The expectations and disappointment of Public Television have never been few.
Public TV has become a topic of debate on a regular basis. But those discussions are more similar to flares than consistent questions.
As a result, many of the questions were given in the form of texts that many kept to themselves, but there was no opportunity to see them published. Social networks have publicized the new expectations from the public broadcaster in a new, post-revolutionary period.
The main topic of the changes and their cost (material) and value (to cleanse the society of signals).
Chairman of the TV and Radio Council Ara Shirinyan, who has become president in Armenia’s most transparent election system, is convinced that the changes cannot take place quickly.
Responding to the statement of his former parliamentarian Tigran Paskevichyan that “to take drastic and radical steps to change the situation,” Ara Shirinyan said that he is against the logic of assault and revenge and “is sure to choose a long but correct way.”
No one is disputing that the changes should be in the concept of the public broadcaster and in philosophy because Public Television has been a closed structure for many years. And it did it with those people, style, and investment with which it should be considered the leaders of Public at the time.
Ara Shirinyan said in a conversation with media.am that the problems are systematic and not necessarily conditioned by one person, and it should be remembered that the Public Television and Radio Council is a controlling body, and the decision-maker is the directorate of the TV company.
He is convinced that Public should show solidarity and not fight. And in order to achieve that, you have to trust the professionals. According to him, the most serious professional potential is in Public.
He asked not to confuse the objective criteria with public satisfaction, as the public is made up of various communities that want to be reflected and referenced. Therefore, it is difficult to build a universal, publicly accessible Public Television.
It is natural that what has been inherited by Public should be evaluated. It is a complex heritage and a complex assessment. After all, there are not only dark and secret working schemes but also inherited criminal cases.
Tigran Paskevichyan insists that the assessment (pricing of programs, review of staff lists, financial expediency, etc.) should be done immediately. In order to be able to determine what is overestimated and what is underestimated. Also suitable or usable for future use.
He told Media.am that any issue in Public Television ultimately leads to resource assessment. Moreover, the potential is in both money, people and ideas.
People, money, ideas
People, money and ideas have the ability to transform. Often we have seen how good things, good people and large amounts of money can transform into another heavy heritage, if their possession was not sufficiently transparent, open and retransmitted.
The need to assess potential has always been and is now.
Finally, any heritage is estimated to be effective in using it. Otherwise, the inheritance becomes a burden. You close it and not tell anyone what you have.
The public broadcaster is linked to complex communications with the public, the public and private producers. One can say that capitalism is trying to mitigate its influence through the media of public significance.
Public should have at least one promising and clear, rule-based platform which will respond to the massive rating report, the interests of private equity and the possible intervention of the state.
Of course, any media outlet has that role, but only if it is publicly formulated. You simply need to interpret that formulation in the context of modern times.
Now it is important to understand both Public’s content policy and the principles of governance, in order to avoid further corruption risks. Through open competition and public discussion, the risks are reduced (at least a l