ArmInfo.Before the "velvet revolution," the government exerted economic pressure on media outlets for favorable and uncritical coverage. The authors of annual report of the Department of State on Human Rights note.
Broadcast and many large-circulation print media generally practiced self-censorship, expressing views sympathetic to their owners or advertisers--a mix of government officials and wealthy business people. Small-circulation print and online media outlets tended to be more critical, the report reads. After the May change in government, the media environment became more free as some outlets began to step away from self- censorship; however, some still refrained from critical comments of the new government not to appear "counterrevolutionary."
At the same time the Department of State notes that individuals were free to criticize the government in private and online without fear of arrest. On June 18, however, Prime Minister Pashinyan posted on Facebook a comment denouncing as "antistate" propaganda carried by some television stations. While he did not mention any specific channels, according to some media watchdogs, the statement had a chilling effect on the media climate.
The authors of the report also state that broadcast and larger-circulation print media generally lacked diversity of political opinion and objective reporting. Private individuals or groups owned most broadcast media and newspapers, which tended to reflect the political leanings and financial interests of their proprietors.
Broadcast media, particularly public television, remained one of the primary sources of news and information for the majority of the population. According to some media watchdogs, public television continued to present news from a progovernment standpoint, even after the "velvet revolution," replacing one government perspective with the other.
The Department of State also notes that use of fake social media accounts and attempts to manipulate the media, however, increased dramatically after the "velvet revolution." According to media watchdogs, individuals used manipulation technologies, including hybrid websites, controversial bloggers, "troll factories," fake Facebook groups and fake stories, to attack the government.
The country's few independent media outlets, mostly online, were not self-sustainable and survived through international donations, with limited or no revenues from advertising. The media advertising market did not change substantially after the "velvet revolution" and key market players remained the same. Media company ownership was mostly nontransparent. -