HY RU EN
Asset 3

Loading

End of content No more pages to load

Your search did not match any articles

Liana Sayadyan

In the South Caucasus, Both Government and Media Fail the Test of Democracy

An independent media has been in the process of development in the South Caucasus for many years now, but none of the three countries in the region have much to be proud of in this regard. Formally, all of them have independent news agencies, but in reality, the work of the media is often reminiscent of Soviet-era propaganda. The past fifteen years have been a kind of test for the governments of Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan to measure how honest they were in their stated ambitions to achieve western values. And these years were also a test for journalists in the South Caucasus. A test they have failed, since they have been unable to establish a mass media that truly serves the society's need for information and can confront the government when necessary. What are the causes of this failure? Is it the government's wish to repress the media? Or journalists' lack of professionalism and desire to conform to unwritten rules? Or is it the lack of demand by society for the media's work? These questions were raised by journalists and media analysts from the three countries of the South Caucasus at the online conference "Mass Media and Government Relations" organized by the "Caucasus Journalists Network" (www.caucasusjournalists.net) on October 11th and 12th.

The Rose Revolution did not realize the dream of an independent media

"The Georgian media played an important role in the 2003 Rose Revolution in Georgia and in the formation of a new, younger government. One of the slogans of the new government was a promise to support freedom of speech. But after the revolutionary euphoria ended, life showed that the government did not really want an independent media, and that they would not accept criticism of their actions. As a result, there are more violations of journalists' rights, and few results from the investigations into these violations. The judiciary system is so awful that good laws are only good on paper. Some TV stations have stopped their translations and some have stopped airing edgy talk shows. According to public opinion, the situation regarding freedom of speech is worse today than it was before the revolution. I agree with that and I believe that this is the mistake of the current government," said Devi Sturua, a lawyer for the international organization IREX and representative of the program Media News.

"This year the Georgian media has fallen under more pressure from the government than they felt during or even before Shevardnadze's reign," said Laura Baghdasaryan, director of the Region Research Center in Armenia.

"We shouldn't overemphasize the level of democratization during the Shevardnadze regime, because then the situation in Georgia was the following: 'I see everything, I hear everything, I say everything but nobody listens to me.' When the Shevardnadze's regime was taking shape, journalists were treated badly. Afterwards, after the situation normalized, the West applied some pressure and a new policy developed-let the dog bark while the caravan moves forward. Regarding the state of the Georgian media since the Rose Revolution, I don't envy them. The weakness of the Shevardnadze regime allowed the press to feel unrestrained and proudly refer to themselves as the Fourth Power in the country. Now, in contrast, the government's obvious intent is to not accept any criticism, and to show journalists unambiguously who's boss. And so there is self-censorship in the media, especially in the broadcast media. During Shevardnadze's time journalists were punished with more overt force, but now the methods are more subtle. Pressure is applied to the owners of TV stations who are dependent on whether the government will choose to overlook the sources of their capital and their financial activities," said Tamara Shamil of the Caucasus Institute of Peace, Democracy, and Development.

David Paichadze, dean of the journalism department at Tbilisi State University and correspondent for Radio Liberty thinks that all this is hysteria on the part of the media. He wrote, "I believe that the notion that journalists are pressured in Georgia is highly exaggerated. It is rare to find a journalist who would dare to detail a specific incident involving pressure and censorship of his or her work."

"By saying 'dare', Paichadze emphasizes that journalists are careful not to talk about censorship, about pressure from their bosses or government officials," Tamara Shamil argued back. In Gori, law enforcement officials secretly planted drugs in the pockets of the editor of the Khalkhis Gazette and then arrested him. After a scandal broke out, he was released, but nobody was punished for this spectacle. A regional leader canceled the investigative program 60 Minutes , on the TV channel Rustavi 3, because he didn't want them to release information of the money flowing into and out of the "Regional governor's fund". Gige Bokeria, one of the most active supporters of free speech, said on television one day that Mze TV's program At the Edge of Choice should be shut down for misinformation (specifically, for their portrayal of Zurab Jvania's murder). Several days later, the show was cancelled. Bokeria wasn't the one who closed it, but he had to know that the owner of the TV station would do it, in his own interests. Even more, all the news programs disappeared from Mze.

"The Azerbajani media is not politicized, but it is completely corrupt."

Gazanbar Bayramov, editor-in-chief of the newspaper Express, described the relations between government and the media, and asked, "What is the essence of this exchange? First of all, let's talk about the press and other media. If you are not on the list of the so-called chosen ones, you can forget about having advertising in the pages of your newspaper. If your paper doesn't criticize the government or the opposition, it will simply gather dust on the shelves of the newsstands. The owners of the newsstands carry out government orders and only display the 'important' newspapers. Customs officers name whatever price they want for the paper. Printers, with few exceptions, do the same for their services. They can charge three cents for one issue for the government newspaper, five cents for the opposition newspaper, and seven for the independent newspapers. Even the most extreme opposition newspapers have an advantage over independent publications. The reason is that the opposition is forced to play by the scenario of the presidential apparatus."

"Since the 2003 presidential elections, the media has completely lost its face. Journalists have stopped believing in justice and now firmly believe that the destiny of Azerbaijan lies not in the hands of its people, but is controlled by the multinational oil corporations. Now just like before there are many cases of violations of journalists' rights violations. The system of 'forbid or permit'still exits, according to which an official can stop the printing of any publication he doesn't like or stop it from being sold on the stands," said Nailia Alieva, coordinator of the program Yeni Nesil.

In Armenia it's the calm before the storm

"Of course there are differences between press vs. government relations in the three countries, but there is one thing that unites them-the influence of elections on freedom of speech," said freelance journalist Samvel Martirosyan.

"Now it seems like everything is calm in Armenia. There are no scandalous shutdowns of media outlets, there are no elections, and the discussions of constitutional changes are following in the old traditional government vs. opposition format," wrote Region director Laura Baghdasaryan of the situation in Armenia.

In Armenia everything does indeed seem calm. But this is a product of processes that began in the run-up to the 2003 elections. The current state of the Armenian media has been defined by the pre-election situation and the following unrest. For instance, there are now no TV stations that are truly free from government influence. "Before the 2003 presidential elections, the government closed down two opposition TV channels, A1+ and Noyan Tapan, and in essence became a monopolist in the TV field. It wasn't a bad investment for the government, if you take into account that television is the main source of information for the Armenian public," said Samvel Martirosyan. He maintains that the media lacks the kind of authority among the Armenian public that would allow it to speak to the government as an equal, and be protected by public opinion. "For instance, when there is a demonstration in support of A1+ only 200-300 people gather, mostly journalists or human right activists. You won't get very far with support like that. Besides, without any real demand from society for media services, journalism becomes secondary as a profession. This is the reason the press in not financially lucrative, and as a result it is easily influenced by external parties who can provide the needed finances."

Political forces are taking shape once again in advance of parliamentary elections in 2007, and every one of these forces hopes to have its own propaganda resources. But these new publications are coming into being in an atmosphere of extremely low readership and overall unprofitability.

Write a comment

If you found a typo you can notify us by selecting the text area and pressing CTRL+Enter