Edik Baghdasaryan: Mass Media in Armenia: Their role and impact on social-political events.
This presentation concerns mass media (print and electronic) in independent Armenia--their role, their problems, and their impact on current events. Special emphasis is given to corruption and social injustice, and the role media have played/can play in struggling against these. The presentation also examines why independent media outlets have not flourished in Armenia, as well as the Diaspora's role in developing an independent media there.

Khatchig Mouradian: Free but Not Independent: The Challenges Facing Post-Soviet Armenian Media and the Emergence of Online Alternatives
Khatchig Mouradian will present an overview of the trials and tribulations of the media in Armenia from Gorbachev’s perestroika through independence to the present day. He will look at the “carryover effects” from the Soviet era, when propaganda, indoctrination and highly organized communication control were the order of the day. He will examine the gradual shift from a relatively free and independent media—what is referred to as the “golden age,” from 1990-1992—to a media that has abandoned its social and moral responsibility, a media that thrives on careless reporting, is dependent on oligarchs, and does not leave room to investigative reporting. Mouradian will then discuss the emergence of alternative sources of information, like online publications and blogs.

Gayane Torosyan: Media, “Objectivity,” and Creating a “Public Sphere”
The average price of a 30-second SuperBowl commercial in America is two million dollars. A successful Armenian businessman can buy the entire media of that country, several times, for much less. The media are lacking credibility because they unable to support themselves without the protection and help from various influential political and business groups. By providing assistance to the transitional media systems of the former Soviet Union, Western agencies are allowing former Soviet journalists to operate under the assumption that the “imported” practices of “objective” reporting are sufficient guarantees of pluralistic societal discourse. Former Soviet journalists often assume that obeying ritualistic rules of Western-style news production is sufficient for securing open societal discourse. Research shows otherwise: the Western journalistic conventions are somewhat of a disguise under which former Soviet journalism maintains and reinforces the societal status quo.
One of the dangers facing Armenian media because of the Western influence is the absence of true pluralism, which is compensated and thus disguised by external attributes of Western-style techniques. The lack of critical discourse in the area of mass communication in the former Soviet Union may be stifling questions regarding the feasibility of journalism as a place of societal dialogue. The main implication, therefore, is that journalists in post-communist countries should avoid blind acceptance of assistance and expertise without examining the ideological strings attached to foreign aid.

[back to panels]