When negative information about the officials or oligarchs are published in the media, usually the “heroes” of the news do not claim that it is a lie, and they are also not so interested in denial. The only question that arises in them in this event is the following: what is the source of information?
Working as an editor for about 20 years, I’ve more often heard this very request. “I do not need any denial, just tell me like a bro how has ordered this case against me.” This question has its own logic. The customs accepted among officials and the rich are such that on the one hand, they embrace each other around the table of feasts, on the other hand, they are digging under each other and gossiping about each other outside of these tables. And these people probably have a problem of knowing where the risk comes from and which of their “toast friends” devises plots.
This is why they usually need to disclose the source of information. But, it is not our, the journalists’ problem. We only convey information. Of course, it is desirable to check it. If Poghos, wishing to remain anonymous, conveys information about his “toast friend” Petros, then we can assume that he is an interested person, and it would be better to find some Kirakos, who would confirm the news. But, in case of failing to receive confirmation, it’s worth publishing by receiving clarification from Petros.
The representatives of this “elite” should understand that they are public figures, and the interest towards them is natural, it can be said that it is the price that they pay for their lavish life. These people want to freely enjoy this life, so that no one will bother them. The prosecutors and the judges are in their pocket, they are a team, a so-called office. There are all the tools to ensure a quiet life. It remains to think about the methods. It is, of course, possible to sue for defamation and demand 6 million drams. But, during each trial, the name of “defamed” and “offended” oligarch or the official “is mentioned” by all media news. The new version, which is adopted now requiring from the media disclosure of the source of information by court, is “safer”, allegedly, a case has been filed against the “offended”, and allegedly, under this case, it is necessary to find out and identify who had the courage to report on this irreproachable person.
Read also
This option is considerably more dangerous to the society because it is directed to the point that the media do not report any serious information about them at all. Because if a journalist or an editor steps off and publishes the source of his information, he would do harm not only to his media, but also all the other journalists and editors. In this case, no one will trust giving out information to us.
ARAM ABRAHAMYAN
