Chair of the Gyumri-based Asparez Journalists’ Club Levon Barseghyan, speaking about the brutal murder of the Avetisyan family in Gyumri and the public protests that followed, believes that in the first few days after the incident none of the journalists working in Gyumri felt they were special. 

“There was journalistic solidarity. We were simply working however we could,” he says. 

After hearing the news of the murder in Gyumri, you actively commented on and covered the incidents on social media. Was that the best way at the time?

Each of us was trying to find the means of imparting information through our own internal filters. I could tell that some journalists were upset when the news stories they prepared went on air later than my posts on social media. But this way the information went public more quickly. One must also consider that there is no news outlet in Gyumri that can broadcast or webcast live on the scene.

None of us felt we had a special or eminent role. We were just doing whatever we could in that situation. There was news that, in my opinion, should’ve been reported immediately. It was periodically stated that some information or another was not confirmed. 

When the occasion for information was no longer the murders but the public revolt, did the quality of journalism change?

News outlets assumed the positions of breaking news journalism. As far as I noticed, our news outlets didn’t commit any gross or extraordinary violations. The only slip, perhaps, is that the word “criminal” was used from the first day, though it wasn’t yet clear who the murderer was. But that probably could be attributed to the journalists’ emotions. 

During the protests, I was one of the protestors, and as long as I had a phone in my hand, I was trying to pass on information about the march, the calls, the demands, and the movement of people. Basically, Facebook became one of the best tools at that time. I considered pouring news into this platform the most effective method at the time.  

“While television and radio couldn’t compete and remained in their hardened state. It’s very difficult to work after being constrained and silenced for years”

As a result of the protests and clashes on January 14 and 15, both our [Armenian] and Russian authorities understood that hiding, concealing, or suppressing information is no longer an option. This happened mainly after the Euronews report, which was shown four days after the incident. Basically, it was possible to inhibit the flow of information for that long — but not after that.    

Live streams were of great importance in the news received from Gyumri…

Live streaming is common practice in Gyumri; the city council board meetings, for instance, are streamed this way. We use it more so not as a news outlet’s modus operandi, but as a way of communicating with the public. I wouldn’t want live streams to be perceived as the work of a traditional news outlet. Perhaps it will be like that 15 years down the line, but for now it’s just a regular tool.  

We just wanted to broadcast the entire flow of information, intact, on air. And the number of views shows that an enormous number of people watched the live streams. 

It can be said that the fact of being a direct participant of the event simply eliminated traditional media. It more so tried to publish analyses. While television and radio (with the exception of Azatutyun, RFE/RL’s Armenian service), to put it mildly, couldn’t compete and remained in their hardened state. It’s very difficult to work after being constrained and silenced for years.  

It’s like telling a person in a cast to get up out of bed and run. But how can he run when over the years he hasn’t even walked and his muscles have lost their strength?

That was the syndrome during the first few days, but after, of course, the political barriers were felt on air (let there not be an uproar; let’s not criticize on account of Armenian-Russian relations; let’s just hail praise; let’s call psychologists who give absurd explanations). These were orders by which the [TV] channels again adopted their hardened cast and continued to work as they did after 2002, when A1+ was pulled off air. 

The incidents in Gyumri showed that, unlike the prosecutor general’s office, the police, or the diplomatic corps, the media worked the best. And it was our journalists who were reporting information to the international media — making comments, giving interviews.  

Clearly. Unfortunately, Armenia’s state and regional authorities don’t have rules of action and standards of conduct for such situations, as is the case, say, in the army.   

From the first day, it seemed as if everyone wanted only to find the fugitive suspect, forgetting that the public likewise needs to be regularly informed and warned — in order to quell possible panic and fear. They spoke to the extent that journalists contacted them. In many cases, they didn’t even talk. 

“The media must be responsible and ensure diversity of opinion as much as possible — beginning with the craziest ideas and ending with cold judgments and analyses“

Unfortunately, there was no initiative on the part of the government. I don’t know if they learned a lesson or not, but it’s clear that in the case of natural disasters and protests, such “Soviet” behavior is only going to cause damage. It’s possible to look at least one step ahead. 

A shocking tragedy happened in Gyumri, there was a wanted man, information was scarce, and then added to this was the element of political pressure. And many preferred to remain silent (if we say something, how are we going to provide an explanation tomorrow?).

Now that there is relative peace in Gyumri, it seems the energy for protest has dropped and faded, though many questions were not answered.

In conflictology, this is considered covering the wound with a bandage. You don’t treat [the wound], but cover and mask it, placing importance only on the fact that the wound can’t be seen. Yes, it can’t be seen, but it will soon fester and become inflamed, and eventually burst. And a question arises: my dear friend, why didn’t you treat it on time? 

No one’s yet changed Newton’s third law, and all actions will have an equal reaction. The reaction might not be immediate, but it can’t disappear. And it’s a mistake to think that the wave of rebellion is going to calm down and be forgotten. Perhaps it will be felt in the field of psychology. After all, people must be satisfied, and their demand for justice must be met; otherwise their discontent will appear elsewhere. This is my conviction. 

What is the role of the media in this situation?

The media must be responsible and ensure diversity of opinion as much as possible — beginning with the craziest ideas and ending with cold judgments and analyses. And, of course, to try to stay within the current legislative framework — without censorship and bans. 

No idea or view should dominate in the media. Now, for example, we see that a pro-Russian and pro-government approach prevails in broadcast media; that is, that which existed before continues. 

At one time, the authorities removed its hold on the media, and some news outlets began to voice criticism, but now the pressure has returned and broadcast media can’t work freely. Even in this case, when there is no struggle for power or battle for a position, but it is a simple matter of national dignity, television can’t work. 

I’m convinced, if the media does good work, even under these conditions of scarce information resources, it can get on a very important trail.

Interview conducted by Nune Hakhverdyan.