Our previous question was: Would a severe punishment for slander and libel improve media quality? Fifty percent think it will not change the situation, while 43 percent believe that it will.

There was a lot of debate when the new media law on more severe punishment for slander was presented to the public. Those who support the new approach argue that a more severe punishment will protect public figures from the below-the-belt attacks by the print media. Those who oppose the new law argue that it will only be another tool in the hands of the government to have the same strong grip on print media as it does on broadcast media. Both arguments are understandable. After all, some of the print media articles go beyond not only journalistic but also moral boundaries. On the other hand, given the lack of any faith in the objectiveness of the judiciary, more severe punishment (i.e. incredibly high fines that the media outlets will not be able to pay) will serve to restrict the (comparatively) free print media. So what is the solution?

The implementation of more severe punishment will make the press more careful when criticizing public officials, but will it raise the quality of print media? Unlikely. The Soviet era press was more than “careful,” but is that the kind of press we want? A reputable press is found only in countries where the media is completely free – including economically – and thus dependent on only the readers.

It is difficult to give a prescription for solving the problem of the often unacceptably low quality of print media in Armenia. But one thing is for sure: a repressed media is always worse than an open media. The third US president, Thomas Jefferson, said, “The freedom of the press…cannot be limited without danger of losing it.”

The best proof of this is the state of Armenian television. Because television is under the control of those who support those in power, the opposition creates extremely biased opposition publications to balance what is considered government propaganda on television.  In return, pro-government forces create their own (also low quality) propaganda publications. The only way to break this vicious cycle is to open up the TV air waves and allow print media to work in a free business environment with no one in the government “guiding” businesses where to advertise. Only in that case will both opposition and government reject a print media of the kind we have now. The outlets that will continue to exist will only do so because society will need them. Society will be ready to pay for them in return for high quality information and analysis. This cannot be accomplished in a day. But it is the only way to establish freedom of the media that has stood the test of time in the “civilized world” where journalists are responsible for every word they write. When the journalists are responsible, they can be held accountable for what they write, and that is what those who support the law want.