An Interview with Edik Baghdasarian

YEREVAN, Armenia--Founder of Versus Film Studios, Edik Baghdasarian is also the co-founder and chairman of the Association of Investigative Journalists of Armenia. The association was founded in July 2000 with the objective of assisting the development of investigative journalism in Armenia, and strengthening freedom of speech and democratic principles.

To date, the association has undertaken several investigations into alleged violations during the privatization of the ArmenTel telecommunications network and HIV infection at the National Blood Center. The association is involved in drawing up the draft legislation for a Freedom of Information Bill in Armenia.

The following discussion took place in Yerevan in late December 2001. It raises the questions of independent journalism in Armenia, the political and economic pressure facing media professionals, and the role played by the Armenian Diaspora.

Onnik Krikorian: Why was the Association of Investigative Journalists established?

Edik Baghdasarian: Unfortunately, serious journalism is not developed in Armenia, although there were several newspapers that chose the way of professionalism after independence. In particular, the Azg daily had been a good school for many journalists, but after the Ramgavar party put pressure on the newspaper, many of its journalists left.

Others however, chose the way of 'yellow' journalism and political parties soon had enough influence on the media.

Krikorian: I've seen some of the films produced by Versus on various Armenian television stations. Given the subject matter on religious minorities, deaths in the Armenian military, and conditions in Armenian prisons, was it difficult to get airtime?

Baghdasarian: It was difficult but many independent television stations in the regions broadcast our films and still repeat them. However, National [Public] TV and the private AR TV company refused to broadcast two films on ArmenTel and the Earthquake Zone in 1998, although A1+ later broadcast them.

[Note: Armenian National [Public] TV did however broadcast Baghdasarian's film on religious minorities in Armenia the day that Armenia entered the Council of Europe on 25 January 2001]

Krikorian: The ArmenTel film even raised some questions in the Armenian Parliament about the privatization? Did it result in any action?

Baghdasarian: Members of Parliament did not see this film initially, but we later organized a public showing, especially for deputies in the National Assembly. In fact, after its presentation they then became more active in raising the issue of the ArmenTel privatization.

Krikorian: Regarding access to a reliable news service, when I watch television here, it appears that all of the news programs are pro-governmental with the exception of A1+. For example, National [Public] TV and Channel Armenia seem to just broadcast what can perhaps be described as propaganda, but A1+ seems to be broadcasting real news about real people and real issues. Is that the situation?

Baghdasarian: I agree with you that A1+ is better, but perhaps only more objective when taken in comparison with the other stations. It is certainly more realistic.

Krikorian: I understand that the circulation of newspapers in Armenia is very low. Is this because people cannot afford to buy newspapers or simply because the population doesn't believe what they read?

Baghdasarian: I'm sure that people living in the regions of Armenia really want to buy newspapers but many editors aren't interested in increasing their circulation. Sponsors are only interested in communicating with their own supporters which might only number between two and three thousand.

They really aren't interested in the general public. Distribution is very poor, especially in the regions, and there is mistrust among the population regarding what is written in the newspapers.

Krikorian: One issue that international organizations always raise when referring to the Armenian media is self-censorship. Some journalists choose not to write certain articles because party allegiances and threats and intimidation from political and economic interests prevent them from doing so. How prevalent is self-censorship among journalists in Armenia?

Baghdasarian: There are several examples but in particular, journalists know that they cannot publish anything against their sponsors. Even if their journalists found out anything interesting, they wouldn't use it. As an example, one businessman and member of parliament had a quarrel with another deputy several months ago. The television channel A1+ filmed the incident and several other journalists were present but nobody reported the event. I don't know whether the businessman called any of the journalists later, but the fact is that there was only silence.

Krikorian: Do you think that it could also be because the businessman in question is now so powerful? He's a member of parliament and has the right connections. I've seen him during various government meetings with foreign investors and he's certainly very heavily pushed in the diaspora as far as investment in Armenia is concerned.

Baghdasarian: He's also very smart.

Krikorian: However, as Armenia-diaspora relations get stronger, there's the need for the local media to keep the diaspora informed and it's a direction that many journalists in Armenia are eager to follow. Ironically, however, the problems facing many journalists in Armenia are also appearing in the diaspora as well. For example, you refer to the financial and political interests of various sponsors of the media but there are also similar interests in newspapers and magazines in the diaspora.

Baghdasarian: There not only exists self-censorship in the diaspora but also a very real censorship implemented by editors who attempt to control what their journalists write.

Krikorian: Does an audience in the diaspora interest you or are you thinking on a larger, more international scale?

Baghdasarian: We are very interested in reaching an audience in the diaspora but we want to produce films for television stations throughout the world. Unfortunately, we don't think that the diaspora will understand our films. They certainly won't be able to fully comprehend the tragedy of those living in mental institutions.

Krikorian: However, if there is a reawakened interest in Armenia from the diaspora, and if they want to be involved in the process of nation-building, shouldn't they understand the problems and how they can be addressed?

Baghdasarian: When I made the first film about the Vardenis psychiatric hospital, the film was seen in France, and every three months, French-Armenians assisted the hospital with food, clothes, and other assistance. However, when I made the second film about Vardenis it was not to raise money for the hospital, it was simply a documentary.

Krikorian: I understand that, but I recently received an e-mail from German Avakian, the photojournalist who worked with you on some of your projects, and he sounded a little disappointed that the U.S.-Armenian diaspora didn't want to see any of his work. Instead, they only seemed interested in photographs of khachkars -- Armenian stone crosses.

Baghdasarian: When you read Armenian newspapers in the diaspora it really is an unhealthy situation. It would appear that the world is somewhere else. The Armenian-diaspora press is still at the beginning of the nineteenth century.

Krikorian: There are of course good people in the diaspora but it is very difficult to communicate certain issues because they simply refuse to believe that this could be the situation in Armenia. However, when you were working on documentaries such as those on conditions in Armenian prisons you went through international organizations involved in this area.

Baghdasarian: Yes, but it still took one year to get permission.

Krikorian: Therefore, if organizations such as the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) are meant to be monitoring Armenia's obligations as a member of the Council of Europe, isn't there a medium for serious journalism and the development of an independent media that touches upon some of these issues?

Baghdasarian: Yes, I have very good contacts at the OSCE office in Yerevan, but I have had problems with other international organizations.

LOOKING INTO CORRUPTION

Krikorian: There's not much acceptance of independent journalism in Armenia, and if some journalists start to look into corruption for example, pressure could be exerted by those implicated in such reports, isn't that correct?

Baghdasarian: I'm expecting some pressure to be applied at the end of January [2002] because we are working on an article that examines corruption in government and one international organization. There is joint corruption and cooperation between the two.

Krikorian: This isn't related to the customs report?

Baghdasarian: No.

Krikorian: Can you explain what is happening in this case. I have read news reports that you have taken the head of the Customs House to court for failure to disclose information.

Baghdasarian: One of our members is writing an article about stone quarries in Armenia and investigating how effectively they are working. In particular, there is the need to investigate how much stone is being exported and how much revenue is finding its way into the state budget. It appears that some private organizations involved in the sector are not paying their taxes on the export of stone from Armenia.

As a result, we have been trying to find how much has been exported and how much tax has been collected. We have received information that some of this economic activity has not been recorded and requests to the Customs House for clarification have not been answered. We therefore decided to appeal to court but the case has been rejected on the basis that this is a commercial secret.

We have decided to appeal against this decision and we hope that we will win because this information should be open for public scrutiny.

Krikorian: Don't you think that sooner or later someone is going to get very angry if you continue to push such matters? From what I gather, there isn't any mechanism that really protects the safety of journalists in Armenia.

Baghdasarian: What do we have to do? We need to struggle to defend our work in some way. This is our country and we need to struggle even though there are no legal mechanisms to protect us.

Krikorian: Has the situation improved over the past years?

Baghdasarian: There is no change for the better especially with regards to press freedom because the Armenian media is not self-sustainable. Laws themselves mean little. They [the laws] have to function first. For example, our attempt to make things better by taking out a lawsuit against the Customs House failed to set a precedent. Instead the question now arises regarding whether it is possible to use the legal system to defend our rights or not.

Krikorian: Could the situation get worse? For example, there are so many issues that should be investigated but involve people so high up that when someone does investigate these matters it could actually prove very dangerous.

Baghdasarian: Yes, you are right. Everything does go so high, but this is our country and we need to tackle these issues.

Krikorian: Ironically however, the diaspora generally refuses to accept that corruption goes to the top and senior government ministers even give lectures saying that corruption goes no further than the middle layers of government.

Baghdasarian: But why don't they know this?

Krikorian: Because it challenges the ideal.

Baghdasarian: I know all of this as I have many friends in the diaspora. They always disagree with me when I work on issues relating to corruption in Armenia.

First published by Transitions Online: http://www.tol.cz