Recently I took part in a meeting where media representatives expressed their views on what the provisions of the new Electoral Code concerning us should be. One of the concerns raised was that “fake” websites and “fake” journalists appear during the elections, which operate just for that very short period of time. “Fake” websites deal with the propaganda of their sponsoring political force, while “fake” journalists go to the electoral districts not for covering, but for engaging in “activism”.
My colleagues’ concern is, of course, actual. But let me say something that will probably contradict the viewpoint of the majority: it is senseless to offer regulations for such issues at this point. I have two arguments. First: why do we need to regulate the pipe running through the river when the huge river flows without any regulation? I mean Facebook and YouTube. The views of this or that post or video may be several times more than the number of viewers of publications of any website and any TV program. Talking about professionalism, professional or human ethics is simply senseless. Any candidate, voter, observer, a proxy can make a post or a comment containing information, or publish a video, thus the “fake-unfake”, “media-non-media” separation becomes blurred. I do not say that the “river of social networks” is only a negative phenomenon: like any river, it can bring both dirty and pure water. I do not even claim that it is impossible to put some “filters” on that river. Just spending time and effort on that within a few months and in the context of upcoming extraordinary elections is meaningless.
My second argument is more general. One can be a professional journalist, work in media for years, but deal with party propaganda, “activism” and spread false information. There are media agencies, journalists, or just people who are concerned about their reputation, and there are such that do not care. Means of gaining reputation, as well as the targeted social strata where one seeks reputation, are different as well. During these two decades, people often stop me on the street and say: “Abrahamyan, you express great ideas, but you should carp more”. I smile at them, shake hands with them, and leave. There are too many “carpers”, especially nowadays.
Aram ABRAHAMYAN
