After the end of the war, the volume of hate speech grew like a snowball. Media materials were also interpreted as being extremely aggressive. Not to mention social media.

According to Boris Navasardyan, President of the Yerevan Press Club, manipulative words and messages, which have now been mobilized, play a big role. Moreover, not only from the domestic but also from the outside world. And all this has a severe impact on society.

There is so much hate speech now that the whole atmosphere in Armenia seems to be infected. Is it the result of defeat?

It can be considered a psychological phenomenon because during the war all of society seemed to agree that it was necessary to be united, unified and in solidarity. And that, in a sense, curbed internal strife and hatred of people with different political views.

During the war, the mood of solidarity was generally maintained. But the psychological factor started to work now.

In fact, the war ended when people still did not feel that it was really over. And this applied both to the soldiers in positions and to the whole society, in Artsakh and in Armenia.

And since for many, the war is still going on, but there is no other enemy with whom you can fight, all the aggression, the outbursts of war are directed inwards. People are fighting inside now. And since the main battlefield is social networks and the media, that is where the war continues, now becoming internal.

Let us take into account that the decisive factor is the internal political struggle, the generation of enmity and hatred is from political and pro-political circles. Unfortunately, there is no party that wants to stop this and push society to constructive, useful actions.

The main goal of both the authorities and the opposition is to eliminate the enemy. Or win.

Everyone seems to want to say that a constructive agenda can only be achieved if the other side loses.

And the media field in our country is traditionally dictated by political circles (a very small segment of media and social media can be considered apolitical or independent), and it turns out that the conflict is occupying the media field.

It can even be said that the media field is completely surrounded by political interests. And the speech, the message that can be conveyed by several independent media outlets or journalists, does not reach their destination. Those in the opposite field have both quantitative and technological advantages.

What could a professional media outlet do in the days of war other than provide official information? Could it have been more prepared and by and large useful?

It is always very difficult for the media to do something during a war, given the information restrictions imposed by martial law. Naturally, patriotic feelings, caution, etc. are added to it.

I think the media was doing what they were supposed to do. But because the official information was quite optimistic, their task became more complicated.

Of course, official information should be more encouraging than depressing during a war. And it is difficult to criticize, say, Artsrun Hovhannisyan or those who said what they have to say. It was necessary for the people supporting from home to be sure that they would win, because the connection between those at home and those on the front was quite intense, for example, there was a constant connection between the soldiers and their relatives. And if there was no faith in victory behind it, it would immediately be passed on to the soldiers, and the defeat would have been much more severe.

The fundamental question is whether there were obvious falsifications in the official reassuring news or not. If there were, then that official propaganda did not play a positive role.

Even if there were no obvious falsifications, we hadn’t heard any official speech about possible concessions or defeat. And we got used to the fact that defeat is simply not possible. Don’t you think that we all accepted the propaganda with love and that is why it is very difficult now?

If you are continuing to be at war, you should never talk about defeat. It is the law of war.

When there was a dialogue or work with international organizations about a ceasefire or a possible settlement, there was talk of concessions. In other words, the idea of “We will fight to the end” was not the only thing being spread.

At the moment, I am not ready to accuse anyone, in general, it should be a matter of serious investigation, which should be done by politically neutral people. Only then can we make assessments.

Now our society has to solve many other problems. And the sad thing is that the authorities are not ready to focus the society on the urgent issues of eliminating the consequences of the war, instead, they are involving people in the political struggle.

This may be the biggest fault of the government.

During these post-war days, we see that the authorities are not trying to use the constructive potential, mercy and compassion of society.

Even on the contrary, they are told to do their job, but while definitely protecting us and reprimand our political opponent. Of course, these messages do not help to improve the situation.

Now, who the media is talking about, whose views are becoming a source of citation for the audience is also important.

Our social discourses are dictated by political circles that have clear interests, political goals, and not a tendency to unite society.

And the people who are in the middle of the political burden, trying to be objective, are not audible.

Their words are not sharp enough to reach the depths of people’s psychology. They are also not audible, because it is always more difficult to get reasonable words across than manipulative ones, which is especially prevalent with the use of certain propaganda technologies.

Manipulative speech plays its role and it reaches its destination.

Over the years, political and propaganda technologies have been well researched and actively used. And now all that experience is mobilized and used intensively. Moreover, external manipulative flows also play a role, which has a great impact on our society.

We find ourselves in a situation where very little seems to depend on us. It depends on what the powerful foreign players will do, first and foremost, Russia.

And every word and message that comes to us from the outside is often also of a manipulative nature.

It seems that we are now defenseless in all respects.

We have clearly seen that, at least in recent weeks, Armenia as a foreign policy entity is almost non-existent. And the signed trilateral statement is, in fact, a bilateral agreement between Moscow and Baku, and if there is a third party, it is not Yerevan but Ankara.

We are simply the addressee of the decision of those subjects. And we have to accept it, whether we like it or not.

Yes, that defenselessness was not only in the military field but in fact in the field of foreign policy. Or rather, everywhere.

There are situations when alternative initiatives are effective. When society acts in parallel with the state, it even plays the role of the state. Is such a parallel consolidation possible, especially when the political field is discredited?

This parallel reality really started to play a big role among us from time to time. This usually happened after various rigged elections, when we suddenly saw that society rejected the dishonest political game, tried to dictate its will by creating a parallel reality.

But we must understand that the parallel reality only has a long-lasting effect when a clear political agenda is formed in line with it.

We have not seen such a political alternative transformation. Today, the current government could have such a mobilizing role and mission, but in fact, it refuses that role. Or it can’t take on that role. Maybe it didn’t have that resource in the first place, because of the way it was created.

This happens when decisions are made not by collegial means, but only by the political leader. Even if someone has the opportunity to oppose, they are either forced to leave the political force or follow only what the leader says.

Now we are actually seeing the sad results.

Interview by Nune Hakhverdyan