GOAM REPS AND NGOS DISCUSS MEDIA AMENDMENTS

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 YEREVAN 001466 SIPDIS SIPDIS DEPARTMENT FOR EUR/CARC, EUR/PPD E.O. 12958; N/A TAGS: PGOV PHUM ECON KPAO AM SUBJECT: GOAM REPS AND NGOS DISCUSS MEDIA AMENDMENTS REF: YEREVAN 1075 -------------- SUMMARY -------------- ¶1. The Partnership for Open Society Institute (OSI) local NGO held a discussion on media freedom in Armenia on October 9. The discussion focused on the draft amendments on media regulations that the government plans to re-submit following the parliament's failure to achieve a quorum for an October 3 vote (reftel). While the participants, who included influential government officials and NGO representatives, agreed that further discussion of the draft amendments was needed, government representatives and civil society leaders continued to disagree about how and when the draft should be changed. END SUMMARY. -------------- ALL AGREE THAT MORE DISCUSSION NEEDED -------------- ¶2. Almost all participants at the discussion, from NGO representatives to government officials, agreed that more discussion of the draft amendments was needed. Hranoush Hakobian, a member of the Republican Party and chair of the parliamentary committee in charge of the draft amendments, stated that she was looking forward to further discussion of the amendments and hoped that media outlets would express more interest in the issue. Yerevan Press Club President Boris Navasardian noted that by presenting the draft amendments to the parliament only days before the scheduled vote, the government had failed to fulfill OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media Miklos Haraszti's recommendation that the government should hold consultations with NGOs and other organizations on how to improve the broadcast media situation. OSCE Representative in Armenia Vladimir Pryakhin applauded OSI for holding the discussion, and noted that the OSCE was prepared to provide advice on the draft amendments if requested. -------------- -------------- MP PUSHES VOTE ON MEDIA AMENDMENTS NOW, IMPROVEMENTS LATER -------------- -------------- ¶3. While the participants agreed that the amendments should be discussed further, they disagreed on when and how. MP Hakobian said that she believed the draft should be passed in the first reading, and changed only before the second reading. Hakobian stated that while some stipulations of the amendments should be more concretely defined, the current draft would still be an improvement, as it would ensure the independence of the National Commission on Television and Radio. Hakobian noted that while at first many people had similar concerns that the Law on Press and Mass Media would create obstacles to the freedom of the press, the law had been in effect for three years and had, in fact, had a positive impact. (NOTE: The Law on Press and Mass Media sets forth regulations related to the press, including how to register media outlets, the steps necessary to accredit journalists, and what rights journalists are guaranteed. END NOTE.) ¶4. Yerevan Press Club President Boris Navasardian pointed out that while the Law on Mass Media had not had a particularly negative impact, it was debated for almost two years before being approved by parliament, while the current draft was presented only weeks ago. Navasardian stated that the draft should not be voted on until the recommendations of media representatives had been included. He said that the structure of the draft amendments could not be changed after it passed the first reading, and expressed concern that there was no guarantee that the bill would be changed before the second reading. -------------- - NUMBER OF REGULATORY BODY MEMBERS UNIMPORTANT? -------------- - ¶5. Navasardian argued that a main provision of the bill should be to increase the number of members of the National Commission on Television and Radio, the body that regulates the broadcast media, from eight to 16. (NOTE: Based on the Council of Europe's recommendation that the commission should be more independent, the package of amendments passed in 2005 stipulates that half of the commission members should be selected by the parliament, whereas currently all of the members are appointed by the president. END NOTE.) According to Navasardian, should the number of members remain eight, the new requirement that half of the members be selected by the parliament rather than the president would be ineffective until the end of the six-year terms of the current members. ¶6. Justice Minister David Harutyunian, who presented the draft amendments to the parliament earlier in the month, responded that he did not understand the point of increasing the number of members of the commission since the members were not supposed to make political YEREVAN 00001466 002 OF 002 decisions. Hakobian concurred, saying that it is not the number of members that was important, but rather the professionalism of the staff. -------------- PUBLIC TV SAYS ADVERTISING REVENUE ESSENTIAL -------------- ¶7. Regarding the draft amendment's provision that Public TV would no longer be required to limit commercials to 5 percent of broadcast time, Internews Director Nouneh Sarkissian stated that this would focus Armenia's public broadcaster on advertising revenues and entertainment value rather than on fulfilling its obligation to provide informative programming for the public. Vardan Kopyan, Deputy President of the Public TV and Radio Council, claimed that this would not be the case, saying that advertising revenues were essential simply for Public TV to be able to broadcast in all territories in Armenia, as well as via satellite to the rest of the CIS, the United States, and Europe. Kopyan said that no private company broadcasts to as many regions and countries as Public TV, and that it was essential that Diaspora Armenians were able to view the broadcasts since more Armenians lived outside the country than within it. According to Kopyan, of the approximately 5.5 million USD that Public TV receives annually from the government, 4.1 million is spent on satellite broadcasts to foreign countries. -------------- COMMENT -------------- ¶8. Even though government officials and NGO representatives agreed in theory that further discussion was necessary, it is unclear on what specific changes to the amendments the government and NGOs could agree. While it is a positive sign that government officials and civil society leaders are discussing the issue, it remains to be seen whether such debates will have any concrete impact on the content of the amendments. We will continue to urge government officials, media representatives, and civil society leaders to carefully consider the effect of the proposed amendments on freedom of expression. GODFREY