On February 12 Yerevan Press Club publicized its interim report on monitoring
results for Armenian media coverage of presidential elections-2003. The monitoring
is implemented by Yerevan Press Club under the project supported by the Open
Society Institute and covers the period of the official pre-election campaign
(January 21 – February 17, 2003). The whole air and the whole newspaper space
of 24 national and regional media are studied: 9 TV companies, 1 radio company
and 17 newspapers.
The methodology of the quantitative monitoring conducted by YPC includes: 1)
calculation of the volume (air time/newspaper space), allocated to the presidency
candidates to express attitudes, opinions and judgments, as well as for narrations
about them made by other individuals – including pieces pertaining to editorial
coverage, free and paid political advertising; 2) count of the mentionings of
candidates, with a specification of the contexts – positive, negative and neutral.
The interim report presented below sums up the findings of the quantitative
monitoring during the period of January 21 – February 8, 2003. It says, in particular:
“As expected, the main burden of pre-election campaign coverage belongs
to the broadcast media. Among them apparent leaders can be distinguished – with
regard to the attention placed on the election-related reporting: Public Television
of Armenia, “Prometheus”, “Armenia”, “Shant”,
“ALM” and “Kentron” private TV companies, as well as the
Public Radio of Armenia. The other broadcast media of both the capital and the
regions address the pre-election campaign more seldom and are used by candidates
for promotion and propaganda to a lesser extent.
Within the period of January 21 – February 8, 2003 the Public Television of
Armenia divided its attention between candidates (in terms of editorial coverage)
in a proportion, resembling the data of opinion polls on their popularity rating.
The greatest volume of air time, almost twice exceeding that allocated to the
closest rivals, was given to the President in office, Robert Kocharian. He is
followed by Stepan Demirchian and Artashes Geghamian who are competing head
to head in this regard.
The free advertising air time provided by Public TV was used by candidates
in almost equal proportion, consuming nearly the whole limit stipulated by the
law. Thus, their further promotional activities will depend on the possibility
and they wish to use the paid advertising time provided by PTA.
The pre-election campaign coverage by the Public Television is distinguished
by the high percentage of connotationally colored mentionings of the President
in office, Robert Kocharian. In 80% of cases (a huge proportion for a similar
study) Kocharian is mentioned either in a positive or a negative context (the
ratio between the positive and negative mentionings is four to one), a fact,
apparently characteristic of the approach of PTA towards the campaign of the
President and the specifics of the pre-elective debate – the focus is made on
the evaluation of personalities, primarily on that at power currently, and not
on the programs of the candidates. In this regard, the data for the other two
leaders of the opinion polls – Stepan Demirchian and Artashes Geghamian – are
much more modest: somewhat over 30% and about 40% of connotationally colored
mentionings, respectively. Yet, these figures are quite high, too.
The balance of positive and negative mentionings of candidates on PTA is relatively
steady (it is somewhat better in case of Demirchian, and somewhat worse – in
case of Geghamian). Yet, it should be born in mind here that the quantitative
monitoring does not consider the style of the presentation of a piece, the intonations
of the author or the presenter – only the content specific context. Whereas
traditionally the TV reports on Armenian TV, including the Public Television,
vary in their tones a lot. Irony or, on the contrary, respect, even admiration
are displayed according to the likes and dislikes of journalists and TV channels.
On the air of private TV companies the President in office is at greater advantage
than on PTA. Thus, “Prometheus” and “Armenia” have allocated
about 5-10 times as much editorial coverage to Robert Kocharian as to his closest
rivals by this dimension. On private air in general the closest rival of the
President was Aram Karapetian, whose pre-elective campaign was most actively
covered by “ALM”, “Prometheus” and “Shant”.
This candidate received sufficient space in editorial pieces and used the paid
advertising time. Considering the fact that Aram Karapetian became known to
public at large only several months before the elections, his campaign can be
described as quite productive.
Also, during the period of January 21 – February 8 three candidates mostly
used the paid air on five private channels – Kocharian, Karapetian and Demirchian.
On the other hand, only one of them bought commercial time on “Armenia”.
Considering the fact that “Armenia”, along with “Prometheus”,
is leading the Armenian private TV advertising market, this passiveness of the
presidency candidates calls for thorough analysis. One thing is certain even
now. The coordinated high price quote for political advertising made by five
leading private TV companies (0 for a minute on VHFs and 0 – for UHFs)
was hardly an effective measure: first, the affordable air time during the pre-election
campaign (which is not the case this time) allows the rivals of the President
in office to compensate to a certain extent the advantageous information coverage
that the head of state has from the very start, and secondly, at least three
or four of these five TV companies will make much less money during the elections
than they could have earned, had they quoted lower prices. (Here we certainly
speak about the official earnings and not the possibilities of implicit advertising.)
The remaining TV channels, as it has been noted above, have much smaller involvement
in the pre-election campaign. This is especially true for regional broadcasters.
“Shirak” public channel (Gyumri) did not pay due attention to any
of the candidates but for Robert Kocharian. “Tsayg” private TV company
of Gyumri gave a somewhat more proportionate distribution of attention to the
candidates, it is also distinguished by as high a percentage of connotationally
colored mentionings of the President (mostly in positive context) as PTA has.
The Vanadzor “Interkap” private TV company is passive in covering
the pre-elective campaign: during the period of January 21-25 nine of 11 presidency
candidates did not get any air time whatsoever to express their views or to
have the judgments of other individuals about them aired. In the period of January
26 – February 1 the number of such candidates made six, and during February
2-8 this figure reduced to five. Three candidates during all this time were
not even mentioned by “Interkap”.
As to the balance of positive and negative mentionings on the private TV companies,
it is rather homogenous for the majority of the candidates. An exception to
this is made by the mentionings of Robert Kocharian, where the positive connotation
prevails. (The picture is approximately the same for PTA, yet this included
a huge volume of promotional materials, whereas the private companies mostly
produced “positive” editorial coverage.)
The distribution of time and mentionings among the candidates is mostly uniform
at Public Radio of Armenia, of all the broadcasters studied under this monitoring.
The print media monitored can be subdivided into three major groups: 1) those
supporting the President in office; 2) those who have their own candidate, but
not Robert Kocharian; 3) those who support no one.
The first group traditionally includes two official newspapers “Hayastani
Hanrapetutiun” and “Respublika Armenia”. The President receives
much more newspaper space than other candidates and is mentioned in almost half
the cases in positive context. Other candidates are mostly mentioned in neutral
connotation. This time both these newspapers – unlike the majority of prior
elections in Armenia – do not practice the “black PR”. The study period
allows to conclude that the candidates do not hurry to use the space they are
entitled to (even the free space) in “HH” and “RA” which
can be a sign of little belief that the politicians have in the promotional
potential of these newspapers.
Other (private and partisan newspapers) of pro-Kocharian direction can also
be subdivided into two subgroups: a) those who express their preference of the
President in office and are relatively neutral towards their competitors (“Azg”,
“Golos Armenii”, “Novoye Vremya”, “Yerkir”);
and b) “Hayots Ashkhar”, which, along with this preference, is very
critical (signified by the number of negative mentionings) to all other candidates
(an exception is made only by Vazgen Manukian and Aram Harutyunian, who have
a small positive balance of mentionings in this daily).
The second group among the newspapers studied is made of three partisan newspapers:
“Iravunk” (supports Aram Karapetian), “Ayzhm” (supports
Vazgen Manukian) and “Hayastani Communist” (supported first Vladimir
Darbinian, and after his rejection, shifted to Artashes Geghamian, following
the behavior of the Communist Party of Armenia, the publisher of the newspaper).
“Iravunk” and “Hayastani Communist” also stick to openly
anti-Kocharian attitudes, while “Ayzhm” is more reticent.
The third group of “non-aligned newspapers” has, however, quite critical
attitude to the President in office. Of these, “Ayb-Feh”, “Orran”
and “Haikakan Zhamanak” voice their dislike for Kocharian quite strongly,
while the fourth newspaper in the group – “Aravot” is more reticent.
(One must take into account that “Orran” has passed to the second
group as since February 11 it openly supports Stepan Demirchian.)
When speaking about the activities of private and partisan newspapers in the
course of the current pre-elective campaign, one must have appreciation for
their open (and sometimes even declared) orientation towards this or that candidate.
This ensures the diversity of print media and, at the same time, allows the
readers to know their way in the flow of contradictory information.
On the current stage of monitoring it can be said that the regional newspapers
have practically no involvement in the elective campaign. Thus, “Kumayri”
newspaper of Gyumri during the first three weeks of pre-election campaign referred
to the activities of only four candidates, one of them subsequently “leaving
the race”, and the second, as the opinion polls show, is not among the
leaders of the race. As a rule, Robert Kocharian is mentioned by this and other
regional newspapers in positive context. A reservation must be made here that
this attitude is characteristic for them outside the elections, too.
At the same time, “Syunyats Ashkhar” newspaper, published in Kapan
and disseminated in Syunik region, was published on January 30 as a special
double issue (##2,3) and consisted only of materials of the regional campaign
staff of Robert Kocharian. No notes on the promotional nature of the materials
was made in the newspaper.
The paid political advertising during the study period appeared only in “Aravot”,
“Iravunk” and “Kumayri” newspapers, in very small volumes.
Even if one assumes that implicit advertising is practiced, the conclusion about
the low assessment that the candidates have for the promotional potential of
print media (not necessarily official ones) is evident.”
