Armenia

Tsitsernakaberd, Yerevan, Republic of Armenia © Onnik Krikorian / Oneworld Multimedia 2006
Despite Turkish protests, PanArmenian.net reports that the lower house of the French Parliament has passed a bill making it a crime to deny the Armenian Genocide.
A total of 106 deputies voted in favor of the bill while 19 voted against, France Info radio […]

Following on from Friday’s news that opposition newspaper editor Arman Babajanian has been jailed for four years for avoiding military service in Armenia, the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists has issued an alert. First, the news as reported by RFE/RL’s ArmeniaLiberty.
The court backed prosecutors’ claim that Arman Babajanian of “Zhamanak Yerevan” used fake documents […]

A1 Plus Anniversary Protest Rally, Yerevan, Republic of Armenia © Onnik Krikorian / Hetq Online 2004
As next year’s parliamentary elections approach, pressure on the local media has started to intensify as it always does. In 2002, A1 Plus was taken off the airwaves ahead of the 2003 presidential and parliamentary elections, and was recently evicted […]

Police block a side road leading to Parliament, A1 Plus Protest Rally, Yerevan, Republic of Armenia © Onnik Krikorian / Oneworld Multimedia 2002

In the continuing saga that perhaps best represents the way the authorities have destroyed freedom of speech in the broadcast media, A1 Plus has once again been denied a broadcasting frequency. The TV station, considered to be the most independent and popular for its news, was taken off the air in a controversial tender for new frequencies in April 2002.

RFE/RL reports on yet another blow to press freedom in a country that Freedom House considers “Not Free” when it comes to the media.

The National Commission on Television and Radio, a regulatory body appointed by President Robert Kocharian, rejected the A1+ station’s application for one of two radio frequencies put on a tender. The commission voted unanimously to give both frequencies to two little-known companies.

Its chairman, Grigor Amalian, insisted that A1+ was again denied a frequency because its competitors submitted stronger bids. “This was an absolutely just decision,” he said.

A1+ representatives dismissed the explanation, saying that Amalian and seven other members of the body simply upheld a political decision made by the authorities. “Today’s decision was not unexpected,” said journalist Karine Asatrian. “I would be surprised if they gave us a frequency.”

One of the frequency winners, Ulis Media, is based at the Yerevan premises of the Armenian Public Radio. Its chief executive, Norayr Mukhoyan, said the company simply rents office space there and has no ties with the government-controlled broadcaster. “I am happy that we won. The tender was definitely fair,” he told RFE/RL.

Reports in the Armenian press have linked the other winner, Radio Pro, with Prime Minister Andranik Markarian’s Republican Party.

A1+, the only national channel that was not loyal to the Kocharian administration, was forced off the air in April 2002 just hours after losing a first-ever frequency tender administered by Amalian’s commission. It has since participated in 11 other biddings and lost all of them.

The commission’s decisions have been denounced as politically motivated by Armenian and international media watchdogs. They as well as the Council of Europe consider A1+’s de facto closure as a serious blow to press freedom in Armenia.

A1 Plus has more on its web site, and quotes its Director Mesrob Movsesyan in saying that Grigor Amalian, the rather shifty looking head of the National Commission for Television and Radio, who at least seems to be able to afford better suits of late, is merely a puppet with the Armenian President pulling the strings.

By putting “A1+” “bad” and its rivals “good” marks Grigor Amalyan once more announced they have made an “impartial” decision this time giving licenses to “Ulyss - Media” and “Radio-Pro” LTDs which are quite unfamiliar to the public. By rating polls “A1+” gained only 22 points whereas its rivals got 29 points. When one of the journalists asked why he put a “bad” mark to “A1+” Grigor Amalyan was surprised that such question might occur to their minds. By the way, the representatives of “Radio-Pro” weren’t even present in the NCTR to know the results of the competition; probably they were sure of their victory.

“I am glad that we won the contest and I think that it was just and fair,” Norayr Mkhoyan, chief producer of “Ulyss - Media” LTD announced after the contest. The representative of the company located on 5 Alek Manoukyan once more refuted their connection with Aleksan Haroutyunyan, the Council of Public Television and Radio Company and “Ulyss” LTD of the “Nairi-Cinema” as “they rented premises in the Radio House on contract bases,” though he couldn’t give reasons for the question whether one can rent premises in the Radio House without “corresponding acquaintances and ties.”

[…]

“The matter is not connected with Amalyan; what can he do? He is merely a tool and must do whatever he is ordered,” said Mesrop Movsesyan on this score. The question must be put in other way; will “A1+” be given a license while the president of the country is Kocharyan? Of course, not. Kocharyan’s attitude to “A1+” is the same, it is invariable though he tries to convince the West that he has missed “A1+” and needs it.

Kocharyan’s hypocrisy is no longer in effect either there or here. At present the time works against them. Amalyan is a puppet, a marionette in all this matter, which will open his mouth each time they pull the thread and will keep silent each time the thread is left but in this case he will bite his tongue.”

The station also reports that the Director of Human Rights Watch is less than satisfied with the response of the Armenian Foreign Ministry to its new reports on human rights practices in the country, and which specifically mention the lack of an independent broadcast media in Armenia. It’s interesting to note that A1 Plus case is currently being examined by the European Court of Human Rights, as was recently reported by the BBC.

The European Court of Human Rights is studying an appeal by an Armenian TV station against a government decision to close it down.

The court’s judgement could have far-reaching implications for freedom of expression and human rights in Armenia and across the southern Caucasus.

In April 2002, the Armenian government took A1+ off the air.

The TV station, which was the most popular independent news channel at the time, has since reapplied ten times for a licence to broadcast. Each time it has been refused.

[…]

When the A1+ signal died, almost four years ago, thousands gathered on the streets of Yerevan to protest.

Those protests lasted for more than a week. It was a show of public support that convinced the A1+ president, Mesrop Movsesyan, that he must find other ways to continue delivering news to the people of Armenia.

“The sheer scale of the public protest, when ordinary people realised that freedom of expression was being attacked through the silencing of A1+, persuaded us that we had a duty to continue to operate as a news organisation, even though our transmitters had been turned off,” he said.

[…]

As well as being unable to broadcast, A1+ journalists are forbidden from attending government news conferences and are refused interviews with ministers.

If they are seen on the streets of Yerevan interviewing members of the public, police move them on.

Boris Navasardian, president of the Yerevan Press Club, says the continued existence of A1+ angers many in power, including politicians, business leaders and members of the judiciary.

He says many want to see the media organisation destroyed and that anger extends to the current government, which, Mr Navasardian says, feels that any alternative point of view should be silenced.

Of course, even if the European Court ruled in favor of A1 Plus, nobody expects that the station would return to the air in time for the 2007 parliamentary elections, or even presidential elections scheduled for 2008. Instead, Public TV as well as Gerard Cafesjian and Bagrat Sarkisyan’s Armenia TV will continue to fulfil the role expected of them in covering up any electoral falsification, and the same will be true for every other TV or radio station allowed to broadcast.

The decision to deprive A1 Plus of the right to broadcast was and still is political as its Director said in an interview I conducted with him the day after the station was taken off the air in April 2002.

The decision to close A1 Plus was taken in November during a private meeting between the Armenian President, Robert Kocharian, the Defense Minister, Serzh Sarkisyan, and the National Security Council. Although we have no evidence, only oral testimony, we believe that the idea to close the station came from that meeting.

[…]

Officially, they argued that our package was bad, and insufficient funding may have been another reason, but it is only a cover for the real reason which is political.

The full interview is available online here.

Liberty Square, Yerevan, Republic of Armenia © Onnik Krikorian / Oneworld Multimedia 2002

Police block a side road leading to Parliament, A1 Plus Protest Rally, Yerevan, Republic of Armenia © Onnik Krikorian / Oneworld Multimedia 2002

Art Tonoyan from iArarat.com has emailed me and a number of other bloggers in Armenia to discuss the idea of holding an Armenian Bloggers Conference in Yerevan when he’s over at the end of May. Personally speaking, when the media here is largely controlled by pro-governmental and pro-opposition political and economic forces, blogging represents an excellent medium to allow civil society activisits, citizens, foreigners and independent journalists to disseminate alternative information and opinion to an audience inside and outside of Armenia. Actually, this is apparently not too disimilar to the potential of blogging elsewhere.

Web logging, or blogging, is the new kid on the media block, complete with its own, unique lexicon. The verb is to blog and the participant in blogging is a blogger. If you are part of the blogging community, you are also part of the blogosphere - presumably with its own weather system.

A blog is simply a series of updated posts on a web page in the form of a diary or journal, often including commentary on, and hypertext links to, other web sites. Posts are in chronological order and can contain anything from simple text, to music, images and even streamed video.

Blogs tend to be highly personalised - an online stream of consciousness. Nothing particularly unusual about that when you consider the rise of the personal home page, for example. But the phenomenon is that so many people are interested in what bloggers have to say.

Perhaps one attraction of blogging lies in its unmediated and dynamic quality. Without an agenda, editorial stance or pedantic sub-editor standing between the writer and reader, blogging can provide reportage in a raw and exciting form.

“Readers are flocking to online news sites by the millions for the latest news about the war in Iraq,” JD Lasica, senior editor of the Online Journalism Review, told dotJournalism. “But the story doesn’t end there.

“They are also streaming to weblogs for sceptical analysis, critical commentary, alternative perspectives rarely seen in mainstream media, [such as] the views of foreigners, and the occasional first-person account. A handful of reporters in the Gulf region are maintaining weblogs to provide fuller, more personal and colourful reporting of what they are witnessing first-hand.”

Of course, the problems with blogging are also the same, especially with regards to the need for information to be factual even if it is still to be opinionated. Too often individuals think they can just set up a blog on their own and not adhere to certain practices that are still necessary even in the most unbalanced of media in the West. It’s also no surprise that given the rise of the blogosphere that even media outlets are starting to introduce their own blogs to appeal to a readership that is eager for a more personal account on global news and events that might not otherwise be covered due to budgetary and time restrictions.

They are opinionated, ranting, often incoherent and frequently biased with little regard for accuracy or balance. They are also compellingly addictive and threatening to emerge as a new brand of journalism.

[…]

Then blogging went mainstream. Established print journalists from outlets such as MSNBC and Guardian Unlimited started to create their own weblogs to sit alongside news and features, blurring the distinction between journalism and blogging still further. And the tools to build blogs became more widespread with internet service providers such as AOL offering blogging tools to their users and Blogger.com receiving a financial boost from its acquisition by the search engine company Google.

But while some bloggers believe that a new brand of journalism is emerging, some new media pundits remain sceptical.

“It’s like all stuff on the web,” Mike Smartt, editor of BBC News Online, told dotJournalism. “Dissemination of information is great, but how much of it is trustworthy? They are an interesting phenomenon, but I don’t think they will be as talked about in a year’s time.

Despite the skepticism in the above quoted article from 2003, the situation with blogs has vastly improved. In the Armenian context, for example, the increasing number of Armenia-related blogs means that a plurality of opinion is narrowing the divide between views. It is now more difficult to push propaganda for example, and the ability to comment on posts also means that discussion can be initiated and encouraged.

The essence of the original blogs was that they were individual expressions of information and opinion, however eccentric or extreme. This raised an obvious credibility question. Some blogs may have been accurate, but many more clearly come off the wall. For every dissection of the CBS report on President Bush and the National Guard, we had 1,000 rants and 100,000 accounts of daily activities of interest to nobody except the author. The limits of the free-for-all were well demonstrated by the chaos that resulted when the Los Angeles Times opened its online editorial page to unrestricted contributions.

Such problems will encourage the growth of a more responsible online-information system that exploits the medium’s possibilities, but which also adheres to self-imposed standards that would have been seen as unacceptably restrictive by the original bloggers. The idea that the internet meant complete freedom will have to die in at least a part of the forest if the medium is to realise its potential as an information tool. Serious providers will have to accept that they are not free from responsibility.

Basically, civil society activists, academics and journalists bringing their own experience to this new medium will sooner or later be required to take writing in the Armenian blogosphere further. Again, this is no different from the situation in the rest of the World, as the Economist’s World in 2006 pointed out. It might also provide a necessary check and balance system to the local and global media that has both economic and political dependency on external sources of funding. This is especially true for Armenia and the Diaspora.

This will not come about primarily through any legal constraints, which remain cloudy in the blogosphere. Rather, a group of information websites will emerge from the world of blogs—small in relative number, but weighty in impact—which accept that the internet is not just a licence to peddle prejudices and pursue individual interests. The hierarchy of links pioneered by Google will become a key factor, discriminating in the good sense between the reliable and the dross, and creating a virtuous online circle. Thus can brands be built.

This will present newspapers, already hit by declining circulations, with an extra challenge, and the growth of video and audio feeds from citizen-reporters will drive at least the smaller broadcasters to try to co-opt them as contributors. Conventional media enterprises will have to find creative ways of drawing on the proliferating sources of content and channels of distribution to satisfy their customers. If they do not adapt, fast, they may all too easily find themselves overshadowed as new media come of age, taking their responsibilities seriously and exploiting new ways of connecting with consumers.

Anyway, I do believe in the power of blogging and especially on Armenian-related issues, and so welcome Artyom’s move to initiate a meeting of bloggers in Armenia. Hopefully, all going well, he’ll be able to do something in the Diaspora as well. Certainly, for my part, aside from attending the recent Global Voices Summit staged by Harvard University’s Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Reuters’ Headquarters in London as well as a workshop in Oxford on e-Participation in Established and Emerging Democracies during December 2005, I’ve attempted to encourage others here.

Bloggers recognize they are early-adopting elites - and that the conversations happening on the blogs in most countries are not representative of the population as a whole. There was great interest expressed on Saturday in doing outreach to communities that currently have some internet access but are not currently blogging. People feel the need for better training materials and guidelines for outreach so that they can spread the blogging gospel more easily and efficiently.

[…]

Put it this way: for a conventional media organization, “content” is the end goal and “content creation” is the primary activity. For a Conversation Community like Global Voices, “content” and “content creation” are means to a larger end: conversation and dialogue. The first step towards conversation is having one’s voice heard around the discussion table. By linking to people’s blogs, our editors and contributors are in effect inviting people to the discussion table and moderating the conversation.

Zarchka, for example, started off here before the civil society activist and student migrated to her own blog, and new contributors to my own blog include two NGO workers, Nessuna and Headache, as well as a young journalist, LoonyMoony. Armyouth started up only after I spent hours evangelizing the power of blogs for civil society in Armenia, and I am especially interested in getting others to post on existing or new sites. Garo at Notes from Hairenik started blogging when I suggested the medium would be ideal for his writing, and Nessuna has also been prolific in translating what little exists in the Armenian-language blogosphere.

Anyway, blogging at its most basic form is very easy just as writing on a scrap of paper is. However, there are far more issues involved — both in terms of technical considerations as well as in terms of presentation and ethics. Therefore, I hope Artyom’s idea of meeting in Yerevan at the end of this month yields significant results and the further evolution of the Armenian blogosphere. If you would like to know more about this meeting please contact me at onewmphoto@yahoo.com or Artyom at ararat01@gmail.com.

Existing bloggers in Armenia are of course invited, but we’d also like to see students as well as young civil society activists and journalists attend as well, and not least because I suppose blogging in Armenia will really come into its own during the 2007 parliamentary elections. I also believe that blogs can play a vital role in encouraging civic participation in monitoring and decision making processes in the area of the environment and anti-corruption initiatives. More as of when.

After the appalling manner in which the highest levels of authority at Yerevan State Medical University (YSMU) treated its Indian as well as other foreign students after last week’s protests, I’m glad to see what might be one of the best examples of using blogs effectively in Armenia. Now that talks between Indian students and YSMU have broken down, Nanyaar? has set up a blog for students to write about the University.

Fantastic stuff, especially when you consider how the institution is run, and it probably comes as no surprise to discover that the aftermath of the recent protests takes center stage.

We were not sure of what’s happening, whether the decisions that are being taken, are they one voice or not. We saw us united on the first day, second day but from 3rd day we started dividing. It was the point we got weakened. How can we let all the efforts go in vain? I believe if now we cannot do anything, we can never because it was the first and the only time we all were together Death is the ultimate thing as well as the worse thing that can happen to anyone and his family. How can we forget that the person was alive for 45 min. How can we forget that he could be saved but was not? How can we take orders from the person due to whose mistake we lost our friend, and who is none other but our dean , a doctor. How can we forget that when we went to rector to listen clarifications we listened nothing but abusive words. How can we forget all this?

Here’s hoping that this new blog will shed some light on the deeply flawed inner workings of the University and provide a medium through which students can voice their concerns. A perfect example of how blogs could be used to promote democracy in Armenia which can be found http://ysmu.wordpress.com.

Want to Write?

Just chip in what you think about what is happening around you here in college. Join us to be a contibuter in this blog, or send in your emails to nanyaar@gmail.com

Hopefully other students, including local Armenians, will be able to use this blog to push for badly needed reform in what strikes me as a deeply draconian, undemocratic, authoritarian and corrupt educational facility. And really, I am still shocked by the arrogance and hostility of the Rector, Dean and Pro Rector of YSMU in its dealings with those students who are partly responsible for their employment in the first place.

Given that the Student Councils in Yerevan’s State Universities are controlled by the Republican Party of the Armenian Prime Minister Andranik Markarian and all independent voices have been silenced, this is a great move. Well done Nanyaar?.

A1 Plus Anniversary Protest Rally, Yerevan, Republic of Armenia © Onnik Krikorian / Hetq Online 2004

Today marks the fourth anniversary of the closure of the independent TV station A1 Plus. On 2 April the station was deprived of its frequency in a deeply flawed tender, the loss of A1 Plus marked the start of the presidential election campaign the following year. Armenia has been suffering ever since. Last December, the BBC reported on the case before the European Court of Human Rights.

The European Court of Human Rights is studying an appeal by an Armenian TV station against a government decision to close it down.

The court’s judgement could have far-reaching implications for freedom of expression and human rights in Armenia and across the southern Caucasus.

In April 2002, the Armenian government took A1+ off the air.

The TV station, which was the most popular independent news channel at the time, has since reapplied ten times for a licence to broadcast. Each time it has been refused.

Usually, some kind of demonstration by journalists in support of A1 Plus takes place in Yerevan, but I’m told that this year there is none. Nontheless, others haven’t forgotten the station, and not least because while A1 Plus does produce a web site and newspaper now, what is believed to be a concerted campaign by the authorities to disrupt their work continues. The Institute of War & Peace Reporting (IWPR) has more.

Four years ago, Armenia’s A1+ independent TV station was forced off the air in what its journalists maintain was a government-inspired vendetta.

Now, A1+ says the authorities are behind moves to force the TV station out of its offices.

For 15 years, A1+ has rented space on Grigor Lusavorich Street in downtown Yerevan.

But the Armenian National Academy of Sciences, which owns the building, is suddenly demanding that A1+ leave.

“The academy is just a tool. I am deeply convinced that had it not received ‘instructions’, [the academy] would not have resorted to such a step,” human rights activist Avetik Ishkhanian told IWPR.

“All this is aimed at creating new obstacles for A1+, in order to complete the process started four years ago of closing the TV station down.”

[…]

“Providing suitable new premises for A1+ would be a positive step which would demonstrate a commitment to enhance media freedom and pluralism in Armenia,” said Bojana Urumova, Special Representative of the Secretary General of the Council of Europe to Armenia.

“Any move from one place to another creates additional problems for any organisation. Although A1+ is not broadcasting now, it continues to be an active player in the information field that produces serious products,” said Navasardian.

The station continues to produce TV shows, and publishes a weekly edition and daily news through the internet.

Last week the issue of A1 Plus was also raised at a round table on “Armenia’s Information Crisis” organized by Raffi Hovannisian’s National Citizens’ Initiative (NCI). No wonder it’s believed that the authorities are out to break Hovannisian in time for the 2007 parliamentary and 2008 presidential elections. More information is available on the NCI web site.

NCI coordinator Hovsep Khurshudian welcomed the audience with opening remarks: “Today, when some politicians of the opposition and independent analysts are hopeful that a real opportunity has emerged for the upcoming parliamentary elections to be held freely and in compliance with the standards of democracy, even without the restoration of the right of the A1+ and Noyan Tapan independent television companies to broadcast, reminds me of the year 2002. Following the closing down of these stations, a number of people were then confident that the rule of law would be established in the country as the result of the upcoming presidential elections and that the violated rights would be restored. We recall all to well what occurred then, and it appears that every condition now exists for a repetition of the whole scenario.”

In his intervention on “The Effects of Shutting Down A1+ and Noyan Tapan on the Right of Armenia’s Citizens to Receive Information and the Means for Overcoming These Effects,” president of the A1+ Television Company Mesrop Movsisian briefly presented the history of this matter. In his words, the 19 media organizations which after the notorious contest in 2002 signed a joint declaration deeming the contest as legitimate, in fact signed the verdict not only against their own freedom of speech but on that of the entire country. Movsisian finds that the shutting down of A1+ and Noyan Tapan is a concern not for television stations alone but for the entire population of Armenia. He stated that his television company’s petition submitted to the European Court of Human Rights was now in the process of examination. According to Movsisian, liberal competition among electronic media has come to an end in Armenia and as a result there is a setback not only in terms of unimpeded dissemination of information but also in the appraisal of journalistic professionalism. And all of this in its turn has brought forth a severe limitation on Armenian citizens’ right to receive information.

A1 Plus also covered the conference as well as attending it in the form of its Director Mesrop Movsesian, who I interviewed a day after the station was closed in April 2002. Thankfully, almost everyone now understands what a loss A1 Plus was and that without it, the chances for democratization in Armenia are fairly slim. No surprise that most of us are awaiting the ruling of the European Court with baited breath. A1 Plus has more on that too.