Tweet
YEREVAN PRESS CLUB WEEKLY NEWSLETTER
MAY 10-16, 2013
HIGHLIGHTS:
PERSPECTIVE
TELEVISION HAD LOST ITS MONOPOLY ON THE FORMATION OF PUBLIC OPINION
"PRESS CLUB" CYCLE: TV RATINGS AND ETHICS
POLICE TRIES TO IDENTIFY PERSON, WHO THREATENED "HETQ" CORRESPONDENT
NCTR MONITORING FOUND NO VIOLATIONS IN COVERAGE OF YEREVAN COUNCIL OF
ELDERS ELECTIONS
OSCE/ODIHR ELECTION OBSERVATION MISSION FINAL REPORT ON FEBRUARY 18, 2013
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS
PERSPECTIVE
TELEVISION HAD LOST ITS MONOPOLY ON THE FORMATION OF PUBLIC OPINION
Below is the presentation, "Dominant Trends in the Mass Media in Armenia in
2011-2012", by Boris NAVASARDIAN, Yerevan Press Club President, made at 9th
South Caucasus Media Conference,
"From Traditional to Online Media: Best Practices and Perspectives",
organized by the Office of the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media
on October 11-12, 2012 in Tbilisi, Georgia.
Changes in the media are lately occurring so rapidly and dynamically that a
depiction of the static situation as it looks today provides little in terms
of understanding the problems. Especially because changes in one dimension,
for example, technology, inevitably leave their mark on others - the
legislative, political and professional dimensions. Therefore, in my
presentation I will try not so much to state the realities at the moment
when we Armenian participants left Yerevan for Tbilisi, so much as to
describe basic trends, and to bring correctives into the media field even in
the hours that we are here meeting and which will define the development of
the information space of Armenia in the near term. The determination of
trends is like a forecast; it cannot be 100-percent accurate, so certain of
my judgments could be debatable.
Since our country is in between election campaigns - parliamentary and
presidential - and Georgia is also living with just finished elections, I
will start with this topic then. After the spring parliamentary elections in
Armenia, the statement "who owns television will win the elections" seems
entirely dubious. During the official election campaign, the owners of
Armenian television controlled by the authorities (and the concentration of
property here has reached an unprecedented level), essentially rejected the
practice of unequal allocation of airtime to candidates and political
forces. For the first time in the history of national elections in Armenia,
both the YPC monitoring conducted with the support of the OSCE and the
European Commission, as well as international observers and even the
Armenian opposition testified that during the period of election
campaigning, broadcasters largely provided equal opportunities for
campaigns.
Of course, it would be a great exaggeration to attribute this phenomenon by
the authorities' good will, although it was their political decision that
influenced the television channels' behavior. Particular significance was
given by the international community, above all the European Union, to the
quality of these elections, and the importance of evaluations from outside
for the political leadership of the Republic of Armenia; hence, the interest
of the latter in respectable monitoring results does not fully reveal the
reasons for the metamorphosis. A significant factor was the awareness that
television had lost its monopoly on the formation of public opinion, and the
continuation of ruthless exploitation of this resource for the achievement
of desired results in elections could be a futile exercise.
To be sure, during the period between elections, control over television
content remains for the authorities a fairly important component of the
management of political processes and public sentiments. In the absence of
the attention of international organizations, a one-sided and selective
coverage of events and opinions, and a deficit of discussion of
public-interest problems, are, as before, characteristic traits of Armenian
television.
Yet the topic of biased mass media broadcasting nevertheless is gradually
losing its urgency. It is possible that this South Caucasus conference will
be the last where we will speak of the domination of television as the chief
source of information for citizens. Already today, the audience for Armenian
Internet news sites is comparable in size to the audience for news programs
on Armenian television channels. And the situation is radically changing in
favor of the former literally every six months.
In this sense, we need to look at the broadcasting legislation from a
somewhat different angle. For a long time, this legislation was the
number-one topic in the context of securing freedom and pluralism for
Armenian mass media. From the moment the Law on Television and Radio was
passed in 2000, it needed a conceptual re-working. But despite numerous
discussions, alternative draft laws proposed by journalists' organizations,
including the Yerevan Press Club and Internews Media Support NGO, PACE
resolutions and expert conclusions from OSCE and the Council of Europe, the
Law, if it was amended, in fact went in the opposite direction from what was
recommended.
A key problem all this time has remained the bodies intended to regulate and
manage broadcasting - the National Commission on Television and Radio (NCTR)
and the Council for Public Television and Radio Company (PTRC). Precisely
their exceptional dependency on the government became a factor leading to
the political monopolization of the airwaves. Several options were proposed
to obtain at least relative independence for these bodies. In particular,
the possibility was studied of forming them on the basis of independent
civic institutions (on the example of councils of public broadcasters in a
number of European countries) - with labor unions, industrial associations,
organizations representing various social groups, religious communities and
so on. This option could have been seen as the most acceptable, but
unfortunately, such institutions in Armenia are either not independent (by
virtue of the control over them by the government) or not sustainable (by
virtue of the lack of stable sources of existence).
An orientation toward political pluralism in the composition of national
regulators could serve as an alternative. Balancing participation in these
bodies of representatives of rival parties (50% from the ruling coalition
and 50% from the opposition) would create a definitive basis for making
decisions in the interests of the whole society. This model, in some
respects similar to what was adopted in Georgia, is possible but has a
number of flaws - international experience indicates the undesirability of
politicizing bodies that regulate broadcasting and manage public TV and
radio. There is no doubt, however that with such a model, Armenian
broadcasting media would not be so far from the real and diverse information
needs of the society as it is now. And when we acknowledge the rapidly
growing role of the Internet in informing the population of Armenia, we have
to admit that a significant portion of this audience is television viewers'
discontent with the quality of news and discussion on the airwaves.
However, today, it is evidently already too late to speak about the
possibility of a certain independence of the regulators by reflecting among
them the pluralism of the Armenian political arena. The opposition in
Armenia is so weakened by the lack of resources that it has to survive by
attaching themselves to two oligarchic parties. And restoration of real
political pluralism now must be tied to the prospects of economic pluralism,
when business circles have free resources that are so independent from the
government that they can permit themselves the financial support of
opposition . But that is a completely different topic and an entirely cloudy
prospect.
In other words, thinking about legislative guarantees for an independent
broadcasting industry in Armenia today is a big luxury. It remains only to
rely on the famous "political will" about which so many speak, like the
Abominable Snowman, but which no one believes has ever been seen.
Nevertheless, reform of broadcasting legislation, despite the reduction of
its strictly political relevance, remains a priority for the media
community. For an effective development of this industry in the period of
transition to digital broadcasting, civilized procedures and an informed
strategy are needed. Meanwhile, since 2006, there has been talk of a
conception for digitalization , but no one has ever seen a serious document
that first, justifies the selection of standards; second contains a
calculation of resources and technological decisions for a national digital
broadcasting network; third, forecasts the long-term expenditures of
television companies to use this network; and fourth, proposes a model for
subsidies. To be sure, a few years ago, the Ministry of Economics of the
Republic of Armenia, which at that period for some reason was involved in
broadcasting issues, happily informed the public that Italian specialists,
including some from the company Mediaset, would help us in resolving all
television problems. These specialists then managed to do some things, but
in light of subsequent events around this company, I think no commentary is
needed regarding their contribution to the development of the Armenian media
industry...
Reforming legislation, when the conceptual issues remain undecided regarding
the transition to digital broadcasting is a very complicated task. And
nevertheless, these journalists' associations, together with their partners
and with the substantial expert support of the OSCE and Council of Europe,
proposed in parliament draft amendments to the Law "On Television and
Radio". In particular, it provided for a whole number of procedures which
are now absent, but which would have acquired particular important from the
first days of digitalization - the licensing of private multiplex operators,
the distribution of channels for these multiplexes, taking into account the
public interest in the process of developing the industry, and so on. In
connection with the traditional political sensitivity regarding everything
that concerns television, there is no reason to expect that the draft will
be reviewed in the coming months, as the preparation for the presidential
elections is under way. But we do have certain expectations regarding the
spring session of the National Assembly.
A special topic is the Public Broadcaster. In the above-mentioned draft law,
there is an article providing for more precise regulation of the activity
and accountability of the PTRC, which remains as a unique state institution
that does not answer to anyone under the law! Meanwhile, as sad as it is to
admit, Public Television in Armenia, never having been established, is now
leaving the scene as a significant institution. It was stated above that in
the current civic and political realities, legislative guarantees for the
independent management of PTRC are practically impossible. Accordingly, the
chance that it can propose to its audience in the foreseeable future a
diverse and high-quality coverage of current problems is approximately zero.
The authorities, for which the so-called state, and then the so-called
public television was one of its chief instruments for guaranteeing its
self-reproduction is now successfully resolving this problem through
controlled private channels. If until recently, PTRC, enjoying the blessings
from above, was an aggressive player in the advertising market and
implemented commercial projects with no less effectiveness than the leading
private television companies, then today ruling circles are interested in
removing it in general from the ranks of business rivals.
It can be supposed that Public Television, no longer needed, will be left to
go fallow with what in the Soviet era were called "the creative
intelligentsia" that is loyal representatives of culture, literature and
art. Under market conditions, they feel themselves deprived not only of
material assistance but of attention and honors. For several years now, the
representatives of the "creative intelligentsia" have publicly complained of
the "coercion of bad taste", "the undermining of the moral foundations of
the nation", and "insufficient propagation of spiritual values" on Armenian
television, and have written letters to the President as well. Their claims
are largely founded, but the methods which they propose to correct the
situation have the scent of mothballs about them with Soviet-era concepts
like "Glavlit" (the Soviet Chief Directorate for Protection of State Secrets
in the Press, or censor), "Khudsoviet" (Arts Council) and so on. The Public
Council under the Armenian President took hold of this topic "seriously".
Naturally, private channels that earn money for their owners precisely due
to all these "depraved phenomena", and also extinguish the civic activism of
society and its interest in real problems, can hold their own. But,
evidently, the upper echelons of government are not opposed to present
public television to this still influential sector of the electorate, thus
pledging guaranteed support for a certain time. Without advertising, it can
fill the airwaves with low-cost broadcasts on just the state budget alone -
concerts and shows without commercial pretensions, endlessly long interviews
about national culture, domestic films the rights for which do not require
the payment of large fees. It does not matter if the broadcasts will have a
small audience or that the last modern-thinking professionals will leave
PTRC; meanwhile, there will be no worries about the political loyalty of the
public channels and their new old heroes.
I will deliberately not dwell in detail on the most traditional of
traditional mass media, the paper press in Armenia. Unlike television, it
was always if not independent at least pluralistic and reflected the basic
contrasts of domestic political life. But numerous economic problems
dictated by poor local market and world trends hardly favorable to print
media were aggravated in our country by the awful state policy regarding
them in the course of 20 years of independence. As originally a journalist,
with most of my experience in newspapers, it pains me to have to admit that
there are no prospects even in the near future for the Armenian print press.
The only salvation for them is to go on to the Internet and create
convergent editorial offices.
Thus, the dominating role of alternative, convergent media in the Armenian
information market is inevitable and it will move from the category of
forecasts to the category of reality faster than many of us could have
imagined at last year's meeting here in Tbilisi. But that is the topic for
another speech, by Manana Aslamazyan, director of the "Alternative Resources
in Media" project. I will just briefly touch upon one aspect of social
networks (or social media). Their growing role in the life of Armenian
society astounds the imagination. It is a question above all of the
development by means of social media of "web" civic activism. Environmental
protection, urban planning, elections, corruption - this is an incomplete
list of the areas where "web" activism has managed to demonstrate itself
fully. If you count the most vivid examples of recent months, when the
activism of society has brought a specific result, then it is the
achievements of "web" activism that prevail, and not the traditional
institutionalized segment of civil society which has developed and been
nurtured in Armenia for almost two decades.
Meanwhile, the development of social networks as a resource for information
for civic activism contains serious risks. There is too little time between
signal and action in order to fully evaluate a situation, its background,
and its accompanying factors in order to make an accurate decision. Roughly
speaking, all the networks activists have "at their disposal" can be drawn
upon effectively to save a tree that is going to be cut down, but meanwhile
somewhere else an entire forest can be destroyed. I will deliberately cite
an example from an area where "web" activism has been the most organized,
concentrated around a few competent informal leaders who cannot be so easily
disoriented. But even here, and all the more in other spheres where the
planting of disinformation, a provocative signal, an initiative of a
manipulative nature are all quite possible. Contemporary PR and political
technologies are penetrating further into social media, making "web"
activism vulnerable, and in recent months in Armenia the attempts to exploit
"honest, sincere enthusiasm" for unseemly ends have grown more frequent.
These challenges require a more active participation of professional,
responsible players in the information field (journalists, experts,
independent representatives of institutionalized civil society) in social
media. Their knowledge and ability to analyze and verify signals in
combination with the motivations aimed at operational reaction of "web"
activists reduce the likelihood of the prevalence of "bad" content and the
manipulation of social media. The advancement of such cooperation is a new
and promising direction for the activity of media organizations.
The rapidity of the receipt and reaction to information is becoming a new
factor in social segmentation. If "web" activists - mainly young people of
student age and also a new type of professionals not strictly stuck to their
workplace - manage to achieve in this sense incredible speeds and advantages
then the representatives of many traditional professions are disadvantaged.
I recently had repairs done in my apartment and involuntarily entered into
the situation of fairly highly-qualified specialists in their field, for
example, plumbers who, although they wish to stay abreast of events and in
the thick of public life are falling far behind its pace. The majority of
participants of our conferences not only listen to speeches but without
stopping, continue in parallel to follow what is happening far from this
room thanks to laptops, iPhones and so on. Thus, we and other categories of
society for whom "web" activism is accessible conduct ourselves at work, in
the student lecture hall even on public transportation. But unlike you, the
hands of the plumber are constantly busy during work hours; his gaze is
constantly directed at concrete objects; he does not have time for an
iPhone... Even a few years ago, a person could calmly, without thinking
about anything else, work for eight hours, come home, have dinner and only
later, when he had laid down on the couch, take the remote control of the
television in hand or the newspaper. Such a regimen would not mean a
significant information delay for him. Today, it would undoubtedly mean
this.
And no matter how primitive this sounds, the solution for media, which I
recently characterized as almost lost for the Armenian news industry, is
radio. At that time, it seemed that radio had finally receded to the musical
and entertainment niche. Today, more and more Armenian radio stations
broadcast news and talk about serious topics. "ArmRadio FM 107" is the main
talking media, although only a year ago, only jazz could be heard on this
frequency 24 hours a day. I and many others who love to listen to good music
in the car regret this "re-branding", but the plumber and representatives of
dozens of other professions, without distracting from their jobs, obtain the
opportunity to listen to news and opinion in a wide spectrum of civic and
political topics. Public radio of Armenian has been speaking a great deal.
"Yerevan FM" (102.0) successfully combines quality music with quality news,
for which it received the Yerevan Press Club prize this year. Moreover, in
rebroadcasting the Radio "Liberty", "Yerevan FM" is focused on the high bar
of the latter and in its own news shows.
By the way, the return of Armenian radio channels to formats offering civic
and political information is largely stipulated precisely by "Radio Liberty"
broadcasting. For many years, the Armenian authorities thought up various
methods to artificially frustrate the access of this radio station to an
Armenian audience. Thank God, this did not work. They had to resort to more
civilized forms of attracting radio listeners and stimulate competition to
Radio Liberty. Whatever notions were behind this, the audience only gains.
In closing, I would like to cite one more even more convincing "success
story" from the life of Armenian media. It is connected to the
decriminalization of libel and insult in 2010, which at first was conceived
by some of our circles close to the government as a "clever joke". On the
one hand, liability for defamation was moved from criminal to civil law,
enabling the praise of international organizations, but on the other hand,
it became a "club" for opposition and critical media which saw criminal
prosecution as the lesser evil than paying compensation for moral damages.
The second half of the concept seemed at first to work - judges began to
churn out the maximum amounts of compensation for moral harm to litigators,
a selection representing the political and business elite, and several
publications were threatened with bankruptcy. But the first part of the plot
against disobedient media did not work out - Armenian journalists'
organizations, the press itself, and then after them, the international
community began quickly to call things as they in fact were. Cases in the
European Court for Human Rights loomed ahead, and all calculations indicated
that the "clever joke" had not justified itself. The authorities had to
extricate themselves from the unpleasant situation they themselves had
created.
In May 2011, at the initiative of the Human Rights Defender of the Republic
of Armenia, the Information Disputes
Council (IDC) was formed, and both of those from Armenia giving a talk today
became members. The expert conclusions of the IDC on defamation cases in
the courts began to really influence law-enforcement practice, and the
assistance of the OSCE enabled the establishment of the IDC on a regular
basis. Already by 2012, it could be confidently stated that citizens
pursuing the goal not of rehabilitating their name, but only punishing
journalists through the pocket ceased to obtain what they wished from the
courts. The statute in the Civil Code of the Republic of Armenia on libel
and insult did not become a "club" against the media. The number of cases
began to drop sharply and the chances of regulation information disputes
through extrajudicial means rose, in particular, through appeals to the
self-regulation body, Media Ethics Observatory
(MEO).
The main problem of this structure, created in 2007 by the media outlets
themselves on a voluntary basis at the suggestion of the YPC was and
remains the lack of awareness and understanding of the principles of
operation of the MEO on the part of citizens. But the most effective form of
solving that problem is the televised versions of the review of specific
disputes and conflicts of ethics. The production of this show, named "Press
Club", has attracted the attention of a fairly wide audience and raised the
interest in the activity of the Media Ethics Observatory and increased the
number of complains to it as alternatives to appeals to the court. Today,
the Armenian media community is contemplating how to extend to maximum
effect the action of the mechanisms of self-regulation to the Internet,
especially since there already is a precedent for review by a court of a
lawsuit for insult and dignity on Facebook.
The trends analyzed in this report bear witness to the fact that objective
processes in the information sphere of Armenia force the authorities to lose
their appetites for restricting freedom of speech. Meanwhile, the effort of
the political elite to control the mass media is capable of causing serious
damage to the development of certain branches of the media industry as
occurred in its day with the print media and is now happening with
television. Therefore, consistent and coordinated efforts from the
journalist community and international organizations are required to advance
progressive approaches in this sphere.
"PRESS CLUB" CYCLE: TV RATINGS AND ETHICS
On May 13, another talk show of
"Press Club"
cycle, dealing with journalistic ethics, went on "Yerkir Media" TV channel.
The weekly TV cycle is produced by Yerevan Press Club with the support of
Deutsche Welle Academy.
The limits of permissible in top-rated TV talk-shows were considered on the
example of "Let them Talk" popular program of the Russian First Channel,
specifically of its September 24, 2012 issue "Say Sorry!". The teenagers
from a Moldovan village were the heroes of the "Say Sorry!". The latter was
disputed by the Moldovan Press Council, which brought a complaint at the
Russian Public Collegium for Press Complaints against the "Let them Talk"
and its host Andrey Malakhov. The
resolution of the Collegium was adopted on January 29, 2013.
The "Press Club" discussants - Yuri Kazakov, Co-Chairman of the Russian
Public Collegium for Press Complaints, and Naira Martikian, producer of
"Shant" TV company, expressed their opinions on the case and in general on
the topic. The experts of the program were Manana Aslamazian, Director of
"Alternative Resources in Media"
program, film director Ara Shirinian, lawyer David Sandukhchian and
journalist Serob Ohanian. YPC President Boris Navasardian hosted the talk
show.
The next "Press Club" will be aired on "Yerkir Media" on Monday, May 20 at
18.00 (rerun - on Saturday, May 25 at 12.00).
Watch "Press Club" of May 13, 2013 here
POLICE TRIES TO IDENTIFY PERSON, WHO THREATENED "HETQ" CORRESPONDENT
As we have earlier informed, "Hetq" (online publication of Investigative
Journalists NGO) reported to the Armenian law enforcement bodies about the
threats received by its correspondent Ani Hovhannisian. The threats to
finish up with the journalists were made in the readers' comments to a
dubious video material, placed on
May 3 on Nrnak.com. Five days
after this, Ani Hovhannisian "received a threatening telephone call from a
cell number", and "the caller told her to keep her nose out of business that
does not concern her, otherwise it would wind up bad for her and her family
members" ( "Reporter and Members of her
Family are Being Threatened", "Hetq", May 8, 2013). "Hetq" requested the RA
Special Investigative Service and the RA Police to take urgent steps for
ensuring the security of the journalist and finding the guilty persons (see
details in YPC Weekly Newsletter, May 3-9, 2013
).
On May 9, the Armenian Service of Radio "Free Europe"/Radio "Liberty" with
reference to Ashot Aharonian, the Head of the RA Police PR and Information
Department, reported that the law enforcement bodies are trying to identify
the person who called "Hetq" correspondent. In the May 16 interview to Radio
"Liberty",
Ani Hovhannisian found it difficult to mention the real reasons for the
ongoing. In the same interview, Edik Baghdasarian, the Head of Investigative
Journalists, expressed doubts about the version that the telephone threats
may be linked to the April 27 incident at the Northern Avenue of Yerevan:
when police officer Vardan Ghukasian was dismissed of his duties for
insulting and offending Ani Hovhannisian, who stood up for the street
musician (see details in YPC Weekly Newsletter, April 26 - May 2, 2013
). Edik Baghdasarian assumed that
the real reason of the threats could be the journalistic investigation on
offshore zones. Specifically, he and Ani Hovhannisian are currently
examining the issue of investments by Armenian officials and deputies in
Georgia.
NCTR MONITORING FOUND NO VIOLATIONS IN COVERAGE OF YEREVAN COUNCIL OF ELDERS
ELECTIONS
On May 8, the National Commission on Television and Radio released the data
on the monitoring of the ensuring of equal conditions for parties/party bloc
by Armenian TV and radio companies during the official campaign of the
Yerevan Council of Elders elections, held on May 5, 2013. As we have
reported, the monitoring was implemented by NCTR in line with the RA
Electoral Code (see details in YPC Weekly Newsletter, March 8-14, 2013
).
According to the NCTR report , in the
period of pre-election promotion (April 7 - May 3, 2013), as well as on May
4 and 5 (days, when the pre-election promotion is forbidden), the
broadcasters did not violate the Electoral Code and the RA Law "On
Television and Radio".
OSCE/ODIHR ELECTION OBSERVATION MISSION FINAL REPORT ON FEBRUARY 18, 2013
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS
On May 8, OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation Mission published the Final Report
on February 18, 2013 Presidential
Elections in Armenia. The document presents different aspects of the
electoral process and offers recommendations on its further improvement.
The February 19, 2013 Statement
of Preliminary Findings and Conclusions of the International Election
Observation Mission (OSCE/ODIHR, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council
of Europe and the European Parliament) stressed that "the election was
generally well-administered and was characterized by a respect for
fundamental freedoms": contestants were able to campaign freely, media
fulfilled their legal obligation to provide balanced coverage, and all
contestants made use of their free airtime. At the same time, the observers
expressed their concern with the lack of impartiality of the public
administration, misuse of administrative resources, and cases of pressure on
voters; during the election day some serious violations were observed, too
(see YPC Weekly Newsletter, February 15-21, 2013
).
The Media Section of the OSCE/ODIHR EOM Final Report, particularly,
mentioned the monitoring by the National Commission on Television and Radio,
which oversaw the Armenian broadcasters' activities during the pre-election
promotion. The EOM noted that the regulatory body did not conduct a
monitoring before the official election campaign. However, as the monitoring
of Yerevan Press Club showed, during the period preceding the pre-election
promotion, the media pretty intensively covered activities of the incumbent
RA President Serzh Sargsian not as a candidate but as an official. As a
result, Serzh Sargsian received significant information advantage against
his competitors. However, coverage of the incumbent President in his
official capacity changed dramatically with the start of the pre-election
promotion, and as the day of the voting was getting closer, this coverage
was becoming less active. "The contrast between the period directly before
the pre-election promotion and the rapid pre-election promotion itself
another time proves the necessity of regulation and monitoring of a more
lengthy period than the 4 weeks of pre-election promotion. Otherwise, it
would be difficult to talk about equal information opportunities for
candidates", emphasized Yerevan Press Club in its Report on monitoring of
Armenian broadcast media
coverage of RA presidential elections in 2013.
Given the abovementioned, the OSCE/ODIHR EOM recommended the Armenian
authorities to give consideration "to enhancing the capacities and resources
needed by the NCTR for conducting its media monitoring fully and
independently, instead of tasking broadcasters to provide broadcasting data
themselves". "Moreover, consideration could be given to enhancing the
methodology so as to allow the NCTR to monitor and assess the tone of
coverage. Additionally, it could be considered that the NCTR implements its
oversight role by conducting random media monitoring outside the campaign
period", stressed the OSCE/ODIHR EOM.
Further the Observation Mission's Final Report reminded that the RA
"Electoral Code requires presenting impartial and unbiased information about
contestants. The NCTR did provide unofficial and somewhat unclear guidance
on how to interpret the law. Media also interpreted these provisions
cautiously and appeared to be concerned that analytical information could be
perceived as bias".
In this regard, the EOM recommended that the "Electoral Code could be
amended to provide for generally applicable guidelines for election-related
coverage by the broadcast media. Such provisions could be based on the
existing requirement of impartiality and balance, while at the same allowing
for independent editorial coverage of campaign events".
The OSCE/ODIHR Observation Mission also highlighted the January 25, 2013
Yerevan Press Club statement,
calling the broadcasters and candidates to presidency to hold TV debates.
While some private stations offered to do so, no debates were organized
after the incumbent and the other candidates declined to participate. "As a
result, voters were not given the opportunity to see meaningful dialogue
that could address the contestants' platforms or the incumbent's performance
in office", the OSCE/ODIHR EOM stated.
When reprinting or using the information above, reference to the Yerevan
Press Club is required.
You are welcome to send any comment and feedback about the Newsletter to:
[email protected]
Subscription for the Newsletter is free. To subscribe or unsubscribe from
this mailing list, please send a message to: [email protected]
Editor of YPC Newsletter - Elina POGHOSBEKIAN
____________________________________________
Yerevan Press Club
9B, Ghazar Parpetsi str.
0002, Yerevan, Armenia
Tel.: (+ 374 10) 53 00 67; 53 35 41; 53 76 62
Fax: (+374 10) 53 56 61
E-mail: [email protected]
Web Site: www.ypc.am
MAY 10-16, 2013
HIGHLIGHTS:
PERSPECTIVE
TELEVISION HAD LOST ITS MONOPOLY ON THE FORMATION OF PUBLIC OPINION
"PRESS CLUB" CYCLE: TV RATINGS AND ETHICS
POLICE TRIES TO IDENTIFY PERSON, WHO THREATENED "HETQ" CORRESPONDENT
NCTR MONITORING FOUND NO VIOLATIONS IN COVERAGE OF YEREVAN COUNCIL OF
ELDERS ELECTIONS
OSCE/ODIHR ELECTION OBSERVATION MISSION FINAL REPORT ON FEBRUARY 18, 2013
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS
PERSPECTIVE
TELEVISION HAD LOST ITS MONOPOLY ON THE FORMATION OF PUBLIC OPINION
Below is the presentation, "Dominant Trends in the Mass Media in Armenia in
2011-2012", by Boris NAVASARDIAN, Yerevan Press Club President, made at 9th
South Caucasus Media Conference,
"From Traditional to Online Media: Best Practices and Perspectives",
organized by the Office of the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media
on October 11-12, 2012 in Tbilisi, Georgia.
Changes in the media are lately occurring so rapidly and dynamically that a
depiction of the static situation as it looks today provides little in terms
of understanding the problems. Especially because changes in one dimension,
for example, technology, inevitably leave their mark on others - the
legislative, political and professional dimensions. Therefore, in my
presentation I will try not so much to state the realities at the moment
when we Armenian participants left Yerevan for Tbilisi, so much as to
describe basic trends, and to bring correctives into the media field even in
the hours that we are here meeting and which will define the development of
the information space of Armenia in the near term. The determination of
trends is like a forecast; it cannot be 100-percent accurate, so certain of
my judgments could be debatable.
Since our country is in between election campaigns - parliamentary and
presidential - and Georgia is also living with just finished elections, I
will start with this topic then. After the spring parliamentary elections in
Armenia, the statement "who owns television will win the elections" seems
entirely dubious. During the official election campaign, the owners of
Armenian television controlled by the authorities (and the concentration of
property here has reached an unprecedented level), essentially rejected the
practice of unequal allocation of airtime to candidates and political
forces. For the first time in the history of national elections in Armenia,
both the YPC monitoring conducted with the support of the OSCE and the
European Commission, as well as international observers and even the
Armenian opposition testified that during the period of election
campaigning, broadcasters largely provided equal opportunities for
campaigns.
Of course, it would be a great exaggeration to attribute this phenomenon by
the authorities' good will, although it was their political decision that
influenced the television channels' behavior. Particular significance was
given by the international community, above all the European Union, to the
quality of these elections, and the importance of evaluations from outside
for the political leadership of the Republic of Armenia; hence, the interest
of the latter in respectable monitoring results does not fully reveal the
reasons for the metamorphosis. A significant factor was the awareness that
television had lost its monopoly on the formation of public opinion, and the
continuation of ruthless exploitation of this resource for the achievement
of desired results in elections could be a futile exercise.
To be sure, during the period between elections, control over television
content remains for the authorities a fairly important component of the
management of political processes and public sentiments. In the absence of
the attention of international organizations, a one-sided and selective
coverage of events and opinions, and a deficit of discussion of
public-interest problems, are, as before, characteristic traits of Armenian
television.
Yet the topic of biased mass media broadcasting nevertheless is gradually
losing its urgency. It is possible that this South Caucasus conference will
be the last where we will speak of the domination of television as the chief
source of information for citizens. Already today, the audience for Armenian
Internet news sites is comparable in size to the audience for news programs
on Armenian television channels. And the situation is radically changing in
favor of the former literally every six months.
In this sense, we need to look at the broadcasting legislation from a
somewhat different angle. For a long time, this legislation was the
number-one topic in the context of securing freedom and pluralism for
Armenian mass media. From the moment the Law on Television and Radio was
passed in 2000, it needed a conceptual re-working. But despite numerous
discussions, alternative draft laws proposed by journalists' organizations,
including the Yerevan Press Club and Internews Media Support NGO, PACE
resolutions and expert conclusions from OSCE and the Council of Europe, the
Law, if it was amended, in fact went in the opposite direction from what was
recommended.
A key problem all this time has remained the bodies intended to regulate and
manage broadcasting - the National Commission on Television and Radio (NCTR)
and the Council for Public Television and Radio Company (PTRC). Precisely
their exceptional dependency on the government became a factor leading to
the political monopolization of the airwaves. Several options were proposed
to obtain at least relative independence for these bodies. In particular,
the possibility was studied of forming them on the basis of independent
civic institutions (on the example of councils of public broadcasters in a
number of European countries) - with labor unions, industrial associations,
organizations representing various social groups, religious communities and
so on. This option could have been seen as the most acceptable, but
unfortunately, such institutions in Armenia are either not independent (by
virtue of the control over them by the government) or not sustainable (by
virtue of the lack of stable sources of existence).
An orientation toward political pluralism in the composition of national
regulators could serve as an alternative. Balancing participation in these
bodies of representatives of rival parties (50% from the ruling coalition
and 50% from the opposition) would create a definitive basis for making
decisions in the interests of the whole society. This model, in some
respects similar to what was adopted in Georgia, is possible but has a
number of flaws - international experience indicates the undesirability of
politicizing bodies that regulate broadcasting and manage public TV and
radio. There is no doubt, however that with such a model, Armenian
broadcasting media would not be so far from the real and diverse information
needs of the society as it is now. And when we acknowledge the rapidly
growing role of the Internet in informing the population of Armenia, we have
to admit that a significant portion of this audience is television viewers'
discontent with the quality of news and discussion on the airwaves.
However, today, it is evidently already too late to speak about the
possibility of a certain independence of the regulators by reflecting among
them the pluralism of the Armenian political arena. The opposition in
Armenia is so weakened by the lack of resources that it has to survive by
attaching themselves to two oligarchic parties. And restoration of real
political pluralism now must be tied to the prospects of economic pluralism,
when business circles have free resources that are so independent from the
government that they can permit themselves the financial support of
opposition . But that is a completely different topic and an entirely cloudy
prospect.
In other words, thinking about legislative guarantees for an independent
broadcasting industry in Armenia today is a big luxury. It remains only to
rely on the famous "political will" about which so many speak, like the
Abominable Snowman, but which no one believes has ever been seen.
Nevertheless, reform of broadcasting legislation, despite the reduction of
its strictly political relevance, remains a priority for the media
community. For an effective development of this industry in the period of
transition to digital broadcasting, civilized procedures and an informed
strategy are needed. Meanwhile, since 2006, there has been talk of a
conception for digitalization , but no one has ever seen a serious document
that first, justifies the selection of standards; second contains a
calculation of resources and technological decisions for a national digital
broadcasting network; third, forecasts the long-term expenditures of
television companies to use this network; and fourth, proposes a model for
subsidies. To be sure, a few years ago, the Ministry of Economics of the
Republic of Armenia, which at that period for some reason was involved in
broadcasting issues, happily informed the public that Italian specialists,
including some from the company Mediaset, would help us in resolving all
television problems. These specialists then managed to do some things, but
in light of subsequent events around this company, I think no commentary is
needed regarding their contribution to the development of the Armenian media
industry...
Reforming legislation, when the conceptual issues remain undecided regarding
the transition to digital broadcasting is a very complicated task. And
nevertheless, these journalists' associations, together with their partners
and with the substantial expert support of the OSCE and Council of Europe,
proposed in parliament draft amendments to the Law "On Television and
Radio". In particular, it provided for a whole number of procedures which
are now absent, but which would have acquired particular important from the
first days of digitalization - the licensing of private multiplex operators,
the distribution of channels for these multiplexes, taking into account the
public interest in the process of developing the industry, and so on. In
connection with the traditional political sensitivity regarding everything
that concerns television, there is no reason to expect that the draft will
be reviewed in the coming months, as the preparation for the presidential
elections is under way. But we do have certain expectations regarding the
spring session of the National Assembly.
A special topic is the Public Broadcaster. In the above-mentioned draft law,
there is an article providing for more precise regulation of the activity
and accountability of the PTRC, which remains as a unique state institution
that does not answer to anyone under the law! Meanwhile, as sad as it is to
admit, Public Television in Armenia, never having been established, is now
leaving the scene as a significant institution. It was stated above that in
the current civic and political realities, legislative guarantees for the
independent management of PTRC are practically impossible. Accordingly, the
chance that it can propose to its audience in the foreseeable future a
diverse and high-quality coverage of current problems is approximately zero.
The authorities, for which the so-called state, and then the so-called
public television was one of its chief instruments for guaranteeing its
self-reproduction is now successfully resolving this problem through
controlled private channels. If until recently, PTRC, enjoying the blessings
from above, was an aggressive player in the advertising market and
implemented commercial projects with no less effectiveness than the leading
private television companies, then today ruling circles are interested in
removing it in general from the ranks of business rivals.
It can be supposed that Public Television, no longer needed, will be left to
go fallow with what in the Soviet era were called "the creative
intelligentsia" that is loyal representatives of culture, literature and
art. Under market conditions, they feel themselves deprived not only of
material assistance but of attention and honors. For several years now, the
representatives of the "creative intelligentsia" have publicly complained of
the "coercion of bad taste", "the undermining of the moral foundations of
the nation", and "insufficient propagation of spiritual values" on Armenian
television, and have written letters to the President as well. Their claims
are largely founded, but the methods which they propose to correct the
situation have the scent of mothballs about them with Soviet-era concepts
like "Glavlit" (the Soviet Chief Directorate for Protection of State Secrets
in the Press, or censor), "Khudsoviet" (Arts Council) and so on. The Public
Council under the Armenian President took hold of this topic "seriously".
Naturally, private channels that earn money for their owners precisely due
to all these "depraved phenomena", and also extinguish the civic activism of
society and its interest in real problems, can hold their own. But,
evidently, the upper echelons of government are not opposed to present
public television to this still influential sector of the electorate, thus
pledging guaranteed support for a certain time. Without advertising, it can
fill the airwaves with low-cost broadcasts on just the state budget alone -
concerts and shows without commercial pretensions, endlessly long interviews
about national culture, domestic films the rights for which do not require
the payment of large fees. It does not matter if the broadcasts will have a
small audience or that the last modern-thinking professionals will leave
PTRC; meanwhile, there will be no worries about the political loyalty of the
public channels and their new old heroes.
I will deliberately not dwell in detail on the most traditional of
traditional mass media, the paper press in Armenia. Unlike television, it
was always if not independent at least pluralistic and reflected the basic
contrasts of domestic political life. But numerous economic problems
dictated by poor local market and world trends hardly favorable to print
media were aggravated in our country by the awful state policy regarding
them in the course of 20 years of independence. As originally a journalist,
with most of my experience in newspapers, it pains me to have to admit that
there are no prospects even in the near future for the Armenian print press.
The only salvation for them is to go on to the Internet and create
convergent editorial offices.
Thus, the dominating role of alternative, convergent media in the Armenian
information market is inevitable and it will move from the category of
forecasts to the category of reality faster than many of us could have
imagined at last year's meeting here in Tbilisi. But that is the topic for
another speech, by Manana Aslamazyan, director of the "Alternative Resources
in Media" project. I will just briefly touch upon one aspect of social
networks (or social media). Their growing role in the life of Armenian
society astounds the imagination. It is a question above all of the
development by means of social media of "web" civic activism. Environmental
protection, urban planning, elections, corruption - this is an incomplete
list of the areas where "web" activism has managed to demonstrate itself
fully. If you count the most vivid examples of recent months, when the
activism of society has brought a specific result, then it is the
achievements of "web" activism that prevail, and not the traditional
institutionalized segment of civil society which has developed and been
nurtured in Armenia for almost two decades.
Meanwhile, the development of social networks as a resource for information
for civic activism contains serious risks. There is too little time between
signal and action in order to fully evaluate a situation, its background,
and its accompanying factors in order to make an accurate decision. Roughly
speaking, all the networks activists have "at their disposal" can be drawn
upon effectively to save a tree that is going to be cut down, but meanwhile
somewhere else an entire forest can be destroyed. I will deliberately cite
an example from an area where "web" activism has been the most organized,
concentrated around a few competent informal leaders who cannot be so easily
disoriented. But even here, and all the more in other spheres where the
planting of disinformation, a provocative signal, an initiative of a
manipulative nature are all quite possible. Contemporary PR and political
technologies are penetrating further into social media, making "web"
activism vulnerable, and in recent months in Armenia the attempts to exploit
"honest, sincere enthusiasm" for unseemly ends have grown more frequent.
These challenges require a more active participation of professional,
responsible players in the information field (journalists, experts,
independent representatives of institutionalized civil society) in social
media. Their knowledge and ability to analyze and verify signals in
combination with the motivations aimed at operational reaction of "web"
activists reduce the likelihood of the prevalence of "bad" content and the
manipulation of social media. The advancement of such cooperation is a new
and promising direction for the activity of media organizations.
The rapidity of the receipt and reaction to information is becoming a new
factor in social segmentation. If "web" activists - mainly young people of
student age and also a new type of professionals not strictly stuck to their
workplace - manage to achieve in this sense incredible speeds and advantages
then the representatives of many traditional professions are disadvantaged.
I recently had repairs done in my apartment and involuntarily entered into
the situation of fairly highly-qualified specialists in their field, for
example, plumbers who, although they wish to stay abreast of events and in
the thick of public life are falling far behind its pace. The majority of
participants of our conferences not only listen to speeches but without
stopping, continue in parallel to follow what is happening far from this
room thanks to laptops, iPhones and so on. Thus, we and other categories of
society for whom "web" activism is accessible conduct ourselves at work, in
the student lecture hall even on public transportation. But unlike you, the
hands of the plumber are constantly busy during work hours; his gaze is
constantly directed at concrete objects; he does not have time for an
iPhone... Even a few years ago, a person could calmly, without thinking
about anything else, work for eight hours, come home, have dinner and only
later, when he had laid down on the couch, take the remote control of the
television in hand or the newspaper. Such a regimen would not mean a
significant information delay for him. Today, it would undoubtedly mean
this.
And no matter how primitive this sounds, the solution for media, which I
recently characterized as almost lost for the Armenian news industry, is
radio. At that time, it seemed that radio had finally receded to the musical
and entertainment niche. Today, more and more Armenian radio stations
broadcast news and talk about serious topics. "ArmRadio FM 107" is the main
talking media, although only a year ago, only jazz could be heard on this
frequency 24 hours a day. I and many others who love to listen to good music
in the car regret this "re-branding", but the plumber and representatives of
dozens of other professions, without distracting from their jobs, obtain the
opportunity to listen to news and opinion in a wide spectrum of civic and
political topics. Public radio of Armenian has been speaking a great deal.
"Yerevan FM" (102.0) successfully combines quality music with quality news,
for which it received the Yerevan Press Club prize this year. Moreover, in
rebroadcasting the Radio "Liberty", "Yerevan FM" is focused on the high bar
of the latter and in its own news shows.
By the way, the return of Armenian radio channels to formats offering civic
and political information is largely stipulated precisely by "Radio Liberty"
broadcasting. For many years, the Armenian authorities thought up various
methods to artificially frustrate the access of this radio station to an
Armenian audience. Thank God, this did not work. They had to resort to more
civilized forms of attracting radio listeners and stimulate competition to
Radio Liberty. Whatever notions were behind this, the audience only gains.
In closing, I would like to cite one more even more convincing "success
story" from the life of Armenian media. It is connected to the
decriminalization of libel and insult in 2010, which at first was conceived
by some of our circles close to the government as a "clever joke". On the
one hand, liability for defamation was moved from criminal to civil law,
enabling the praise of international organizations, but on the other hand,
it became a "club" for opposition and critical media which saw criminal
prosecution as the lesser evil than paying compensation for moral damages.
The second half of the concept seemed at first to work - judges began to
churn out the maximum amounts of compensation for moral harm to litigators,
a selection representing the political and business elite, and several
publications were threatened with bankruptcy. But the first part of the plot
against disobedient media did not work out - Armenian journalists'
organizations, the press itself, and then after them, the international
community began quickly to call things as they in fact were. Cases in the
European Court for Human Rights loomed ahead, and all calculations indicated
that the "clever joke" had not justified itself. The authorities had to
extricate themselves from the unpleasant situation they themselves had
created.
In May 2011, at the initiative of the Human Rights Defender of the Republic
of Armenia, the Information Disputes
Council (IDC) was formed, and both of those from Armenia giving a talk today
became members. The expert conclusions of the IDC on defamation cases in
the courts began to really influence law-enforcement practice, and the
assistance of the OSCE enabled the establishment of the IDC on a regular
basis. Already by 2012, it could be confidently stated that citizens
pursuing the goal not of rehabilitating their name, but only punishing
journalists through the pocket ceased to obtain what they wished from the
courts. The statute in the Civil Code of the Republic of Armenia on libel
and insult did not become a "club" against the media. The number of cases
began to drop sharply and the chances of regulation information disputes
through extrajudicial means rose, in particular, through appeals to the
self-regulation body, Media Ethics Observatory
(MEO).
The main problem of this structure, created in 2007 by the media outlets
themselves on a voluntary basis at the suggestion of the YPC was and
remains the lack of awareness and understanding of the principles of
operation of the MEO on the part of citizens. But the most effective form of
solving that problem is the televised versions of the review of specific
disputes and conflicts of ethics. The production of this show, named "Press
Club", has attracted the attention of a fairly wide audience and raised the
interest in the activity of the Media Ethics Observatory and increased the
number of complains to it as alternatives to appeals to the court. Today,
the Armenian media community is contemplating how to extend to maximum
effect the action of the mechanisms of self-regulation to the Internet,
especially since there already is a precedent for review by a court of a
lawsuit for insult and dignity on Facebook.
The trends analyzed in this report bear witness to the fact that objective
processes in the information sphere of Armenia force the authorities to lose
their appetites for restricting freedom of speech. Meanwhile, the effort of
the political elite to control the mass media is capable of causing serious
damage to the development of certain branches of the media industry as
occurred in its day with the print media and is now happening with
television. Therefore, consistent and coordinated efforts from the
journalist community and international organizations are required to advance
progressive approaches in this sphere.
"PRESS CLUB" CYCLE: TV RATINGS AND ETHICS
On May 13, another talk show of
"Press Club"
cycle, dealing with journalistic ethics, went on "Yerkir Media" TV channel.
The weekly TV cycle is produced by Yerevan Press Club with the support of
Deutsche Welle Academy.
The limits of permissible in top-rated TV talk-shows were considered on the
example of "Let them Talk" popular program of the Russian First Channel,
specifically of its September 24, 2012 issue "Say Sorry!". The teenagers
from a Moldovan village were the heroes of the "Say Sorry!". The latter was
disputed by the Moldovan Press Council, which brought a complaint at the
Russian Public Collegium for Press Complaints against the "Let them Talk"
and its host Andrey Malakhov. The
resolution of the Collegium was adopted on January 29, 2013.
The "Press Club" discussants - Yuri Kazakov, Co-Chairman of the Russian
Public Collegium for Press Complaints, and Naira Martikian, producer of
"Shant" TV company, expressed their opinions on the case and in general on
the topic. The experts of the program were Manana Aslamazian, Director of
"Alternative Resources in Media"
program, film director Ara Shirinian, lawyer David Sandukhchian and
journalist Serob Ohanian. YPC President Boris Navasardian hosted the talk
show.
The next "Press Club" will be aired on "Yerkir Media" on Monday, May 20 at
18.00 (rerun - on Saturday, May 25 at 12.00).
Watch "Press Club" of May 13, 2013 here
POLICE TRIES TO IDENTIFY PERSON, WHO THREATENED "HETQ" CORRESPONDENT
As we have earlier informed, "Hetq" (online publication of Investigative
Journalists NGO) reported to the Armenian law enforcement bodies about the
threats received by its correspondent Ani Hovhannisian. The threats to
finish up with the journalists were made in the readers' comments to a
dubious video material, placed on
May 3 on Nrnak.com. Five days
after this, Ani Hovhannisian "received a threatening telephone call from a
cell number", and "the caller told her to keep her nose out of business that
does not concern her, otherwise it would wind up bad for her and her family
members" ( "Reporter and Members of her
Family are Being Threatened", "Hetq", May 8, 2013). "Hetq" requested the RA
Special Investigative Service and the RA Police to take urgent steps for
ensuring the security of the journalist and finding the guilty persons (see
details in YPC Weekly Newsletter, May 3-9, 2013
).
On May 9, the Armenian Service of Radio "Free Europe"/Radio "Liberty" with
reference to Ashot Aharonian, the Head of the RA Police PR and Information
Department, reported that the law enforcement bodies are trying to identify
the person who called "Hetq" correspondent. In the May 16 interview to Radio
"Liberty",
Ani Hovhannisian found it difficult to mention the real reasons for the
ongoing. In the same interview, Edik Baghdasarian, the Head of Investigative
Journalists, expressed doubts about the version that the telephone threats
may be linked to the April 27 incident at the Northern Avenue of Yerevan:
when police officer Vardan Ghukasian was dismissed of his duties for
insulting and offending Ani Hovhannisian, who stood up for the street
musician (see details in YPC Weekly Newsletter, April 26 - May 2, 2013
). Edik Baghdasarian assumed that
the real reason of the threats could be the journalistic investigation on
offshore zones. Specifically, he and Ani Hovhannisian are currently
examining the issue of investments by Armenian officials and deputies in
Georgia.
NCTR MONITORING FOUND NO VIOLATIONS IN COVERAGE OF YEREVAN COUNCIL OF ELDERS
ELECTIONS
On May 8, the National Commission on Television and Radio released the data
on the monitoring of the ensuring of equal conditions for parties/party bloc
by Armenian TV and radio companies during the official campaign of the
Yerevan Council of Elders elections, held on May 5, 2013. As we have
reported, the monitoring was implemented by NCTR in line with the RA
Electoral Code (see details in YPC Weekly Newsletter, March 8-14, 2013
).
According to the NCTR report , in the
period of pre-election promotion (April 7 - May 3, 2013), as well as on May
4 and 5 (days, when the pre-election promotion is forbidden), the
broadcasters did not violate the Electoral Code and the RA Law "On
Television and Radio".
OSCE/ODIHR ELECTION OBSERVATION MISSION FINAL REPORT ON FEBRUARY 18, 2013
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS
On May 8, OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation Mission published the Final Report
on February 18, 2013 Presidential
Elections in Armenia. The document presents different aspects of the
electoral process and offers recommendations on its further improvement.
The February 19, 2013 Statement
of Preliminary Findings and Conclusions of the International Election
Observation Mission (OSCE/ODIHR, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council
of Europe and the European Parliament) stressed that "the election was
generally well-administered and was characterized by a respect for
fundamental freedoms": contestants were able to campaign freely, media
fulfilled their legal obligation to provide balanced coverage, and all
contestants made use of their free airtime. At the same time, the observers
expressed their concern with the lack of impartiality of the public
administration, misuse of administrative resources, and cases of pressure on
voters; during the election day some serious violations were observed, too
(see YPC Weekly Newsletter, February 15-21, 2013
).
The Media Section of the OSCE/ODIHR EOM Final Report, particularly,
mentioned the monitoring by the National Commission on Television and Radio,
which oversaw the Armenian broadcasters' activities during the pre-election
promotion. The EOM noted that the regulatory body did not conduct a
monitoring before the official election campaign. However, as the monitoring
of Yerevan Press Club showed, during the period preceding the pre-election
promotion, the media pretty intensively covered activities of the incumbent
RA President Serzh Sargsian not as a candidate but as an official. As a
result, Serzh Sargsian received significant information advantage against
his competitors. However, coverage of the incumbent President in his
official capacity changed dramatically with the start of the pre-election
promotion, and as the day of the voting was getting closer, this coverage
was becoming less active. "The contrast between the period directly before
the pre-election promotion and the rapid pre-election promotion itself
another time proves the necessity of regulation and monitoring of a more
lengthy period than the 4 weeks of pre-election promotion. Otherwise, it
would be difficult to talk about equal information opportunities for
candidates", emphasized Yerevan Press Club in its Report on monitoring of
Armenian broadcast media
coverage of RA presidential elections in 2013.
Given the abovementioned, the OSCE/ODIHR EOM recommended the Armenian
authorities to give consideration "to enhancing the capacities and resources
needed by the NCTR for conducting its media monitoring fully and
independently, instead of tasking broadcasters to provide broadcasting data
themselves". "Moreover, consideration could be given to enhancing the
methodology so as to allow the NCTR to monitor and assess the tone of
coverage. Additionally, it could be considered that the NCTR implements its
oversight role by conducting random media monitoring outside the campaign
period", stressed the OSCE/ODIHR EOM.
Further the Observation Mission's Final Report reminded that the RA
"Electoral Code requires presenting impartial and unbiased information about
contestants. The NCTR did provide unofficial and somewhat unclear guidance
on how to interpret the law. Media also interpreted these provisions
cautiously and appeared to be concerned that analytical information could be
perceived as bias".
In this regard, the EOM recommended that the "Electoral Code could be
amended to provide for generally applicable guidelines for election-related
coverage by the broadcast media. Such provisions could be based on the
existing requirement of impartiality and balance, while at the same allowing
for independent editorial coverage of campaign events".
The OSCE/ODIHR Observation Mission also highlighted the January 25, 2013
Yerevan Press Club statement,
calling the broadcasters and candidates to presidency to hold TV debates.
While some private stations offered to do so, no debates were organized
after the incumbent and the other candidates declined to participate. "As a
result, voters were not given the opportunity to see meaningful dialogue
that could address the contestants' platforms or the incumbent's performance
in office", the OSCE/ODIHR EOM stated.
When reprinting or using the information above, reference to the Yerevan
Press Club is required.
You are welcome to send any comment and feedback about the Newsletter to:
[email protected]
Subscription for the Newsletter is free. To subscribe or unsubscribe from
this mailing list, please send a message to: [email protected]
Editor of YPC Newsletter - Elina POGHOSBEKIAN
____________________________________________
Yerevan Press Club
9B, Ghazar Parpetsi str.
0002, Yerevan, Armenia
Tel.: (+ 374 10) 53 00 67; 53 35 41; 53 76 62
Fax: (+374 10) 53 56 61
E-mail: [email protected]
Web Site: www.ypc.am