Tweet
Armenia's Print Media: Diverse But Superficial and Mostly Focused on Intrigue
Armen Arakelyan
news.am
23:56, April 7, 2012
The print media in Armenia, in contrast to other media, is extremely
politicized.
Newspapers, more of less reflect the political landscape in the
country. Rather than informing, the print media is more interested in
trumpeting, extolling these various political forces.
Being so selective regarding their coverage, individual papers fall
short of covering the entire political spectrum. Rather than providing
information, we thus are faced with veiled or subliminal campaigning
and propaganda.
This has set forth a certain culture between readers and the
newspaper. Thus, readers don't buy a newspaper from the newsstand to
get the most possible objective coverage of the issues, but rather
they want to read news and information than supports the convictions
they already adhere to. For the most part, newspaper readers are
citizens with preset political positions.
In the pre-campaign period, we can single out a number of
characteristics. One spectrum of the media, is furtively carrying out
campaigning for the ruling authorities; i.e. the Republican Party of
Armenia (RPA). In this regard, the papers Hayots Ashkharh and Iravunk
come to mind. This political alignment is conditioned by the fact that
Constitutional Rights Union President Hayk Babukhanyan has been
included on the proportional ballot of the RPA. Both papers are more
active in counter-campaigning; vocally criticizing almost all the
initiatives of the competitors.
Some newspapers carry out the same function for the opposition
Armenian National Congress (HAK). Here we can point to Haykakan
Zhamanak, Chorrord Inkniskhanutyun, and, in part, Zhamanak.
In fact, the papers supporting either side more resemble propaganda
broadsheets than anything else.
In a separate category are the newspapers that call themselves
independent. They closely resemble one another when it comes to their
objectives and writing style. Here, we're talking about Hraparak,
Zhoghovurd and Hayatsk, newspapers that have become laboratories of
non-sourced information.
These papers have no discernible political stance, and their main
objective seems to be stirring up the pot of political intrigue. Thus,
they enjoy a certain following, which in turn makes them of interest
to all political players in the elections. As to what counterbalance
these papers will bring to the electoral mix remains to be seen.
However, it is clear that their main targets are the candidates
running for single mandate seats.
Another category of independent papers is comprised of those who are
not only trying to play within the confines of measures objectivity
but underlined political correctness as well - Hayastani
Hanrapetutyun, Azg, Aravot and 168 Zham.
The first two are currently mainly covering the procedural aspect of
the elections; clearly avoiding propagandizing. The scope of the
others is much wider, incorporating internal and inter-party relations
and processes taking place regarding the electorate and the
candidates.
In contrast to the others, however, they adopt a much deeper approach.
It's noteworthy that representatives from both (in the first a
reporter; in the second an editor) were nominated for the elections
and have thus ceased their press functions. The papers Yerkir and
Orakarg are also trying to maintain the principle of correctness, even
though they both have political preferences and campaign priorities.
The first openly backs the ARF and the second backs the Prosperous
Armenia Party, but much more subtly.
The inclination of the political forces participating in the election
race to use the print media as information bait is clear.
This `handwriting' of the papers also stems from the fact that the
parties practically lack any official news coverage of their own.
Reporters try to supplement the gap by putting pressure on their own
personal sources. This is the reason that individual interviews and
conversations with politicos, and the generalities and commentary
based on them have become so widespread. But it is not the mass media
or voters that suffer as a result, but the parties themselves who
cannot guarantee supervised flows of information.
Sometimes, all this does not allow for priorities to be differentiated
from what is secondary. Sometimes, themes of crucial election interest
are not covered by the newspapers.
In particular, there was no serious professional analysis of the
election slogans put forth by the parties. When it came to the ballots
of the parties, the first twenty names of which could be regarded as
shadow and possible future government lists, the press failed to
scrutinize and evaluate them in terms of personnel potential.
The ideological potential of the political forces was completely
overlooked as well as the realm of programmatic approaches.
There was practically not one press analysis regarding the degree to
which the parties now in the parliament have fulfilled their campaign
pledges of the past. This would have been a helpful resource for
voters when it came to a comparison of who actually accomplished what,
or failed to.
In this regard, today's press appears to be intent on covering the May
elections on a fairly superficial and matter of fact basis, as if to
say - why bother covering them in depth and detail anyway - they won't
change things.
Armen Arakelyan
news.am
23:56, April 7, 2012
The print media in Armenia, in contrast to other media, is extremely
politicized.
Newspapers, more of less reflect the political landscape in the
country. Rather than informing, the print media is more interested in
trumpeting, extolling these various political forces.
Being so selective regarding their coverage, individual papers fall
short of covering the entire political spectrum. Rather than providing
information, we thus are faced with veiled or subliminal campaigning
and propaganda.
This has set forth a certain culture between readers and the
newspaper. Thus, readers don't buy a newspaper from the newsstand to
get the most possible objective coverage of the issues, but rather
they want to read news and information than supports the convictions
they already adhere to. For the most part, newspaper readers are
citizens with preset political positions.
In the pre-campaign period, we can single out a number of
characteristics. One spectrum of the media, is furtively carrying out
campaigning for the ruling authorities; i.e. the Republican Party of
Armenia (RPA). In this regard, the papers Hayots Ashkharh and Iravunk
come to mind. This political alignment is conditioned by the fact that
Constitutional Rights Union President Hayk Babukhanyan has been
included on the proportional ballot of the RPA. Both papers are more
active in counter-campaigning; vocally criticizing almost all the
initiatives of the competitors.
Some newspapers carry out the same function for the opposition
Armenian National Congress (HAK). Here we can point to Haykakan
Zhamanak, Chorrord Inkniskhanutyun, and, in part, Zhamanak.
In fact, the papers supporting either side more resemble propaganda
broadsheets than anything else.
In a separate category are the newspapers that call themselves
independent. They closely resemble one another when it comes to their
objectives and writing style. Here, we're talking about Hraparak,
Zhoghovurd and Hayatsk, newspapers that have become laboratories of
non-sourced information.
These papers have no discernible political stance, and their main
objective seems to be stirring up the pot of political intrigue. Thus,
they enjoy a certain following, which in turn makes them of interest
to all political players in the elections. As to what counterbalance
these papers will bring to the electoral mix remains to be seen.
However, it is clear that their main targets are the candidates
running for single mandate seats.
Another category of independent papers is comprised of those who are
not only trying to play within the confines of measures objectivity
but underlined political correctness as well - Hayastani
Hanrapetutyun, Azg, Aravot and 168 Zham.
The first two are currently mainly covering the procedural aspect of
the elections; clearly avoiding propagandizing. The scope of the
others is much wider, incorporating internal and inter-party relations
and processes taking place regarding the electorate and the
candidates.
In contrast to the others, however, they adopt a much deeper approach.
It's noteworthy that representatives from both (in the first a
reporter; in the second an editor) were nominated for the elections
and have thus ceased their press functions. The papers Yerkir and
Orakarg are also trying to maintain the principle of correctness, even
though they both have political preferences and campaign priorities.
The first openly backs the ARF and the second backs the Prosperous
Armenia Party, but much more subtly.
The inclination of the political forces participating in the election
race to use the print media as information bait is clear.
This `handwriting' of the papers also stems from the fact that the
parties practically lack any official news coverage of their own.
Reporters try to supplement the gap by putting pressure on their own
personal sources. This is the reason that individual interviews and
conversations with politicos, and the generalities and commentary
based on them have become so widespread. But it is not the mass media
or voters that suffer as a result, but the parties themselves who
cannot guarantee supervised flows of information.
Sometimes, all this does not allow for priorities to be differentiated
from what is secondary. Sometimes, themes of crucial election interest
are not covered by the newspapers.
In particular, there was no serious professional analysis of the
election slogans put forth by the parties. When it came to the ballots
of the parties, the first twenty names of which could be regarded as
shadow and possible future government lists, the press failed to
scrutinize and evaluate them in terms of personnel potential.
The ideological potential of the political forces was completely
overlooked as well as the realm of programmatic approaches.
There was practically not one press analysis regarding the degree to
which the parties now in the parliament have fulfilled their campaign
pledges of the past. This would have been a helpful resource for
voters when it came to a comparison of who actually accomplished what,
or failed to.
In this regard, today's press appears to be intent on covering the May
elections on a fairly superficial and matter of fact basis, as if to
say - why bother covering them in depth and detail anyway - they won't
change things.