Managing Teleradio-Moldova: Truth or Libel?
Foto:www.deca.md
Now that the long Moldovan holidays are over, besides such events as abundant snowfall that made the traffic even more difficult, and the car accident caused by Mayor of Chisinau, I hear people talking and writing about failures. Failure to successfully implement laws, policies and plans, failure to reform public institutions, failure of Moldovan citizenry to demand a better political representation and government.
It is too bad we are starting off a brand new year with such a poor progress evaluation. However, it is good to see some people feel compelled and independent enough to deliver the bad news. To continue the previous discussion about the well-being of Moldovan public institutions, let’s take the case of the public TV&Radio company Teleradio-Moldova. Two members of the company’s supervisory board published a report which spells out some facts and figures that suggest an extremely poor management of this important but highly-vulnerable public institution. For example, out of all television companies active in the country (about 7), the public TV Moldova1 with 92% coverage has merely a 4.7% audience. In addition, the report provides a colorful picture of how the company is managed on everyday basis, including its human resources, finances, public relations. Evidently, in this picture, the director of the company does not look very good. So, he decides to sue the authors of the report - and the organization they are affiliated with - for libel.
Will have to see what the court – another public institution – decides in this case. For now, however, I look at this report as a favor to the public in the sense that it provides some hard evidence (although, I must admit, still poorly documented and referenced) about the quality of management of one of its key institutions – the national television and radio. It does provide some answers to those of us wondering why the quality of Moldova1 and Radio Moldova programs reached a level so low it is below any criticism.
Comments: