Armenian Media in Grippe of Criticism: The Anatomy of a Conflict Between the Press and Society
22.09.2025,
12:24
A recent meeting of leading representatives of one of the most important industries took place—an event that follows a virtually identical template.
YEREVAN, September 22. /ARKA/. A recent meeting of leading representatives of one of the most important industries took place—an event that follows a virtually identical template. After the meeting, many expressed dissatisfaction with the local media's alleged ignorance of their work.
However, when asked what publications they read, the answer was revealing: "We don't read anything at all." It also emerged that these representatives do not interact with the press—they do not provide information to journalists, do not invite them to events, and do not initiate joint projects. Expecting coverage without a willingness to engage in dialogue has become a clear example of one-sided demands on the media.
Content under fire: the impossibility of pleasing everyone
The main complaint against the media is the inaccurate presentation of information. Journalists inevitably face accusations of bias: supporters of various positions find flaws in any publication, deeming the material either too subjective or superficial.
The paradox is that attempts at maximally objective reporting also draw criticism—now for "lack of position" or "avoiding sharp angles."
Silence is also a crime
The lack of coverage of certain events is equally acute. Media outlets are accused of hushing up important topics, which is interpreted as manipulating public opinion and perceived as deliberate censorship.
Modern technology complicates the situation: social media has become an alternative source of news, where information is disseminated instantly but without editorial review. Traditional media are forced to compete with platforms where speed is more important than reliability.
Contradictions in the business environment and the problem of financial independence
The behavior of entrepreneurs is indicative: while complaining about the poor quality of the media, they continue to advertise in the same publications they criticize as "yellow." Commercial interests are proving stronger than principled positions—advertising often goes where reach is greatest, not where quality is greatest.
The media's financial problems are systemic. As information security expert Samvel Martirosyan notes, achieving financial independence for the media is a "super-problem": "The market is very small, overcrowded, and there are countless media outlets operating." At the same time, audiences are unwilling to pay for subscriptions, which inevitably leads to publications' dependence on external sources of funding.
"At first, the dependence may be weak, for example, based on a specific project, but then it can quickly become overwhelming," the expert warns. This creates a vicious cycle: high-quality publications that carefully verify information receive less advertising revenue and are forced to cut staff, which reduces their competitiveness.
Systemic Pressure on the Media
The problem is exacerbated by targeted pressure on the press. According to information security expert Artur Papyan, "efforts have been underway for years to destroy the press": media outlets are deprived of advertising revenue, lawsuits are filed against them, and property is seized.
"The state encourages approaches that treat journalists as enemies; civil servants avoid journalists, closing all media outlets," Papyan notes. At the same time, there is a striking difference in government support for different sectors: IT receives all sorts of benefits—tax breaks and support programs—while the media receives almost nothing.
The result is predictable: in the context of the systemic "destruction" of legitimate media, their place is taken by unverified sources of information—Telegram channels and social media. "If you 'destroy' the media in every possible way, naturally, people will not trust them and will prefer Telegram channels," the expert notes.
Information Hygiene as a Necessity
In an overcrowded media landscape, it is critical to distinguish between high-quality and "sensational" or "yellow" sources of information. Serious media outlets spend time and resources on verification, making them less responsive than publications that publish unverified information.
Developing media literacy skills will help audiences make informed choices about sources and understand the difference between facts and opinions, between quality journalism and "denim."
Media as a Mirror of Society
The press inevitably reflects the society in which it exists. Journalists live in the same socioeconomic context as their readers, experiencing similar problems and pressures. Working under constant deadlines, competition, and public criticism makes the profession extremely challenging.
Expecting absolute objectivity from the media is utopian—journalists remain human beings with their own views and limitations. The quality of the press is directly related to the level of development of society, its demands, and its willingness to support quality journalism.
The Path to Constructive Dialogue
Modern media are indeed under fire from criticism. However, instead of endless complaints, it's worth focusing on building a constructive dialogue between journalists and society.
Experts emphasize the need for systemic change: the state must provide resources to the press and work to ensure that media are sustainable, trustworthy, and able to grow, develop, and withstand external pressure.
This is especially important in the face of competition from global platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and Telegram, which are vying for the same audience attention and advertising budgets.
Building a healthy media ecosystem requires a commitment from all parties to open interaction: the media must strive for professional growth and transparency, society must strive for media literacy and support for quality journalism, and the state must create conditions for the independent existence of the press. Only a comprehensive approach can create an information environment that meets the needs of a developed society.-0-
Konstantin Petrosov
Director of the ARKA News Agency
However, when asked what publications they read, the answer was revealing: "We don't read anything at all." It also emerged that these representatives do not interact with the press—they do not provide information to journalists, do not invite them to events, and do not initiate joint projects. Expecting coverage without a willingness to engage in dialogue has become a clear example of one-sided demands on the media.
Content under fire: the impossibility of pleasing everyone
The main complaint against the media is the inaccurate presentation of information. Journalists inevitably face accusations of bias: supporters of various positions find flaws in any publication, deeming the material either too subjective or superficial.
The paradox is that attempts at maximally objective reporting also draw criticism—now for "lack of position" or "avoiding sharp angles."
Silence is also a crime
The lack of coverage of certain events is equally acute. Media outlets are accused of hushing up important topics, which is interpreted as manipulating public opinion and perceived as deliberate censorship.
Modern technology complicates the situation: social media has become an alternative source of news, where information is disseminated instantly but without editorial review. Traditional media are forced to compete with platforms where speed is more important than reliability.
Contradictions in the business environment and the problem of financial independence
The behavior of entrepreneurs is indicative: while complaining about the poor quality of the media, they continue to advertise in the same publications they criticize as "yellow." Commercial interests are proving stronger than principled positions—advertising often goes where reach is greatest, not where quality is greatest.
The media's financial problems are systemic. As information security expert Samvel Martirosyan notes, achieving financial independence for the media is a "super-problem": "The market is very small, overcrowded, and there are countless media outlets operating." At the same time, audiences are unwilling to pay for subscriptions, which inevitably leads to publications' dependence on external sources of funding.
"At first, the dependence may be weak, for example, based on a specific project, but then it can quickly become overwhelming," the expert warns. This creates a vicious cycle: high-quality publications that carefully verify information receive less advertising revenue and are forced to cut staff, which reduces their competitiveness.
Systemic Pressure on the Media
The problem is exacerbated by targeted pressure on the press. According to information security expert Artur Papyan, "efforts have been underway for years to destroy the press": media outlets are deprived of advertising revenue, lawsuits are filed against them, and property is seized.
"The state encourages approaches that treat journalists as enemies; civil servants avoid journalists, closing all media outlets," Papyan notes. At the same time, there is a striking difference in government support for different sectors: IT receives all sorts of benefits—tax breaks and support programs—while the media receives almost nothing.
The result is predictable: in the context of the systemic "destruction" of legitimate media, their place is taken by unverified sources of information—Telegram channels and social media. "If you 'destroy' the media in every possible way, naturally, people will not trust them and will prefer Telegram channels," the expert notes.
Information Hygiene as a Necessity
In an overcrowded media landscape, it is critical to distinguish between high-quality and "sensational" or "yellow" sources of information. Serious media outlets spend time and resources on verification, making them less responsive than publications that publish unverified information.
Developing media literacy skills will help audiences make informed choices about sources and understand the difference between facts and opinions, between quality journalism and "denim."
Media as a Mirror of Society
The press inevitably reflects the society in which it exists. Journalists live in the same socioeconomic context as their readers, experiencing similar problems and pressures. Working under constant deadlines, competition, and public criticism makes the profession extremely challenging.
Expecting absolute objectivity from the media is utopian—journalists remain human beings with their own views and limitations. The quality of the press is directly related to the level of development of society, its demands, and its willingness to support quality journalism.
The Path to Constructive Dialogue
Modern media are indeed under fire from criticism. However, instead of endless complaints, it's worth focusing on building a constructive dialogue between journalists and society.
Experts emphasize the need for systemic change: the state must provide resources to the press and work to ensure that media are sustainable, trustworthy, and able to grow, develop, and withstand external pressure.
This is especially important in the face of competition from global platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and Telegram, which are vying for the same audience attention and advertising budgets.
Building a healthy media ecosystem requires a commitment from all parties to open interaction: the media must strive for professional growth and transparency, society must strive for media literacy and support for quality journalism, and the state must create conditions for the independent existence of the press. Only a comprehensive approach can create an information environment that meets the needs of a developed society.-0-
Konstantin Petrosov
Director of the ARKA News Agency
