“Sensational discovery: who have ordered the crime of October 27”, “Serial scandal with involvement of Serzh Sargsyan”, “Who is Nazeni Hovhanissyan’s mysterious fan”. Such titles are once a minute placed on the Internet by hundreds of sites functioning in Armenia. If you by chance click on the title thinking that there is really a shocking revelation behind it, you would rapidly be disappointed because, at best, it will contain well-known recitals, but, as usual, there is no word stated about the topic. Perhaps these publications are intended for those naives who swallow the bait and continue to open up text containing such titles.
Or, whatever is accepted to call a “journalism”, is experiencing a rapid degradation, or the border between journalism and “non-journalism”, particularly between the “status-writing” and “comment-writing” of the Facebook is simply deleted. Of course, before the era of the Internet, in the 90s’, under the wall ‘conversations’ were often served as a journalistic material, and any series of offenses were served as an “oration” (Do you remember, for example, “Phonic Armenia” newspaper?), but those rumors and invectives that were spreading in a Gutenberg way were impossible, for example, to share. Today, the ‘journalism’ helps any citizen to clear accounts with its “ill-wisher”, and any “offender” and even a maniac may become self-assertive.
As in this case, so as in many other defects, I believe, they are temporary. That does not mean, of course, that we must to sit with hands folded and wait for these defects disappear. No, we should fight against them. But I do not suppose the fight to be necessarily as a street screaming. Perhaps, in this case, the best way to fight is to work with heads bowed consistently defending the principles of qualified journalism. As soon the journalist imagines itself in the role of Julius Fučík, he/she must be moved to the politic field and become a politician. Today, for example, there are dozens of former journalists in the Parliament, who have chosen the path of politics, and their choice, naturally, is worthy of respect.
As for the Internet, it is, in my opinion, a very handy tool for the spheres of both journalism (real journalism), science and education. We are still not able to fully use this tool for searching information (and not for inventing). As for the “informational noise” that exists today in the internet, and which prevents receiving true information, I believe, it is temporary, it is to a large extent dictated by fashion. It’s all the same, sooner or later, the time for “professionalism” will come when the demand for just journalistic work will go up.
Read also
Aram ABRAHAMYAN
