Since 1998, when the second and third presidents are organizing press conferences (or if you want, “collective interviews” or “meetings with the presidents”), I am reading in the media, and now on the Facebook this kind of comments: “Those who have gone to this press conferences are bad journalists and corrupt, while we, the journalists, who were not invited there, are good and independent. If we were there, we would have given acuter and more courageous questions. Whereas the corrupt and incompetent journalists, naturally, are asking bad and pleasing-to-the-ear-of-the-president questions.” I have not always attended these events, but when I was not invited, anyway, I have not made such judgments because I do not have the habit to be self-affirmed by humiliating my colleagues.
The criticism was appropriate in one question. A wrong practice has been formed at the president’s administration: to invite journalists without cameras, and thus the TV companies have no opportunity to broadcast the press conference live and have to wait until the video recording is sent from the president’s administration. It was, for example, meaningless in the case of this last conference because a video was sent, which, in fact, was not cut, the cut was purely technical. But such practice, I repeat, is wrong and causes some suspicion. The last conference, in fact, began at 20:15 pm and ended at 22:20. At that time of the day, it is technically very difficult to prepare any report, even in the availability of the video.
Naturally, if a shocking news had sounded at this press conference, of which no one knew, everybody would hurry to contact their TV companies at least on the phone and formulate the main news in one sentence. But nothing alike happened, and in the morning, the video was available. And running ahead of other colleagues and dictating anything to any website in a haste, I think it ethically wrong.
The rest as to who is a good professional, who is bad, who is independent and who is dependent, each one has his own opinion on all these questions. I would like to simply present my second question during this last press conference and the beginning of the president’s answer, which directly related to my question (you can read the answer in full here).
Read also
Aram Abrahamyan – In Your speech at the meeting with the special committee on 10 April 2014, You have already stated saying that You prefer the presidential system, You also said that You’re not going to become a prime minister. In other words, why You were saying it then, and now, it seems, You give up. Do You now give up Your words that You’re not going to become a prime minister, president and a Speaker of the National Assembly?
Serzh Sargsyan – No. I do not, if never, give up my words, however, basically, be it in everyday life or in the politics, I do not give up anything. Simply, I do not want to mess up the good job, the principal job with another job. This is the goal I pursue.
Aram ABRAHAMYAN
