in compliance with the Court of Appeal’s judgment.
On 27 July 2004 the journalists who had not been retained in post organised a press conference at which they contended that they had been dismissed for political reasons. A feature report about that press conference was scheduled for the 7 p.m. news bulletin. However, the President of TRM took the decision to broadcast a nature documentary instead.
On the same date, the President of TRM issued an order by which nineteen of the individuals who had taken part in the press-conference, including five of the applicants, were banned from entering TRM premises. The journalists and their supporters continued their protest outside the TRM building for approximately several months.

UPDATE: Ieri mentre riflettevo su questa decisione della Corte Europea dei diritti dell’uomo non avevo ancora sentito il “messaggio” - mi rifiuto di definirla intervista - a “reti quasi unificate” del nostro premier agli italiani. Credo che più tardi tornerò a leggere la decisione della Corte ed a suggerire un immediato ricorso agli stessi giudici da parte di qualche giornalista coraggioso della nostra TV di Stato (se così può ancora definirsi).