At the start of the 1990’s, when one more time practically the entire staff of
“Lraber (News)” was fired, the program’s already former chief editor said, “Do
what you want to do, but it is the same, nothing will change within these four
walls.” These prophetic words have not lost their importance. The first channel
however it is called, governmental, national, republican – they are all the
same. This channel has a mission to serve the current administration. A prior
oppositionist journalist who transfers and works for this TV channel station,
even as a head of this station he becomes a part of this same mission. In
addition, the more passionate this opposition member may be, he turns into an
even more persistent supporter of the authorities.

The content of this information analysis program which defines the image of this
television channel remains the same, that is to serve the authorities.
Additionally, with time the program is turning more cynical and more sarcastic.
In our country, this is somehow capable to understand—yet what are the
“non-governmental” television channels like? All of them, naturally these
stations have a private owner and for that reason they are not independent.
However, when they are saying that the media is independent and free, one must
consider that anyone is capable of founding his own media channel and overall,
any desiring point of view is reachable to the society. Thus, what is the
difference between Armenia and democratic countries? In Armenia pluralism is
absent on the air. The existence of pluralism would not only allow for the
development of television channel as a business, but also encourage the general
development of society.

The modern person (television viewer) this or that way accepts societal, social
or political decisions, receiving reinforcement through the media whether it is
evident or not.

During work, Armenian media (in professional or unprofessional ways) are using
the following methods: through these news streams they are inserting simplified
moulds to create negative treatment towards this or that event. However this
does not mean that similar work methods are forming society’s opinion. In
reality, Armenian media are not only unable to form society’s opinion; they also
are not able to enforce the viewer to make a certain choice. During the
Constitutional referendum, it became evident that the boycott did not occur only
because of the opposition calling upon society to do so. The television channels
which were under strict governmental security are lacking societal trust. This
can be explained by the following:

• The society is lacking real pluralism and cannot receive information from
  various viewpoints
• They present information about 50,000 vacant positions and daily reports from
  the factories do not represent the reality
• There is hardly any information coming from the marzes
• The style and type of the news, when they are exaggerating

For the viewer, the first two points are causing distrust and it is
self-explainable. Now, I will discuss the next two points as they have a need
for explanation.

Political, cultural and social life is primarily found in the capital. That is
understandable yet why are there such few programs from the marzes? To broadcast
programs from the marzes they claim they have more expenses, but this lack of
finances are not the actual reason but an excuse. The widespread poverty in the
marzes is difficult to hide from the viewer during the news reports. The chief
editors of these news programs are being guided by their instincts that there is
a danger from the information presented from the marzes. Only peoples’
appearances and faces are actually providing enough information.

The process of choosing what to broadcast and the style of broadcasting requires
very difficult professional analysis, speaking of which means “teach some
brains” to colleagues. I don’t have similar issues in this article, but I am
able to give some advice to those working within the media sphere—participate in
courses to increase professionalism, for example in BBC. And if there are no
similar opportunities, then use professional literature. After watching aired
broadcasts, it is not difficult to conclude that most of the journalists do not
know how to differentiate television reports from a feature story, plot or
“sketch”. Meanwhile, editors are often not differentiating the very detailed
differences between a commentary and a news event. It would have been good, if
the editors worked to not only report current news or at least remain objective
on the outside. As a result, the rating of the journalists’ work would not be as
bad. The media main goal should be to increase the television viewer’s trust.