An interview
MAY 11, 2018
What in common?
You will evaluate the activities of the media during this movement. If:
let’s compare it with previous movements, what kind of role this time?
had the press in informing the public.
It’s difficult for the media as a whole
it is difficult to observe, therefore, to give an assessment. The media is multi-layered.
During this movement, many media took different approaches
while covering the events. I need to separate the direct connection provided
the contribution of the media to the whole process. Mass media this
representatives gave the opportunity to be in the center of events
citizens anywhere in the world.
Along with this, however, I must mention actively spreading
about the active flow of propaganda and fake news. Perhaps the biggest
the disinformation was Nikol Pashinyan’s article from 2001, where he allegedly speaks
About the 7 regions of Artsakh as occupied, captured and them by diplomacy
about the impossibility of keeping This news was actively spread on the Internet and a
in a number of news outlets. It got to the point that the republican deputy Arman
Saghatelyan raised this issue in a question and answer session with the prime minister candidate
time. The tendency of some media outlets to strain the situation was also noticeable. Thus, some websites published quite aggressive and offensive materials,
for example, “The puppy is getting dangerous” or “An army of ignoramuses wants to come
with the titles of “power”.
Compare this movement to any previous movement
with little things is difficult, therefore it is also difficult to evaluate the work of the press
the difference. Perhaps I will single out one, seemingly small, but actually many
an important circumstance – drones. Drones enabled awareness
to carry out on a completely different level, became available to people
the scale of the events, beautiful overhead shots as well
the exact number of citizens participating in the demonstrations.
Until recently
the media field (TV, Radio, Social Media) had a rather pronounced division ie
there was a pro-government media resource and relatively more independent media.
From the beginning of the movement to the end, what dynamics of changes did you notice them?
practices, and what factors influenced those changes?
It would be necessary to answer the question objectively
to carry out monitoring for months in the directions you mentioned: (TV, Radio, Social
Media). I will try to share my personal observations. The television companies, in their typical way, were silent at first, or gave
fragmented information about the movement, which, however, began to change into a movement
parallel with gaining momentum. The matter came to a surprise even for many
Apparently, the Shant TV station regularly provided live broadcasts
from the focus of events. If we compare the working style of this TV company
for example, with covering the “Electric Yerevan” movement of 2015, then
the difference is obvious.
As for the radio, let me remind you of the movement itself
Leader Nikol Pashinyan’s actions in the very first days. Pashinyan to his supporters
later, as a protest, he entered the building of the public radio station and demanded that live broadcasting be provided.
The building was later found to be without power, albeit a public radio building
the roof was covered with solar panels. Another radio station the whole movement
provided coverage from a traffic perspective and inform drivers regularly
About closed streets in Yerevan.
In the case of social media, I would single out some
bloggers who actively reminded Nikol Pashinyan’s promise that if
if this struggle fails, the latter will leave politics. days later
when it was already evident that the movement was entering a decisive phase, these same bloggers
they actively called on citizens to join the popular movement.
What are yours like?
evaluations of international press work (was there misinformation, when?
increased interest, etc.).
I will single out Russian and Western media as international media
the press. The Russian press, contrary to many assumptions, the movement
began to cover late, but quite objectively. The mainstream media, at least
by the way, they did not draw parallels with the Ukrainian Maidan and did not name it
What is happening in Armenia is a “awake revolution”, which, let me remind you, was being done
In 2015, during the “Electric Yerevan” days. However, I should note that there were times when
One of the media close to the Kremlin staff openly
spread misinformation about Nikol Pashinyan and the participants of the movement. One
another leading site, the other day, an attempted bank robbery by a police colonel
connected with the movement. However, these cases were unique.
Western media were also actively involved in the movement
in covering. In those days, it was often possible to see foreign journalists,
who were talking to the protesters. I think the international media
interest increased after Serzh Sargsyan’s resignation, then it changed
also the rhetoric of the Western media. If it was written before then
about the opposition between the opposition and the government, then after Sargsyan’s resignation
began to write about democracy and authoritarian regime.
How will it work from now on?
formerly pro-government media. According to you, by what principles should they be guided?
the cleaning of TV and social media, the drastic reduction of misinformation
to achieve.
If we take into account that the pro-government media you mentioned are mostly
belongs to different representatives of the authorities, then probably in the same way,
although I think the realities will make us reconsider the way of working. However,
the evil of “writing material to order” remains in our reality. At this moment
it is difficult to predict. “Haykakan Zhamanak” newspaper, for example, has always stood out
objectivity and was noticed by the criticism of the authorities. as is known
the editor-in-chief of the newspaper is Anna Hakobyan, the wife of Prime Minister Pashinyan. Will it change?
Time will tell how the newspaper works.
Misinformation in the media is often not pursued
whatever the trend, it is simply the result of the journalist’s unprofessionalism. I think
there is a big gap here and we need professional journalists. The world already
long ago, he made the transition from “universal” journalists to “profile” journalists. Us
journalist-economist, journalist-lawyer, journalist-political scientist and others are needed
specialists. Unfortunately, now journalism is taught as one in universities
unified profession. It is necessary to divide it into the above parts. of course
this will not eliminate the deliberate misinformation in the daily news stream,
as well as propaganda, but will significantly reduce another aspect of the matter.