Tweet
HOW LONG WILL THEY CONSOLE THEMSELVES?
Haik Aramyan
Lragir, Armenia
July 24 2007
When the NKR presidential candidate Masis Mayilyan evaluated
the conduct of the election making a statement of a public and
political figure, the Armenian reporters took a breath and hurried
to state with deep satisfaction that Mayilyan accepted the result
of the election. One can understand the reporters. They think
another difficult trial for them is past. The point is that all the
Armenian media except for a few ones had to participate in the "common
candidate" operation all through the pre-election period. However, if
in the Armenian parliamentary election the reporters could maneuver
and justify their one move or another, this time they could not,
for everything was clear and distinct. On the one hand, it was the
"common candidate" operation; on the other hand, it was the civilized
option everyone dreamt of. Preferring the second deep in their
heart, the reporters had to become engaged in the first operation,
acknowledging the consequences. Certainly, it is difficult to accuse
them, they could have refused but they need to support their families,
they need a job. Especially, for TV reporters.
It is difficult to tell how it is in other countries, but in Armenia
an interesting situation has occurred. Let TV reporters pardon me but
the majority of more or less experienced reporters who are well aware
of the developments in Armenia in the past few years work for the print
media, radio and news agencies. The reason is that in the listed media
they have an opportunity to work, whereas in TV companies there are too
many restrictions. Hence, a professional reporter who has principles
and something to tell goes where he or she can create. And the scarce
professionals who work for TV companies either do not appear often
or have to adjust.
It is not accidental that the Armenian TV companies, despite the
large audience, cannot shape public opinion, and are weaker than
the media which have a smaller audience. The examples are many,
remember at least the referendum on Constitution or the recent
parliamentary election. Hence, the TV companies, which are unable
to shape public opinion, have turned into tools for intimidating
the society and poor-quality coverage of the plans of the political
government. In this context, what the TV companies did during the
Karabakh presidential election exceeded all the expectations.
If in the Armenian parliamentary election the TV companies had to
provide airtime to all the political parties, including the opposition,
during the presidential election of Karabakh they launched a unilateral
campaign in favor of the "common candidate".
The three channels which are broadcast in Karabakh "stood out" among
the others. Although Robert Kocharyan told reporters a few days ago
that he and Serge Sargsyan could have visited Karabakh but they did
not in order not to affect the campaign, the reality was the contrary:
first Serge Sargsyan stated whom he preferred, second, in Armenia
everyone knows the "status" of the TV companies. And in fact they
acted through the television, trying to "make clear" to the people
of Karabakh for whom they should vote.
Anyway, on watching the pale faces of the Armenian TV reporters
reporting from Stepanakert one understands that our pen friends
acknowledged that they did a bad thing - deprived a nation of the
right to choose. And one should see the "peace" on their faces when
Masis Mayilyan made his statement.
It is not clear how long they will be living this way, consoling
themselves and making excuses.
Haik Aramyan
Lragir, Armenia
July 24 2007
When the NKR presidential candidate Masis Mayilyan evaluated
the conduct of the election making a statement of a public and
political figure, the Armenian reporters took a breath and hurried
to state with deep satisfaction that Mayilyan accepted the result
of the election. One can understand the reporters. They think
another difficult trial for them is past. The point is that all the
Armenian media except for a few ones had to participate in the "common
candidate" operation all through the pre-election period. However, if
in the Armenian parliamentary election the reporters could maneuver
and justify their one move or another, this time they could not,
for everything was clear and distinct. On the one hand, it was the
"common candidate" operation; on the other hand, it was the civilized
option everyone dreamt of. Preferring the second deep in their
heart, the reporters had to become engaged in the first operation,
acknowledging the consequences. Certainly, it is difficult to accuse
them, they could have refused but they need to support their families,
they need a job. Especially, for TV reporters.
It is difficult to tell how it is in other countries, but in Armenia
an interesting situation has occurred. Let TV reporters pardon me but
the majority of more or less experienced reporters who are well aware
of the developments in Armenia in the past few years work for the print
media, radio and news agencies. The reason is that in the listed media
they have an opportunity to work, whereas in TV companies there are too
many restrictions. Hence, a professional reporter who has principles
and something to tell goes where he or she can create. And the scarce
professionals who work for TV companies either do not appear often
or have to adjust.
It is not accidental that the Armenian TV companies, despite the
large audience, cannot shape public opinion, and are weaker than
the media which have a smaller audience. The examples are many,
remember at least the referendum on Constitution or the recent
parliamentary election. Hence, the TV companies, which are unable
to shape public opinion, have turned into tools for intimidating
the society and poor-quality coverage of the plans of the political
government. In this context, what the TV companies did during the
Karabakh presidential election exceeded all the expectations.
If in the Armenian parliamentary election the TV companies had to
provide airtime to all the political parties, including the opposition,
during the presidential election of Karabakh they launched a unilateral
campaign in favor of the "common candidate".
The three channels which are broadcast in Karabakh "stood out" among
the others. Although Robert Kocharyan told reporters a few days ago
that he and Serge Sargsyan could have visited Karabakh but they did
not in order not to affect the campaign, the reality was the contrary:
first Serge Sargsyan stated whom he preferred, second, in Armenia
everyone knows the "status" of the TV companies. And in fact they
acted through the television, trying to "make clear" to the people
of Karabakh for whom they should vote.
Anyway, on watching the pale faces of the Armenian TV reporters
reporting from Stepanakert one understands that our pen friends
acknowledged that they did a bad thing - deprived a nation of the
right to choose. And one should see the "peace" on their faces when
Masis Mayilyan made his statement.
It is not clear how long they will be living this way, consoling
themselves and making excuses.