RIP Recorder:the hypocritical scumbags

It is always regrettable when a news agency, which should present information in an impartial way, lets its political sympathies show, especially when this happens in a video as important as a “portrait of a candidate.”
For some, this may not seem so important. Yet it is, in order to be able to form an opinion that is not influenced by momentary antipathies or by the partisan narratives of a news agency on a particular subject.
There was the same shock when a România TV reporter spoke in front of the camera like an activist, not like a reporter. She was not presenting the news; she was expressing her political opinion. She was so outraged that people were supporting Crin Antonescu for president that she began addressing the audience with: “There is nothing wrong with supporting someone. But whom, ladies and gentlemen? Crin Antonescu? The man who… (political opinions).” Then, as now, news agencies continue to let political preferences get in the way of their duty to present the news objectively, so that the audience can form its own ideas.
“Recorder” offers a textbook example of this in the video “PORTRAIT OF A CANDIDATE: Crin Antonescu.”
In this clip, they twist certain pieces of information in order to create a biased portrait of Crin Antonescu. Since it is a good example of partisan reporting, and because “candidate portraits” that contain half-truths are intolerable, this article will attempt to highlight all the inconsistencies in this video and then dismantle them one by one.
Before starting, it should be mentioned that all social media channels will be listed at the end of the article. Also, for anyone wishing to support the writing of these articles or access extra content, the Patreon link will be in the description.

Case I

From minute 3:18 to minute 3:44, Recorder, through reporter Ciprian Ranghel, says the following: “In a cable sent to Washington in 2009, a diplomat from the United States Embassy in Bucharest mentions a discussion with Vasile Blaga, then minister and PDL leader, in which the latter painted a far from flattering portrait of his political opponent at the time: Antonescu is a good orator but he is lazy and works only 2 hours a day, and that only if he feels like it.” The question is: if one is to believe someone’s words, why believe those of a political opponent of Crin Antonescu, who would be capable of saying anything to discredit him, especially in front of a representative of the United States?
And, to be clear, this does not claim that it could not have been that way, but only that, in the context of trying to prove the earlier premise (that Crin Antonescu frequently missed parliamentary sessions), this “evidence” is inconclusive. In this view, such so‑called “proofs” serve no other role or purpose than to pad out the length of the clip…
Case II Similarly, between 4:35–5:15, the following words are spoken:
“During this period Antonescu is summoned by the Securitate, where he gives a statement regarding a childhood friend who had tried to flee the country. The National Council for the Study of the Securitate Archives decided that this document does not have the value of a denunciation and does not turn Antonescu into a collaborator of the Securitate.”

“I have never made a big deal out of this. In fact, some are surprised that I never talked about it. I had nothing to tell. It was a banal fact; thousands of people left Romania. Thousands and thousands of co‑workers were called in by the Securitate to give statements; it was a formality. It did not seem to me that I suffered anything special then.”

From this segment it can be understood that Antonescu was trying to minimize the fact that he wrote a statement for the Securitate.
However, in context, Antonescu is talking about the fact that he did not provide important information about his childhood friend, a fact supported by the title of the document: “Statement,” not “Informative Note.”
There is room for skepticism regarding Recorder’s supposedly “objective” report. Their hypocrisy is revolting. In the video description they wrote:
“This is a vote that can significantly change Romania’s trajectory for the coming years and that is why it is considered essential that every citizen form as well‑documented an opinion as possible about the politician whose name will be stamped.” It is good to have a well‑documented opinion, but it is even better to form it independently rather than have it instilled by someone else…
Recorder tries to paint Crin Antonescu as someone who has something to hide. Conveniently, they forgot to mention that he read the statement written in 1988 in front of the press and handed out copies of that same statement to them.

Case III

From 16:24 to 17:26, Recorder broadcasts:

"Returned in the spotlight (Crin Antonescu) talks a lot about the past but his election speeches don't seem to electrify like they used to.."

[fragment of Crin Antonescu's electoral speech]

Then follows a dialogue between Recorder journalists and Crin Antonescu's voters.

"- Well, how do you do, leave before it's over?

we're not leaving, no, we're waiting for someone.

but Mr. Antonescu speaks.."

(Votants 1 and 2)

"- We leave early to avoid crowding. We already know the speech, we watched it in Cluj; about the same speech and we try to avoid clutter."

(Votant 3)

We see here how the departure of supporters is misinterpreted, I think, as evidence of a lack of public relations. As a kind of proof for the "rusting" of Crin Antonescu's speech.

We can see, however, that none of the interviewees left because of the repetitive speech, some did not even leave. Now, there may have been some clues that helped Recorder journalists draw a conclusion. But the problem is that they do not appear in the video.

Things can also be interpreted differently: Given that the discussion between Recorder journalists and Crin Antonescu's voters takes place in Dolj and in the discussion with voter 3, he mentions that he followed his electoral speech in Cluj, we can deduce from his expression that HE personally was in Cluj.

Thus, this video demonstrates the exact opposite of the Recorder interpretation. If voter 3 is now in Dolj, but was also present in Cluj, it means that he traveled 400+ Km by car, precisely to attend both speeches.

If you do not agree with the possibility that the purpose of crossing the distance by voter 3 was to listen to Crin Antonescu's speech, we can generate a hypothesis regarding the purpose for which he was in Cluj (maybe work, maybe something else). However, even if the reason may have been different, the fact that the individual was able to identify the speech from Dolj with the one from Cluj proves that he paid attention to both.
It is irrelevant that he left faster to avoid crowding, as long as he was already present at the speech in Cluj, but he also made the extra effort to travel to the speech in Dolj. Could you protest: "But Tudor, if he was standing close and just passing through the area?". The problem with this hypothesis is that it contradicts even voter 3. It says he left to avoid the crowding. If he was standing close, what crowds to avoid?
In relation to voters 1 and 2, it seems to me that their statement on why they move a little and do not keep an eye on Crin Antonescu has no reason to be questioned. There are unlimited possibilities for which they chose to go to a more secluded place and to argue that the main reason is Crin Antonescu's speech denotes a certain ignorance and malice.

Fragments misinterpreted

Minutes 24:49-25:32; Antonescu declares:

No. whew. Antonescu did not do this. He advocated the elimination of corruption in judicial systems so that justice was not used as a political weapon.

He expressed his dissatisfaction that certain influential people in positions of power at the court level accuse innocent people without proof who disagree with them politically, so that after some time they will be "paid" or not found any irregularities.

I could continue like this at least one more page, but I decided to limit myself to the obviously biased cases.

Conclusion

It is very important to identify such news, presented subjectively and to warn those around us of the danger they pose. Not only are they harmful to a man's career, but they are also harmful to those who pursue and believe them.

Bibliography

Allan, S. (2010). News Culture (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.

Cherge, B. (2015). Media representations of political leaders: A multimodal analysis of Romanian presidential elections. Journal of Media Research, 8(1), 3–19.

Coman, M. (2003). Media, myth and ritual: An anthropological perspective. Iasi: Polirom.

Croteau, D., & Hoynes, W. (2019). Media/Society: Industries, Images, and Audiences (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hallin, D. C., & Mancini, P. (2004). Comparing Media Systems: Three Models of Media and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

S. S. (2010). Media in post-communist Romania. Romanian Journal of Journalism & Communication, 5(2), 45–63.

McQuail, D. (2010). McQuail's Mass Communication Theory (6th ed.). London: Sage.

Recorder (2019). Portrait of candidate: Crin Antonescu [Video]. Recorder. Available at: https://recorder.ro

Thompson, J. B. (1995). The Media and Modernity: A Social Theory of the Media. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Voltmer, K. (2013). The Media in Transitional Democracies. Cambridge: Polity Press.