CAUCASUS ANALYTICAL DIGEST No. 25, 18 March 2011 2
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
No. 25 18 March 2011 Abkhazia South Ossetia caucasus Adjara analytical digest Nagorno- Karabakh resourcesecurityinstitute.org www.laender-analysen.de www.res.ethz.ch www.boell.ge MASS MEDIA ■■Traditional Failings versus Non-Traditional Prospects of the Armenian Media 2 By Arpine Porsughyan, Yerevan ■■Media in Azerbaijan: The Ruling Family Dominates TV, the Opposition Has Some Papers 4 By Arifa Kazimova, Baku ■■Georgia: Immature Media 7 By Nino Robakidze, Tbilisi ■■OPINION POLL Public Use and Perception of Mass Media in the South Caucasus 12 ■■DOCUMENTATION Assessment of Media Freedom in International Comparison 15 ■■CHRONICLE From 9 February to 10 March 2011 18 Institute for European, Research Centre Center German Association for HEINRICH BÖLL STIFTUNG Russian, and Eurasian Studies for East European Studies for Security Studies East European Studies SOUTH CAUCASUS The George Washington University of Bremen ETH Zurich University CAUCASUS ANALYTICAL DIGEST No. 25, 18 March 2011 2 Traditional Failings versus Non-Traditional Prospects of the Armenian Media By Arpine Porsughyan, Yerevan Abstract Despite the large number of media outlets in Armenia, traditional media remains homogenous in its message. This is especially troublesome in an environment where the majority of the population are passive receivers and do not seek alternative sources of information. With the absolute dominance of government–friendly broadcast media, what are the implications for reporting on the political behavior of Armenians and can new and social media provide a ground for non-elite voices? The Media Landscape in Armenia of self-censorship to avoid losing their licenses.4 While On December 16, 2010, the National Commission on newspapers provide alternative political views, their cir- Television and Radio of Armenia announced the results culation is limited—5,000 copies for the most popular of the broadcast license tender. A1+, one of the few inde- newspaper. Radio stations generally focus on entertain- pendent media outlets, was denied a broadcast license ment with the only exception being Radio Free Europe/ for the thirteenth time despite calls from the interna- Radio Liberty. tional community prior to the voting for offering broad- cast licenses to new outlets to liberalize the media in Traditional Media and the Population Armenia. Freedom House Executive Director David J. What are the viewing habits of the population of Arme- Kramer remarked that “A thirteenth denial of A1+’s law- nia and how much is the population dependent on broad- ful request for a license would be a slap in the face to cast and print media? The Caucasus Research Resource advocates of free media everywhere.”1 A1+ was denied a Centers’ Caucasus Barometer 2009 (CRRC CB), a broadcast license in 2002 and has been off the air since. nation-wide survey conducted annually in the South Media experts described it as a major setback for media Caucasus asked Armenians about their media prefer- freedom in Armenia. ences and perceptions. According to the survey data, Despite the relatively high number of traditional which are documented in the Opinion Poll Section of media outlets, both state and private, that exist in Arme- this issue, television is the most popular medium in nia—48 television stations including the local ones, 36 Armenia. The overwhelming majority of the popula- newspapers and 17 radio stations—, media in Armenia tion receives at least one local language television chan- suffers from a lack of pluralism, openness and profession- nel and 90 percent of the population claims to watch alism. 2 Freedom House classifies the media in Arme- at least one television news program a day. In contrast, nia as not free and the IREX Media Sustainability Index only 34 percent of the population read a newspaper/news reports no changes in the low score over the last year.3 magazine at least once a week. The amount of newspa- The state-run Armenian Public Television and the per readership varies between the big cities and the out- Armenian Public Radio are two of the few stations that lying areas—44 percent of capital inhabitants claim to reach a nationwide audience. Many of the private tele- read a newspaper/newsmagazine at least once a week vision stations are owned by government-friendly busi- versus 26 percent of rural inhabitants who do the same. ness elites and these broadcasters employ a high degree With the dominating popularity of television, it is not surprising that television is the main source of infor- mation about current events in the country for 90 per- 1 Freedom House (December 14, 2010). Freedom House Calls on Armenia to Liberalize its Broadcast Media. Retrieved Jan- cent of the population. Neighbors and friends together uary 17, 2011 from http://www.freedomhouse.org/template. are the second main source of information on current cfm?page=70&release=1293. events for around half of the population. 2 IREX (2010). Media Sustainability Index 2010 Armenia. However, viewing preferences do not always translate http://www.irex.org/project/ Retrieved January 3, 2011, from into satisfaction with the quality of the information. In media-sustainability-index-msi. 3 Freedom House (2010). Freedom of the press. Retrieved Decem- particular, those in the capital with access to alternative ber 23, 2010, from http://www.freedomhouse.org/template. sources of information claim that the television chan- cfm?page=16&year=2010 (see Documentation Section in this nels in Armenia do not present different perspective on issue). IREX (2010). Media Sustainability Index 2010 Arme- nia. Retrieved January 3, 2011 from http://www.irex.org/project/ media-sustainability-index-msi. 4 Ibid. CAUCASUS ANALYTICAL DIGEST No. 25, 18 March 2011 3 the news in the country (34 percent in the capital ver- erage to Sargsyan in some 45 percent of its print space sus 22 percent in rural areas). Focus groups conducted devoted to the elections.8 by CRRC in 2008 with media consumers in Yerevan In the aftermath of the contested elections of 2008, also showed general dissatisfaction with the way news the government declared a 20-day state of emergency is presented on local television channels. and imposed tight control on the media. Almost all “I don’t trust TV because it doesn’t correspond to real- newspapers in Armenia suspended publication during ity at all. There are cases when you witness something and that time. Most other media outlets followed the stipu- they report something totally different.” (Female, 18–40, lations of the state of emergency, broadcasting or print- Armenia)5 ing only official news. However, a rather large percent of the population While the international community urges the Arme- falls into the category of passive receivers of informa- nian government to liberalize its media before the 2012 tion who do not have a strong opinion about the qual- parliamentary elections, new processes, such as the ity of reporting or the accuracy of news on local media switch from analog to digital broadcasting which may channels. Thus, in response to the question “How well last until 2015, is creating new obstacles preventing new do you think TV journalists in Armenia inform the pop- broadcasters from entering the market. ulation about what is actually going on in the country,” over 60 percent of the respondents took a neutral posi- Traditional Media and Reporting on the tion or did not know. “Other” Literature on the topic suggests that media influ- What is the role of media in shaping public opinion ence is especially strong in the environments where the about the countries that have tense relationships with number of alternative sources of information is lim- Armenia? ited.6 The population in Armenia also recognizes the Research shows that reporting both on Azerbaijan influence of broadcast media on the formation of opin- and Turkey is generally driven by the state’s official posi- ion; over 40 percent of Armenians either agree or com- tions. Monitoring results of media sources in Armenia pletely agree that television defines what people think.7 and Azerbaijan document how inaccuracies in articles How then is media interacting with the political behav- published by the leading newspapers in Armenia and ior of the population? Azerbaijan “don’t add any new or necessary informa- tion, but rather [they] set a negative context in the pub- Traditional Media and Elections lic consciousness, which hinders dialogue and mutual The presidential election of February 2008 and its imme- understanding.”9 A more recent media monitoring effort diate aftermath delivered yet another blow to the media of Armenian and Azerbaijani media shows that:10 in Armenia. The favorable coverage of then Prime Min- Still, the journalists very rarely acknowledge their respon- ister Serzh Sargsyan, when compared to the completely sibility in enhancing existing alienations and, mildly put, negative coverage of the main opponent, Levon Ter- mutual hostility between the people of the two counties. Or, petrosyan, played a significant role in increasing the while acknowledging it, they continue supporting and often level of tensions surrounding the elections. According encouraging politicians, academicians, public figures, provid- to the OSCE/ODHIR Election Observation Mission ing them with the newspaper space and airtime to increase report, the state-owned H1 did not treat the candidates the confrontation. They play a significant role in keeping alive equally despite allocating comparable airtime to their the old stereotypes and stimulating new ones, they distort the campaigns in its news coverage. Moreover, the majority reality, complicated as it is, thus impeding mutual under- of coverage on Ter-Petrossian was negative even though standing and the establishment of trust between neighbors, he was the main opposition candidate and was given the rendering the advancement of peace impossible. most airtime. Public radio adopted a similar approach while the state-owned Hayastani Hanrapetutyun news- 8 OSCE/ODHIR Election Observation Mission (May 30, 2008).