Epress.am News from Armenia
Yerevan Press Club President Boris Navasardian issued a statement today in which he responds to accusations made earlier this month by Mediamax news agency director Ara Tadevosyan. The statement reads, in part:
“This text was to appear over a week ago. I shall be straightforward in saying that it was very disagreeable to write. Probably this is why I kept procrastinating, upon the excuse of being extremely busy. I was also verifying whether the wish to respond was not on a spur of moment. It was not. I believe that the issue is still urgent, no matter how many weeks have elapsed.
“On May 10, 2011, the director of Mediamax news agency Ara Tadevosyan published a piece (a column?), titled “‘Monarchy’ on Information Disputes,” in which he states his indignation over the agency’s chief editor David Alaverdyan allegedly being offered to become a member of the Council on Information Disputes, established on May 1, 2011, yet his name was not in the published list of the Council members. As Ara Tadevosyan writes, the reason for the refusal was Yerevan Press Club President Boris Navasardian’s objection which had a “political explanation”. The author of the piece states his discontent also with the stance taken by the initiator of the Council, Armenia’s Human Rights Defender (the ombudsman), regarding the issue and the circumstances of the body’s establishment.
“For the beginning, none of the allegations made by the Mediamax director are valid. The agency’s website published the official refutation of the Council on Information Disputes (CID) concerning the allegations made, but it, of course, is purely official in tone. Yet, since the piece directly affects my personal reputation, I shall allow myself making a separate response and comment.
“First, David Alaverdyan could not have been officially offered a membership in the CID, since the issue of Council’s expansion, as noted in the appropriate Memorandum released on May 1, is decided upon the mutual consent of the founding members. Meanwhile, most of the founders did not discuss the candidacy of Mediamax’ chief editor and were even unaware of its existence. The discussion of CID Secretary Shushan Doydoyan with David Alaverdyan could only occur on the level of intentions, and there could be — and actually were — numerous such conversations of the CID members with other people as well. Invitation to take part in the [press] forum in Tsaghkadzor where the initiative was announced could not be interpreted as a confirmation of membership in the Council either since dozens of journalists were invited to take part in the event.
“Secondly, in the private conversation that I, Boris Navasardian, had with Shushan Doydoyan and which actually occurred after the intentions were discussed with David Alaverdyan, no “political explanation” was present. It referred to the procedure according to which the Council was to be expanded and the considerations of effectiveness that would be taken into account when discussing candidates. Hence, no decisions whether positive or negative regarding any of the candidates were and could be made in this conversation.
“Thirdly, why did Ara Tadevosyan decide that the remaining CID members could “obey to an ordinary member of yet un-established Council”? What grounds does he have to believe that reputable professionals (besides the Director of the Freedom of Information Center Shushan Doydoyan mentioned above, they are the Director of Internews Europe Manana Aslamazian, chief editor of Aravot daily Aram Abrahamyan, lawyer Ara Ghazaryan), commonly known as independent people with a sense of dignity, do not have an opinion of their own and cannot defend it? Apparently, the Mediamax director might have formed such an idea of relations in a collegiate body during the 10 years of membership in the notorious National Commission on Television and Radio.
“The basis for the far-reaching “revelations” by Ara Tadevosyan was exclusively one private phone conversation. Let us bypass the quite logical ethical question why would such a conversation become a subject for public debate at all. Moreover, let us assume that the information received could have led to making wrong inferences about the situation. But this is why the principles of quality journalism exist, to verify the first impression with alternative sources, much weightier, than a private conversation: with a substantial discussion of the Council idea at the [press] forum in Tsaghkadzor, with the text of the Memorandum. Finally it was possible, and in terms of journalistic ethics, even necessary to speak to Boris Navasardian, who was ascribed some inexistent “political explanation” in the pasquil, or at least with some other Council member.
“Under certain circumstances the journalist, to ensure the urgency, does have a right to disseminate unverified information, if it concerns an issue of public importance. Yet in our case speaking about urgency is ridiculous — the formation of the Council was announced in detail on May 1, on the same day the Memorandum was disseminated. And the publication by Mediamax appeared on May 10. During those days one could make several contacts with each of the CID founders, very well known to both the director and the chief editor of the news agency…
“Besides, if one does speak about professional “rules” that Mediamax claims to have never violated, each dignified medium must publish the responses or refutations to their publications with no comment or other intervention in the content. Yet the agency for some reason furnished the refutation of the Council on Information Disputes with photographs of Shushan Doydoyan and Boris Navasardian. What was the message conveyed by this “creative” trick, why other members of the Council were not equally “honored,” remains open for conjectures. Such ambiguity makes the publication of photographs even more unacceptable in terms of journalistic ethics.
“Yet, it is enough to speak about ethical principles, there is not even a trace of them in the publication in question. Let us speak about the “righteous indignation” of the Mediamax director, who stood to defend his colleague and “enraged” at “the situation when the closed and non-transparent system functions in the majority of our media environment and “civil society”, when several people assume the right to play the role of a supreme judge making single-handed and often groundless decisions”. It is interesting to know when did the opinion of “several people” of media-environment, who keep the ability to speak up what they know and think, or what “decisions” of the civil society interfered with Ara Tadevosyan’s chosen path? The path of being an NCTR member, as noted above, or, with his “Mediabrand” PR and communications agency to take part in the “monitoring” of media coverage of presidential elections of 2008 that deemed the Armenian media to be almost a model of impartiality? I actually was curious enough to look up the website of the European Foundation for Democracy that patroned the project and that was never interested in Armenia either before or afterwards. There was no reference to the monitoring, and this is quite understandable — the organization wanted to cross out the disgraceful page in EFD’s biography.
“One can treat the newly established Council on Information Disputes differently, one can believe or disbelieve its possible productivity. I think even its initiator and founders are not fully convinced of the good prospects of the initiative. But refusing this initiative now, when due to the latest litigations the situation in Armenian media came to the point of no return, would have been a display of indifference. But was the motivation of the Mediamax director who decided to discredit the initiative so easily, neglecting the basic obligations of a somewhat experienced and responsible journalist? This question is worth pondering about. I did, and I think I know the right answer. Do you?”