Romanian Mass-Media
Ethics, professionalism and political constraints
by Dr Aura Daraba
Synopsis: The most common reasons for the deviation from professional and ethical journalistic norms, and lack of journalistic freedom are the political pressures followed by the insufficient professional training. The inability of the audience to analyze ideas or facts, the fact that populations act and react under the majority’s pressure and are very susceptible to persuasion (especially when it appeals to emotions) are traits that are strongly exploited by the Romanian journalists and politicians. Recently, the Romanian mass-media used the case of a child’s death to deliberately appeal to the emotions of people to get them to believe that the mass extermination of the stray dogs is justifiable. This is based on the myth that no one is safe from attacks by stray dogs, especially the children. This represents a skillful psychological manipulation by the politically influenced mass media to get people to come to a conclusion that matches the violent intention of those associated with these killings. This Chapter addresses how all these previously mentioned factors are dangerously combined to strongly influence public opinion in favor of unethical actions, illegalities, violations of human and animal rights, extremist behavior, disrespect for democratic principles, and acceptance of violence as a norm.
by Dr Aura Daraba - Although Romanian mass-media has been associated with several problems related to respecting ethics, this section will only be a case study on the negative involvement of mass-media in the social landscape created by the law 258 per 2013 (Euthanasia Law). Over the years, especially since the new era of democracy has been installed in Romania post 1989, it was expected that the Romanian mass-media would become free and ethical. In contrast, many studies on the freedom and ethics of the Romanian journalism and mass-media demonstrated an alarming deviation from these attributes. The problems that arise from this behavior of the Romanian mass-media are influencing society’s attitudes and perceptions of the problems that are presented and discussed as news since the main source of information/education of the population is the mass-media.
As discussed by many specialists, the media ethics are a very complex topic and the reporters have to face a wide range of ethical issues on an everyday basis while dealing with the way they gather, organize and present their news. Truthfulness, sensationalism, authenticity, accuracy, factual reporting, and even discrimination based on different reasons etc. represent challenging ethical issues for mass-media [1] [2].
It is also known that there is a strong, direct link between mass-media ethical performance on the public scene and the societal reaction, as a response to the mass communication. Through less truthful and less ethical statements, and one-sided presentation of the facts, the audience will be misled and confused. The audience (the citizenry) is not given an opportunity to hear and consider all alternatives so they can make an informed decision. If the deontology, the “code of ethics”, is not respected the mass communication becomes a tool of manipulation of the masses.
The most common reasons for disregarding the journalistic professional and ethical norms that lead to mass-media loss of freedom, as demonstrated by 60% of Romanian journalists, are the political pressures followed by the insufficient professional training [3]. Additionally, Klyueva and Tsetsura (2010) stated that: “Due to its historical heritage, Romanian journalism has always been characterized by weak professional culture and ambiguous identity.”. According to their quantitative study the main influences on the media as perceived by Romanian media professionals are the corporate owners closely followed by the political affiliations of the Romanian media [4]. The major players on the market have owners who are directly involved in politics, some of them actually being members of the Parliament. Sorin Roșca Stănescu (PNL senator, former manager and shareholder of the Ziua daily and other publications), Gabriela Vrânceanu Firea (PC senator, former TVR news anchor and moderator at Antena1 and Antena3), Tudor Barbu (PP-DD deputy, former OTV journalist), Sebastian Ghiță (PSD deputy, owner of România TV and other local publications), Dan Voiculescu (PC senator, owner of the Intact trust, through his family) are only few examples [5].
The decreasing credibility of the Romanian press is a consequence of excessive political involvement in the media, the merging of the television stations to form the main information source for the 94% of Romanians and the inclusion of the media owner’s preferences in the content of the media [4] [5].
Also, strong political police actions of intelligence services along with the covert presence intelligence services agents in newsrooms have contributed to the loss of freedom of the mass media [3].
This dangerous combination of politics, police-type actions of intelligence services undercover agents, and the dissociation of the mass media from credible regulatory and control agencies such as CAN, The national Council of the Audio-visual, has molded the Romanian mass media into a political propaganda dissemination tool. In fact, it has been documented that the mass-media has been used as an instrument to gain political and economic advantages [3]. Sometimes, information of important public interest is omitted from being broadcasted because of political and/or economic factors and authorities might at times prevent public access to such information. Also, preventing the press and public from open debate on important topics of public interest is common. However, some journalists and activists have begun to implement the “open data concept” [3].
According to the global Press Freedom Index conducted by Reporters without Borders, Romanian mass-media has been scored 45, in 2014; 42, in 2013, and 47, in 2012. This score reflects the degree of freedom of journalism in each ranked country and the efforts made by the authorities to respect and ensure respect for this freedom. The global Press Freedom Index addresses violations of freedom of information and does not take into account the human rights violations, in general. The score given to each country ranges from 0 to 100; 0 being the best possible score and 100 the worst. The Press Freedom Index reduction between 2013 and 2014, from 42 to 45 could be explained by the fact that 2014 is an election year in Romania and by the intense involvement of political interests in the mass-media that characterize such a pre-election period [6].
According to Ionut Codreanu, who has been monitoring previous sensational coverage for ActiveWatch, a media-monitoring agency in Romania: “This is just another chapter in the decay of the Romanian media landscape”. He emphasized that: “Over the last years we gathered irrefutable evidence that proved that, in order to survive through the economic storm, Romanian media and journalists took the easy way. Our yearly research on ethical standards in media discourse clearly states the lack of manner and rules in dealing with sensitive issues. Journalists pay no respect to privacy or human dignity and take every opportunity to exploit vulnerable individuals or tragic events.”[7].
Case study of the mass-media ethical performance with regard to euthanasia law (Law 258/2013) and the death of a child (Ionut Anghel) allegedly killed by stray dogs on a private property.
The evolution of this two issues, euthanasia law and mass extermination of the dogs in correlation with the death of a child (Ionut Anghel) allegedly killed by stray dogs on a private property as presented in Romanian mass-media should not be seen in a vacuum. Last year, on September 2nd, the child Ionut Anghel was allegedly killed by dogs but the official investigation is yet to be completed. This tragedy happened while he and his brother were unsupervised by their grandmother who took them out in a park. This case was extensively covered by the mass-media and it shocked the whole country. Under the pressure of street events organized as protests by the Initiativa pentru Responsabilitate Civica (IREC) group (having as a leader Mrs. Ana Maita), a law which was not thoroughly analyzed, was hastily adopted. According to this law the stray dogs are to be caught, brought to a public shelter and euthanized after 14 days if they are not reclaimed or adopted. As the details of the death of the child came out, the civil society became polarized into two groups. One group, which is in minority, is supported by IREC, and advocates for the mass extermination of stray dogs at any cost, including those housed in shelters. The other group, formed by the majority of the population, is supportive of the dogs’ right to life and it proposes as neutering, micro-chipping and the punishment of owners for abandonment as alternatives to mass killings. The parents of the dead child, the Anghel family, made a public spectacle of this tragedy by making frequent TV appearances, providing numerous interviews for newspapers and extensively using the social media (such as Facebook) from the day of their child’s death to present time.
Although it was proven that the grandmother could not account for the whereabouts of the two grandchildren (a 4- and a 6-year old) for about one hour in a public area (Tei Park) she has never been charged for child neglect but instead she made several appearances in mass-media (TV shows and newspapers). This is in contrast to charges that several Romanian parents or guardians faced in the past for lesser incidences of child neglect. Laws relating to the neglect of minor children are currently present in Romanian law books. It is therefore very strange that the grandmother of the now deceased child remains free of any charges of negligence. The social and political context that characterize this period of time could be of importance when deciphering why the mass-media in Romania deviated from the most basic concepts of ethics and professionalism.
The year of 2014 is an election year in Romania.
The lack of education of the population (audience) on the issue of the stray dogs and the non-cooperative attitude of the authorities. The incapacity of a large part of the society to see the truth beyond what is presented to them as “hot”, “reliable” news is dependent on the degree of the education that they received even via non-formal education routes such as the mass communication channels. Thus, an uninformed and uneducated audience can be easily manipulated and persuaded by the wrong information because there is no frame of reference for them to compare this information with the worldwide reality and facts. Not exposing the population to all the evidence will wrap the population in a “mental crust” that will not permit the permeation of the information to them and will keep them in the dark. Ms. Avadani states: “unfortunately, Romania never considered launching a media literacy programme and every delay is wasted time,” [7]. She also believes that “What we have now is the confluence of an uneducated public, uneducated journalists and poor quality editors.” [7]. There are obvious signs that the Romanian mass-media is failing to fulfill its responsible role of truthfully informing and educating the public and, overall, we deal with a recipe for disaster.
Therefore, in the minds of some people, authorities or ordinary people, mass euthanasia is something “normal” when dealing with large numbers of stray animals.
The mass media used the case of this child to deliberately appeal to the emotions of people to get them to eventually believe that the mass killings are justifiable based on myth that no one is safe from attacks by stray dogs especially the children. This represents skillful psychological manipulation by the mass media to get people to come to a conclusion that matches the violent intention (mass killings) of those associated with these killings. At this time, several manipulation procedures and techniques were used intensively by the mass media, the ultimate goal being the tainting of public opinion.
It is recognized that the public opinion is vulnerable because of two main reasons: i) lack of competence of the crowd in analyzing ideas or fact, and ii) the mass of people acts and reacts under the majority’s pressure. Also, crowds are very susceptible to be persuaded (especially when persuasion appeals the emotional, irrational area [10]. Robert Cisimo, considers that “mass media participates not only to the genesis, but also to the manipulation of the public opinion” [10]. More than ever, in Romanian mass media the manipulation techniques became very obvious. Romanian mass media selectively published biased opinions that instigate human rights violations and failed to air how human rights and property laws are being violated by the actions of the dog catchers.
There is a preponderance of newspaper articles, television news and talk shows that convey confusing and contradictory information of the mass king issue and incite hatred for stray dogs. They present unsubstantiated scenarios, and numerous coincidental occurrences aimed at swaying the thinking of the population towards supporting the extermination of stray dogs. These persuasive attempts deceitfully urge the population to not question the action of authorities. In addition, this approach by the mass media is also aimed at justifying the decision of the authorities for the mass extermination of stray dogs. In addition these actions are apparently attempts to condition the minds of the people to accept violence and killings as the solution to the problem.
Due to bias and lack of ethics of the Romanian mass-media in presenting information related to the massacre of the stray dogs, a parallel mass communication network has been formed on different social media. In this virtual place, information regarding the abuse of animals, the barbaric killing of the stray dogs, the horrific conditions in which these dogs are kept before they are killed, the human rights violation by the authorities and police forces (which are deliberately omitted by the main stream media) are exposed by private individuals as witnesses of these gruesome events. Several examples of these important issues are discussed in the following sections.
Producing and broadcasting biased information in different forms. The main result of this type of manipulation is the strong polarization of the Romanian society into two groups: i) the group of those who oppose the mass extermination of the stray dogs and support other alternatives such as: spay and neutering, adoptions, sanctions for abandonment, and educational campaigns on responsible ownership of dogs, and ii) the group of those who want the extermination of stray dogs by killings. The lack of balance in the presentation of the news by the Romanian mass-media has further exacerbated the problem of polarizing the society and creating hostilities among the two groups.
Lying by omission, presenting half-truths and biased selection of news. Under this heading are many examples of manipulation regarding the activity of Non-government organizations (NGOs) that deal with animal protection, and the ongoing violation of human rights. With the help of mass-media, the NGOs are wrongfully blamed for the existence of stray dogs on the streets. It worth mentioning that no NGO made a social or moral contract with the Romanian society to gather all the street dogs whereas the Romanian authorities had this moral, social and financial obligations towards the tax-payers to solve this problem.
Romanian media continued its campaign of misinformation of the public by presenting the illegal trafficking of dogs which is carried out by some NGOs. The main source of this information was Razvan Bancescu - ASPA Bucharest. Mass media and ASPA representative stated that many dogs are being sent abroad illegally, to Belgium, especially for vivisection and medical experiments. It was also mentioned that the NGOs earn 6 million euro per year from this business and they receive between 200 to 600 Euros per shipped dog. Although these are very serious accusations, no NGO’s name was provided to the public making these accusations dubious. Therefore, the question is how ASPA, Bancescu and PRO TV channel had this information about which no one knew? It is worth mentioning that in their news they stated that the Romanian authorities (ANSVSA – Autoritatea Nationala Sanitar Veterinara si pentru Siguranta Alimentelor/ Sanitary Veterinary and Food safety National Authority) did not receive any official letter from Belgian authorities about this matter. In fact, ANSVSA declared that they had no knowledge or information from their Belgian colleagues regarding illegal transportation of stray dogs from Romania to Belgium [11]. In broadcasted news by B1 TV, it was stated that the dogs transported illegally from Romania to Belgium suffer from rabies [12]. While comparing this news with the news broadcasted by the Belgian mass media it was easy to observe that their statements were different from those made by the Romanian mass media. The 7sur7 TV channel was only mentioning the fact that the Food Safety Belgian Authority (AFSCA) was only informed of a possible illegal transport of dogs from Romania to Glabbeek in Brabant province. Additionally, AFSCA mentioned the rabies danger related to the illegal transported animals [13]. On the Flandreinfo.be website, there is a video which shows that the citizens of Glabbeek preparing to save the stray dogs of Romania and they have already prepared a shelter for them [14].
In many instances human rights were violated by the Romanian authorities in their quest to capture more dogs. Dog catchers were directly taking dogs away from owners because those owners did not have the health records of the dog in their possession while walking their dogs (i.e.: see the case of Mr. Aurel Ambrozie, Bucharest). Another recent case of stolen dog is Ms. Enuta Rata’s case. Her dog, a Bichon, was stolen by the dog catchers from her arms on April 3, 2014 in the Titan (IOR) Park, Bucharest. Ms. Rata and her husband went to recuperate their dog from ASPA but the dog could not be found. Mr. Rata made a penal complaint with regard to how the dog was stolen and how they were treated by the dog catchers and ASPA workers. These cases, along with many others were presented extensively on the alternative mass communication media, Facebook.
Unannounced and unauthorized entry on the premises where housed and medically treated by an NGO (Vier Pfoten Romania) and an individual rescuer, on March 21, 2014. Videotaped footage from the observers presented on social media revealed the braking into kennels and brutal handling of the dogs before transporting them in packed cages in vans without ventilation to a public shelter (Bragadiru public shelter) [15]. The rescue of the stolen dogs is posted on Youtube website [16]. All these violations were never presented or discussed by the mass-media; therefore, the vast majority of the Romanian public remains unaware of the pain and suffering inflicted on the dogs during capture.
Another example of lying by omission and biased selection of the news in the Romanian mass-media is the fact that in most instances the anti- killing national protests were very little broadcasted whereas the pro-killing protests received extensive coverage. The international anti- killing protests, especially those that took place simultaneously in the whole Europe, on March 8th, 2014 were never addressed in the Romanian media.
Important events, such as the visits of delegations of Animal Welfare Intergroup that took place on December 4th, 2013 and on January 28th, 2014 were not broadcasted although these were very important moments in the activity of this delegation with regard to the animal welfare in Romania. Additionally, the press conference that followed the visits of the Animal Welfare Intergroup in Romania, was not presented by the mass media to the Romanian public. People had to find out about these events mostly from other mass communication channels such as Facebook or other websites.
In one instance involving children, the mass-media presented the pro-killing of the dogs protest organized by the Civilizatia secolului 21 Association (this association is part of the extremist IREC group). During this protest, the children brought by their parents to this event, were questioned by the reporters to give their views on how the stray dogs should be killed and to display their drawings containing information on how the dogs should be “removed” from the human society [17]. Is this a socially responsible action by the mass-media and by the parents to involve children in such horrific and distasteful discourse on slaughter of dogs or any other form of life? Interestingly, the opinions and actions of those children who are against killing of the dogs were never broadcasted. Children, from 11 countries, were writing many letters in support of saving the Romanian stray dogs; these letters could virtually cover almost 1 kilometer [18]. This was part of the on-going project of Princess Maja von Hohenzollern who is a dedicated animal rights activist. Later, Princess Maja von Hohenzollern brought these letters to EU Parliament [19]. Princess Maja stated on her official Facebook page: “Children from 11 European countries designed with impressive images this letter and send a clear signal against dogs murder in Europe. They are protesting against the recent killing of approximately 2.5 million stray dogs in Romania. The children in Europe want a humane and loving contact with stray dogs and consider animals as worthy of protection part of our society. Princess Maja von Hohenzollern spoke to representatives of the European Parliament and calls for an immediate end to the mass killing of stray dogs in Romania, the disclosure of the EU payments to Romania and animal welfare education as a compulsory subject in schools in Europe. She criticized the misuse of EU funds in Romania with which a corrupt business with the murder of street dogs is operated. Such crimes against animals should not be financed with EU funds.
Maja von Hohenzollern referred to an internationally study that already 86.3 % of Romanian children (6-14 years) were severely traumatized by the brutal killing of dogs on the street. She also condemned the violation of international conventions and animal protection laws by Romania and the recent attacks against NGOs in Romania. At the behest of Romanian politician In NGO's shelters was broken, dogs were stolen and murdered, kennels and facility were destroyed.” None of these important actions or letters were acknowledged or even mentioned by the Romanian mass-media.
Broadcasting unsubstantiated information. With regard to broadcasting unsubstantiated information, the mass-media gave the news a certain orientation without official evidence. This is the case of presenting the dogs as the killers of the 4-year old child before a final official investigative report was issued. Only recently the investigation was completed and the administrator of the terrain where the child (Ionut Anghel) was found dead and the authorities of the District 2 of Bucharest were held responsible and will face law suits [20] [21]. In the article “Ancheta privind decesul lui Ionuţ, finalizată de Parchet” [20] is stated: “<<The investigation has been finalized and I have been informed that, during today, it will be send for judgement>>, declared Tiberiu Niţu the General prosecutor of Parchetul Înaltei Curţi de Casaţie şi Justiţie.[…] The investigation regarding the death of Ionut Anghel was initiated on September 3rd, 2013, by the prosecutors of the Trial Court in Bucharest, and a day later it was taken over by prosecutors of the Supreme Court who pursued manslaughter charges. Parchetul Înaltei Curţi de Casaţie şi Justiţie (PÎCCJ) announced, on September 27th, 2013, that the representatives of the Public Domain Administration (Administraţiei Domeniului Public) of District 2, the representatives of the SC Tei Rezidenţial SRL Bucharest, and Constantin Ciorăscu, the owner of the terrain where Ionut Anghel was found dead, were summoned to be informed of the accusations and for being questioned as perpetrators. The investigators questioned the parents, other persons and the grand-mother of Ionut Anghel. Răzvan Băncescu, project co-ordinator of ASPA, Carmen Secăreanu, the president of the Caleidoscop Association, Lavinia Mirela Nica, former volunteer at Caleidoscop Association, Marcela Pîslă, the president of “Cuţu- Cuţu“ Association, Constantin Ciorăscu, the owner of the terrain where Ionut Anghel was found dead, and Octavian Sandu, the man who brought back Andrei Anghel, Ionut’s brother, to his grand-mother, in Tei Park were all questioned. Six dogs were picked-up, on September 2nd, 2013, from the terrain located on Tuzla Street, where Ionut has been found dead. Răzvan Băncescu declared that one of these dogs, that had blood traces on his mouth, was sterilized by ASPA and adopted by Caleidoscop Foundation in 2008. In September, police forces fined SC Tei Rezidenţial SRL, company which has in administration the terrain where Ionut Anghel was found dead. The representatives of this company were fined with 2000 lei because they were not having put in place a plan for the protection of the property. Also, the custodian of the property has been fined, by the Police, with 300 lei, because he was not having a certificate and, therefore, the custodian was deemed unqualified for working as a guard. […] Prosecutors heard also, as a witness, Octavian Sandu, the man who brought back Ionut’s brother to his grand-mother, in Tei Park. Octavian Sandu, declared at the end of hearings, that, on September 2nd, 2013, he saw Ionut’s brother, Andrei, on the street, being scared, and he took the boy back to his grand-mother. Octavian Sandu mentioned that he approached the boy after he saw the boy was crying and he realized that something wrong happened. Additionally, Octavian Sandu said that he found out about the other missing boy (namely Ionut Anghel) when he brought back Andrei to his grand-mother.” At this point it might be pertinent to ask the following question: Why was the grandmother of this child not held responsible for child neglect? For more than one hour, the grandmother could not account for the whereabouts of the two children whom she was supervising. During that time the children, the victim (Ionut Anghel) and his 6-year old brother found themselves at more than 1 kilometer from the park where their grandmother had taken them. The omissions and lack of balanced reporting by the mass-media make it challenging for the audience to deduce the truth associated with the circumstance surrounding the death of this child.
Another incident presented by the Romanian mass-media raises a lot of questions regarding the mass-media ethics and deep involvement in creating and supporting news related exclusively to dog attacks.
This incident that took place on January 27, 2014 is the most intriguing incident since it deals with the father of the 4-year old boy allegedly killed by the dogs on September 2, 2013. According to the news presented mainly by the Antena 3 TV channel, Valentin Anghel (the father) and his wife were viciously attacked by six dogs while being in the cemetery Sfanta Vineri visiting the grave of his son, Ionut Anghel [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]. Is this a coincidence or an attempt to bias the public by making amplifying dog-related tragedies that occur in the Anghel family? Another interesting coincidence is that this “scenario” occurred exactly when the EU Commission (Animal Intergroup Delegation) visited Romania with regard to the situation of the abuse of stray dogs, on January 28, 2014. Is this another attempt of Romanian mass media to vilify the stray dogs?
A recent incident, that took place on April 1, 2014, raises a lot of doubts with regard to the actual scenario presented by the mass-media (Antena 3 TV channel, PRO TV channel etc.). The following video was presented at PRO TV channel: a 7-year old child has been attacked by a stray dog while playing with other children in Titan Park (IOR Park) in Bucharest [23]. The child was completely under his mother’s supervision. They state that incident took place immediately after ASPA (Animal Protection Association which is in fact the official dog catcher organization) raided the park and some dogs were taken from there. At the minutes 1:03, 1:07, and 1:38 of the videotape the witness of this attack, Alina Dinicu alias Alina Loredana (the second in charge of extremist group IREC, known as a staunch supporter of the killing of the dogs) appears in the video news broadcast. She fully describes how the incident unfolded: she and the mother of the 7-year old child were staying near the playing ground and a dog, who was sitting at 10 meters distance from the children, just came and attacked the child suddenly. She also states that after the incident, a woman, an animal lover, came and fed the dogs with the food she had in her bag. The child was seen by Dr. Catalin Apostolescu (from the Matei Bals Institute of infectious diseases) and he stated for the reporters, over the phone: “The child arrived to us in a very good shape, presenting only two scratches at the level of the butt produced, based on the mother’s declaration, by a stray dog”. In the later part of the video, the reporter reminded to the audience that about 2 weeks ago prior to this incident, a woman was found dead and she had multiple dog bites on her. This is the case of the woman found dead in the area of Obor market in Bucharest due to the alcoholic coma, and choking from her vomitus, as per official report [27] [28] [29] [30]. The reporter also mentioned the fact the child who was attacked on April 1st was supervised (unlike Ionut Anghel who was unsupervised by his grandmother) and the child was not an alcoholic (like the dead woman from Obor market). It would seem that the reporter is trying to give the erroneous impression that no one is safe, especially children, whether or not they are supervised. The reporter tries to make the dubious relationship between the death of the woman (as a result of heavy alcohol consumption) and attacks by dogs. At the end of the news, the reporter also expresses his concern regarding the fact that the current mass extermination efforts against stray dogs are insufficient. Intriguingly, how can an anti-dog person such as Alina Dinicu be coincidentally present at the time and the place of the stray dog attack? Is this a pure coincidence? What is the statistical probability of this coincidence occurring? It is worth noting that these two cases (the case of Valentin Anghel attacked by dogs in cemetery and the case of the 7-year old boy attacked in the Titan (IOR) Park) most likely represent situations that cannot be cancelled. This is certainly due to the lack of witnesses or testimony by credible witnesses.
Obvious promotion of one group’s opinions and the exclusion of those of the other group. The specific group involved in support of mass extermination of the dogs is the IREC group. This group and its leaders, namely Ana Maita and Alina Dinicu, are afforded extensive media coverage for exposing their ideas (press releases, talk-shows, open letters, and interviews). Over seven months since the death of their child, the Anghel family has been given extensive media coverage, even called national heroes. The media broadcasted information from the mother of Ionut Anghel who proposed that: i) Ionut be named as a martyr of the Orthodox Romanian Chruch [35] [36] [37] and ii) the park close to where the child was found dead to be re-named from Tei Park into Anghel Ionut Park [38] [39]. This is in stark contrast to the little or no media coverage given to the opinions of pro-life individuals or groups in Romania.
Media “lynching” of the stray dogs by any means. Apart from the previously mentioned examples, the Romanian mass-media is “lynching” the dogs with information that depicts the dogs as acute biological threats through which diseases can be spontaneously spread to humans. For example, the mass-media stated that the dogs’ feces are a source of pollution air and if blown by air it can spread infectious diseases [40] [41]. To further create unnecessary anxiety and negative perception of dogs among the populace, the mass-media stated that the dogs are a source of tuberculosis [42]. A “mutant” virus which lives in dogs’ saliva produced meningitis a girl from Timisoara city [43]. The stray dogs were also nominated as a national threat and the Romanian Intelligence Service (SRI) got involved in the counting of the stray dogs [44].
This is a clear example of misleading information given by authorities with the help of mass media to: i) justify the Article 1 of the norms of the Law 258/2013, which states: “The purpose of the present norms is to reduce the number of the stray dogs […] to reduce the occurrence of rabies and other zoonoses, to reduce the risk to human health.”, and ii) justify that killing of stray dogs will reduce zoonoses such as tuberculosis and “mutant” viral diseases etc. Additionally, according to their logic, such killings will reduce risks to human health.
To evaluate the incidence of zoonoses in humans, scientific studies on both prevalence of the diseases in animals and the extent of human exposure are very important. To the author’s knowledge, the authorities have not conducted scientific studies in dogs (stray or domestic) nor in humans, or provided results of studies that justify their previously mentioned statements. No such official data are presented on the webpages of the National Sanitary Veterinary and Food Safety Agency (ANSVSA) and of the National Institute of Infectious Diseases (Matei Bals). A similar situation exists regarding the occurrence of rabies on these two official websites: no cases of rabies transmitted from stray dogs (especially those from the city) are mentioned as part of their official risk analysis. Therefore, we can ask the following questions: Is the dogs’ extermination justified from zoonoses and risk to human health stand points? How can a risk that was never scientifically assessed be reduced? If national authorities are not presenting scientific proof of these zoonoses why do the mass media present unsubstantiated information? Is this not a way to manipulate the thinking of the population?
Also, it is well-documented, scientifically, that human exposure to zoonotic diseases depends on a person’s lifestyle and occupation. For example, veterinarians and farmers are far more at risk for contracting zoonoses than other persons (Saegerman et al., 2012, Reducing hazards for humans from animals: emerging and re-emerging zoonoses. In: Italian Journal of Public Health, 9/2, p. 13-24). Therefore, the zoonoses propaganda only creates more fear and hysteria in the broader segment of the population to get people to support the extermination of stray dogs.
As the reader can observe, the Romanian audience is not given an opportunity to analyze the situation. The audience is constantly bombarded with biased news about the victim (Ionut Anghel), victim’s family, dog attacks, and venomous, hateful speeches from pro-killing individuals and groups. Stories are told repeatedly, with slight variations that are sometimes contradictory or with new additions to purposely support the mass extermination of the dogs. Under these conditions, the public opinion is constantly kept under pressure and the result of this aggressive persuasion is an increased sense of violence and hate between those who are pro-euthanasia of dogs and those who are against it. From mass-media standpoint, Romania has become the most hostile country in Europe towards dogs, stray or owned.
Offensive mental profiling of opponents. In many instances, the opponents of the euthanasia law or of the Anghel family were “diagnosed” from psychological and psychiatric stand points with the help of professionals brought by the media. On this occasion the opponents were called: “stupid”, “delirious”, “ill-minded”, “neurotic”, “full of hate” etc. [45] [46]. It is worth noting the fact that one of these specialists, Dr. Florin Tudose, psychiatrist, is often used by the mass media as a “hired gun” to make the mental profile of different individuals including personalities, although these subjects are never asked if they agree to be diagnosed. Dr. Florin Tudose had a legal conflict with a representative of the parliament, Mrs. Cristina Ancuta Pocora, because of sexual discrimination. At that time, in 2011, Dr. Tudose expressed publicly his opinion regarding the fact that the TV presenters, especially the women, should have a psychiatric evaluation before going on TV [47].
Uncensored opinions of mass media employees who fuel the aggression towards dogs. In many instances, several TV presenters or talk-show hosts and artists were allowed by the mass media to express freely and publicly, during the shows, their opinion against the dogs: Lucian Mindruta, Puya, Andreea Marin, Mihaela Rădulescu, Nadine etc. Radu Banciu, the TV show host of „Lumea lui Banciu”, broadcasted by B1TV, stated that he will give 250 lei to anyone who will bring him a dog’s fur. The dog can remain on the street [48] [49].
by Dr Aura Daraba - Although Romanian mass-media has been associated with several problems related to respecting ethics, this section will only be a case study on the negative involvement of mass-media in the social landscape created by the law 258 per 2013 (Euthanasia Law). Over the years, especially since the new era of democracy has been installed in Romania post 1989, it was expected that the Romanian mass-media would become free and ethical. In contrast, many studies on the freedom and ethics of the Romanian journalism and mass-media demonstrated an alarming deviation from these attributes. The problems that arise from this behavior of the Romanian mass-media are influencing society’s attitudes and perceptions of the problems that are presented and discussed as news since the main source of information/education of the population is the mass-media.
As discussed by many specialists, the media ethics are a very complex topic and the reporters have to face a wide range of ethical issues on an everyday basis while dealing with the way they gather, organize and present their news. Truthfulness, sensationalism, authenticity, accuracy, factual reporting, and even discrimination based on different reasons etc. represent challenging ethical issues for mass-media [1] [2].
It is also known that there is a strong, direct link between mass-media ethical performance on the public scene and the societal reaction, as a response to the mass communication. Through less truthful and less ethical statements, and one-sided presentation of the facts, the audience will be misled and confused. The audience (the citizenry) is not given an opportunity to hear and consider all alternatives so they can make an informed decision. If the deontology, the “code of ethics”, is not respected the mass communication becomes a tool of manipulation of the masses.
The most common reasons for disregarding the journalistic professional and ethical norms that lead to mass-media loss of freedom, as demonstrated by 60% of Romanian journalists, are the political pressures followed by the insufficient professional training [3]. Additionally, Klyueva and Tsetsura (2010) stated that: “Due to its historical heritage, Romanian journalism has always been characterized by weak professional culture and ambiguous identity.”. According to their quantitative study the main influences on the media as perceived by Romanian media professionals are the corporate owners closely followed by the political affiliations of the Romanian media [4]. The major players on the market have owners who are directly involved in politics, some of them actually being members of the Parliament. Sorin Roșca Stănescu (PNL senator, former manager and shareholder of the Ziua daily and other publications), Gabriela Vrânceanu Firea (PC senator, former TVR news anchor and moderator at Antena1 and Antena3), Tudor Barbu (PP-DD deputy, former OTV journalist), Sebastian Ghiță (PSD deputy, owner of România TV and other local publications), Dan Voiculescu (PC senator, owner of the Intact trust, through his family) are only few examples [5].
The decreasing credibility of the Romanian press is a consequence of excessive political involvement in the media, the merging of the television stations to form the main information source for the 94% of Romanians and the inclusion of the media owner’s preferences in the content of the media [4] [5].
Also, strong political police actions of intelligence services along with the covert presence intelligence services agents in newsrooms have contributed to the loss of freedom of the mass media [3].
This dangerous combination of politics, police-type actions of intelligence services undercover agents, and the dissociation of the mass media from credible regulatory and control agencies such as CAN, The national Council of the Audio-visual, has molded the Romanian mass media into a political propaganda dissemination tool. In fact, it has been documented that the mass-media has been used as an instrument to gain political and economic advantages [3]. Sometimes, information of important public interest is omitted from being broadcasted because of political and/or economic factors and authorities might at times prevent public access to such information. Also, preventing the press and public from open debate on important topics of public interest is common. However, some journalists and activists have begun to implement the “open data concept” [3].
According to the global Press Freedom Index conducted by Reporters without Borders, Romanian mass-media has been scored 45, in 2014; 42, in 2013, and 47, in 2012. This score reflects the degree of freedom of journalism in each ranked country and the efforts made by the authorities to respect and ensure respect for this freedom. The global Press Freedom Index addresses violations of freedom of information and does not take into account the human rights violations, in general. The score given to each country ranges from 0 to 100; 0 being the best possible score and 100 the worst. The Press Freedom Index reduction between 2013 and 2014, from 42 to 45 could be explained by the fact that 2014 is an election year in Romania and by the intense involvement of political interests in the mass-media that characterize such a pre-election period [6].
According to Ionut Codreanu, who has been monitoring previous sensational coverage for ActiveWatch, a media-monitoring agency in Romania: “This is just another chapter in the decay of the Romanian media landscape”. He emphasized that: “Over the last years we gathered irrefutable evidence that proved that, in order to survive through the economic storm, Romanian media and journalists took the easy way. Our yearly research on ethical standards in media discourse clearly states the lack of manner and rules in dealing with sensitive issues. Journalists pay no respect to privacy or human dignity and take every opportunity to exploit vulnerable individuals or tragic events.”[7].
Case study of the mass-media ethical performance with regard to euthanasia law (Law 258/2013) and the death of a child (Ionut Anghel) allegedly killed by stray dogs on a private property.
The evolution of this two issues, euthanasia law and mass extermination of the dogs in correlation with the death of a child (Ionut Anghel) allegedly killed by stray dogs on a private property as presented in Romanian mass-media should not be seen in a vacuum. Last year, on September 2nd, the child Ionut Anghel was allegedly killed by dogs but the official investigation is yet to be completed. This tragedy happened while he and his brother were unsupervised by their grandmother who took them out in a park. This case was extensively covered by the mass-media and it shocked the whole country. Under the pressure of street events organized as protests by the Initiativa pentru Responsabilitate Civica (IREC) group (having as a leader Mrs. Ana Maita), a law which was not thoroughly analyzed, was hastily adopted. According to this law the stray dogs are to be caught, brought to a public shelter and euthanized after 14 days if they are not reclaimed or adopted. As the details of the death of the child came out, the civil society became polarized into two groups. One group, which is in minority, is supported by IREC, and advocates for the mass extermination of stray dogs at any cost, including those housed in shelters. The other group, formed by the majority of the population, is supportive of the dogs’ right to life and it proposes as neutering, micro-chipping and the punishment of owners for abandonment as alternatives to mass killings. The parents of the dead child, the Anghel family, made a public spectacle of this tragedy by making frequent TV appearances, providing numerous interviews for newspapers and extensively using the social media (such as Facebook) from the day of their child’s death to present time.
Although it was proven that the grandmother could not account for the whereabouts of the two grandchildren (a 4- and a 6-year old) for about one hour in a public area (Tei Park) she has never been charged for child neglect but instead she made several appearances in mass-media (TV shows and newspapers). This is in contrast to charges that several Romanian parents or guardians faced in the past for lesser incidences of child neglect. Laws relating to the neglect of minor children are currently present in Romanian law books. It is therefore very strange that the grandmother of the now deceased child remains free of any charges of negligence. The social and political context that characterize this period of time could be of importance when deciphering why the mass-media in Romania deviated from the most basic concepts of ethics and professionalism.
The year of 2014 is an election year in Romania.
- The political pressure on mass-media is increasing as the politicians focus on ways to get supporters (votes), to get campaigning funds;
- At this time, interference of the media owner’s preferences in the content of the media increased as the corporate owners are already involved in politics or have strong links with the politics;
- Populism as a distraction is often used in these times to blur the senses of voting masses. In this regard mass-media, as a tool of political propaganda, will extensively use some news to influence the population in a direction that is imposed by the political reasons;
- Other techniques are used to obscure the voting masses view of real problems to be addressed (i.e.: by creating new, different distracting problems that will get the masses’ attention).
The lack of education of the population (audience) on the issue of the stray dogs and the non-cooperative attitude of the authorities. The incapacity of a large part of the society to see the truth beyond what is presented to them as “hot”, “reliable” news is dependent on the degree of the education that they received even via non-formal education routes such as the mass communication channels. Thus, an uninformed and uneducated audience can be easily manipulated and persuaded by the wrong information because there is no frame of reference for them to compare this information with the worldwide reality and facts. Not exposing the population to all the evidence will wrap the population in a “mental crust” that will not permit the permeation of the information to them and will keep them in the dark. Ms. Avadani states: “unfortunately, Romania never considered launching a media literacy programme and every delay is wasted time,” [7]. She also believes that “What we have now is the confluence of an uneducated public, uneducated journalists and poor quality editors.” [7]. There are obvious signs that the Romanian mass-media is failing to fulfill its responsible role of truthfully informing and educating the public and, overall, we deal with a recipe for disaster.
- Over the years no education campaigns or programs were officially put in place with regard to the documented long-term success of spay and neutering compared to euthanasia. The majority of Romanian population was exposed, over the decades, even before 1989, only to the mass euthanasia of stray dogs. They were never exposed to or told about the success of the spay and neutering programs because none of the authorities that came into power after 1989 was interested in applying this approach as a measure to control the stray dogs numbers and to replace the mass euthanasia.
Therefore, in the minds of some people, authorities or ordinary people, mass euthanasia is something “normal” when dealing with large numbers of stray animals.
- Authorities never implemented, over the decades, since 1989, the punishment of abandonment of the animals. Additionally, segments of population were never made aware of the fact that the abandonment is the main source of stray animals and the main cause of the growing numbers of stray dogs or cats. Animal abandonment has been never viewed as part of animal abuse or punished as such. No law has been enforced in this regard. For most citizens, especially those who lack education (self-education or acquired through formal education) abandonment is viewed like something normal, something that you do when you cannot cope with or no longer want the responsibility of caring for your animals. Although at one moment the Law 9/2008 provides in the Art. 271. - (1) The Romanian Radio and Television promotes animal protection programs. (2) The Ministry of Education, Research and Youth, within the civic education classes will promote animal protection actions” no one of those responsible for its implementation was interested in putting in practice the education via mass-media or in schools [8].
- The population was not informed of the scientific evidence (and practical results) that shows that spay and neutering programs can be a success as predicted and recommended by World Health Organization (WHO). All the scientific facts, success stories, and positive examples are and were constantly denied, under advertised in the mass-media, and treated like unimportant facts.
- Even the modest trials to advertise the adoptions were stopped at high levels. In September 2013 a Project for promoting the stray dogs’ adoption has been submitted to the General Mayor of Bucharest, Dr. Sorin Mircea Oprescu, for approval. The Project was never approved by Mr. Oprescu [9].
- There were no instances when a representative of the Romanian officials came out in front of the public to speak, in a balanced way, about the pros and the cons of each method of controlling the population of stray animals. Aspects such as humane treatment of the animals, animal rights and welfare, and financial gain or loss were not discussed in an unbiased way with regard to spay and neutering versus euthanasia. The general message that was always directed to the public was: “we euthanize”. Without any other explanation other than the numbers of stray animals are high and all the killing is done from the perspective of “protecting” the society. Also, an interesting comment made by an IREC official in support of mass killings of the dogs, referred to the compassion that is felt for the dogs because they suffer on the streets; therefore, death is a suitable relief for the animals. Therefore, in this respect, my question as an individual is: How can I know there are no other ways to manage the stray animals? How can I know the emotional, social, financial aspects of this killing approach if I am not educated in this regard?
The mass media used the case of this child to deliberately appeal to the emotions of people to get them to eventually believe that the mass killings are justifiable based on myth that no one is safe from attacks by stray dogs especially the children. This represents skillful psychological manipulation by the mass media to get people to come to a conclusion that matches the violent intention (mass killings) of those associated with these killings. At this time, several manipulation procedures and techniques were used intensively by the mass media, the ultimate goal being the tainting of public opinion.
It is recognized that the public opinion is vulnerable because of two main reasons: i) lack of competence of the crowd in analyzing ideas or fact, and ii) the mass of people acts and reacts under the majority’s pressure. Also, crowds are very susceptible to be persuaded (especially when persuasion appeals the emotional, irrational area [10]. Robert Cisimo, considers that “mass media participates not only to the genesis, but also to the manipulation of the public opinion” [10]. More than ever, in Romanian mass media the manipulation techniques became very obvious. Romanian mass media selectively published biased opinions that instigate human rights violations and failed to air how human rights and property laws are being violated by the actions of the dog catchers.
There is a preponderance of newspaper articles, television news and talk shows that convey confusing and contradictory information of the mass king issue and incite hatred for stray dogs. They present unsubstantiated scenarios, and numerous coincidental occurrences aimed at swaying the thinking of the population towards supporting the extermination of stray dogs. These persuasive attempts deceitfully urge the population to not question the action of authorities. In addition, this approach by the mass media is also aimed at justifying the decision of the authorities for the mass extermination of stray dogs. In addition these actions are apparently attempts to condition the minds of the people to accept violence and killings as the solution to the problem.
Due to bias and lack of ethics of the Romanian mass-media in presenting information related to the massacre of the stray dogs, a parallel mass communication network has been formed on different social media. In this virtual place, information regarding the abuse of animals, the barbaric killing of the stray dogs, the horrific conditions in which these dogs are kept before they are killed, the human rights violation by the authorities and police forces (which are deliberately omitted by the main stream media) are exposed by private individuals as witnesses of these gruesome events. Several examples of these important issues are discussed in the following sections.
Producing and broadcasting biased information in different forms. The main result of this type of manipulation is the strong polarization of the Romanian society into two groups: i) the group of those who oppose the mass extermination of the stray dogs and support other alternatives such as: spay and neutering, adoptions, sanctions for abandonment, and educational campaigns on responsible ownership of dogs, and ii) the group of those who want the extermination of stray dogs by killings. The lack of balance in the presentation of the news by the Romanian mass-media has further exacerbated the problem of polarizing the society and creating hostilities among the two groups.
Lying by omission, presenting half-truths and biased selection of news. Under this heading are many examples of manipulation regarding the activity of Non-government organizations (NGOs) that deal with animal protection, and the ongoing violation of human rights. With the help of mass-media, the NGOs are wrongfully blamed for the existence of stray dogs on the streets. It worth mentioning that no NGO made a social or moral contract with the Romanian society to gather all the street dogs whereas the Romanian authorities had this moral, social and financial obligations towards the tax-payers to solve this problem.
Romanian media continued its campaign of misinformation of the public by presenting the illegal trafficking of dogs which is carried out by some NGOs. The main source of this information was Razvan Bancescu - ASPA Bucharest. Mass media and ASPA representative stated that many dogs are being sent abroad illegally, to Belgium, especially for vivisection and medical experiments. It was also mentioned that the NGOs earn 6 million euro per year from this business and they receive between 200 to 600 Euros per shipped dog. Although these are very serious accusations, no NGO’s name was provided to the public making these accusations dubious. Therefore, the question is how ASPA, Bancescu and PRO TV channel had this information about which no one knew? It is worth mentioning that in their news they stated that the Romanian authorities (ANSVSA – Autoritatea Nationala Sanitar Veterinara si pentru Siguranta Alimentelor/ Sanitary Veterinary and Food safety National Authority) did not receive any official letter from Belgian authorities about this matter. In fact, ANSVSA declared that they had no knowledge or information from their Belgian colleagues regarding illegal transportation of stray dogs from Romania to Belgium [11]. In broadcasted news by B1 TV, it was stated that the dogs transported illegally from Romania to Belgium suffer from rabies [12]. While comparing this news with the news broadcasted by the Belgian mass media it was easy to observe that their statements were different from those made by the Romanian mass media. The 7sur7 TV channel was only mentioning the fact that the Food Safety Belgian Authority (AFSCA) was only informed of a possible illegal transport of dogs from Romania to Glabbeek in Brabant province. Additionally, AFSCA mentioned the rabies danger related to the illegal transported animals [13]. On the Flandreinfo.be website, there is a video which shows that the citizens of Glabbeek preparing to save the stray dogs of Romania and they have already prepared a shelter for them [14].
In many instances human rights were violated by the Romanian authorities in their quest to capture more dogs. Dog catchers were directly taking dogs away from owners because those owners did not have the health records of the dog in their possession while walking their dogs (i.e.: see the case of Mr. Aurel Ambrozie, Bucharest). Another recent case of stolen dog is Ms. Enuta Rata’s case. Her dog, a Bichon, was stolen by the dog catchers from her arms on April 3, 2014 in the Titan (IOR) Park, Bucharest. Ms. Rata and her husband went to recuperate their dog from ASPA but the dog could not be found. Mr. Rata made a penal complaint with regard to how the dog was stolen and how they were treated by the dog catchers and ASPA workers. These cases, along with many others were presented extensively on the alternative mass communication media, Facebook.
Unannounced and unauthorized entry on the premises where housed and medically treated by an NGO (Vier Pfoten Romania) and an individual rescuer, on March 21, 2014. Videotaped footage from the observers presented on social media revealed the braking into kennels and brutal handling of the dogs before transporting them in packed cages in vans without ventilation to a public shelter (Bragadiru public shelter) [15]. The rescue of the stolen dogs is posted on Youtube website [16]. All these violations were never presented or discussed by the mass-media; therefore, the vast majority of the Romanian public remains unaware of the pain and suffering inflicted on the dogs during capture.
Another example of lying by omission and biased selection of the news in the Romanian mass-media is the fact that in most instances the anti- killing national protests were very little broadcasted whereas the pro-killing protests received extensive coverage. The international anti- killing protests, especially those that took place simultaneously in the whole Europe, on March 8th, 2014 were never addressed in the Romanian media.
Important events, such as the visits of delegations of Animal Welfare Intergroup that took place on December 4th, 2013 and on January 28th, 2014 were not broadcasted although these were very important moments in the activity of this delegation with regard to the animal welfare in Romania. Additionally, the press conference that followed the visits of the Animal Welfare Intergroup in Romania, was not presented by the mass media to the Romanian public. People had to find out about these events mostly from other mass communication channels such as Facebook or other websites.
In one instance involving children, the mass-media presented the pro-killing of the dogs protest organized by the Civilizatia secolului 21 Association (this association is part of the extremist IREC group). During this protest, the children brought by their parents to this event, were questioned by the reporters to give their views on how the stray dogs should be killed and to display their drawings containing information on how the dogs should be “removed” from the human society [17]. Is this a socially responsible action by the mass-media and by the parents to involve children in such horrific and distasteful discourse on slaughter of dogs or any other form of life? Interestingly, the opinions and actions of those children who are against killing of the dogs were never broadcasted. Children, from 11 countries, were writing many letters in support of saving the Romanian stray dogs; these letters could virtually cover almost 1 kilometer [18]. This was part of the on-going project of Princess Maja von Hohenzollern who is a dedicated animal rights activist. Later, Princess Maja von Hohenzollern brought these letters to EU Parliament [19]. Princess Maja stated on her official Facebook page: “Children from 11 European countries designed with impressive images this letter and send a clear signal against dogs murder in Europe. They are protesting against the recent killing of approximately 2.5 million stray dogs in Romania. The children in Europe want a humane and loving contact with stray dogs and consider animals as worthy of protection part of our society. Princess Maja von Hohenzollern spoke to representatives of the European Parliament and calls for an immediate end to the mass killing of stray dogs in Romania, the disclosure of the EU payments to Romania and animal welfare education as a compulsory subject in schools in Europe. She criticized the misuse of EU funds in Romania with which a corrupt business with the murder of street dogs is operated. Such crimes against animals should not be financed with EU funds.
Maja von Hohenzollern referred to an internationally study that already 86.3 % of Romanian children (6-14 years) were severely traumatized by the brutal killing of dogs on the street. She also condemned the violation of international conventions and animal protection laws by Romania and the recent attacks against NGOs in Romania. At the behest of Romanian politician In NGO's shelters was broken, dogs were stolen and murdered, kennels and facility were destroyed.” None of these important actions or letters were acknowledged or even mentioned by the Romanian mass-media.
Broadcasting unsubstantiated information. With regard to broadcasting unsubstantiated information, the mass-media gave the news a certain orientation without official evidence. This is the case of presenting the dogs as the killers of the 4-year old child before a final official investigative report was issued. Only recently the investigation was completed and the administrator of the terrain where the child (Ionut Anghel) was found dead and the authorities of the District 2 of Bucharest were held responsible and will face law suits [20] [21]. In the article “Ancheta privind decesul lui Ionuţ, finalizată de Parchet” [20] is stated: “<<The investigation has been finalized and I have been informed that, during today, it will be send for judgement>>, declared Tiberiu Niţu the General prosecutor of Parchetul Înaltei Curţi de Casaţie şi Justiţie.[…] The investigation regarding the death of Ionut Anghel was initiated on September 3rd, 2013, by the prosecutors of the Trial Court in Bucharest, and a day later it was taken over by prosecutors of the Supreme Court who pursued manslaughter charges. Parchetul Înaltei Curţi de Casaţie şi Justiţie (PÎCCJ) announced, on September 27th, 2013, that the representatives of the Public Domain Administration (Administraţiei Domeniului Public) of District 2, the representatives of the SC Tei Rezidenţial SRL Bucharest, and Constantin Ciorăscu, the owner of the terrain where Ionut Anghel was found dead, were summoned to be informed of the accusations and for being questioned as perpetrators. The investigators questioned the parents, other persons and the grand-mother of Ionut Anghel. Răzvan Băncescu, project co-ordinator of ASPA, Carmen Secăreanu, the president of the Caleidoscop Association, Lavinia Mirela Nica, former volunteer at Caleidoscop Association, Marcela Pîslă, the president of “Cuţu- Cuţu“ Association, Constantin Ciorăscu, the owner of the terrain where Ionut Anghel was found dead, and Octavian Sandu, the man who brought back Andrei Anghel, Ionut’s brother, to his grand-mother, in Tei Park were all questioned. Six dogs were picked-up, on September 2nd, 2013, from the terrain located on Tuzla Street, where Ionut has been found dead. Răzvan Băncescu declared that one of these dogs, that had blood traces on his mouth, was sterilized by ASPA and adopted by Caleidoscop Foundation in 2008. In September, police forces fined SC Tei Rezidenţial SRL, company which has in administration the terrain where Ionut Anghel was found dead. The representatives of this company were fined with 2000 lei because they were not having put in place a plan for the protection of the property. Also, the custodian of the property has been fined, by the Police, with 300 lei, because he was not having a certificate and, therefore, the custodian was deemed unqualified for working as a guard. […] Prosecutors heard also, as a witness, Octavian Sandu, the man who brought back Ionut’s brother to his grand-mother, in Tei Park. Octavian Sandu, declared at the end of hearings, that, on September 2nd, 2013, he saw Ionut’s brother, Andrei, on the street, being scared, and he took the boy back to his grand-mother. Octavian Sandu mentioned that he approached the boy after he saw the boy was crying and he realized that something wrong happened. Additionally, Octavian Sandu said that he found out about the other missing boy (namely Ionut Anghel) when he brought back Andrei to his grand-mother.” At this point it might be pertinent to ask the following question: Why was the grandmother of this child not held responsible for child neglect? For more than one hour, the grandmother could not account for the whereabouts of the two children whom she was supervising. During that time the children, the victim (Ionut Anghel) and his 6-year old brother found themselves at more than 1 kilometer from the park where their grandmother had taken them. The omissions and lack of balanced reporting by the mass-media make it challenging for the audience to deduce the truth associated with the circumstance surrounding the death of this child.
Another incident presented by the Romanian mass-media raises a lot of questions regarding the mass-media ethics and deep involvement in creating and supporting news related exclusively to dog attacks.
This incident that took place on January 27, 2014 is the most intriguing incident since it deals with the father of the 4-year old boy allegedly killed by the dogs on September 2, 2013. According to the news presented mainly by the Antena 3 TV channel, Valentin Anghel (the father) and his wife were viciously attacked by six dogs while being in the cemetery Sfanta Vineri visiting the grave of his son, Ionut Anghel [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]. Is this a coincidence or an attempt to bias the public by making amplifying dog-related tragedies that occur in the Anghel family? Another interesting coincidence is that this “scenario” occurred exactly when the EU Commission (Animal Intergroup Delegation) visited Romania with regard to the situation of the abuse of stray dogs, on January 28, 2014. Is this another attempt of Romanian mass media to vilify the stray dogs?
A recent incident, that took place on April 1, 2014, raises a lot of doubts with regard to the actual scenario presented by the mass-media (Antena 3 TV channel, PRO TV channel etc.). The following video was presented at PRO TV channel: a 7-year old child has been attacked by a stray dog while playing with other children in Titan Park (IOR Park) in Bucharest [23]. The child was completely under his mother’s supervision. They state that incident took place immediately after ASPA (Animal Protection Association which is in fact the official dog catcher organization) raided the park and some dogs were taken from there. At the minutes 1:03, 1:07, and 1:38 of the videotape the witness of this attack, Alina Dinicu alias Alina Loredana (the second in charge of extremist group IREC, known as a staunch supporter of the killing of the dogs) appears in the video news broadcast. She fully describes how the incident unfolded: she and the mother of the 7-year old child were staying near the playing ground and a dog, who was sitting at 10 meters distance from the children, just came and attacked the child suddenly. She also states that after the incident, a woman, an animal lover, came and fed the dogs with the food she had in her bag. The child was seen by Dr. Catalin Apostolescu (from the Matei Bals Institute of infectious diseases) and he stated for the reporters, over the phone: “The child arrived to us in a very good shape, presenting only two scratches at the level of the butt produced, based on the mother’s declaration, by a stray dog”. In the later part of the video, the reporter reminded to the audience that about 2 weeks ago prior to this incident, a woman was found dead and she had multiple dog bites on her. This is the case of the woman found dead in the area of Obor market in Bucharest due to the alcoholic coma, and choking from her vomitus, as per official report [27] [28] [29] [30]. The reporter also mentioned the fact the child who was attacked on April 1st was supervised (unlike Ionut Anghel who was unsupervised by his grandmother) and the child was not an alcoholic (like the dead woman from Obor market). It would seem that the reporter is trying to give the erroneous impression that no one is safe, especially children, whether or not they are supervised. The reporter tries to make the dubious relationship between the death of the woman (as a result of heavy alcohol consumption) and attacks by dogs. At the end of the news, the reporter also expresses his concern regarding the fact that the current mass extermination efforts against stray dogs are insufficient. Intriguingly, how can an anti-dog person such as Alina Dinicu be coincidentally present at the time and the place of the stray dog attack? Is this a pure coincidence? What is the statistical probability of this coincidence occurring? It is worth noting that these two cases (the case of Valentin Anghel attacked by dogs in cemetery and the case of the 7-year old boy attacked in the Titan (IOR) Park) most likely represent situations that cannot be cancelled. This is certainly due to the lack of witnesses or testimony by credible witnesses.
Obvious promotion of one group’s opinions and the exclusion of those of the other group. The specific group involved in support of mass extermination of the dogs is the IREC group. This group and its leaders, namely Ana Maita and Alina Dinicu, are afforded extensive media coverage for exposing their ideas (press releases, talk-shows, open letters, and interviews). Over seven months since the death of their child, the Anghel family has been given extensive media coverage, even called national heroes. The media broadcasted information from the mother of Ionut Anghel who proposed that: i) Ionut be named as a martyr of the Orthodox Romanian Chruch [35] [36] [37] and ii) the park close to where the child was found dead to be re-named from Tei Park into Anghel Ionut Park [38] [39]. This is in stark contrast to the little or no media coverage given to the opinions of pro-life individuals or groups in Romania.
Media “lynching” of the stray dogs by any means. Apart from the previously mentioned examples, the Romanian mass-media is “lynching” the dogs with information that depicts the dogs as acute biological threats through which diseases can be spontaneously spread to humans. For example, the mass-media stated that the dogs’ feces are a source of pollution air and if blown by air it can spread infectious diseases [40] [41]. To further create unnecessary anxiety and negative perception of dogs among the populace, the mass-media stated that the dogs are a source of tuberculosis [42]. A “mutant” virus which lives in dogs’ saliva produced meningitis a girl from Timisoara city [43]. The stray dogs were also nominated as a national threat and the Romanian Intelligence Service (SRI) got involved in the counting of the stray dogs [44].
This is a clear example of misleading information given by authorities with the help of mass media to: i) justify the Article 1 of the norms of the Law 258/2013, which states: “The purpose of the present norms is to reduce the number of the stray dogs […] to reduce the occurrence of rabies and other zoonoses, to reduce the risk to human health.”, and ii) justify that killing of stray dogs will reduce zoonoses such as tuberculosis and “mutant” viral diseases etc. Additionally, according to their logic, such killings will reduce risks to human health.
To evaluate the incidence of zoonoses in humans, scientific studies on both prevalence of the diseases in animals and the extent of human exposure are very important. To the author’s knowledge, the authorities have not conducted scientific studies in dogs (stray or domestic) nor in humans, or provided results of studies that justify their previously mentioned statements. No such official data are presented on the webpages of the National Sanitary Veterinary and Food Safety Agency (ANSVSA) and of the National Institute of Infectious Diseases (Matei Bals). A similar situation exists regarding the occurrence of rabies on these two official websites: no cases of rabies transmitted from stray dogs (especially those from the city) are mentioned as part of their official risk analysis. Therefore, we can ask the following questions: Is the dogs’ extermination justified from zoonoses and risk to human health stand points? How can a risk that was never scientifically assessed be reduced? If national authorities are not presenting scientific proof of these zoonoses why do the mass media present unsubstantiated information? Is this not a way to manipulate the thinking of the population?
Also, it is well-documented, scientifically, that human exposure to zoonotic diseases depends on a person’s lifestyle and occupation. For example, veterinarians and farmers are far more at risk for contracting zoonoses than other persons (Saegerman et al., 2012, Reducing hazards for humans from animals: emerging and re-emerging zoonoses. In: Italian Journal of Public Health, 9/2, p. 13-24). Therefore, the zoonoses propaganda only creates more fear and hysteria in the broader segment of the population to get people to support the extermination of stray dogs.
As the reader can observe, the Romanian audience is not given an opportunity to analyze the situation. The audience is constantly bombarded with biased news about the victim (Ionut Anghel), victim’s family, dog attacks, and venomous, hateful speeches from pro-killing individuals and groups. Stories are told repeatedly, with slight variations that are sometimes contradictory or with new additions to purposely support the mass extermination of the dogs. Under these conditions, the public opinion is constantly kept under pressure and the result of this aggressive persuasion is an increased sense of violence and hate between those who are pro-euthanasia of dogs and those who are against it. From mass-media standpoint, Romania has become the most hostile country in Europe towards dogs, stray or owned.
Offensive mental profiling of opponents. In many instances, the opponents of the euthanasia law or of the Anghel family were “diagnosed” from psychological and psychiatric stand points with the help of professionals brought by the media. On this occasion the opponents were called: “stupid”, “delirious”, “ill-minded”, “neurotic”, “full of hate” etc. [45] [46]. It is worth noting the fact that one of these specialists, Dr. Florin Tudose, psychiatrist, is often used by the mass media as a “hired gun” to make the mental profile of different individuals including personalities, although these subjects are never asked if they agree to be diagnosed. Dr. Florin Tudose had a legal conflict with a representative of the parliament, Mrs. Cristina Ancuta Pocora, because of sexual discrimination. At that time, in 2011, Dr. Tudose expressed publicly his opinion regarding the fact that the TV presenters, especially the women, should have a psychiatric evaluation before going on TV [47].
Uncensored opinions of mass media employees who fuel the aggression towards dogs. In many instances, several TV presenters or talk-show hosts and artists were allowed by the mass media to express freely and publicly, during the shows, their opinion against the dogs: Lucian Mindruta, Puya, Andreea Marin, Mihaela Rădulescu, Nadine etc. Radu Banciu, the TV show host of „Lumea lui Banciu”, broadcasted by B1TV, stated that he will give 250 lei to anyone who will bring him a dog’s fur. The dog can remain on the street [48] [49].
About the Author
Dr Aura Daraba (USA) is an Associate Professor and Researcher in Food Science and a native of Romania, living in the US. She has an ardent interest in the welfare of humans and animals.