On May 26 Yerevan Press Club publicized a preliminary report on the results of monitoring the Armenian media coverage of the campaign for the RA National Assembly elections on May 25, 2003. YPC monitoring was made under a project supported by Open Society Institute. The study was also assisted to by "Asparez" Journalists’ Club of Gyumri and Internews Armenia public organization.
The report below is a preliminary brief sum-up of the findings of the quantitative monitoring made during the period of official election campaign – April 21 – May 23, 2003:
“The research aimed at determining the degree of objectivity in the media coverage by broadcast media (primarily – public service broadcasters), as well as the interest of the election race participants in the use of advertising potential of media. Four national and three local TV channels, one national radio channel and ten leading newspapers were monitored.
The conclusions of the monitoring group are based on the following indicators: a) the volume of the editorial coverage of the parties/party blocs, participating in the elections by proportional representation system, as well as the number and the context of their mentioning in the newscasts and analytical programs on TV and radio; b) the composition of the participants in discussion TV programs; c) the volume of pre-election advertising of parties/party blocs in the electronic and print media.
The final and complete results of the monitoring will be presented to the public during the upcoming month.
While summing up the preliminary findings, the monitoring group notes the following:
1. The resolution passed by RA CEC on March 28, 2003 on the Procedure for pre-election promotion in the media by candidates for the RA NA seats was a significant positive step as compared with the RA presidential elections: it had dispensed with the main drawbacks, highlighted by YPC in the comment attached to the previous report on the monitoring of the media coverage of presidential elections. The Procedure was made maximally compliant with the legislation of Armenia and the existing international norms. Besides, the draft of the Procedure contained a number of unacceptable provisions which were subsequently eliminated during the registration with the RA Ministry of Justice. In this regard, however, the fact that the Procedure was registered with the Ministry of Justice only on April 21 should be considered a neglect.
2. In the course of the monitoring certain infringements of the law were registered, mostly related to the allocation of airtime for political promotion, the presentation of the advertising materials. There were several cases when the programs were not accompanied with a special mark. Thus, a number of programs on "ALM" TV company that were of an obviously promotional nature were marked as "pre-election political program" or simply "political program", which is against the law requirements and confuses the viewer. As a result, the latter cannot determine whether this was a paid program or an editorial initiative.
While we did not study the editorial coverage in the newspapers and were not engaged in qualitative monitoring, it should be mentioned that the print media features pieces which could be classed as advertising or promotional, yet they did not bear the appropriate note or else were published as an interview. Thus, the pre-election material of Democratic Liberal Union of Armenia in "Hayastani Hanrapetutiun" daily was constantly published as advertising (within the free and paid newspaper space allocated to the party), while in "Hayots Ashkhar" the same piece was published without the special marking.
3. The monitoring showed that the Public Television of Armenia, unlike the elections of the RA President two months ago, displayed balance in the election coverage, striving not to show preferences for any of the parties/blocs. In the discussion programs on the PTA the presentation of various parties/blocs was also ensured.
Similar balance was present in the newscasts of Public Radio of Armenia.
4. Two private national channels "Prometheus" and "Armenia" in their newscasts and analytical programs allocated most of their time to the parties/blocs which are usually considered pro-governmental (pro-presidential). Moreover, the discussion programs on "Prometheus" TV channel mostly gave floor to the representatives of these parties/blocs, too.
5. The situation was quite different with Yerevan "Shant" TV company, in the newscasts and analytical programs of which advantage was given only to the Republican Party of Armenia, while other parties/blocs were covered in a balanced manner and almost equally. "Shant" was also noteworthy for the active organization of discussion programs.
6. It is interesting to compare the coverage of "ALM" and "Kentron" TV companies. The owners of both TV companies (Tigran Karapetian and Gurgen Arsenian) took part in the elections both by proportional and majority representation systems. However, while the United Labor Party, headed by the owner of "Kentron" Gurgen Arsenian, had no advantages in the coverage of this TV channel, the owner of "ALM" Tigran Karapetian used the air of his channel for the pre-election promotion of its Popular Party. The coverage of Popular Party on "ALM" was several times higher than the coverage of other parties/blocs. Moreover, the leader of the party and the TV company was on air every day as a host of programs.
As to "Kentron" TV, it is noteworthy for greater balance, aspired to cover the pre-election campaigns of all the parties/blocs, was actively endorsing the candidates to participate in the discussion programs.
A similar balance was displayed by "Tsayg" TV company, operating in Gyumri – with the only difference that its newscasts and analytical programs mostly covered the parties/blocs that were waging election campaign in Shirak region. Speaking of this TV company, one cannot fail to note the extensive use of its advertising potential by the candidates for NA seats. Moreover, during the last days of the election campaign the advertising activity of the candidates has increased so much that the TV was even compelled to stop airing the newscasts.
Notably, by the end of the campaign some TV channels (PTA, "Kentron", "Shant", etc.) also modified their broadcasts schedules increasing the numbers of the discussion programs and political advertising, and on May 23, the last day of election campaign, the air of all the TV companies in question was filled only with pre-election and advertising programs up to 24.00.
7. The peculiarity of the coverage of NA elections in the broadcast media is that among the connotationally colored mentionings of the parties/bloc the positive mentionings were predominant. This is due to the fact the stories either simultaneously or by re-narrating quoted the representatives of the parties/blocs, refraining from editorial comments or maintaining the neutrality of tone.
8. All the parties/blocs, participating in elections by proportional representation system, used the free (and most of them using the paid, also) advertising time allocated by PTA.
9. Unlike PTA, on the Public Radio of Armenia the parties/blocs only used the free air time, and none of them consumed the free 120-minute limit, provided by PRA, some parties did not even use it – at all or almost. The paid air time was only utilized by "Dashnaktsutiun" party once – on May 23. This prompts a conclusion that the parties/blocs do not think radio to be an influential medium and prefer to use the more expensive advertising time on the private TV channels.
10. Only some parties/blocs were using the paid and free advertising space allocated by "Hayastani Hanrapetutiun" daily, as well as placed paid advertising in private newspapers – although in limited amounts. There were also newspapers that have not been addressed by parties/blocs for advertising at all ("Orran", "Ayb-Feh", "Hayots Ashkhar", "Novoye Vremya").
11. The monitoring group also notes that some candidates constantly appeared on the air as hosts for newscasts or authorship programs. While this is not prohibited by the law and the CEC Procedure for pre-election promotion, it is however inconsistent with professional ethics, since the advantages of the journalistic profession are used for personal political purposes.
12. And finally, another circumstance that is not directly related to the monitoring but needs to be stressed: the majority system candidates did not use the explicit advertising capacities of the media. This prompts the following conclusions: a) the amount of the pre-election fund as stipulated by the law is insufficient for holding active advertising campaign; b) the candidates prefer to use methods other than campaigning in media; c) those who use media mostly do it as implicit advertising.”
