Change starts with what each of us can do, says Desislava Stoyanova. "Not to be silent when we see outrages, to vote when the time comes."
DV: Why should we worry after the dismissal of Maria Tsantsarova? Some say that private media could do whatever they want, but others recall, for example, EMFA (European Media Freedom Act), according to which every media outlet with a national license is not just a private company, but also has a general commitment to freedom of speech?
Desislava Stoyanova: I am a journalist by profession. I graduated in journalism, I have worked in the media for over 25 years, 17 of them at bTV. And novice reporters know, or at least should know, that the job of a journalist is not to be comfortable and nice, let alone turn a blind eye. The job of a journalist is to be critical, to highlight irregularities, to ring the bell, to ask important questions and to demand answers. This includes the need to press the interlocutor when he tries to avoid an answer.
When I was a novice reporter and started at the newspaper "Sega" in the late 1990s, this was the standard. It was not even discussed. Alas, it has not been like that for a long time. In the current media reality, journalists and presenters who "allow" themselves to do their job, following this professional compass, are rare and very easily become inconvenient and targets. We should not just be worried about the dismissal of Maria Tsantsarova, we should be angry and very, very worried. I personally am angry at the attempt to equate asking uncomfortable questions with a manifestation of political bias. And I am extremely worried by the fact that instead of standing behind one of its brightest faces, bTV is removing Maria Tsantsarova.
I am also worried by how widespread the misunderstanding is of what lies at the heart of a journalist's work and what authentic journalism is.
DV: What is actually happening in your opinion? Is it yet another and to some extent brazen and unforgiving removal of a journalist who does not "listen"? Like Anna Tsolova and who else?
The details are known only to the direct participants, but from the sidelines the result is clearly visible - another critical journalistic voice is now absent from the national airwaves. Another . The situation is reminiscent of what happened to Ani Tsolova and others after her, and it certainly sends a very ominous signal to all those who still work in the so-called traditional media: what price is paid when you try to do your job properly.
DV: What do you think about the recent protests? Can we really say that millennials and the already notorious Gen Z have suddenly become politicized and this looks like a recent real change?
The protests may be just the first step towards change. The question is what will come next. To what extent will this energy that we saw on the yellow cobblestones be preserved and will it be followed by significantly higher voter turnout and a much more informed choice at the ballot box. Otherwise, society may fall asleep again and leave everything to its own devices.
DV: What would this energy for change be and how would it happen?
Let's look at what each of us can do - we can not remain silent when we see outrages, we can vote when the time comes. And if we all do it, there will not be enough votes as many as there are residents of "Lyulin" to have a parliamentary group. It will not be so easy to "buy" power and exercise it with impunity as you decide. For there to be real change, we must also have a normally functioning judicial system and media that are in place. Otherwise, it cannot happen.
DV: Do you have any feeling at all about the end of some corrupt-oligarchic model, or will we one day wake up disappointed and even more cynical? What is the main danger for the second time?
What end, unfortunately the end is far away. I rather have a fragile feeling of light at the end of the tunnel. Hope that the awakening we are witnessing will not be fleeting. And the dangers are many. From the point of view of the protests and the chance that they will lead to some more tangible change, the greatest danger is perhaps that a new deep sleep will follow and sinking into "things are as they are, we can't do anything about it."
DV: Now and the most important thing: everywhere an excellent and influential journalist must collect information from everyone, including from those sources that do not please him as a person and a voter. To "make friends" with the "those who are fat", i.e. to have sources there in order to be able to produce balanced content. Ergo, I think of a kind of flexible moral imperative, combined with the high one, if it seeks the truth at all costs. What do you think?
I don't think having sources means "making friends". The last thing journalists should be doing is "making friends". The "flexible moral imperative" sounds like a lack of moral imperative to me. Furthermore, I don't think "producing balanced content" is what we need and what the media is called to do.
The word "balance" has been misused a lot in recent years. The duty of journalists and the media is to report the facts and seek the truth, not simply to relay different points of view, measuring with a teaspoon who gets how much time. Otherwise, one day we will wake up in a world where just because X said the Earth is flat, it will be the first news, and "the other" point of view - that it still spins, it will be pushed somewhere in the material. And we will have "balanced" material.
DV: Who are the good and the bad in our country? Can there even be such a decisive distinction?
I would not use these concepts at all. The important thing is that both those who seem good to us today and those who we are sure are bad know that there are rules and they apply to everyone. That if you are corrupt and steal, you will be convicted and punished. That if you lie, you will be out in the next elections. I realize that this sounds infinitely naive today, but it is mandatory if we want to live in a somewhat normal society and country.
DV: Do you miss the airwaves and if so, why?
No, I don't. I don't look back, I have no nostalgia for the past. "Before Lunch" has given me a lot and I have given my all to do my job well as a presenter, but this is a closed page. My current job brings me a lot of satisfaction, I feel fulfilled and I look forward. I like teaching, helping motivated people to become better at the art of speaking, to be able to present more confidently and effectively, to present themselves and their ideas convincingly and impactfully. I pass on everything I have gained in terms of experience and knowledge, I see real results, I get wonderful feedback from people who trust my training, and all of this makes sense of my working life in a wonderful way.
DV: What drives you? Describe in detail how you live now.
In terms of work, what drives me is precisely that - that I see enormous meaning in what I do and it brings me satisfaction. In personal terms - the children. My life revolves around these two pillars - work and parenting. If I'm not teaching in front of a group of people, I'm answering emails at the computer or chasing teenagers who often can't hear even when they take off their headphones and pretend to listen. I don't get up that early in the morning, but I do go to bed later at night.
I would define myself as a conscious workaholic and a reformed perfectionist. In translation: in terms of workaholicism - there's nothing wrong with working a lot when you know why you're working, as long as you don't burn yourself out, and in terms of perfectionism - it's great to keep the bar high, as long as you don't fall into the trap of "either-or" thinking ("if it's not perfect, then it's no good").
The truth is, the last year has passed almost in a flash. At the end of it, I did something for the first time - I gave a motivational lecture entitled "The Most Important Trump", in which I share through my own experience as a workaholic and perfectionist about a key, but much underestimated ingredient on which the quality of our relationships with others depends. Now I am preparing for everything that lies ahead of me in 2026, including the third edition of "The Most Important Trump" in March.