Vasak Darbinyan has taken a long, winding, and interesting journalistic path. 

He felt the rapid growth and future transformations of independent Armenia’s free press from the inside — working in the newsrooms of various publications.

He was the editor of the newspapers Hayk, 02, Tert, Ayb-Fe, Aravot, and Zhamanak; he founded and published the newspaper Taregir; and worked at a number of TV stations. In short, he’s seen a lot and experimented a lot, often made bold moves, and sometimes was forced to make decisions. 

And now Darbinyan is an expert on media products. He finds that the absence of professional news outlet and the lack of competition in the professionalism sector forces almost everyone to work in passing, with inertia — and just as approximately expand their thoughts. Carelessness toward one’s own words shapes a sloppy news media sector. 

In his opinion, to be a good journalist, first of all, it’s necessary to have the temperament and sharp mind corresponding to that profession, to picture the sector you’re writing about, and to have a wonderful command of the language.

In Armenia, there are now news outlets that are out of their mind, as well as news platforms that operate like them. Will they drop in number, after all, or not?

I can’t make a prediction, but it seems there are currently no signs of dropping. I remember one of my friends describing a politician who expressed scattered thoughts and didn’t have the habit of combing [his hair], saying he’s like an unmade bed… Let me adapt it a little: it’s as if our news media industry is like an unmade bed. 

Whoever gets there comes and lies down?

I mean the disarray, the untidiness, the laziness. As a result, the notions of genuine journalism are distorted. People create news websites and even TV stations to serve their interests.

It seems to them that journalists and news outlets have only one mission: to serve their owners. This is the a very unhealthy way of thinking, which pushes professionalism to the background. 

“[I]t seems to everyone that if a news outlet publishes something unexpected or unplanned, then there’s something hidden behind that, someone’s behind it. There’s such a lack of [public] trust toward journalists that all news stories are perceived as commissioned pieces”

On one hand, the ruling authorities create their support pillars; on the other hand, people having various political or economic aspirations establish news outlets to extol their own greatness and edify their heroic figure. The result is that the media is discredited and viewed as a service industry. 

Though months have passed, [Armenian National Assembly President] Galust Sahakyan’s comment on journalists and news outlets, like newly printed money, is still fresh: while meeting with a foreign delegation, he said that all journalists are bribe-takers. Knowing the insiders quite well, he was most likely convinced that that’s true. 

With and in the name of money, when truth is subordinated and violated, writing a news story against anyone is the most disgraceful thing in journalism. Of course, this is nothing new, but if the National Assembly president says that he knows quite well how news outlets make their money, it means that they themselves pay a majority of the news outlets and consider it a bribe. 

I don’t want my remarks to be misunderstood: there’s nothing wrong with someone financing a news outlet; what’s wrong is that it’s done with the purpose of praising him and discrediting others. 

Unfortunately, journalists also often subordinate these professional issues. In short, our news media industry is now full of the combo of untidiness and ignorance. I’m not saturating colors and giving them a tragic hue, this is the reality.  

We demand a lot from journalists who have low wages and are expected to work at high speed. The competition is in who will convey the news first, while quality is secondary.

I don’t understand this competition among news websites. Can’t some of them report the same news at the same time? As a rule, bad news… eh, website god, you be the first to report some other news — why do you get involved in squabbles?

Many of our news outlets, by the way, have become messengers. Suddenly you see on Facebook “immediate” [i.e. breaking] news from various sites. Meanwhile, a large portion of these are outdated and no longer relevant, and the word “immediate” is used incorrectly — it should be “urgent”.

Often, there are unhealthy elements in competing according to number of hits. Our news media industry is ill, and this competition isn’t contributing to its getting better. Let’s assume that a website had an enormous amount of hits, at the expense of low-quality, cheap, “immediate” messages.

If they make it their purpose to play with the nerves of the unconscious lower class or inflame the passions of this social class, that means they’ve already lost. All the same, they won’t reach [the hits of] porno sites. In this industry, those who strive to be a serious new outlet won’t enter the competition. There can be competition only in the area of professionalism. If some don’t know what that is, that’s their problem.   

It seems that the media is a weapon that is better kept in your pocket (even if it’s not used) than in someone else’s hands.

Yes, the media is influential, and all officials know this well and use it, say, to rig the elections. And for that reason it’s to their advantage to deal with journalists who are semi-literate but subservient and obedient rather than competent, independent, and incorruptible. 

«Journalists create a kind of distorted reality; their interview subjects are completely not that which they really are. “If we noticed this in literature, we could easily throw that literary work in the garbage; meanwhile, news outlets that allow themselves this sort of extravagance are the ones that gather an audience and readers”

I think news outlets also are to blame that the public doesn’t have an accurate picture of politicians and state officials.

The media offers the public images of people who are completely different from the “original” — either polished or really dirty…

Journalists create a kind of distorted reality; their interview subjects are completely not that which they really are. 

If we noticed this in literature, we could easily throw that literary work in the garbage; meanwhile, news outlets that allow themselves this sort of extravagance are the ones that gather an audience and readers.

If we tried to get a picture of reality through media reports, it would seem that we’re either living in hell or wandering in apricot-colored gardens.

In the 1990s, when independent Armenia’s media industry was just taking shape, it seems the news wasn’t so openly “yellow“.

I wouldn’t say that everything was great then. There was the same bleak way of thinking, which perhaps Lenin had formulated, sticking the collective propaganda and agitator label (I’d say, stigma) on the media. And it continues like this, and it seems to everyone that if a news outlet publishes something unexpected or unplanned, then there’s something hidden behind that, someone’s behind it. There’s such a lack of [public] trust toward journalists that all news stories are perceived as commissioned pieces. Probably the reason is that this is how ruling officials have taught their domesticated news outlets. 

And many news outlets think that it’s better to turn a blind eye to being principled and other abstract things that aren’t particularly valued. To be honest, sometimes I even feel sorry for journalists. They have no idea about the story; they don’t have a command of the language; even when quoting directing speech they miss words and distort the meaning of what was said. They work inattentively, absentmindedly, approximately, and by estimation. 

The media industry is no worse off than, say, the business sector, agriculture, and all the other sectors.

Of course, the media industry cannot be an exception from our already notorious, lukewarm atmosphere. There’s no advertising in the media industry (we know that which exists) because there’s no business. And there’s no culture. Honestly, I can’t imagine how our country is able to carry on existing. 

We are forced to rely on the new, not hardened, free-minded, and, in a positive sense, pretentious [ambitious] generation, having absolutely no excuse as to why we found ourselves at this shameful precipice… This [new] generation might try and understand us, but I doubt it’ll tolerate this bleak, dreary, and unpromising reality. 

Also, news articles and reportages have become faceless — often you can’t understand who the author is. Perhaps there is now a demand for anonymous, automatic journalism?

No, there definitely isn’t a demand. Even if there will be a demand, that’s no reason for the airwaves to be overrun with bad taste. Art, culture, literature, and journalism shouldn’t satisfy demand but shape taste; they shouldn’t serve but dictate… 

Now, news outlets don’t even feel the need for an editor, considering it an unnecessary luxury. They think, why should we spend money? The journalists are writing, after all. And this sloppiness is also a result of that. This is the case also in cinema, television, literature, theatre, songs — everywhere.  

Language is mentality. Can it be said that by changing the language, man is also changed? Especially if there’s an obsession to writing quickly.

That’s an obsession of writing not quickly but easily. Missing is respect for, first, the language, then, the profession. In general, it seems to everyone that being a journalist is very easy. I’ve noticed that journalists mainly make the same linguistic mistakes; many don’t have a sufficient command of the language: They justify everything by saying that language is a living, growing organism. But what’s happening now is not growth but deformation and distortion. Of course, language is an organism, but when it contracts several diseases at the same time, a question arises: will it remain alive or not?

“The media is discredited and viewed as a service industry”

What are some specific errors in language used by the media?

I’ve had the opportunity to speak about this [before]. In recent years, I’ve noticed a trend in Armenia journalism: many journalists place the predicate noun at the end of the sentence. 

That is, the word that does or shows the action is banished as far as possible, which is foreign to Armenian syntax. Of course, syntax makes the logical emphasis in our language very flexible, nearly void of restrictions, but it also has golden rules. For example, the subject–predicate noun–complement syntactic structure.

Frankly speaking, in journalists’ sentences I see an unconscious cue to delay or postpone the action, “leave today’s work to tomorrow”, and laziness. It’s as if we’ve begun to place importance on the unimportant, the secondary, and the additional, but not on the task.

I inquired and discovered that placing the predicate noun at the end of the sentence is the norm, for example, in Turkish. I think, by placing the predicate noun at the end of the sentence, the Turks, according to their linguistic mentality, place importance on and emphasize the action, while we, the opposite: we become lazy; we’re too lazy to work or we often leave the work half-finished. Of course, there’s a need to couch my remarks professionally — this is more so an emotional observation. 

One more thing that bothers me: the conjunction “that” has been banished from Armenia; it has been replaced by “who”. The absurdity has flourished so much that even the sports commentator says, “Madrid’s Real, who occupies second place in the chart…”

As far as I know, the widespread use of “who” was cast by a semi-literature parliamentary deputy, who was explaining to accredited journalists in parliament that when speaking about people, you shouldn’t use “that” because people aren’t inanimate objects. 

And who cares that in subjunctive sentences “who” is used in only one case (“he who…”), while in the remaining cases, the conjunction “that” is used? The works of Armenian writers can be a guide in this turmoil of widespread ignorance, in none of which you will see this artificial obsession of allegedly giving importance to persons and using “who”.

Why did it become so widespread?

I think the more people began to be depreciated in Armenia, the more often “who” came to their aid, ostensibly compensating for their humiliation. 

A separate topic is the overtone of TV reporters’ speech. The most diligent are ArmNews’ reporters — they are the unsurpassed killers of the Armenian language. 

The language in the media is truly in a deplorable state: mistakes, padding, and barbarism are many. Journalists can begin, for example, the news with quotation marks, quoting direct speech at length, and after reading about ten lines, the reader will find out who said these words and on what occasion. Often, journalists turn on the audio recorder and then transcribe, without thinking how the text should be constructed.   

Unfortunately, this is the obsession of lazy writing. Considering the barely breathing economy and directed advertising funds, we can’t assume that we’ll have a self-sustainable news outlet anytime soon.

So what remains is will?

I don’t think that those who commission music in the media industry feel the need to develop the sector. They also enjoy rabiz.

Interview by Nune Hakhverdyan.