Tweet
SPEECH, PRESS FREEDOMS IN ARMENIA NEED PRACTICAL IMPLEMENTATION
http://hetq.am/eng/interviews/2378/
June 23, 2011
Following is a conversation regarding the state of the media and
related legal issues in Armenia. We talk with Artur Papyan (a blogger
and reporter with Radio Liberty) and Ashot Melikyan (President of
the Committee to Defend the Right to Speech).
To what extent are the legal guarantees to free speech and the media
defended in Armenia?
Ashot Melikyan - In terms of legislation, there are pretty good
safeguards for free speech and the press. We just have to hope that
one day the reality on the ground corresponds to the laws on the books.
But I must point out that the old and new versions of the RA "Law
on TV and Radio" hinder liberalization of the sector. That was the
exact law used to close down the A1+ TV station back in 2002.
Everyone is aware that this move was a political one and that loopholes
in the law were taken advantage of to achieve the silencing of the
station.
The law has many modifications but they are of a cosmetic nature. The
suggestions and observations of journalists and international
organizations have been repeatedly overlooked.
Thus, major problems like the independence of the State Committee of
TV and Radio have yet to be tackled in a serious manner.
At first, Committee members were simply appointed by the president.
Supporters said there was no alternative process. Later, appointments
were made on a competitive basis, but this too is just a formality,
for it is the president who drafts the rules and conditions involved.
After reforms to the constitution, the president has the right to
appoint 50% of the Committee and the parliament appoints the rest.
Some though that this formula would allow for dissenting voices in the
Committee but since the parliament is controlled by the president's
party this remains an illusion.
Thus, Public TV in Armenia is "public" in name only.
What are the problems regarding the putting the laws defending a free
press into practice?
Ashot Melikyan - Some might not agree with me, but I believe if there
is the political will even the existing "Law Regarding TV and Radio"
can ensure free and fair competitive tenders in the sector. But the
government doesn't want to cede its near total control of broadcasters.
Most programs are simply vehicles to praise the government and little
airtime is given to opposing views.
The print media in Armenia is split into several political and economic
camps. But only a few really try to promote their product.
The same division exists in the electronic media. In this environment,
journalistic activity becomes political activity and the publications
of media outlets are used as tools to settle political scores.
What problems do citizens and reporters face in the realm of freedom
of speech and the media? What role can international organizations
play in Armenia to defend these rights?
Artur Papyan - A major problem is the lack of faith in the judicial
system.
Thus if a reporter writes his or her viewpoints and observations,
there is no guarantee that they won't be dragged before the courts and
"punished" for their actions or fined enormous amounts in compensation.
The second problem is one of self-censorship. There is no outright
censorship but sometimes reporters are apt to "rein in" what they
write out of fear of possible repercussions.
Then too, citizens face problems of putting their right of freedom
of speech into practice from a technical standpoint. Some take their
issues to the press and others seek expression in various social
networks.
Bloggers also have a role to play here. I have my own blog. If
traditional reporters are vulnerable to self-censorship than bloggers
should be free of such psychological restrictions.
Here, I'm merely talking about putting this freedom into practice
and not the extent of its effectiveness. In terms of the internet,
this possibility exists. But there are skills involved to getting
ones message across in an effective manner.
As a blogger and reporter, I do not see the positions taken by
international organizations as being of a principled nature. One day
they say one thing and the next, something different.
How is citizen journalism (blogs, social networks) developing in
Armenia? To what extent do average citizens trust the traditional
media outlets?
Artur Papyan - In the last year or two, a number of civil initiatives
were organized via Facebook. Today, activists working through the
internet have been successful to a degree when it comes to realizing
legal reforms and court decisions.
Some of these grassroots movements include "We are the owners of this
city" and "We are against foreign language schools".
One month ago, Facebook had 140,000 users in Armenia. Today, this
number has hit 170,000 and it's still growing.
People exchange information and debate the issues.
It is interesting that those who created this network didn't set out
to spur the activism of civil society. Their aim was to create an
environment conducive for contact and to generate revenues through
advertising.
But there was an evident need in Armenia for self-expression and
people quickly began to register.
People are buying the latest telephones and plugging into the
internet. They are taking photos of events and developments and
transferring the news to others.
http://hetq.am/eng/interviews/2378/
June 23, 2011
Following is a conversation regarding the state of the media and
related legal issues in Armenia. We talk with Artur Papyan (a blogger
and reporter with Radio Liberty) and Ashot Melikyan (President of
the Committee to Defend the Right to Speech).
To what extent are the legal guarantees to free speech and the media
defended in Armenia?
Ashot Melikyan - In terms of legislation, there are pretty good
safeguards for free speech and the press. We just have to hope that
one day the reality on the ground corresponds to the laws on the books.
But I must point out that the old and new versions of the RA "Law
on TV and Radio" hinder liberalization of the sector. That was the
exact law used to close down the A1+ TV station back in 2002.
Everyone is aware that this move was a political one and that loopholes
in the law were taken advantage of to achieve the silencing of the
station.
The law has many modifications but they are of a cosmetic nature. The
suggestions and observations of journalists and international
organizations have been repeatedly overlooked.
Thus, major problems like the independence of the State Committee of
TV and Radio have yet to be tackled in a serious manner.
At first, Committee members were simply appointed by the president.
Supporters said there was no alternative process. Later, appointments
were made on a competitive basis, but this too is just a formality,
for it is the president who drafts the rules and conditions involved.
After reforms to the constitution, the president has the right to
appoint 50% of the Committee and the parliament appoints the rest.
Some though that this formula would allow for dissenting voices in the
Committee but since the parliament is controlled by the president's
party this remains an illusion.
Thus, Public TV in Armenia is "public" in name only.
What are the problems regarding the putting the laws defending a free
press into practice?
Ashot Melikyan - Some might not agree with me, but I believe if there
is the political will even the existing "Law Regarding TV and Radio"
can ensure free and fair competitive tenders in the sector. But the
government doesn't want to cede its near total control of broadcasters.
Most programs are simply vehicles to praise the government and little
airtime is given to opposing views.
The print media in Armenia is split into several political and economic
camps. But only a few really try to promote their product.
The same division exists in the electronic media. In this environment,
journalistic activity becomes political activity and the publications
of media outlets are used as tools to settle political scores.
What problems do citizens and reporters face in the realm of freedom
of speech and the media? What role can international organizations
play in Armenia to defend these rights?
Artur Papyan - A major problem is the lack of faith in the judicial
system.
Thus if a reporter writes his or her viewpoints and observations,
there is no guarantee that they won't be dragged before the courts and
"punished" for their actions or fined enormous amounts in compensation.
The second problem is one of self-censorship. There is no outright
censorship but sometimes reporters are apt to "rein in" what they
write out of fear of possible repercussions.
Then too, citizens face problems of putting their right of freedom
of speech into practice from a technical standpoint. Some take their
issues to the press and others seek expression in various social
networks.
Bloggers also have a role to play here. I have my own blog. If
traditional reporters are vulnerable to self-censorship than bloggers
should be free of such psychological restrictions.
Here, I'm merely talking about putting this freedom into practice
and not the extent of its effectiveness. In terms of the internet,
this possibility exists. But there are skills involved to getting
ones message across in an effective manner.
As a blogger and reporter, I do not see the positions taken by
international organizations as being of a principled nature. One day
they say one thing and the next, something different.
How is citizen journalism (blogs, social networks) developing in
Armenia? To what extent do average citizens trust the traditional
media outlets?
Artur Papyan - In the last year or two, a number of civil initiatives
were organized via Facebook. Today, activists working through the
internet have been successful to a degree when it comes to realizing
legal reforms and court decisions.
Some of these grassroots movements include "We are the owners of this
city" and "We are against foreign language schools".
One month ago, Facebook had 140,000 users in Armenia. Today, this
number has hit 170,000 and it's still growing.
People exchange information and debate the issues.
It is interesting that those who created this network didn't set out
to spur the activism of civil society. Their aim was to create an
environment conducive for contact and to generate revenues through
advertising.
But there was an evident need in Armenia for self-expression and
people quickly began to register.
People are buying the latest telephones and plugging into the
internet. They are taking photos of events and developments and
transferring the news to others.