In 2024, according to the Reporters Without Borders press freedom index, Armenia ranked 43rd, becoming the leader in the entire region. For comparison, Georgia is ranked 103rd, Azerbaijan 164th, Iran 176th, and Turkey 158th.
But does this mean that the situation has dramatically improved for the better since the revolution?
The events of the April 2018 Velvet Revolution in Armenia stand out as significant in the country's political and media history. After the revolution, there was a call for democratization and the guarantee of the right of freedom of expression, bringing up the debate of media's role in political discourse and public accountability. This brought up the debate of the place of the media in the political discourse and public accountability in Armenia. Freedom House noted a temporary improvement in Armenia's media freedom ranking following the revolution, reflecting a shift towards a more pluralistic model. Although Armenia continues to improve its position in media-related rankings following the revolution, significant challenges remain. For instance, the government still tries to put pressure on media outlets, some laws are too restrictive, and fake news has become a part of daily life in Armenia. These days, media outlets are mostly split into two camps - some support the government, while others back the opposition. This division, naturally, makes it tough for truly independent journalism to thrive in the country. While the Velvet Revolution opened new doors for free speech, there's still plenty of work to be done. Issues like censorship, political influence, and public distrust remain major roadblocks in Armenia's media landscape. The country is making progress, but the path to truly free and independent media isn't as straightforward as many had hoped.
Shifting Dynamics: Press Freedom and Government Relations
According to Jeanne Cavelier, head of the Eastern Europe and Central Asia desk at Reporters Without Borders (RSF), in 2019, Armenia saw a significant improvement in its press freedom ranking, moving from 80th place out of 108 countries in 2018 to 61st. She noted that this was a positive sign at the time, as the government raised high expectations for improving the press freedom environment following restrictive legislative initiatives before the revolution, which had limited access to information, obstructed journalistic work, and allowed impunity for violence against journalists.
Cavelier further highlighted that Armenia’s ranking has improved even more today, reaching 43rd place. She attributed the progress to the pluralistic environment fostered by the revolution, with several news outlets gaining strength and independence. However, she cautioned that the media sector remains polarized, and truly independent outlets are still scarce, relying heavily on international donors.
According to Ashot Melikyan, the Chairman of the Committee to Protect Freedom of Expression, the post-revolutionary period has brought notable changes in how the country’s leader holds press conferences. Unlike his predecessors, no president before the revolution conducted press conferences in the format that Nikol Pashinyan does.
At best, previous leaders like Serzh Sargsyan would gather 7-8 loyal media outlets that praised his policies and consider this a press conference, which was essentially an imitation of one. In contrast, Pashinyan holds 4-5 hour-long press conferences with broad participation, allowing almost anyone interested to attend. However, some media outlets have expressed dissatisfaction, claiming they were not invited to these events.
At the same time, Melikyan emphasized that during the post-revolutionary period, it has become increasingly difficult to obtain information from state bodies, with government institutions maintaining poor communication with journalists. The Commitee to protect freedom of expression, annual report in 2023 states that 134 cases involve violations of the right to access and disseminate information.
Changes Following the Revolution
The media landscape in Armenia has experienced significant transformations following the 2018 Velvet Revolution, yet it continues to grapple with numerous challenges. One of the most pressing issues is the struggle for transparency regarding the ownership of media outlets, which has been identified as a major obstacle to responsible journalism in the country. The aftermath of the revolution has led to increased polarization within the media, escalating by the spreading of disinformation and fake news, contributing to a decline in the quality of journalism.
These challenges became more pronounced during Covid when the government declared a state of emergency and extended it several times. Rules under the national emergency imposed fines on groups and individuals who posted information related to the virus that “does not reflect reports from official sources”. Although civil society representatives and journalists voiced their concerns over these restrictions, several media outlets have been forced to remove or edit their stories under the threat of fines.
Armenian media also faced numerous restrictions during the latest war in Nagorno-Karabakh. A decree adopted on October 8th 2020 banned the publication of information critical of the government, civil servants and local administrations. This exposed media to the possibility of heavy fines, the freezing of assets and the deletion of online content.
These consecutive restrictions and challenges have significantly eroded public trust in media, as evidenced by the CRRC's Caucasus Barometer survey, which revealed that in 2022, 73% of respondents expressed distrust in media outlets.
Impact on Media Freedom
The Armenian Velvet Revolution of 2018 was initially hailed as a transformative moment for media freedom in the country. Following the revolution, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan's government appeared to foster an environment of increased press freedoms, leading to a notable rise in Armenia's media freedom ranking by Reporters Without Borders.
However, despite these promising beginnings, the media environment in Armenia has faced significant challenges. The media landscape remains highly polarized, with many outlets closely aligned with either the government or opposition parties, which often dictate editorial policies. Judicial proceedings against journalists and media are increasing in Armenia. In particular, the number of lawsuits alleging defamation or insult has grown dramatically. For example, Armenia’s justice department reported 74 cases in 2019 compared to 24 in 2016. The lawsuits against journalists and media outlets are usually organised by politicians or businessmen. Sometimes even other media groups are responsible for these cases. Damages can involve fines as high as two million Armenian drams (approx. 5,000 euros). The Committee to Protect Freedom of Expression’s annual report in 2020 stated that there had been 74 new court cases involving media outlets and journalists․ The vast majority (61 of these cases) are related to insult and defamation, whilst the thirteen others are mostly related to labour issues. In 2022 there were 32, but 36 in 2023. Journalists are accused most of all of disseminating offensive information or slander.
Physical Confrontations and Media Coverage
Violence against journalists continued even after the revolution, but the pace was relatively lower. The Commitee to protect freedom of expression recorded 21 cases of physical violence against journalists in 2018, with the number sharply dropping to 4 in 2019, rising to 6 in 2020, 18 in 2021. In 2023, there was a noticeable decrease in the number of physical assaults against journalists. Six cases were recorded in 2023, compared to 14 in 2022. According to data from the first three quarters of this year, 14 cases have been reported, all of which occurred on June 12.
However, cases of pressure against media outlets and their employees have increased. Specifically, 60 cases were registered in 2023, up from 55 in 2022.
The situation regarding violence against journalists changed in May-June 2024, when the opposition movement began to gain momentum in Armenia. Its culmination occurred on June 12. On June 12, 2024, opposition protesters staged demonstrations near the National Assembly, which culminated in violent clashes with police forces. Law enforcement officials deployed special measures against the demonstrators, including flash-bang grenades. These actions drew sharp criticism from major international media watchdogs, including the International Press Institute (IPI) and Reporters Without Borders (RSF), along with numerous other human rights organizations. According to Ashot Melikyan, 14 cases of violence against journalists were recorded, resulting in 23 victims.
Legislative Reforms and Structural Issues
Unlike the early years following the revolution, when members of the newly formed parliament consulted with journalistic organizations while drafting new legislative initiatives, later years saw the introduction of several regressive legislative proposals. For instance, one proposal aimed to amend the Law on Mass Media to prohibit journalists from using unidentified or anonymous sources. Protection of the confidentiality of journalist's sources is essential to press freedom, and the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that it is it's cornerstone.
After the 44-day war in 2020, Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly Alen Simonyan initiated a law to increase the financial compensation threshold for defamation and insult fivefold. Later, severe insult, including obscene language, was criminalized. Subsequently, President Armen Sarkissian referred the matter to the Constitutional Court to determine its constitutionality. However, the Court ruled that the law was consistent with the Constitution of Armenia. These laws faced significant criticism from international organizations, the EU Ambassador, the U.S. Embassy, and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), which adopted a resolution urging Armenia to repeal such measures.
"In 2010, the Constitutional Court had issued Decision No. 997, which stipulated that courts must consider a media outlet’s financial condition when determining compensation in defamation cases to prevent financial collapse. These recent decisions are directly contradictory," noted Ashot Melikyan.
Future Perspectives: Building a Sustainable Media Environment
Both the head of the Commitee to protect freedom of expression and the head of the Eastern Europe and Central Asia desk at Reporters Without Borders emphasize the need to improve the state of media through incentive-based methods.
"For instance, we propose the Journalism Trust Initiative, which could enhance the media sector’s independence and improve the visibility of objective, independent media outlets in Armenia. Tools like the Journalism Trust Initiative, a certification similar to an ISO norm, assess over 100 criteria to ensure that media content aligns with international standards. This certification can confirm that news production in these outlets follows proper, ethical practices," Jeanne Cavelier highlights.
According to the head of the Commitee to protect freedom of expression, a media legislation concept is currently being developed in Armenia, which will serve as the basis for numerous legislative changes. This is the result of collaboration between the government and civil society. The concept has already been finalized and sent to the Venice Commission, from which some observations have been received. Efforts are now underway to address them. Additionally, changes are planned for the law on mass media.
Ashot Melikyan notes, “In the new legislative framework, we emphasize the idea that involving media outlets in self-regulation mechanisms based on professional ethical norms can improve their operations. A system of incentives is employed: if a media outlet adheres to professional standards, it can benefit from certain privileges, such as accreditation in state institutions without additional legal requirements or access to government grants and funding. A dedicated fund is envisioned to support quality journalism, financed by both the state and international donors. However, while the state may contribute financially, it will have no influence over the distribution of funds. At most, one of the ten decision-makers may be a state representative, and even then, only in an observer capacity with no decision-making authority."
Comments