On March 6 at the International Press Center “Elections-2003” at
the Journalists Union of Armenia the results of the monitoring of Armenian media
coverage of RA presidential elections (second round) were publicized. Yerevan
Press Club presented to the journalists the preliminary results of the quantitative
monitoring. The Caucasus Media Institute introduced the findings of the qualitative
monitoring.
Yerevan Press Club monitoring was made under the project supported by the Open
Society Institute. Assistance in monitoring was provided by “Asparez”
Journalists’ Club of Gyumri.
The YPC preliminary report presented below sums up the quantitative monitoring
findings for the period of official pre-election campaign on February 26 – March
3, 2003. The quantitative monitoring covered 5 TV and 1 radio channels, as well
as 9 newspapers. It was aimed at 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
in the pieces pertaining to editorial coverage. Along with this, the mentionings
of candidates were counted, with a specification of the contexts – positive,
negative and neutral. The newspapers were studied in full, while for the broadcast
media the monitoring centered on the main newscasts and the weekly information
and analysis programs.
The final and complete results of the monitoring will be presented to the public
within the coming month.
The monitoring group, making a preliminary summary of the research, notes the
following:
1. The methodology of the quantitative monitoring of the editorial coverage
does not allow to definitely reveal the possible law infringements during the
election campaign coverage. At the same time, the findings at hand give grounds
to believe that Public Television of Armenia, in particular, might have violated
the provision of the RA Law “On Television and Radio”, prohibiting
the domination of any political position in the programs aired.
2. In the main newscasts of two (PTA, “Prometheus”) out of five TV
channels both in terms of air time allocated and with regard to the connotationally
colored (positive and negative) mentionings the obvious advantage rested with
the incumbent RA President Robert Kocharyan. On “Shant” (Yerevan),
“Kentron” and “Tsayg” the balance was mostly maintained,
the proportion of connotationally colored mentionings being somewhat more favorable
for Robert Kocharyan on “Shant” and “Kentron”, and on “Tsayg”
– for the leader of the People’s Party of Armenia Stepan Demirchyan.
3. One of the distinguishing features of the second round was the replacement
of positive promotion with anti-advertising by a number of media. For quantitative
monitoring this change in broadcasters’ tactics is signaled by a combination
of a greater air time allocated to a candidate, his balance of connotationally
colored mentionings being negative. This, in particular, was manifest in the
“Orakarg” (“Agenda”) information and analysis program of
Public Television of Armenia on March 2, where the time allocated to Stepan
Demirchyan was almost three times as much as that allocated to Robert Kocharyan.
In five out of six stories and reports where Demirchyan was mentioned the context
was negative, and only in one – neutral. While the situation is reverse for
Robert Kocharyan: in five stories the context is positive and in one – neutral.
4. In the newscasts and analytical programs of “Tsayg”, PTA and “Prometheus”
the share of the connotationally colored mentionings turned out to be quite
high: about 80, 70 and 65%, respectively. This is a very high indicator proving
the excessive evaluative coloring of the pieces by these broadcasters. The pieces
of “Shant”, “Kentron” and Public Radio of Armenia were more
neutral.
5. Public Radio of Armenia, similarly to the first round, displayed the greatest
degree of impartiality in its main newscasts: not a single connotationally colored
mentioning of a candidate was recorded. At the same time, in terms of the air
time volume allocated to the candidates, the incumbent enjoyed a far greater
advantage: 395 seconds versus 30 seconds of Stepan Demirchyan.
6. In general, the work of the broadcast media in the second round (that is,
the programs monitored) made a dubious impression. On the one hand, the news
coverage on the majority of the channels was more balanced. On the other, the
use of anti-advertising as a method against the opposition candidate and the
big share of connotationally colored mentionings on a number of TV channels
do not allow to state there is a progress in the coverage of the second round
campaign as compared to the first one.
Although this time, unlike the first round, the political advertisements were
not studied, the monitoring group reiterates its doubt with regard to the correctness
of the decision of five leading private TV companies to restrict the volume
and quote high tariffs on promotional materials in the first round, and to completely
exclude such materials in the second one. This approach restricted the opportunities
of the candidates (mostly, the opposition) to compensate the greater attention
paid to the incumbent in the editorial coverage of the broadcasters. Thus, one
of the possibilities, most actively used in post-Soviet space to improve the
financial situation of the private broadcasters by legal means, was missed.
7. The print media, similarly to the first round, provided complete diversity
in the coverage of the pre-election campaign. At the same time each of them
adhered to certain political attitudes.
8. Similarly to the first round the print media monitored can be conventionally
subdivided into three major groups: 1) those supporting Robert Kocharyan; 2)
those supporting Stepan Demirchyan; 3) those supporting no one, while opposing
the incumbent. The classification of the newspapers was based on the proportion
of connotationally colored (positive and negative) mentionings of the candidates.
Out of the nine newspapers studied in the second round the first group traditionally
includes two official newspapers “Hayastani Hanrapetutiun” and “Respublika
Armenia”, as well as the private “Azg”, “Golos Armenii”
and partisan (“Dashnaktsutyun” party) “Yerkir”. They all
assessed Robert Kocharyan either positively or neutrally, while Stepan Demirchyan
received negative or neutral judgments.
The second group among the studied newspapers was composed of the private “Haikakan
Zhamanak” and “Orran”. In these, the attitude to the candidates
was reverse to the attitude of the first group.
Two newspapers – private “Aravot” and partisan (“Constitutional
Right” Union) “Iravunk” must apparently be classed into the
third group. Notably, the presidency candidate Aram Karapetyan, nominated by
the CRU as well as the leader of the party Hrant Khachatrian announced their
support to Stepan Demirchyan in the second round. However, the support of the
opposition candidate by the organ of the CRU was manifest only in the critical
approach to Robert Kocharyan. Stepan Demirchyan was mentioned only in neutral
context.
9. The situation with “Iravunk” testifies that in the second round
many media made a stake not so much on the promotion of “their” candidates
but rather on the anti-advertising against the rival. This was especially vivid
in the pro-Kocharyan “Golos Armenii”, “Yerkir” and pro-Demirchyan
“Haikakan Zhamanak”, “Orran”. The candidates who received
positive coverage in these media enjoyed much less attention (in terms of newspaper
space allocated), than their rivals covered in negative context.
10. During the second round open political advertising was completely absent
from the print media in question. This leads to a conclusion that if there was
anything newspapers tried to sell during the presidential elections of 2003
it was their position rather than the newspaper space.
