FREEDOM: EVERYWHERE OR NOWHERE
Civilitas Commentary / Democracy
Tuesday, 12 May 2009 17:09
On May 3, Armenia, along with the rest of the world, celebrated World
Press Freedom Day. Two days earlier, Freedom House, the New-York
based NGO which promotes freedom around the world, released a list of
countries ranked by the degree of media freedom in each. Armenia is
included among the "Not Free" countries, and ranks 151, along with
Singapore. In a previous Freedom House report, Armenia was in 144th
place, near Côte d’Ivoire, Guinea, the Maldives, Moldova and Pakistan.
Just as Freedom House registered Armenia’s drop in the rankings, two
events took place in Armenia to reinforce the rating: in the space of
a few days, two journalists – ArmeniaToday editor Argishti Kiviryan and
Shant TV news analyst Nver Mnatsakanyan were both attacked. The reasons
for the attacks remain unclear. Mr. Kyviryan remains hospitalized.
The Background Everyone assumes of course that these journalists were
attacked because they did something or said something as journalists
that displeased someone – perhaps someone in government, but not
necessarily. In other words, such events are explained in the context
of a not-free press.
The story of freedom of the press in Armenia runs parallel to the
history of Armenia. The first years of independence were years
of true press freedom in Armenia when the Soviet authorities had
disappeared and the new regime was still taking shape. However,
that freedom was not institutionalized and formalized, it did not
become an important attribute of a new culture of statehood, rather
it gradually fell victim to political interests and domestic political
processes. The Soviet not-free press was all pro-government. Therefore,
free press came to be synonymous with anti-government. When independent
Armenia’s new political elite began competing amongst themselves,
instead of with their Soviet counterparts, they were not able to
resist the temptation to drag the press into that game. The press,
lacking traditions and means of sustaining their independence, went
along. Newspapers and television became a direct political tool,
they became politicized, partisan and came under the same political
pressures which existed in daily political life, in tandem with the
existing political culture. Respect for the free flow of ideas, the
freedom to voice a variety of ideas, had no time to take root either
in society or in the media. The public, mired in economic woes, did
not demand such outlets. Editors, subject to those economic ills,
could not ensure their independent survival through traditional
subscription and advertising channels. So, to continue to exist,
media found their sponsors and those sponsors espoused not political
or ideological views but partisan or personal interests for which
their own private media became the m outhpiece.
As society became more polarized, so did media. The political
intolerance devolved to personal, individual intolerance. There are
no media outlets for honest, fair, consistent, continuous battles of
words. Instead, those battles have been moved to the streets.
Analysis All this would have been sufficient explanation last
year or the year before to comprehend the real situation of our
media. However, this year, when 10 journalists have already been
attacked, none of the cases resolved, none of the crimes solved,
the situation can no longer be explained. It is unacceptable and
intolerable. Violence against journalists has become commonplace. In
a society where it is also common to resort to violence to resolve
any number of problems – including practical, daily personal issues –
attacks against journalists are automatically assumed to be caused
by the victim’s profession.
Especially since beyond standard condemnations, there is no effort to
truly punish or prevent such actions, this leads one to believe that
such an intimidating environment suits someone. Better to have careful,
self-censoring, scared journalists, than to allow them to question,
comment, criticize – even if they do so unevenly, according to their
own agenda.
This ‘policy’ is reinforced by the controlled ‘use’ of opposition
figures in the electronic media – rather than allowing the public
discourse to de termine who should be invited to airwaves, there is
clear control and direction about who to invite when for what time
period, on what topic. This exacerbates the tension and is at least
partially responsible for the extreme intolerance often found in the
opposition print media. If the press exists and is not free, then it
is altogether unnecessary because it does not promote a free and open
dialogue within the population. It in fact harms reforms by creating
an environment of pretense, which in turn, insults, disengages and
makes an entire nation feel more cynical and powerless. It is because
there is no real dialogue and debate and confrontation in the press
that there is such physical, personal confrontation on the streets,
with members of the press. Of course, it is true, that in some cases,
the attacked individual’s professional affiliation had nothing to do
with the purpose of the attack. But we’ll never know, since there is
no culmination, no resolution, no public information available about
why and how these incidents take place.
Outlook So long as government does not take responsibility for its
part in correcting this situation, three things will continue to
happen: 1. The public will assume that this situation is to the
government’s liking.
2. Members of the press corps will continue to assume that they do
not fall within the government’s sphere of responsibility to protect,
and the refore their own responsibility to professionally, fairly,
honestly report the news can also be suspended.
3. Violence will continue to reign as the effective method of
problem-solving, to be embarked upon with impunity, in all spheres
of life.