The rapidly changing world and new daily challenges have altered perceptions and expectations of media. Misinformation and the widespread presence of fake news in the media significantly diminish public trust in journalism.

The NGO Socioscope conducted a study titled “Disinformation in Armenia: Examining Public Perceptions” to identify the disinformation narratives circulating in public discourse. Their research aimed to understand how the public perceives these narratives. Media.am interviewed Nvard Margaryan, the head of programs at Socioscope.

Nvard, the events that have unfolded in Armenia over recent years have greatly impacted the relationship between the media and its consumers. What is the overall picture if we summarize the findings from your studies conducted in the past few years?

Significant changes have occurred in recent years, particularly after the war. Our previous research demonstrated that people have developed a complete mistrust of the media. This is unsurprising, given the rise in misinformation about security issues following the war. Consequently, people have adjusted their reliable sources of information.

People seek information from one another rather than rely on traditional media.

 For instance, they often turn to local residents or acquaintances who work in the defense system to learn about news regarding border regions.

Clearly, people were worried and stressed by the influence of misinformation spread through the media. These issues prompted the need for new research.  

If I’m not mistaken, you conducted extensive fieldwork during this research.  You visited all the marzes of RA and spoke with the residents.

Yes, we visited all the regions of Armenia and conducted bilateral discussions in both rural and urban communities. In Yerevan, we held three discussions, totaling 23 focus group discussions. To better understand the age characteristics of our participants, we divided them into two groups: ages 19 to 35 and 36 to 50.

We conducted our research in two stages. In the first stage, we conducted expert interviews with media professionals and representatives from civil society. These interviews helped us identify the existing problems in the field. In the second stage, we held focus group discussions to explore these issues further.

What were the similarities and differences between the problems raised by experts and participants?  

There was an apparent disparity between the views of experts and participants on certain topics while their opinions aligned on others.

The experts observed that, in general, people are primarily interested in domestic and foreign policy topics. However, they also emphasized that many individuals are exhausted after the war and now seek lighter news, particularly on domestic issues and show business.

The participants stated that their trust in the media diminished after the war. Research has again shown that, even after the conflict,

The rupture began following the collapse of the “We will win” narrative and a return to reality.

Participants acknowledged that while state bodies often disseminate misinformation, they frequently regard these same bodies as the primary and most reliable sources for verifying information.

They mentioned that they searched for reliable information; however, they also noted that the apathy that emerged after the war sometimes led them to create and believe in a seemingly peaceful reality. For instance, they watch the news on Public Television and want to convince themselves that this represents the real world.

Experts suggest that today’s media consumers seek more interpretive and analytical content. This shift is evident in the growing number of followers for bloggers, political analysts, and political scientists. However, this trend did not emerge from the focus group discussions, where participants struggled to identify whom they follow. Previous studies indicated that people actively followed specific pages and received targeted information. However, the results of this study demonstrate that today’s media consumers simply scroll through content. They no longer follow specific pages or make clear choices; instead, they consume whatever appears before them.

What differences were observed among various age groups?

When discussing age characteristics, young people are generally less interested in political topics and tend to focus more on entertainment content.

According to age, the choice of platforms varies. For older individuals, watching TV remains a reliable and convenient option. In contrast, younger individuals tend to gather information from bloggers or influencers.

There are two main issues: first, traditional media often overlooks topics that interest young people; second, young audiences may choose not to engage with traditional media and instead prefer content from bloggers and influencers.

The interests primarily revolve around career-related subjects and entertainment.  

To what extent is our society prepared to acknowledge and address misinformation based on research findings? 

Adults are generally more vulnerable to misinformation; additionally, the impact of misinformation varies significantly depending on geographic location.

For instance, if we discuss the impact and negative consequences of misinformation in Yerevan, we can see that it directly affects residents of the border regions. When these residents read in the media that Azerbaijanis have invaded their community, it heightens their vulnerability and negatively affects their daily lives and overall quality of life. They might see a stranger outside and feel fear due to that news. The media must recognize that it plays a significant role in shaping people’s daily lives in border communities.

People possess a certain level of theoretical media literacy skills. However, we observed a different reality when we practically tested their knowledge through a game. We selected six news items from the media, all containing misinformation. When we asked the participants to discuss these items, it became clear that they struggled to apply their theoretical skills in practice and failed to recognize that they were dealing with misinformation.

Participants noted that they actively seek the same news stories from ruling and opposition media outlets to address polarization. This approach reflects society’s efforts to navigate the current challenges. However, some participants admitted to trusting only information that aligned with their opinions and beliefs, often dismissing news that contradicted their views as misinformation.

What strategies do both experts and participants suggest for combating misinformation?

The most effective strategy, as per experts, is to improve media literacy. Young participants recognize that enhancing media literacy skills can help fight misinformation.

During the focus group discussions, participants emphasized the necessity for the state to implement control mechanisms. They believed that a government entity should establish strict regulations to prevent the spread of misinformation. While only a few participants supported this view, there were also suggestions that the issue could be addressed through media self-regulation or by the adoption of a code of ethics, where media outlets would hold each other accountable.