MONITORING OF THE MEDIA COVERAGE OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS IN ARMENIA
Support A1+!Second round
Preliminary report
The Caucasus Media Institute has monitored the qualitative aspect of media coverage of the second round of the 2003 presidential elections in Armenia. Monitoring lasted from January 22 until March 3 and continued on the eve of the Election Day and on Election Day.
Conclusions
In the second round of elections, mass media once again failed to provide equal conditions for the candidates to present their programs to the voters although TV companies broadcast live meetings between runners for presidents and their campaign officials
TV coverage of the campaign was focused on creating a negative image of one of the candidates and thus served to heighten confrontation within the society
Mass media were unethical while covering the campaign
Cases when the rights of journalists were abused lead us to the conclusion that mass media and journalists either experience or fear pressure
Debates
For the first time in independent Armenia, the incumbent president and the opposition candidate appeared on TV together to answer the questions asked by journalists from six TV stations, all of which broadcast the meeting live. By its format, the meeting was more similar to a press-conference than a debate, yet the fact that it took place is positive.
Four TV stations, Prometevs, ALM, Kentron and Shant, broadcast live discussions between the two candidates’ campaign representatives. The discussions consisted in exchanging mutual accusations and revolved around the representatives’ personalities. Most of the information that reached the viewers was thus negative.
Equal access to TV and radio
Stepan Demirchian had limited access to electronic media. News reports and analyses were anti-oppositional. Public TV observed the law in the part that concerns providing equal time for agitation but failed or did not wish to give balanced and impartial coverage of the campaigns. The incumbent president was even advertised in the sports section of the news. The opposition candidate was shown in a negative light, sometimes in an abusive fashion.
As a result Demirchian, deprived of access to the TV, had to address the voters at public rallies which all TV stations condemned as ‘unsanctioned’ and therefore illegal and abusing public order. This served to further increase confrontation in the society.
Observance of ethical standards
Neither electronic nor printed media were ethical in their coverage of the campaign or showed any respect towards political opponents. Articles, reports and comments that violated journalistic and general ethics were especially frequent on Public TV and Prometevs TV station, and in a number of newspapers (Hayots Ashkhar, Golos Armenii, Novoe Vremya, Iravunk).
Abuse and pressure
Cases of abuse were registered during the voting in the first and second rounds of elections. Victims of abuse include reporters from Ayzhm weekly and two TV companies, Shant and A1+, and a freelance journalist. The monitoring team was informed that a reporter from one of the private TV companies was forced to go on holiday during the campaign because the editors disagreed with the political content of her reports.
Starting February 21, the Russian NTV channel has not been broadcast in Armenia. Broadcasting of the VOA Armenian service was interrupted for one day. Golos Armenii was not for sale in the newsstands, Shant TV station cancelled a program about elections.
The cases when the rights of journalists were abused lead us to the conclusion that mass media and journalists either experience or fear pressure.
Violations of the law
All newspapers broke Articles 18 and 23 of the Electoral Code that prohibit agitation on the eve of elections. Both candidates broke the law by campaigning after the second round of elections was announced but before the beginning of the campaign was officially declared. As in the first round, there were cases of campaigning by foreign citizens.
