Event On May 3, Armenia, along with the rest of the world, celebrated World Press Freedom Day. Two days earlier, Freedom House, the New-York based NGO which promotes freedom around the world, released a list of countries ranked by the degree of media freedom in each. Armenia is included among the “Not Free” countries, and ranks 151, along with Singapore. In a previous Freedom House report, Armenia was in 144th place, near Côte d'Ivoire, Guinea, the Maldives, Moldova and Pakistan.

Just as Freedom House registered Armenia’s drop in the rankings, two events took place in Armenia to reinforce the rating: in the space of a few days, two journalists – ArmeniaToday editor Argishti Kiviryan and Shant TV news analyst Nver Mnatsakanyan were both attacked. The reasons for the attacks remain unclear. Mr. Kyviryan remains hospitalized.

Background Everyone assumes of course that these journalists were attacked because they did something or said something as journalists that displeased someone – perhaps someone in government, but not necessarily. In other words, such events are explained in the context of a not-free press.

The story of freedom of the press in Armenia runs parallel to the history of Armenia. The first years of independence were years of true press freedom in Armenia when the Soviet authorities had disappeared and the new regime was still taking shape. However, that freedom was not institutionalized and formalized, it did not become an important attribute of a new culture of statehood, rather it gradually fell victim to political interests and domestic political processes. The Soviet not-free press was all pro-government. Therefore, free press came to be synonymous with anti-government. When independent Armenia’s new political elite began competing amongst themselves, instead of with their Soviet counterparts, they were not able to resist the temptation to drag the press into that game. The press, lacking traditions and means of sustaining their independence, went along. Newspapers and television became a direct political tool, they became politicized, partisan and came under the same political pressures which existed in daily political life, in tandem with the existing political culture. Respect for the free flow of ideas, the freedom to voice a variety of ideas, had no time to take root either in society or in the media. The public, mired in economic woes, did not demand such outlets. Editors, subject to those economic ills, could not ensure their independent survival through traditional subscription and advertising channels. So, to continue to exist, media found their sponsors and those sponsors espoused not political or ideological views but partisan or personal interests for which their own private media became the mouthpiece.

As society became more polarized, so did media. The political intolerance devolved to personal, individual intolerance. There are no media outlets for honest, fair, consistent, continuous battles of words. Instead, those battles have been moved to the streets.

Analysis All this would have been sufficient explanation last year or the year before to comprehend the real situation of our media. However, this year, when 10 journalists have already been attacked, none of the cases resolved, none of the crimes solved, the situation can no longer be explained. It is unacceptable and intolerable. Violence against journalists has become commonplace. In a society where it is also common to resort to violence to resolve any number of problems – including practical, daily personal issues – attacks against journalists are automatically assumed to be caused by the victim’s profession.

Especially since beyond standard condemnations, there is no effort to truly punish or prevent such actions, this leads one to believe that such an intimidating environment suits someone. Better to have careful, self-censoring, scared journalists, than to allow them to question, comment, criticize – even if they do so unevenly, according to their own agenda. This ‘policy’ is reinforced by the controlled ‘use’ of opposition figures in the electronic media – rather than allowing the public discourse to determine who should be invited to airwaves, there is clear control and direction about who to invite when for what time period, on what topic. This exacerbates the tension and is at least partially responsible for the extreme intolerance often found in the opposition print media. If the press exists and is not free, then it is altogether unnecessary because it does not promote a free and open dialogue within the population. It in fact harms reforms by creating an environment of pretense, which in turn, insults, disengages and makes an entire nation feel more cynical and powerless. It is because there is no real dialogue and debate and confrontation in the press that there is such physical, personal confrontation on the streets, with members of the press. Of course, it is true, that in some cases, the attacked individual’s professional affiliation had nothing to do with the purpose of the attack. But we’ll never know, since there is no culmination, no resolution, no public information available about why and how these incidents take place.

Outlook So long as government does not take responsibility for its part in correcting this situation, three things will continue to happen:
1. The public will assume that this situation is to the government’s liking.
2. Members of the press corps will continue to assume that they do not fall within the government’s sphere of responsibility to protect, and therefore their own responsibility to professionally, fairly, honestly report the news can also be suspended.
3. Violence will continue to reign as the effective method of problem-solving, to be embarked upon with impunity, in all spheres of life.