There has been a lot of fracass in recent months concerning the supposedly partisan nature of some Romanian media outlets and, more often than not, Pres. Basescu was at their center. There was a conflict between a cheeky reporter and the President, resulting in an informal confiscation of the journalist’s camera phone, and racist remarks by Basescu. Later, the same Basescu called certain media trusts ‘jukeboxes’, implying the fact that they are commanded by certain political/financial interests.

The issue is of course a mute one. The Intact trust, owner of Antena 1, 2, and 3, take a consistent and blatant anti-Basescu stance, to the point where they lose much of their credibility. On the other side, Realitatea Media are traditionally soft on Basescu, while pursuing campaigns [see the one against the first registration tax] that are, more than populist, targeted at certain parties.

Now, with the beginning of the campaigning for local elections, media scandals are likely to start anew. I guess the question to ask is: are media that are subordinated to financial/political interests free? if so, are they useful for the society? and, finally, what is the best way of minimising the impact of partisan media?

For a broader discussion of press freedom in Eastern Europe [and case studies in Slovakia, Romania and Bulgaria], see this article by Edward Lucas that was published in the most recent Economist.