Internews Armenia public organization has announced the results of the research "Mass Media and Journalism, Their Function and Part in the Public Life of Armenia". The survey was held on December 10-25, 2002 and was aimed at determining to what extent the Armenian media implement their functions and what is their role and significance in the society. In the research, conducted by in-depth interview method, experts working in various media and engaged in related activities were surveyed.
The respondents noted a whole complex of intertwined problems, obstructing the media development, that can be classed into four major groups. As an undesirable political factor the strong dependence of media on political and economic elites was named, as the latter finance the media and therefore decide their policy. In the opinion of experts, this results in excessive politicized and polarized nature of media, whose dependence is invariable revealed as any conflict of interests arises and impedes the objective reporting of facts. Thus, 40% of the respondents believe that the Armenian media are completely dependent on the authorities, political and economic elites, 45% maintain they are mostly dependent, and 7.5% think they are independent only in some cases. By the expert assessment, the media space of the country does not only lack independent media, but also has them divided into two opposing, unbending wings (position-opposition), which, in the struggle for their clan, political and sometimes even economic interests resort to any means and pretexts, up to misinformation, lies and fact substitution.
Among the economic factors impeding the work of the media, the respondents named the advertising market of Armenia, strictly controlled by certain structures, resulting in the absence of free choice and the distribution of advertising funds in accordance with political interests again. Besides, the scarcity of resources and the lack of self-sustainability of media do not set grounds for free competition, media development into business.
The experts qualified the following as the social shortcomings: the reflection of various clan interests by the media instead of the interest of society in general, negligence towards the problems of people from the street. This contributes to the disruption of confidence towards media as a social institute, diminishing their social role.
Finally, the last group consists in professional problems, namely, the absence of traditions, "the school of journalism" and the staking – under the circumstances of political dependence – not on professional qualities, but on the loyalty, "serving to the masters’ interests", due to which a number of professionals left the stage, the quality journalism ceased to be in demand. Among other problems the experts also mentioned the lack of narrow specialization, stimulus and finance for the use of the whole journalistic toolbox, outer pressure and self-censorship (induced not so much by moral and ethical considerations but rather the wish to avoid unnecessary problems and retain the job), the lack of general knowledge and learning. In the opinion of respondents, these qualities, necessary for a journalist, are often restricted by the narrow-mindedness of some media: such genres as publicism, analysis, investigations, etc., have practically vanished from the pages and the screens.
The research also touched upon the issue of taboos. The restricted access to information, as experts think, is typical for both the state and private structures of Armenia. The cases when media do get information for journalistic investigations, are able to disclose the negative phenomena in the society are rather an exception. The cases of pressure and harassment of journalists are not rare, either. Thus, 35% of respondents admitted they had encountered direct pressure when performing their professional duties.
In the opinion of the respondents, "the closed subjects" can be subdivided into the following categories:
1. Those pertaining to the state structures and elite. The state structures for these or those reasons are reluctant to provide information, motivating this by the existence of PR departments which are supposed to provide information. Any additional information is concealed by the phrases such as "not authorized", "busy with important state matters", etc. Besides, there are also "zones", where the majority of journalists try not "to enter" at all, and subjects which "are not to be raised". The subjects most closed for the media are the army-related issues, the force and penitentiary structures – these themes, with a rare exception, are either not spoken about or spoken about positively. Little coverage is given to corruption and bribery, the activities of political and economic elites.
2. Those pertaining to economy. As experts noted, a number of economic indicators are inaccessible – either because no appropriate research is conducted and no exact data are known, or else because the economic sphere is not transparent. The data at hand are mostly fictitious, too.
3. Those related to Mountainous Karabagh, conflict resolution and the true state of affairs in MK, to financial resource flow in MK, budget expenses.
4. Those pertaining to society. No profound coverage is given to poverty issues, unemployment, emigration and its consequences, prostitution, national minorities, problems of education, youth, family and marriage, sexual education, refugees, regions of the country, AIDS, adaptation mechanisms, sports and healthy life style. The issues of privacy and the public interest to a person also remain in the information shade. The problems of the village and the daily life of villagers is another white spot in Armenian media. The experts noted that the events covered rarely go beyond the "smaller center" of the capital.
The research can be viewed in full on the web site of Internews: www.internews.am
