“Maybe it was not right, but it was a spontaneous decision by all participants present at the moment»,-so answered Sona Ayvazyan, Deputy Director of “Transparency International” anti-corruption Center, to the question of Aravot.am whether the activists were right when they allowed the representatives of “H1”, “Armnews” and “Shant” TV companies to shoot the Public meeting at Mashtots Park, which was also attended by some representatives of Public Council.
To note that the main claim of civic movement representatives was the activities of the said TV companies are guided, which violates the right to free speech.
In an interview with Aravot.am, those responsible for TV companies expressed opinion that the claims by the activists are ungrounded.
S. Ayvazyan, referring to the incident, said,- “The representatives of the Public Council, inclusive, are also responsible, who, if they were thinking that this is not true, could raise the issue. If it were a strategy adopted by the demonstrators, according to which they are working only with these media and not with the others, maybe it would not be viewed correctly in terms of ensuring transparency of activities and freedom of expression, however, as it was a spontaneous decision that the demonstrators were expressing their attitude towards the biased attitude of said TV companies, it was quite relevant.”
Read also
In response to our observation that the main counter of TV companies is that the activists hindered the freedom of speech, S. Aivazyan responded as follows,- “The TV companies had the opportunity to cover the entire process. On that day, they had come only for the fact that the Public Council was there and it was going to be a regular show. Maybe it was somewhat emotional solution, but it was reflecting the image that is there. These TV companies did not give information about the activities of the activists, and did not cover the problem, and, in this case, the performance of the regular show was prevented. I do not want to say that this is the right strategy in general, but it is the right solution for a given time, and they expressed their attitude towards the media, particularly the “H1″, which survives with public resources, but does not cover public issues. In this respect, it is somehow relevant, and the TV companies should draw conclusions by themselves. I do not think the demonstrators would adopt it as a principle, and would act so from now on, but they will have the opportunity both to show their attitude towards this kind of biased coverage, and not to interfere. But it was their right, and the attitude was completely justified.”
Tatev HARUTYUNYAN
