Freedom House Concerns
A1 Plus Anniversary Protest Rally, Yerevan, Republic of Armenia © Onnik Krikorian / Oneworld Multimedia 2004
EurasiaNet has an interesting article on the recent report published by Freedom House which concludes that a “reconsolidated authoritarian model” is being implemented by Russia and former Soviet republics especially when it comes to the media. The report also says that there are concerns that bloggers might next be targeted. Thankfully, I can’t say that I feel as though Armenia is one of those countries where the situation is as repressive as other CIS states. However, there are some similarities in terms of overall trends.
The report — titled Muzzling the Media: The Return of Censorship in the CIS — makes the assertion that most former Soviet states, including those in Central Asia and the Caucasus, are the most hazardous on earth, outside of active war zones, for journalists to work in. Entrenched authority in these states are increasingly unwilling to tolerate the “watchdog” role that media strives to play in open societies, according to the report.
[…]
At least for the foreseeable future, any hope that a free press would develop in what was once the totalitarian former Soviet space has dissipated, the report suggests. It adds that methods of media control in the CIS have become more sophisticated since the 1991 Soviet collapse. “Gone is all encompassing ideological state media control,” the report says. “This contemporary form of censorship is achieved through a mix of state-enabled oligarchic control, broadcast monopolies of presidential ‘families,’ judicial persecution and subtle and overt forms of intimidation.”
[…]
Four major trends have emerged over the last three-plus years in the region, each of them designed to thwart democratization. The first is “intensified” state control over television, which is the primary way most residents in the CIS receive information. Authorities have also reworked legislative frameworks to “impede independent reporting.” In addition, CIS governments have taken action to prevent international broadcasters, including the British Broadcasting Corp. and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, from broadcasting via local radio stations in the regions. Finally, officials are now starting to scrutinize print media, which to date has offered perhaps the widest outlet for the dissemination opposition ideas in many countries.
Despite broad efforts by authorities in the region to squash scrutiny of their actions, independent journalism has survived due largely to the existence of the Internet, the Freedom House report says. “Bloggers and other new media practitioners continue to push the boundaries of 21st century journalism,” the report says. “But while the Internet remains free in Russia and a number of other post-Soviet countries, it is fast becoming a target of greater interest for new regulatory intervention.”
“While the Internet holds further promise and connectivity is growing at an impressive rate,” the report adds, “it remains a medium through which only a small fraction of news is obtained. As Internet use grows, it will become critically important to safeguard its integrity.”
Hopefully, if any attempts to regulate blogging from Armenia through restrictive legislation or measures are made, we’ll all be on the ball. Certainly, the web is the main medium for alternative information and it remains to be seen what will happen when internet penetration in Armenia becomes significant enough to make it a threat to the established and controlled forms of news and information.
Freedom House’s report is here, while the EurasiaNet article is here.
While this report brings a rather grim picture, I don’t think that the situation in Armenia is really that bad. And although the situation here seems to be deteriorating year over year with hidden censorship taking over, Armenia is still ranked “party free” (see the index: http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=366&year=2007).
Comment by Observer — June 26, 2007 @ 6:24 pm
Right, I’d pretty much agree, especially in comparison to other CIS republics and Russia — perhaps with the exception of Georgia.
Nevertheless, I wonder when some regulation might appear on internet resources. I mean, it IS the main medium for alternative voices now.
Only thing is that not many people use the internet in Armenia and even less for news or political information. I think if that were to change it’s best not to be complacent.
As a rule, any government tries to control. The only thing that limits the extent of that control is civil society in particular countries.
It’s also worth pointing out that there’s no need to even think of controlling online outlets if they don’t pose a threat and it has to be said that this is the situation in Armenia.
That is, the authorities are established and in control and there is no viable opposition movement or even civil society to speak of. I wonder what would happen if that situation were to change.
Still, your main point is true. We have it quite lucky in Armenia compared to other countries.
Comment by Onnik — June 26, 2007 @ 8:52 pm
Comment by Onnik — June 26, 2007 @ 10:27 pm
Onnik - there’s some contradiction - the link I posted above shows from the Freedom House website, that Armenia is among the Partly Free countries, or is there something I have misunderstood?
Comment by Observer — June 27, 2007 @ 2:06 pm
Probably.
Being in one category doesn’t mean you’re going to stay in it, lift yourself out of it, or not slip further which is something that Armenia has done most notably in 2002 when A1 Plus went off the air. As it is, Armenia is close to the bottom of the list of partly free countries and is probably closer to some countries in the Not Free category as opposed to those in the Free. Georgia, on the other hand, is way above Armenia in the Partly Free countries, but I wouldn’t call on anyone to be complacent there either.
Anyway, if you want to understand the Freedom House rankings, read the full report I suppose. Makes more sense than looking at the country chart and wondering what all the numbers mean when the report itself outlines concerns, identifies trends and makes conclusions. On the other hand, things were better this time round for the election, but that will be picked up in next year’s report if this was a genuine development that will stay with us and which can be built upon.
Comment by Onnik — June 27, 2007 @ 2:20 pm
Just noticed your post on legislative initiatives to push RFE/RL (legally) off the air. If true, it would seem like the trend really is the same here.
Comment by Onnik — June 27, 2007 @ 2:34 pm
Re the RFE/RL - Mesrop Harutyunyan from the Yerevan Press Club has been busy talking to the media and parliamentarians about the issue, but with the kind of majority Republicans enjoy in Parliament, it remains to be seen what will be the result of these efforts.
Comment by Observer — June 27, 2007 @ 4:55 pm
Attack on RFE/RL’s Armenia Service
Hot on the trial of a previous post which outlined Freedom House’s concerns about tendencies to limit media freedom in Russia and the CIS comes news that Armenia is following a path already being followed in other republics where media freedom a…
Trackback by Oneworld Multimedia — June 27, 2007 @ 10:12 pm
Please pay attention.
Freedom House is an Open Society Institute project, founded by George Soros. You know, the guy who’s been installing new regimes, associated with pretty colors, in Easternish Europe? I don’t think Soros is a particularly evil guy, but I don’t think the welfare of Armenia is up at the top of his agenda, either, exactly.
I love the Armenian blogosphere, but I hate how politically ignorant and inattentive it can be. You live in Armenia; if you want to do something good for the people of Armenia, you ought to do a little reading, a little thinking, and a little digging, so you don’t end up endorsing organizations and views that do not have the best interests of the Armenian people in mind.
Comment by Armen Filadelfiatsi — June 29, 2007 @ 4:57 am
I said Freedom House when I meant EurasiaNet. But Freedom House, itself, has a pro-US leaning. That’s not exactly evil, it just means that it isn’t “Freedom,” objectively speaking, that they are devoted to, and the interests of the Armenian people is not their goal.
Comment by Armen Filadelfiatsi — June 29, 2007 @ 5:07 am
As someone who writes for EurasiaNet I can say that if you’re implying there is some sinister motive behind the editorial content on the site I can say you’re wrong unless you can provide me with one concrete example of misinformation or incorrect facts in their articles on Armenia.
The editor has NEVER given me cause for concern re any policy regarding content.
Anyway, I’ll just say that the election coverage was the most comprehensive and unbiased of any media outlet. Yes, I worked a lot on the photo side of that (most of the uncredited photos on the election site are mine), but you can take a look and decide for yourself.
http://www.eurasianet.org/armenia/
Comment by Onnik — June 29, 2007 @ 10:12 am
OK, so right now the title of the Eurasia/armenia story is “Election Day…International observers say that Armenia has never held a free and fair election.”
What a surprise! It’s not like the same PR-firm-designed advertising campaign was used in the Ukraine, in Georgia, in Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia!?! You better hurry up and topple the government or else we’re going to get stuck with a color like mauve.
As a matter of fact, Armenia’s first election was a free election. Be the corruption in the other elections as they may, what the Eurasia article OMITS, the stinking esh (donkey) in the room is this: A free and fair election can’t happen in Armenia unless powerful foreign interests, namely Russia and the US, somehow disappear from the scene. What do you think those boys at that billion dollar embassy-on-the-Sevan do all day, play hopscotch? (And, btw, one of the things they are very likely doing right now is figuring out which one of the Shalako-dancing natives will help them bomb Iran back to the stone-age.)
Do you see the irony in a Soros-funded organ’s reporting of electoral fraud, or don’t you? What is more fraudulent than a foreign interest hiring a PR firm to design a political campaign, complete with branded revolutions, pamphlets, t-shirts, planted articles and so on, to go influence a government half-way across the world?
Mind you, I’m not saying that they are gearing up for an all out rerun of the Ukraine campaign. No, what this is, is a reminder to all those in power or seeking power that, “Look, see how easy it is for papers to suddenly start running certain stories about certain governments and how corrupt they may or may not be? They can be a lot more specific, too, you know.”
As for you not experiencing any editorial pressure in your work, there being a lot of Armenians working for RFE, and the way these outfits operate in general, please refer to the “Attack on RFE/RL’s Armenian Service” thread.
Comment by Armen Filadelfiatsi — June 29, 2007 @ 7:02 pm
For any buddy concerned with the state of freedom, or simply with the state of the concern that Freedom House was failing to keep in sight the need to promote.
_____________________
Jack
Wide Circles
Comment by jack furnandess — July 29, 2008 @ 10:01 am