About a month ago, a horrifying story came to light: a stepmother had been systematically abusing a child of about one and a half years old and had even attempted to kill the child (I am using the official wording). Now I suggest we approach this case from the perspective of a journalist or a media outlet. What should be done in the name of “impartiality”? Should we try to understand why this woman acted the way she did—perhaps she had a difficult childhood or other tragic circumstances in her life? And could it be that in the course of this “understanding,” the horrifying reality becomes softened, blurred, covered in a haze? Is there an issue here of “choosing one side or the other”?
Now imagine that this woman is not only not imprisoned, but also appears among people every day with a self-satisfied look, threatening and ranting left and right, displaying brazen and shameless behavior. Should we again delve into the psychological reasons behind such conduct, examine its roots, and present the backstory? It is not impossible that all this would be interesting for the reader. But I cannot shake the impression that all these “investigations” overshadow, push into the background, the terrible reality itself.
Armenians have lived in Artsakh for at least 5,000 years—this was stated repeatedly by Pashinyan himself before 2020. Now not a single Armenian lives there. We are being offered to “investigate” the causes of this catastrophe. And after “investigating,” to conclude that it was not a catastrophe, but a great success, a brilliant victory for Armenia’s sovereignty. And, consequently, the person who bears the number one responsibility for the entire process is not the cause of the disaster, but a hero who saved Armenia’s sovereignty. Such, almost inevitable, “conclusions” arise from an “impartial” attitude toward evil.
If there are no indisputable, axiomatic truths, if everything is relative, then the meaning of any activity, by and large, is lost—including journalism.
Read also
Aram ABRAHAMYAN
