How did it happen that the authorities, which have an impressive representation of journalists [in their ranks], have established a rather strained relations with some media outlets? We asked the question to the head of the Government Informational and Analytical Centre SNCO [State Non-Commercial Organisation], Hovhannes Movsisyan, who is the guest of the In First Person programme of the Aravot newspaper. As an example, we initially reminded that as it turned out, on 14 July 2018, the government refused to subscribe to newspapers and that the SNCO headed by Movsisyan monitors information flows, preparing press reviews. In response, our respondent said that it was only the government office that refused to subscribe, considering this as a senseless waste of resources: "More often than not, rolls [of newspapers] were brought in and taken away untouched, as no-one read newspapers". He also said that their centre did not prepare press reviews: "We report to the senior management about problems raised in the press". This is aimed to secure the authorities' proper reaction, which was non-existent previously and problems raised in the press were mostly ignored.

Former, incumbent governments' similar attitude towards media

Here is yet another parallel between the incumbent and the former authorities: Previously, they used to place the blame on journalists, [saying that] "the real reason for migration was the unpleasant atmosphere and that people saw no hope. Why? Because for many years, at least two TV stations and dozens of printed and electronic media spoke only about bad news, framing things in a negative way". Even today, the leader of the country accuses journalists of something of the kind: "This is propaganda of desperation, which was spread before the [velvet] revolution – propaganda that nothing is going to change, that it is not worthwhile to place hopes on anyone, and that it is better to leave here, and so forth." In the meantime, some of his team-mates insist that "instead of making a positive impact on people's way of thinking, you misinform them". Commenting on the aforementioned parallel, Hovhannes Movsisyan said that at present, there was slightly more concern among media specialists and media representatives than before: "At present we are facing a problem with the press. It is not clear what media outlets these are. Sometimes, they set up websites with weird names, causing problems to editions such as Aravot and others. Sometimes, websites have no addresses or responsible editors and fail to meet the standard. However, they are nevertheless considered as news websites." Our respondent added that the same applied to social networks, where spreading disinformation had reached menacing proportions.

I would like to emphasise that the media faced a problem of the kind even earlier. In particular, in 2016, it was this that made editors of 15 newspapers and websites issue a statement, in which they suggested fixing the situation, in particular, by giving information about their addresses, telephone numbers, editors' names and details in a well visible place of the website, as this was the case with newspapers. However, at that time, the statement had opponents. One of them was the then columnist in the Civilnet [website] and incumbent secretary of the National Security Council, Armen Grigoryan, who dubbed the initiative on regulating the information field as "a challenge to the development of freedom of speech". He insisted that "the authorities could use the given instrument at their own discretion" and that "the given initiative by the 15 media outlets allow state agencies to limit freedom of speech, which is sure to have a negative impact on the information field, as freedom of speech must be an absolute value".

"Armen Grigoryan voiced his opinion and I am going to voice mine," Mr Movsisyan replied, repeating the opinion of specialists about our legislation, which regulates the given sphere, its being out of date, and the need in amendments. "However, I think that this should not be done by the government. Perhaps, the forces in parliament should jointly do this. Different media companies, editors, the Union of Journalists, and public organisations should perhaps come up with suggestions."

Opposition 'not powerful', press to criticise government

We also asked the head of the Information and Analytical Centre SNCO, Hovhannes Movsisyan, about his attitude towards the concerns about the media "publishing only negative information, failing to see positive [developments]" and whether they realised that under any authorities, it was the business of the press to speak about negative developments. In response, Movsisyan said: "Voicing criticism is the job of the press. The press must constantly criticise, particularly as we do not have powerful opposition now and the authorities form a majority. In this case, together with the opposition, which is small in number, the press should show vigilance, detecting problems. This is extremely important. And I assume that if in some cases, different figures do not accept criticism, this is mostly related to the quality and material of their criticism. Sometimes, I notice cases, when they write about my structure and these reports leave me as a journalist asking a number of questions. However, I think that we should show understanding to the media, as at present, the press is also undergoing changes. In my opinion, with time, we will get quality and a quality picture and everything will work out well." Our respondent added: "I really need to be sure that after all this, we do not lose respect for the media and journalists, as we sometimes notice hate speech about representatives of the press. In my opinion, this is wrong. This must not be the case."

In this context, our respondent touched on the statement, which was made by more than 10 editors on 17 July 2018. In particular, the statement was about the trends, which aroused concern. The statement also emphasised the need in the authorities' reaction regarding the need in preventing intimidations and offenses against the otherwise-minded. "To begin with, the government has no instruments to interfere in the work of social networks. Second, the government cannot call readers not to criticise the press, can they? I do not know and I am not sure about the effectiveness of acts of the kind," he emphasised.

Media, not government, to cope with hate speech

This concern of editors about the propaganda of hatred, which was previously also voiced by the Armenian human rights defender, was finally raised on international platforms. During the recent discussion of the report on monitoring the early parliamentary election in Armenia, the head of the Delegation of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Aleksander Pociej, said: "In some cases, people were scared to go to ballot stations because of hatred and intolerance in the social media." On a number of occasions, the head of the EU Delegation in Armenia, Piotr Switalski, said in his interviews: "In the EU, we are extremely concerned about hate speech in Armenia. I invite the Armenian government to review the existing legislation to see how to influence the situation. In addition, we also invite civil society to actively combat hatred." Asked whether it was possible to settle the issue with the help of legislative regulations or whether it was necessary to take the path of administrative or criminal punishment in each concrete case, Hovhannes Movsisyan said that it was necessary to find global solutions for the legislation regulating the work of the media. However, he again emphasised that this had to be done by representatives of the press, rather than government: "To make sure that this is not perceived as interference in the work of the media. Otherwise, accusations might be levelled against the government regarding the issue."

Former authorities waging 'media war' against incumbent government?

At the end of our conversation, we asked our respondent whether he agreed with the following statement by Deputy Speaker Alen Simonyan of the [ruling]My Step bloc: 'The former authorities declared media war against our government. We accepted the challenge and we have nothing to worry about, as we are extremely honest… They waged media war, but they are sure to lose." Hovhannes Movsisyan emphasised that this was rather a political statement, which he would comment on as an expert: "There is a wave of criticism and doubts about the media being possibly guided by different forces. However, I suppose that this is also linked to the fact that the press is subject to criticism quite intensively. However, I would like to reiterate that I am a supporter of criticism. Due to criticism, one can get better, after all… Sometimes, I say that I am a representative of the press in the government, rather than the other way round. I want many people to realise that journalists are people, who voice criticism. They are no enemies. These are not the people, who would not like things to be fine in this country. They reveal all problems in good faith. I would like to [hope] that this viewpoint is understood and therefore, I do not want [people] to lose respect for journalists and the mass media as a result of all this."

During our conversation, we also touched on journalists' dissatisfaction with the work of some agencies and their press service, as well as gradual obscuring of the media at the expense of popularisation of social networks. See more on this and many other issues in the video material.