Fear of Retribution Resulted in Self-Censorship of Armenia Media, Says U.S. State Department Report

In 2015, print and broadcast media in Armenia for the most part lacked diversity of political opinion and objective reporting. Private persons or groups owned most newspapers, and the newspapers, whose circulation was limited, tended to reflect the political leanings of their proprietors and financial backers, who in turn were often close to the government. On politically sensitive topics, the media overwhelmingly provided only government-supported views and analysis, as stated in the Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2015, released by the U.S. Department of State Wednesday, April 13. 

“Broadcast media, particularly national television, remained the primary source of news and information for the majority of the population. Politicians in the ruling party and politically connected executives owned most stations, and the stations presented one-sided views of events. Regional television channels provided some alternative viewpoints, often through externally produced content.

“The government did not generally control the content of online media. Online media outlets and social networks were an important alternative source of information. Unlike broadcast media they provided diverse political opinions. The livestreaming of important political events gained in importance among the online media outlets during the year. Nevertheless, online media also showed signs of the influence of politically connected owners and advertisers. There were credible reports of continuing consolidation of both online and broadcast media outlets by a few government-affiliated individuals. Traditional and online media ownership remained nontransparent,” the authors said. 

During the year there were occasional attacks on journalists; however, according to the report, the Armenian government did not conduct credible investigations into such attacks: “On several occasions police used violence against reporters who were covering citizens’ protests. The most notable of these occurred on June 23, when the police beat and detained journalists, damaged their equipment, and erased memory cards, while dispersing a peaceful sit-in protest in downtown Yerevan against a proposed increase in electricity rates. Reports from 24 journalists and camera operators indicated police physically attacked them or otherwise hampered their activities. All asserted the targeting was deliberate and that police ignored their press credential badges and the logos on their cameras. In a statement released on June 23, police alleged the journalists had neglected to follow “police officers’ demands to keep a reasonable distance from the assembly venue so as not to hinder police officers in the lawful performance of their duty.” Speaking to the press later that day, however, the chief of police made a public apology. The same day authorities reportedly demoted one officer and reprimanded 11 others for excessive use of force. They returned or replaced some media outlets’ damaged equipment. Observers considered the criminal investigation initiated by the SIS in early July to be perfunctory.”

Summing up the part concerning the Armenian media, the authors of the report note that media outlets, particularly broadcasters, feared reprisals for reports critical of the government: “Such reprisals could include lawsuits, the threat of losing a broadcast license, selective tax investigation, or loss of revenue when advertisers learned an outlet was in disfavor with the government. Fear of retribution resulted in media self-censorship.”