At least, the noise connected with radio “Liberty” had a “happy end”. The “last bastion of free speech” in Armenia was not closed (even though it is clear that the decision is not final). Whether the reason was the sloppy work of the authorities or the position of the U.S. Secretary of State is not important.
However, there is no reason to be happy. If radio “Liberty” continues to be on air, it still doesn’t mean that there are independent electronic media companies in Armenia. Certainly, “Liberty” is not under the Armenian government’s control, but it still doesn’t mean that it is independent. Radio “Liberty” cannot be independent, as it is an American radio company and is financed by America. Certainly, it cannot be very impartial, for instance, when covering the Armenian-Iranian relationship. Accordingly, radio “Liberty” is not independent, but it is still closer to being an alternative (as ALM says it is). The difference is that almost all electronic media companies of Armenia say the same things, and only radio “Liberty” gives alternative information.
By the way, it was the same during Soviet times too. The State Radio and TV were campaigning on behalf of the “brilliant achievements of the labor groups”, and later, in the evening, the representatives of the same labor groups were closing the doors and windows of their kitchens and secretly listening to the “Voice of America”, meanwhile knowing well that the “Voice of America” was not independent either and was doing their own campaigning too.
The fact is that there are no independent electronic media companies in Armenia. Thus, from this point it doesn’t matter whether Liberty will stay on the air or not. Even more, if there were really independent electronic media companies in Armenia, there would be no need for Liberty, thus the issue of closing it would not be making so much noise. Also, the society would try to understand why the government is trying to prevent the operation of a foreign radio company in Armenia.
Now let’s discuss issues about electronic independent media companies. Experience shows that such companies may exist only in countries where independent business exists and there is civic demand for independent media companies. Business is not so independent in our country (i.e. businessmen are under the government’s control and may be punished at any time). This means that businessmen will be afraid to place advertisements with media companies that are criticizing the government. In other words, electronic media companies cannot survive, as their only source of income is advertisement. As for civic demand, the issues are more technical here. For instance, the mentioned bill provided that radio Liberty had to pay 60 thousand drams for each broadcast. Certainly, this radio has at least 60 thousand listeners, and if each of them paid one dram a day, the problem would be solved. Thirty drams a month is not a large sum, even for the poorest people. However, organizing that process is another issue.
Thus, the attempt to close radio Liberty has failed. However, the authorities will do their best in the future too, so that they leave only the media companies that praise them. At the same time, the logic of processes shows that the next target will be the independent newspapers. As in that case there may be no talk about “free connection line competitions” or “weak programs”, there is a possibility that the authorities may apply economic tools to reach their goal. For instance, they may increase the taxes, apply pressure on advertisers, etc. In a word, they will do everything in compliance with the law. As a result of that, the pro-governmental newspapers will suffer too, but in fact the authorities don’t need them generally. TV and radio companies are fully enough for campaigning too.
The outside world will not make much noise. Or, otherwise, it will make some noise, but it will be limited to that noise only, as happened in the case of A1+. Why do they need media companies that are not dependent on them?