Home

Projects

Three Views

Conference

Researches

Publications

Photos

Partners

Archive

Contacts

RESEARCHES

Reasearches

Laura Baghdasarian The Media of Armenia and the Environment As Viewed By Journalists

We express our gratitude to the students of YSU Journalism Department for the assistance in conducting the survey.

In July 2001 the Association of Investigative Journalists of Armenia held a survey among Armenian journalists. The survey was aimed at revealing the most vital problems for media today, the specifics of their activities, the perception of freedom of information, the interrelations of journalists and information sources, study the extent to which the information is accessible for journalists, the nature of obstacles, arising when receiving and disseminating information, etc. The findings on the evaluation of the professional skills, the views held by the journalists on the freedom level of the freedom enjoyed by "their" and other media.

• 55 journalists representing 27 print and electronic (10 local and 17 national) media were polled.
• The significant part of the respondents has five and more years of professional experience (34.5% work as journalists for 5-10, 25.5% - over 10 years).
• The obvious majority of answers given to 19 questions and their subquestions (26 in total) is quite specific. The option of "difficult to answer" almost always was selected more rarely than the others (the proportion of specific answers and the answer choices above is within 11:1 and 65:1).
• 67.3% of respondents have higher professional education, 27.3% - higher not professional education(mostly, in humanities), and only three mentioned that they have secondary education.
• 26 out of 55 journalists mention they are engaged in covering various spheres, which are seldom related (such as economy, social issues and culture, in one case, and politics and culture, in the other, etc.) The answer of "The area of my focus is determined by the necessity" occurs frequently.
  

All the results above reveal that the journalists are directly familiar with the issues specified by the questionnaire.

The Environment We Work in

The journalists are almost unanimous (96.4%) in saying the Armenian media of today are faced with unsolved problems. Primarily, financial problems are mentioned (31%), then - the level of the professionalism of journalists (21%), and only afterwards - the imperfection of legislation regulating the media activities (10.1%). This is followed by the insufficient technical capacities (6.7%), independence of media (5.9%, with no specifications of what is meant by it) and political problems (4.2%). The indifference of the society, "Armenia is not a legal state" (1.7%), censorship (0.8%) are stressed. There are even fewer answers that directly link the urgent problems of Armenian media with the subjective features of journalists. These are such answers as: "there are few good editors", the journalists "are ambitious", "instead of disseminating information, release propaganda", "have no distinct standpoint", etc.

Judging from the results for the question "Why do you think the newspapers have few readers?", the Armenian media think the financial problem to be more important than the issue of the confidence of the audience. When specifying the three main problems faced by the press, the high newspaper prices were quoted 37 times, the low confidence in the media - 20 times. In 8 cases the press dissemination issue was specified, the focus on the events in the capital only, poor management, etc. Thus, a whole complex of problems faced by the journalists of today is formed.

The question of "How good is the coverage of the area of your specialization as a journalist?" was most often answered as "satisfactory" (72.7%). This answer is encountered not only among the journalists writing on one or two directly related spheres, but also those who have various specialization areas. 16.4% of respondents are not content with the coverage of the areas of their specialization, and 9.1% think the area of their specialization is given good coverage in general. Only one journalist found the question difficult to answer.

Five respondents mentioned that their area is given a good coverage. One of them is specialized in politics, another one - in social issues, and the remaining three focus on various spheres. Those who insist that the area of their specialization is given bad coverage, write about politics, judicial matters, foreign affairs and culture (one case for each), the remaining five cases specialize in diverse spheres. The journalists who think the coverage of their specialization areas to be good substantiate this opinion by political circumstances: "there is a certain degree of freedom of speech in Armenia", "one can see the tolerant attitude on behalf of the state", "it is easy to clarify the points of view of political figures, they provide information readily". The list of the reasons underlying the bad coverage, as viewed by the journalists, is much longer. This is the low professionalism, or the lack of narrowly specialized journalists, lack of time, information shortage, fact distortion, absence of social demand, etc. In only two cases the bad coverage of the areas is explained by "financial problems".

Apparently, the "financial problems" incorporate the remuneration of journalists as well.

The question of "What is your assessment of the work of Armenian journalists?" the following answers have been given: they are objective - 7.3%, biased - 20%, and 40% of the respondents think the journalists "write adequately to what they are paid". These 40% include the respondents who think their areas are being given bad coverage, and the journalists are biased, as well as those who mention that the general level of coverage is satisfactory. The majority of this last group of respondents (18 answers) also mentions that the journalists "write adequately to what they are paid". 7 respondents found it difficult to give an assessment to the work of journalists. 3 journalists gave a general answer to the question ("there are both objective and biased journalists").

If the highest results for the last two questions are compared, it can be inferred that the value of the coverage of the specialization areas of the majority of journalists is satisfactory (72.7%) and Armenian journalists "write adequately to what they are paid" (40%). This implies that the remuneration of the work of the journalists is also satisfactory.

The following interesting picture is formed when one compares the findings for the following questions: "Is your medium independent?", "Do you think yourself to be an independent journalist?" and "Are there independent media in Armenia?" Only 10 out of 55 journalists maintain that the media they represent are not independent. Other respondents think the media they represent are independent (29.1%) or partially independent (47.3%). Those who gave a negative answer to the question "Is your medium independent?", explain this statement as follows: "The media have financial difficulties", "No one is independent", "The media are politicized" and "Political pressure shows". According to the highest result of the next question, there are no independent media in Armenia (41.8%). 21.8% of respondents argue for the contrary (there are independent media in Armenia), while 30.9% did not give a distinct answer to the question above ("Difficult to answer", "There are only partially independent media in Armenia", etc.)

Those who are convinced Armenia has independent media, simultaneously point them out. If these data are summarized, the media who were named independent by not only their journalists but also representatives of other media are "A1+" TV company and "Noyan Tapan" agency. Out of 27 mentionings of independent media, "A1+" is given 7 votes, "Noyan Tapan" - 4. The highest number of votes for other media is three, and all these are mentionings by the journalists representing the medium.

The vast majority of respondents (67.3%) think themselves to be independent journalists. 12.7% found the question of whether they are free journalists difficult to answer, an equal proportion admitted their susceptibility to subjective factors, having chosen the option of "I am not free from my own self".

The difference between the number of journalists who gave affirmative and negative answers to the question "were there cases when your stories were not published?" is insignificant. 49.1% state their stories were always presented to the audience, and 45.5% noted the irregularity of the publication of their materials. These 45.5% include also the journalists who gave an affirmative answer to the question of "Do you consider yourself to be an independent journalist?". Out of 37 respondents who think themselves to be free, 13 mentioned cases when their stories were not published. Among these, 6 journalists were refused in publication by their editors, one confessed he was afraid of the consequences of the publication, 3 - "lobbied for the material not to be published", and the same proportion of journalists explained the failure to be published by the so-called technical reasons (lack of newspaper space, obsoletion of the information, etc.).

The findings for the questions "How common do you think corruption is in the media?" and "If there is corruption, what are its expressions?" are of special interest. Thus, out of 55 respondents only 4 were definite that there is no corruption in the media of Armenia, 12 found the question difficult to answer (one of the respondents motivated this answer as follows: "I have heard about the media being corrupt but have no facts to sustain it"). Other 39 respondents think the Armenian media are corrupt. Also, 18 journalists maintain that cases of corruption are numerous in the Armenian media, from the point of view of 19 respondents, they are few, and two journalists gave the answer of "They are neither numerous nor few". Among the expressions of corruption the most popular answers were protectionism (74.5%) and bribery (14.5%). Only 5 journalists, arguing corruption is present in Armenian media found it difficult to quote the sources of this phenomenon.

The Environment We Work With

A block of questions was devoted to the accessibility of information. Thus, the results for the questions of "What spheres are most difficult to get information from?" and "What bodies are most difficult to get information from?" show that the spheres most difficult to access for journalists are the legal sphere (36.8%), judicial (28.1%), economic (16.6%).The answer choices "the information is equally difficult to get from all spheres" and "from state and official structures" were mentioned once each. Notably, from the point of view journalists, the political sphere is harder to get information from, than, say, the military sphere. The first sphere as one difficult to get information from is mentioned ten times (8.7%), military - 3 (2.6%). At the same time, when mentioning specific (so-called closed) agencies the first positions were taken by the Ministry of Interior Affairs (28.3%), Ministry of Defense (22.4%), Prosecutor's Office (16.4%). Private enterprises were rated second (7.5%), judges (6.7%), RA President Office (5.2%). Only 3 out of 55 respondents found it difficult to specify the most closed agencies, only one journalist encountered no difficulties whatsoever to get the information needed.

The list of agencies, which are, on the contrary easy to get information from, is longer. According to research findings, the most open structures are the RA National Assembly (15.4%) and political parties (11.8%). 6.3% rate the Government the third. The vast majority of journalists who answered this way (i.e., with no specifications of governmental subdivision) cover most various spheres; others focus on political problems. A part of the respondents mentions "ministries" as easily accessible sources. These journalists specialize in legal and political issues. 22 of 110 answers are specific ministries. Almost all ministries are listed here (besides the power ministries) with almost identical intensity (the amplitude between the highest and lowest results is insignificant). The highest results were scored by the Ministry of Science and Education (4.5%), the Ministry of Industry and Trade, Ministry of Foreign Affairs (3.6% each). 9 out of 55 respondents found it difficult to mention the most easily accessible information sources (8.1%), three journalists find "all" agencies easy to get information from. One of the journalists mentioned it is the hardest to get information from the agencies where "there is not problem of concealing the information", and another one says these were the agencies where "I have personal contacts".

If these data are cross-analyzed against the specialization of journalists, the following trend is revealed: every journalist first of all mentions the ministry of his/her specialization as an easily accessible source.

Thus, the journalists covering economic issues, name the Ministries of Industry and trade, of State Revenues; the journalists specialized in social and education spheres - the Ministries of Education and Science, of Health, of Social Security; the Foreign Ministry is named by the journalists focused exclusively on political issues, etc.

For comparison, it should be noted that in the list of sources hard to access such trend is not evident. Thus, the majority of journalists thinking the Ministries of Interior Affairs, Defense, Prosecutor's offices and courts difficult to access, are specialized not only in military or legal and judicial issues, but also in most various areas (these are the journalists who noted the area of their coverage to be "determined by necessity").

It is also interesting to compare the reasons for the inaccessibility of information. Thus, according to the results for the question "How is information refused to you?, the refusal is usually substantiated by "Not authorized to answer" (28.2%), "This information cannot be provided"(23.5%), "We do not possess sufficient information" (23.5%), "This is a state or a legal secret" (15.3%), "I have no time" (2.3%).

The fact that the information sources often allude to these reasons, is mostly a sign of two circumstances:

1. the potential information sources formally demonstrate their "innocence" in the refusal (compare the results for "I have no time" with other reasons).

2. The majority of refusals lack specificity and do not reflect the true reasons for not providing the information (compare the results for "This is a state or an official secret" with the findings on other stereotype reasons).

By the way, the inferences above are substantiated also by the answers to the question "Why is it difficult to get information?". From the point of view of journalists the information is usually not provided because "the system is a closed one" (44.4%), "the information center does not work well" (18.5%), "the appropriate legislation is not in place" (9.2%). Curiously, that the most popular reason ("system is a closed one") is followed by an explanation: "The journalists do not apply their legal right" (24.1%).

The perception of this legal right by the journalists can be presented through answers to the question "what do you do when you are refused information?". The majority publish the refusal fact (48.7%), a smaller proportion addresses the upper bodies of the information source (21.1%), 11.8% apply the principle of "Information is worth any price paid" ("I try to do everything to get information", "I address other reliable sources", "I create an atmosphere for the information to be provided", etc.) None of the respondents tried to defend the right to information in court.

ALL above mentioned give grounds to assume that:

• Armenian media have a number of unsolved and closely interrelated problems. The most crucial ones are the financial issues and the issue of journalistic professionalism. In spite of the commonly held view of media-experts that the main deficiency of Armenian media is their being overpoliticized, the journalists themselves made no direct references to this factor, probably assuming that the political independence of media is directly linked to their financial independence. This context is consistent with the statements that the issue of gaining social confidence or its return to the level of the first independence years is not as acute, as the experts see it. Notably, none of the journalists surveyed mentioned journalistic solidarity or ethics among the problems inherent to Armenian media.
• The need for narrowly specialized journalists is emphasized, which, judging from the numerous notes on the subject, is directly linked to their professional skills (as it has been mentioned above, only a small proportion of respondents covers one or two related areas). The majority of journalists is satisfied with the coverage of their areas, also, on the other hand, the perception that the writing of journalists is adequate to their remuneration. Certainly, one can presume that those respondents who gave this assessment to the work of the journalists implied the journalists who are well paid, and therefore, write well. Yet, judging from the top problem of media, as mentioned above, namely, the financial and the results of other similar questions, the phrase "write adequately to what they are paid" must be interpreted as "The situation would improve if the remuneration improved".
• Armenian media have corruption revealed in protectionism. Since fewer respondents mention bribery, as a corruption type, presumably, the journalists indirectly point to political protectionism.
• Although the vast majority of journalists think themselves to be free, those who announced that "there are no independent media in Armenia" are more numerous than those sticking to the contrary point of view. Therefore, the majority of free journalists currently work for either partially independent or completely dependent media.
• The notes on the most open or closed information sources are of great value. It seems that the answers of the opinion poll support the common opinion: the most closed structures in Armenia are the power agencies. Yet if one takes into account the circumstance that such statements are made mostly by multi-profile journalists, the statement above becomes less convincing. Either all journalists covering the most various spheres have had the experience of contacting these agencies for information, or else they gave the answers under the influence of the steady stereotype. On the other hand, the inference about the most open structures being the RA NA and the political parties, is natural. Truly, the fact that the political figures of Armenia are always willing to be in the limelight of media attention is supported by findings of this research s well as others.
• The right to receipt and dissemination of information is defended by journalists mostly though publishing the fact of refusal. This is apparently the easiest and the most comfortable way, if compared with addressing the court. On the other hand, there are at least two factors accounting for the reluctance of journalists to address the court if refused information that is not a state or official secret. First, the journalist or its medium may fail to possess the amount needed to file a suit and bring the trial to conclusion. Second, until the trial is over, the information needed may become obsolete and will no longer be of public interest.