MEO Decision on the complaint of Hakob Avetikian, Chief Editor of “Azg” daily, versus “168 Zham” newspaper
Background of the Issue: Оn June 25, 2009 “168 Zham” published the article “Who’s Standing behind the Party Ramkavar Azatakan-2?”. In the opinion of “Azg”, the interview contained untrue information.
MEO resolved to arrange the meeting of the two media heads – Hakob Avetikian, “Azg” Chief Editor, and Satik Seyranian, Chief Editor of “168 Zham”.
MEO Expert Judgment of May 12, 2009 on the complaint of “Heritage” party versus “168 Zham” newspaper
Background of the Issue: The complaint of “Heritage” party referred to the pieces, published by “168 Zham”, “Chorrord Ishkhanutiun”, “Haykakan Zhamanak”, “Zhamanak”, “Hraparak” newspapers. According to the applicant, the pieces contained false information, misinformation or offensive expressions for the party.
To “Chorrord Ishkhanutiun”, “Haykakan Zhamanak”, “Zhamanak”, “Hraparak”, who are not members of the self-regulation initiative, the MEO addressed letters, offering its mediation in the conflict. Since the aforesaid newspapers did not respond to the proposal, the appeal of “Heritage” party was considered only partially – regarding two articles of “168 Zham” newspaper, which has signed the Code of Conduct of Media Representatives.
MEO Expert Judgment of May 12, 2009 on the complaint of Satik Seyranian, Chief Editor of “168 Zham” newspaper, and Aram Abrahamian, Chief Editor of “Aravot” daily, versus “Azg” daily.
MEO Decision on the complaint of the RA State Commission on the Protection of Economic Competition versus “Aravot” daily
Background of the Issue: On January 9, 2009 MEO considered the complaint of two members of the RA State Commission on the Protection of Economic Competition regarding the article “We are Becoming Like European Countries”, published in “Aravot” daily on December 11, 2008. The article was dealing with one of the sessions of the Commission on the Protection of Economic Competition. In the opinion of the complaining party, the article contained factual mistakes, and the professionalism of the Commission members was unreasonably questioned.
MEO acted as an intermediary in resolving the dispute, offering “Aravot” to publish a response. The response of the Commission members was published in “Aravot” on January 14, 2009.
MEO Decision on the complaint of journalist Anush Martirosian versus “Hraparak” daily
Regarding the complaint on copyrights violation of Anush Martirosian, ex-correspondent of “Hraparak” daily, versus the same newspaper the MEO addressed a letter to the newspaper, offering its mediation in the conflict (“Hraparak” is not a member of the media self-regulation initiative). In its response “Hraparak” refused the offer of the MEO.
