The National Assembly has already started discussing the bill on the amendments to the law on Mass Media, the author of which is Victor Dallakyan. The project also includes 13 out of 16 recommendations of the minister of Justice Gevorg Danielyan.
Back to 3-4 months ago Dallakyan as well as certain media organizations (mostly the ones controlled by the government) have once again tried to initiate the revision of this law but after a poignant criticism they decided to recall their recommendations. In this new bill the key recommendation is that rights and duties for journalists are defined. The current version of the law doesn’t have a provision like that. At the first sight, the section of rights is really catchy, which seemingly shows that the journalists have unlimited rights. But later it turns out that the restrictions are hidden in the section of duties. “Respect the rights of others, legal interests, honor and dignity and not to publicize degrading and marring information,” reads the 1st point of the section of duties. It seems that this is a quite normal and even necessary requirement and no journalist should violate it. However, this provision may have unlimited number of misinterpretations. For example, information, which may be publicized about an MP, who hides taxes and receives super incomes, may be considered information, which mars the reputation and dignity of the given MP and will thus be considered illegal. Legally it will be very hard to prove that the given business belongs to the MP. In out country such businesses are usually register by the names of mothers-in-law, uncles, brothers-in-law, etc. Thus, it turns out if the journalist has to write about the illegal activity of the MP as a businessmen and expose information, which is true, he/she should be legally punished as it will be impossible to legally prove that the business belongs to the corrupt MP. “The MPs should know that they are the ones, who violate the law every day. They all have their businesses and a part of them are representatives of the criminal world. When you listen to their speeches those seem terrible. It means that the journalists are milder in their formulations. It would be better if they first fulfilled their duties and enforce laws before limiting the rights of the media representatives,” says the chairman of the Association of the Investigative Journalists Edik Baghdasaryan. The chairman of Yerevan Press Club Boris Navasardyan thinks that in the current laws on media there are no limitations for journalists because in civilized countries such issues have been solved long ago. The laws do not control the professional activity of the journalists. In his opinion, due to the technological development of the media sector the word “journalist” has become unclear. “Indeed if there is no clear definition of the word journalist there can be no limitations and duties for journalists. And besides the current law already regulates the main issues, which relate to the journalists and their activity. Thus, there is no need to revise the law again,” says Navasardyan. In the opinion of Baghdasaryan if these changes are adopted then they will become a threat for the media independence in our country. In his opinion the separation of the rights of journalists and citizens contradicts the current democratic motives of countries. “As of the obligations then I think that the journalist has only one and there is even no need to write about it in the law. And that obligation is to update the society of the main events of the country and world. And there is absolutely no need to once again explain what those obligations are and put extra responsibilities on journalists. It cannot ever be welcomed,” says Navasardyan. And Baghdasaryan gets surprised why the ones, who are groundlessly slammed by the journalists don’t apply to the court. “The current law enables to do so. Why would they want to adopt a new one? Perhaps the reason why they don’t apply to the courts is that most of the publicized information about them is true. They should go to the courts for their nicknames as well. It’s not the journalists’ fault. Hey are the ones guilty for their nickname, aren’t they? The journalists were not the ones, who invented that nick. Does the nickname of Lfik Samo or Alraghatsi Lyovik have any connections with the journalists? Their friends invented that. Let them sue their friends.”
P.S. The author of the bill Victor Dallakyan promised to give his comments on the near days.