There is often no better perspective about the state of our journalism than when it is viewed from a distance.

So it was with a great deal of anticipation that I, along with Ian Mayes, readers’ editor for The Guardian in London, went to Armenia on September 23, for a series of meetings with journalists and journalism students. Mayes and I were invited to talk about media ombudsmanship, and how the media in our countries attempt to be self-regulating. Armenian journalists are particularly interested in relations between journalists and governments.

In Armenia, that is the main issue, as it often is elsewhere. Yet, the circumstances under which Armenian journalists practice their craft are distinctly fraught with dangers unique to that country.

Some background: Armenia was one of 15 soviet republics that made up the now defunct Soviet Union. When the Soviet Union collapsed 15 years ago, Armenia became an independent republic, looking to define itself as an emerging post-Soviet democracy, but not always successfully. Armenia (which is mostly Christian) has also had border disputes with neighboring Azerbaijan (which is mostly Muslim) over an enclave called Nagarno Karabakh, which is ethnically Armenian.

Armenia has also had profoundly troubled relations with neighboring Turkey that go back to 1915 when a million-and-a-half Armenians were massacred in what is become known as the Armenian Genocide. The Turkish government has refused to acknowledge that event. That refusal offends Armenians to this day. Visitors to the capital, Yerevan, are asked if they have visited the immensely powerful memorial to the genocide. Partly because of that and other issues, the border between Armenia and Turkey remains closed.

At the same time, Armenian journalism appears alive and well, if in a state of anxious transition as the country moves toward a more capitalist footing. Foreign investment in the country is intense and the Yerevan skyline is a blur of construction cranes. With a population of only 3 million people, Armenia has 11 daily newspapers and more than 40 local and national television stations. Newspaper circulation remains small, with the largest circulation paper being around 4,000 daily copies.

Armenia is not an easy place to be a journalist. President Robert Kocharian’s government regularly harasses and jails journalists. There are strong pressures on the public broadcaster not to air interviews with opposition politicians. Kocherian was re-elected in 2003 and for a time, journalists felt a short-lived sense of press freedoms - but not for long. In May of this year, Armenia was ranked 137^th out of 194 countries when it comes to press freedoms according to Freedom House, an NGO that assesses media freedom around the world [click here].

An election is scheduled for next year and Armenian journalists are bracing for further pressures.

Still the journalistic atmosphere seems anything but intimidated. I was impressed with the willingness of journalists to challenge the government and the limitations placed on them. The US embassy is also keeping a close eye on relations between the media and the government with continued American financial aid hanging in the balance.

According to the Committee to Protect Journalists [click here] the outlook for journalists in Armenia remains tense. Some examples from the CPJ report from 2005:

• Despite recommendations from the Council of Europe and other international organizations, the government in February rejected for the 10th time a broadcast license application filed by A1+, the independent television station pulled off the air in 2002. The station continued to operate a popular news Web site, publish a weekly newspaper, and produce programs for regional television stations.
• In February, the Interior Ministry closed its investigation into a 2004 arson attack on a car owned by editor Nikola Pashinian of the independent daily Haikakan Zhamanak in the capital, Yerevan. No arrests were made. Haikakan Zhamanak reported that police never interviewed a politician whom the newspaper believed to be responsible.
• Arson was used as a means of attack again on April 1, when someone burned the car of Samuel Aleksanian, editor-in-chief of the state weekly Syunyats Yerkir in the southern city of Goris, according to local press reports. Aleksanian said the attack followed his criticism of the local governor.
• Armenian politicians cited the "war on terror" as reason for passing legislation restricting press coverage of terrorism. President Robert Kocharian signed the measure on April 19, ignoring concerns over vaguely worded prohibitions on reporting of antiterror tactics, the Yerevan Press Club reported.

We were also impressed with the large interest in journalism in the universities. Mayes and I spoke to two university classes where the vast majority of students are women. Interestingly, when we asked the classes if they thought that they as women journalists would be running news organizations in a few years, our questions were met either with puzzled stares or embarrassed laughter. Clearly the role of women in the media plays a secondary role at this point to the effort to extend press freedoms overall.

A subject of continued interest among Armenian journalists was how American journalists reported on the lead-up to the war in Iraq. As in many other countries, the war has changed how Americans and American policy are viewed by Armenians in general. The impression shared by many Armenian journalists is that domestic US opposition to the war has not been strong precisely because US journalism was intimidated by a powerful White House. Attempts to explain that the after-effects of 9/11 on American media have created a unique set of circumstances for American journalism were met with polite skepticism by many Armenian journalists who, after all, have their own continuing view of government pressures on the media.

Click here for Ian Mayes' column about the visit in The Guardian.

[top]