Ter-Petrosian’s interview for the Public Television continues to remain the hottest topic on the Internet. I would like to emphasize two positive aspects. First, that the Public Television has invited the first president for the interview, and thus, I hope, will grow away from the Kocharyan “Haylur” aggressive and intolerant manner.
When other reporters on the Facebook begin to criticize not the interviewee’s thoughts but the interviewing reporter (“Why did you not ask this question?”), I think it is a manifestation of the “Armenian ill-wishing” in the framework of professional jealousy. Apropos, in the entire civilized world, the former presidents are addressed as “Mr. President.”
The second positive aspect is that the first president looks healthy and vigorous and with the same consistency continues to put forward his ideas. I’m not going to discuss those ideas actually for I’m sure that it is up to the experts and people immersed in these matters. Instead, I would like to talk about another purely Facebook phenomenon: the majority of the users is “2-3 layers” away from the original source of the topic discussion.
What I mean. Suppose, someone has listened to Ter-Petrosian’s interview and posts his conclusion on the social network, “Levon wants to handover our lands to Azerbaijan” (“Thank you, your comment is posted on our website”). Taking this “news” as a basis, 10 people without seeing the interview are leaving their comment, “handing over a land is treason”, “what is obtained by blood is not returned to the enemy” and so on, thus, the “second layer” is formed.
Read also
After this, 100 people without reading the post of the author making the first comment and reading only the comments of the mentioned 10 people, post their conclusion, “Well, I always knew that he is a Zionist,” “all these are the games of the government” and so on, this is already the “third layer.” And so on and so forth. The number of “layers” and the “participants” thereof can be unlimited, the figures are conventional, my goal is to show the mechanism. Certainly, there can also be a series of “praising” layers on the Facebook, “Levon is a god, he is never wrong,” “those who says something to him are ignorant,” “the Dashnaks have destroyed the first Republic.” But let’s agree that the negative on the Facebook is read with more “fun”.
Unfortunately, this refers not only to the politics. Suppose, 100 people have read Faulkner’s “The Sound and the Fury” novel, 500 people have read its brief Internet summary (which naturally has nothing to do with the original work), those who make comments based on the judgments of those who have read the summary can amount to several thousand. I am not making any comparison. I just appreciate those who have read the original.
