Following is a conversation regarding the state of the media and related legal issues in Armenia. We talk with Artur Papyan (a blogger and reporter with Radio Liberty) and Ashot Melikyan (President of the Committee to Defend the Right to Speech).

To what extent are the legal guarantees to free speech and the media defended in Armenia?

Ashot Melikyan - In terms of legislation, there are pretty good safeguards for free speech and the press. We just have to hope that one day the reality on the ground corresponds to the laws on the books.

But I must point out that the old and new versions of the RA "Law on TV and Radio" hinder liberalization of the sector. That was the exact law used to close down the A1+ TV station back in 2002.

Everyone is aware that this move was a political one and that loopholes in the law were taken advantage of to achieve the silencing of the station.

The law has many modifications but they are of a cosmetic nature. The suggestions and observations of journalists and international organizations have been repeatedly overlooked.

Thus, major problems like the independence of the State Committee of TV and Radio have yet to be tackled in a serious manner.

At first, Committee members were simply appointed by the president. Supporters said there was no alternative process. Later, appointments were made on a competitive basis, but this too is just a formality, for it is the president who drafts the rules and conditions involved.

After reforms to the constitution, the president has the right to appoint 50% of the Committee and the parliament appoints the rest.

Some though that this formula would allow for dissenting voices in the Committee but since the parliament is controlled by the president's party this remains an illusion.

Thus, Public TV in Armenia is "public" in name only.

What are the problems regarding the putting the laws defending a free press into practice?

Ashot Melikyan - Some might not agree with me, but I believe if there is the political will even the existing "Law Regarding TV and Radio" can ensure free and fair competitive tenders in the sector. But the government doesn't want to cede its near total control of broadcasters.

Most programs are simply vehicles to praise the government and little airtime is given to opposing views.

The print media in Armenia is split into several political and economic camps. But only a few really try to promote their product.

The same division exists in the electronic media. In this environment, journalistic activity becomes political activity and the publications of media outlets are used as tools to settle political scores.

What problems do citizens and reporters face in the realm of freedom of speech and the media? What role can international organizations play in Armenia to defend these rights?

Artur Papyan - A major problem is the lack of faith in the judicial system.

Thus if a reporter writes his or her viewpoints and observations, there is no guarantee that they won't be dragged before the courts and "punished" for their actions or fined enormous amounts in compensation.

The second problem is one of self-censorship. There is no outright censorship but sometimes reporters are apt to "rein in" what they write out of fear of possible repercussions.

Then too, citizens face problems of putting their right of freedom of speech into practice from a technical standpoint. Some take their issues to the press and others seek expression in various social networks.

Bloggers also have a role to play here. I have my own blog. If traditional reporters are vulnerable to self-censorship than bloggers should be free of such psychological restrictions.

Here, I'm merely talking about putting this freedom into practice and not the extent of its effectiveness. In terms of the internet, this possibility exists. But there are skills involved to getting ones message across in an effective manner.

As a blogger and reporter, I do not see the positions taken by international organizations as being of a principled nature. One day they say one thing and the next, something different.

How is citizen journalism (blogs, social networks) developing in Armenia? To what extent do average citizens trust the traditional media outlets?

Artur Papyan - In the last year or two, a number of civil initiatives were organized via Facebook. Today, activists working through the internet have been successful to a degree when it comes to realizing legal reforms and court decisions.

Some of these grassroots movements include "We are the owners of this city" and "We are against foreign language schools".

One month ago, Facebook had 140,000 users in Armenia. Today, this number has hit 170,000 and it's still growing.

People exchange information and debate the issues.

It is interesting that those who created this network didn't set out to spur the activism of civil society. Their aim was to create an environment conducive for contact and to generate revenues through advertising.

But there was an evident need in Armenia for self-expression and people quickly began to register.

People are buying the latest telephones and plugging into the internet. They are taking photos of events and developments and transferring the news to others.