Since February 4, 2006 “Armenia”, “ArmNews” and “TV 5” TV channels repeatedly
aired a piece with my participation, in which fragments of my interview were
used. These fragments were cut out of the general context, there was an arbitrary
combination of questions and answers, either not asked at all or essentially
paraphrased. Thus, the meaning of my words was distorted. Unfortunately, I was
out of Yerevan at that time (the interview was recorded in advance – on February
3, 2006), so I did not have a chance to see the piece on air and to react immediately.
The piece was on “anti-government activity of NGOs financed
from abroad”, an issue artificially exaggerated in recent period. Given the
desire, my words in this material may bring to the conclusion that I also do
not encourage the support given by the state structures of USA and United Kingdom
to our NGOs. Meanwhile as a result of the videotape manipulations, the interview
did not mention my point that relevant American and British organizations, though
naturally active in the foreign interests of their countries, should not be
of concern to us, since our state does not have serious problems and disagreements
with the latter. Besides, such foreign policy priorities of our partners, as
for instance development of democracy in Armenia, stimulation of Armenian-Azerbaijani
dialogue, fully meet our own interests.
In another fragment of the interview, by the persistent request of the correspondent,
I make an assumption that the hypothetical list of “suspects”, allegedly handed
over by the Russian special services to their Armenian colleagues, apparently
mentions NGOs from the same circles, which were referred to in Russia itself,
particularly, I happened to mention the Helsinki Committee. The TV audience
may have an impression that “related” organizations in Armenia are also under
suspicion. Moreover right after this, the piece shows, assumingly, a similarly
distorted interview with Chairman of Helsinki Committee of Armenia, Avetik Ishkhanian.
My other words that followed were cut out in montage, while I noted further
on that there are four organizations acting within Helsinki framework in Armenia
– Armenian National Committee of Helsinki Citizen’s Assembly, Vanadzor Office
of Helsinki Citizen’s Assembly, Helsinki Committee and Helsinki Association.
I stated that in their assessments of the democracy and human rights situation
in Armenia, they may have discrepancy with RA authorities but I rule out their
participation in any anti-state activity. Thus, I emphasized how farfetched
this list can be, if it exists at all.
At the outset of the piece, compilation of the off-screen text and the image
of the entrance to the office of Yerevan Press Club may leave dual impression
on the viewers. Someone with a rich imagination might have thought that the
journalist ran into a “spy nest”. Still another viewer, less impressionable,
might have assumed that our organization and its head are seriously concerned
over the national security issue with respect to NGO funding from abroad and
might be the initiators of this TV coverage. While, in the interview I actually
compared the relevant campaign in Russia with a metaphorical and ironical animation
film of the Soviet times called “Spy Passions”. (Interestingly, in stagnation
years healthy humor was more in favor than nowadays in certain parts of post-Soviet
space…) This fragment, reflecting my skeptical attitude to the search for
“spies” among NGOs, was naturally cut out as well…
Thus, even the three mentioned examples (they do not exhaust the whole list
of manipulations in the piece) clearly show that my statements were broadcast
quite to the contrary.
Unfortunately, the cases of fact distortion, related to organizations and persons
known by their critical attitude to the authorities, are not rare on our TV
air. As a rule, we are lenient to the small “tricks” of journalism falsifiers.
However, what these three TV companies did goes beyond all limits. Such provocations
pose a serious threat to the society and we should not turn the blind eye to
it, if we are still concerned over the morals and civilized future of our country.
The main danger is that any new turn of “spy passions” is viewed by certain
media of our country as a godsend boon. Each new month puts new “taboos” on
them. Impossibility of criticism of the authorities and oligarchs, “elimination”
of the opposition and total political apathy lead to “insipidity” on air and
overabundance of “entertainment stuff”. Suddenly, a “hot” story came about,
which can be freely used and abused beyond limit. Fortunately, any attacks and
discrediting against NGOs will not result in beating, fining
or loss of license. Moreover, a pat on the back is granted from the top: a weakened
and battered civil sector is the only missing part for holding the upcoming
national elections on the “drafted scenario”…
The current situation of broadcast media, with their majority under common
control, has consistently developed in the recent years. Adoption of a regressive
RA Law “On Television and Radio” and endorsement of its negative provisions
in the amended Constitution, “efficient” activity of the National Commission
on Television and Radio – a main tool that “regulated” the TV air to the extend
that it is fully ready for “witch hunting” – these are our basic stages for
“strengthening” freedom of expression.
If claims were brought to the international organizations and missions of leading
democratic states in Armenia, it would be not for “disrupting national security”
but for encouraging attitude to our current situation in the information field.
P.S.: Another small detail. The correspondent, who interviewed
me, introduced herself as a representative of “Armenia” TV, whereas the piece
was aired on two other channels as well. How does this go along with RA Law
“On Copyright and Related Rights” stipulating that the interviewee is a co-author
of the material, and it is prohibited to dispose of the material without his/her
consent (the distortion of the content is mentioned above)?
February 9, 2006
