EurasiaNet Civil Society - Armenia: Opposition Parties Cry Foul Over Television Coverage

CIVIL SOCIETY

ARMENIA: OPPOSITION PARTIES CRY FOUL OVER TELEVISION COVERAGE
Marianna Grigoryan 4/27/07

Armenian opposition parties are complaining that high prices for television campaign ads and extensive coverage of pro-government political parties are skewing Armenia’s parliamentary campaign. International and local media monitoring reports appear to support the contention that the government and parties in power are dominating television election news coverage.

An April 8�15 survey of more than a dozen television stations conducted by the Yerevan Press Club found that the governing Republican Party of Armenia had the most television campaign ads and received the most exposure from the "frequency of mentions" in television programs. Second place was held by the pro-government Prosperous Armenia Party and third place by the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF), a member of the governing coalition. ARF leaders have threatened to go into opposition if the May 12 parliamentary election is not deemed free-and-fair.

Much of the trouble comes down to television ads. The Central Election Commission (CEC) has stipulated that parties must have access to two minutes of free television airtime and four minutes of paid airtime per day. But fees for television campaign ads are estimated to have at least tripled since the 2003 parliamentary voting. The opposition says it does not have the resources to cover the costs

The Impeachment bloc, a group pushing for the impeachment of President Robert Kocharian on the alleged grounds that his 2003 election was rigged, has only purchased three minutes of political advertising on television, stated bloc member Nikol Pashinian, editor-in-chief of the daily Haykakan Zhamanak. "Under the law, anyone has the right to be nominated as a candidate, to say and express what he wants. However, to pay 80,000 drams (about $223) for one minute [of advertising] is affordable only for those who have been thieving for years," Pashinian claimed.

A member of the political council of the hardline opposition Hanrapetutiun (Republic) Party agrees. "Everyone is saving their money to go on the air during the last few days [of the campaign], which greatly damages the party’s campaign," said Suren Sureniants. (The official campaign ends on May 10). As a result, he added, the Republic Party is "trying to find other options" to get its message out.

Veteran opposition parliamentarian Arshak Sadoyan, leader of the National Democratic Alliance Party, suggests that the best option is to go from house to house to try and meet with people in person. "When I go to the regions, people are surprised and ask me whether I am really participating in the elections," said Sadoyan, who is well known for his fiery anti-government speeches. "Clearly, they won’t know [me] because I don’t have the resources to pay for a campaign ad and to appear on the TV screen, and the most powerful means of propaganda is television."

Representatives of Armenia TV, the country’s largest private TV station, and Kentron TV, owned by Prosperous Armenia Party leader Gagik Tsarukian, declined to comment to EurasiaNet about their campaign ad sales.

The timing of campaign ads also plays a role, opposition members say. Sureniants, the Republic Party official, deemed it "illogical" that public television has scheduled a straight hour of campaign ads at 5:15pm, given that the station’s prime time falls between 7pm and 11pm. Representatives of parties allied with the government often appear on the station during prime-time talk shows, doubling the impact of the parties’ publicity campaigns, Sureniants charged.

"Everything is done deliberately," commented Sureniants, terming the practice "a news blockade" backed by the government.

In response to the accusations, Public Television Deputy Executive Director Gnel Nalbandian told EurasiaNet that the number of parties taking part in the campaign renders providing equal airtime for all parties a challenge. "Of course, the broadcasts of public television cannot equally cover the events of all parties," Nalbandian said. "Even technically, we are unable to cover the events of the 25 political parties participating in the elections and we have found ourselves between a rock and a hard place."

Public television is preparing a response to coverage concerns raised in a March 29-April 17 interim election report by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (OSCE/ODIHR). The report showed that public television devoted 43 percent of its political prime-time news coverage to the government, with coverage in "an exclusively neutral and positive tone." The Republican Party of Armenia received the most airtime of parties running for parliament, with 16 percent of total news coverage, according to the report. The Armenian Revolutionary Federation received 4 percent of airtime, and the opposition Orinats Yerkir (Country of Law) Party received 5 percent.

Meanwhile, studies conducted by the Caucasus Media Institute in Yerevan show that 75 percent of public television coverage is devoted to the three parties of Armenia’s governing coalition (Republican Party of Armenia, Armenia Revolutionary Federation, United Labor Party) and only 25 percent to parties that are not members of the coalition.

The OSCE/ODIHR plans to publish a third report on the election campaign with fresh media monitoring details the week of April 30, said OSCE/ODIHR media analyst Ivan Godarsky. The media monitoring results will also be included in the organization’s final report, to be released "six to eight weeks" after the election, he added.

Editor�s Note: Marianna Grigoryan is a reporter for the independent online weekly ArmeniaNow in Yerevan.

The Central Eurasia Project aims, through its website, meetings, papers, and grants, to foster a more informed debate about the social, political and economic developments of the Caucasus and Central Asia. It is a program of the Open Society Institute-New York. The Open Society Institute-New York is a private operating and grantmaking foundation that promotes the development of open societies around the world by supporting educational, social, and legal reform, and by encouraging alternative approaches to complex and controversial issues.

The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily represent the position of the Open Society Institute and are the sole responsibility of the author or authors.