“KGB,” national security, intelligence services or whatever they are called are not particularly pleasant facilities and are not warmly welcomed in any country. The people working in such facilities spy on people, wiretap, interrogate, capture, blackmail and so on. In the Soviet Union, in Russia and, accordingly, in Armenia, such facilities had and have a unique complementary role, which does not also contribute to a positive attitude towards them. This does not mean, however, that a preconceived negative attitude should be displayed towards every person working in this facility. The matter, as you understood, is about the newly appointed RA President’s spokesman, Vladimir Hakobyan.
…When in 1993, the first President of Armenia, Levon Ter-Petrosyan, appointed me for the office of spokesman (to the point, I was then 33 years old like V. Hakobyan), many people were puzzled about why a person with music education is appointed to this key political position. At the Technology Center (PANM office was there), many people were displeased about why the president has trusted a nonpartisan. Indeed, I had no services before the Movement, I was just a passive participant in the rallies, and maybe it was really unjust that no one from the “Movement boys” or “girls” were appointed for this position.
I would like to say that in the case of the appointment of any personnel, there might be different types of appraisals. It is natural, especially when there is a political or personal interest. But if there is no such a thing, it is prudent to wait until the said official will manifest himself in one way or another. In any case of any spokesman, a “good manifestation”, in my understanding, is to establish normal relations with the media, not being dogmatic and “all buttoned up”, not looking at the journalists “from above” and giving comprehensive answers to their questions, even if their media are very opposition.
In 1993, when the government morals were not bureaucratized to today’s degree, the things were such easier. For example, I myself was picking up the phone and was giving a detailed answer to any question related to the public policy (first of all, of course, to the Karabakh war). In addition, at least once a week I was inviting the reporters at the presidential residence, and during the briefing, again, there was no restriction on the questions and the media.
Read also
I understand that none of this is possible now, also for objective reasons. The media today are dozens of times more than 22 years ago. But the principle, in my opinion, should be the same: open, friendly and a representative of the state rather than of this or that political force. Not to be offended of the criticisms addressed to you and your “boss”, even of very harsh criticisms. And we, the journalists, should, I think, be more friendly to all people and have no preconceived attitude against anyone. Regardless of who is working where.
Aram ABRAHAMYAN
