The main problem facing humanity today is communication. This may seem strange at a time when we now have the opportunity to reach our word to billions of people anywhere in the world and on the Internet in one second. But the whole problem is that in this way we do not unite, but, on the contrary, we are divided, we enter our information shells. It is especially difficult to establish communication between the government and society, and all the Armenian authorities had and still have a problem here.
The Prime Minister’s persistent desire to hold a Facebook press conference, not a classic one, despite the suggestions of several dozen media outlets, is a small but significant manifestation of that. How do I imagine the solution to this problem? First of all, I think the head of state should have a press secretary. It is necessary to confirm that communication.
Pashinyan, of course, does not have the opportunity to communicate directly with journalists and editors. That is why there is a “contact person” who, in particular, in these cases gathers the heads of the media, those whom he considers leading and influential, and asks the question: “We are going to hold a press conference, what suggestions do you have for its format?” I understand that there is a problem. There are many media outlets (or websites that consider themselves media outlets). But it is possible to develop formal criteria as to who should be called and who should not. And if it becomes clear that, say, Aravot does not reach those standards or that benchmark, it will be clear and acceptable to me, at least. In case of the “classic” press conference, not allowing the media outlet to participate for political reasons, as Kocharyan’s team did last time, is definitely unacceptable.
The practice of sending and selecting questions in advance reminds me of the post-revolutionary period. In the case of a Facebook press conference, when it is not clear by whom the questions are chosen, by the Prime Minister himself, by a girl sitting in the same room, or by another official, when it is not clear by what criteria the questions are selected. In this case, I do not consider sending questions to be meaningful. Especially when the questions you sent last time were not answered.
Read also
Why do I think there is a communication problem here? Because one might get the impression that if several dozen “fake” or “non-fake” users write “Who are you, sellouts, not to ask our Prime Minister questions?” and a few MPs write that all media outlets that do not send questions support “revanchist former” interests, thus communication took place, the opponents were given a “strong counterattack,” “the people are on our side,” and so on. But you need to be able to communicate with the whole society, even those who do not agree with you on some issues. Of course, it is easier to defend oneself with propaganda clichés.
Aram Abrahamyan
