Narine Tukhikyan, a member of the NA “My Step” faction, believes that panic-provoking and provocative news channels are not accidental, but are directed by specific interest-makers who also use the resource of news.

She says legislative changes for regulating the media field are not foreseeable right now. There are simply international obligations to be approximated by our laws.  

After the Prime Minister’s admonition, the admin of a Facebook page was detained. Is that considered right, and why was a fight against fakes declared?

Yes, it was right. If you intentionally and deliberately mislead the field and mislead people (moreover, a lot of people, as there are a lot of consumers who swallow such a “product” bait), you should be ready for counteractive steps.

Of course, it would be good if most of the public would accept such news critically, even by laughing under their breath.

In fact, a storm of panic and dangerous information has recently been created, with various apparent “ears.” That is, those storms are not innocent.  

Of course, it is possible to invent, fabricate and spread and interpret different news, but when we see concrete interests under it, we can no longer talk about chance.

In the media field, as well as in business, a lot depends on the exclusion of shadow transactions.

It is always necessary to remove the relationship from the shadow, and in the case of the media, it should not be viewed as a restriction of freedom of speech.  

I am convinced that if the very delicate border between the fight against fakes and the freedom of expression ever suddenly cross, that civil society and professionals will make a lot of noise. And as a result, even minor attempts of censorship will be prevented.

When there is a capital, it definitely finds itself in the media as well. As far as we can see, redistribution of capital has not taken place in the media.

Even if capital is shady in the media, capitalists are not shady and use, encourage and pay money to different media outlets.

That is, spending money widely leads to specific addresses. Just any old discontented and rebellious man could not carry out such information campaigns. They have a more serious, even institutional structure, and try to act like a secret outcast.

But on the other hand, you could say that it’s a good thing that such a large amount of money is spent on such unnecessary things. Anyway, the effect cannot be great, since the lie, fraud and fake are naturally exposed after all. The legs of lies are short.  

Yes, the field, people’s emotions and thoughts will be muddled, but broadly the field will be regulated.

Often, information attacks are triggered by the new authorities, sometimes with incompetent comments and explanations.

You can never be safe from fumbles and be confident that you will not stumble and you won’t make a mistake.

But if the aim of the other party is not to cling to those slips, exaggerate them, the flaws will not become a big meaningless story. The problem is intentional.

It’s a different matter when the wrong information spreads to a conscious and thoughtful, special and destructive purpose, to distract attention, to frighten, to panic, and to trigger a reaction.

It seems to me that there is a desire to even wish that the authorities make some mistake in terms of freedom of speech or censorship.

Provocation is made so that such an incident takes place. And if it happens suddenly (of course, this is hypothetical because it will not happen), that case will have a great and terrible reaction not only in Armenia but also in the world.

Our society will not forgive the government, we will not forgive ourselves. We have to be as firm and have an inner belief that we will not give in to such provocations.

I have noticed that in some cases our society shows such vigilance that you are simply left surprised. It is a phenomenal ability that is put to work into the fateful, borderline moments and pushes to take steps wisely.

That is, when we approach the extreme limit of danger, we get some light and it actually saves us.

We have recently raised a question about the possibility of limiting the broadcasting of Russian TV channels. Do you consider the danger of being a victim of propaganda?

Of course, there is no serious threat, and the programs of Russian channels cannot have a destructive effect. I just know that there is such anxiety and when the opportunity arose, I raised that question.

It’s interesting that the media, which covered the issue and the case in the National Assembly, based their materials on one concrete Russian television station, “Russia,” logo. Though the issue concerned all channels, the media sent their arrows to one channel.  

I suppose it was done because our concern is not about fake or false, and actually hit the right target.

By the way, more and more urgent issues were discussed during the sitting of the committee, the spread of hate and violence (through, say, soap operas), the fact that many Armenian channels, as well as FM radio stations, are not spread throughout Armenia, the internet is not always available.  

And it is natural that under these circumstances the issue of being informed is important, but the media only put the question of banning Russian channels.

Is the content of TV series relevant?

Of course. It works like drugs, people cling to the screens and using it, you can convey the right message and give something useful to the audience.

It is understandable that you cannot force the content of private channels to change, but let’s assume that all of our failures start when we do not understand each other. And many soap operas have a dramaturgy basis. For example, heroes do not try to understand each other, agree, be diplomats, but resort to violence and pressure.

People do not listen to each other, talk to each other and do not communicate. I even see a syndrome of isolation.

We see that culture had not been considered to be a priority and continues to not be considered one now, which is worrying.

That is the problem, we have not viewed culture as an anthropologist, in terms of our identity.

After the revolution, it became clear that household issues are so strangling (until now) that it does not reach such a serious classification and larger doctrines.

It was such chaos that it first needed to be cleaned so that it would be possible to switch the content There are many obstacles, sometimes it seems that when you touch something, it collapses at once.

Meanwhile, culture is simply communication.

Interview by Nune Hakhverdyan