背景下的亚美尼亚媒体:苏联遗产、转型政治、民主与法治

Q2 Social Sciences
M. Kurkchiyan
{"title":"背景下的亚美尼亚媒体:苏联遗产、转型政治、民主与法治","authors":"M. Kurkchiyan","doi":"10.3200/DEMO.14.2.266-282","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract: This article considers why the media industry has failed to promote democracy in post-Soviet Armenia. It attempts to explain why the media have been consistently unable to bring socially significant information into the public domain, and why they have failed to provide an intellectual space in which politically constructive ideas could take shape through exchange, negotiation, and confrontation. The core of the article gives a critical assessment of the factors that affect media operation in Armenia, such as the expectations of the audience, the reasons for the lack of demand for democratic media, the impact of the Soviet legacy on the normative framework affecting the media industry, the growing control of the political authorities over business activity in general, and a legal culture that marginalizes the rule of law. The analysis throughout is illustrated and underpinned by empirical data collected by the author during a series of research projects in Armenia. Key words: democracy, forms of dependency, freedom of the press, media consumption, rule of law ********** Although many social scientists recognize that democracy, free media, and the rule of law each have a life of their own, and do not necessarily come together as a package, (1) people still assume that the introduction of any one of these elements will strengthen the other two. (2) In the early 1990s, that assumption gave rise to the misleading expectation that if the media could be freed from Communist Party control, and placed under regulations that met international standards, it would become a powerful catalyst of the post-Soviet transition toward democracy. In pursuit of that vision, Western-sponsored programs emphasizing media reform were introduced in many of the new republics that emerged after the fall of the Soviet Union. The reforms were accompanied by an insistent rhetoric that stressed the importance of a free and independent media. But as time passed it became clear that this was not to be. The goal of an independent media bore little relationship to what was actually happening in Armenia. (3) Instead of taking a lead in promoting democracy, the press in Armenia and other post-Soviet countries quickly became involved in political and economic affairs, unashamedly violated the principles of integrity, and generally interpreted \"freedom\" as being free from every kind of restraint--including moral restraint. (4) Why was there such a failure of the media industry to promote reform in the post-Soviet independent states? Why did the industry not bring socially significant information into the public domain? Why did it not provide a climate in which constructive ideas could take shape? Why, well into the second decade after its formation, was it beholden to political and economic interests? And why did the media not succeed in building a working relationship with readers, viewers, and listeners? To answer some of these questions, it is necessary to place the media in social, economic, and political context. This requires examining all of the factors that affect media operation. Factors includes the audience's expectations, the reasons for the lack of demand for democratic media, the impact of the Soviet legacy on the framework of the media, the growing control of the political authorities over business, and a legal culture that marginalizes the rule of law. This article will examine some of the above issues in relation to the Armenian media. Although Armenia has some unique peculiarities, the general pattern of media-related processes in the country has a strong resemblance to the manner in which the media developed in the other post-Soviet republics. I will analyze the media's audience in Armenia, examining both the pattern of media use among ordinary people, and the much more intense attention paid to them by the political and economic elite. The findings will give an indication of what is expected of the media in Armenian society, and what is demanded of them. …","PeriodicalId":39667,"journal":{"name":"Demokratizatsiya","volume":"123 1","pages":"266-282"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Armenian Media in Context: Soviet Heritage, the Politics of Transition, Democracy, and the Rule of Law\",\"authors\":\"M. Kurkchiyan\",\"doi\":\"10.3200/DEMO.14.2.266-282\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract: This article considers why the media industry has failed to promote democracy in post-Soviet Armenia. It attempts to explain why the media have been consistently unable to bring socially significant information into the public domain, and why they have failed to provide an intellectual space in which politically constructive ideas could take shape through exchange, negotiation, and confrontation. The core of the article gives a critical assessment of the factors that affect media operation in Armenia, such as the expectations of the audience, the reasons for the lack of demand for democratic media, the impact of the Soviet legacy on the normative framework affecting the media industry, the growing control of the political authorities over business activity in general, and a legal culture that marginalizes the rule of law. The analysis throughout is illustrated and underpinned by empirical data collected by the author during a series of research projects in Armenia. Key words: democracy, forms of dependency, freedom of the press, media consumption, rule of law ********** Although many social scientists recognize that democracy, free media, and the rule of law each have a life of their own, and do not necessarily come together as a package, (1) people still assume that the introduction of any one of these elements will strengthen the other two. (2) In the early 1990s, that assumption gave rise to the misleading expectation that if the media could be freed from Communist Party control, and placed under regulations that met international standards, it would become a powerful catalyst of the post-Soviet transition toward democracy. In pursuit of that vision, Western-sponsored programs emphasizing media reform were introduced in many of the new republics that emerged after the fall of the Soviet Union. The reforms were accompanied by an insistent rhetoric that stressed the importance of a free and independent media. But as time passed it became clear that this was not to be. The goal of an independent media bore little relationship to what was actually happening in Armenia. (3) Instead of taking a lead in promoting democracy, the press in Armenia and other post-Soviet countries quickly became involved in political and economic affairs, unashamedly violated the principles of integrity, and generally interpreted \\\"freedom\\\" as being free from every kind of restraint--including moral restraint. (4) Why was there such a failure of the media industry to promote reform in the post-Soviet independent states? Why did the industry not bring socially significant information into the public domain? Why did it not provide a climate in which constructive ideas could take shape? Why, well into the second decade after its formation, was it beholden to political and economic interests? And why did the media not succeed in building a working relationship with readers, viewers, and listeners? To answer some of these questions, it is necessary to place the media in social, economic, and political context. This requires examining all of the factors that affect media operation. Factors includes the audience's expectations, the reasons for the lack of demand for democratic media, the impact of the Soviet legacy on the framework of the media, the growing control of the political authorities over business, and a legal culture that marginalizes the rule of law. This article will examine some of the above issues in relation to the Armenian media. Although Armenia has some unique peculiarities, the general pattern of media-related processes in the country has a strong resemblance to the manner in which the media developed in the other post-Soviet republics. I will analyze the media's audience in Armenia, examining both the pattern of media use among ordinary people, and the much more intense attention paid to them by the political and economic elite. The findings will give an indication of what is expected of the media in Armenian society, and what is demanded of them. …\",\"PeriodicalId\":39667,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Demokratizatsiya\",\"volume\":\"123 1\",\"pages\":\"266-282\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2006-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Demokratizatsiya\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3200/DEMO.14.2.266-282\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Demokratizatsiya","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3200/DEMO.14.2.266-282","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

摘要:本文探讨了后苏联时代亚美尼亚传媒业未能推动民主的原因。它试图解释为什么媒体一直无法将具有社会意义的信息带入公共领域,以及为什么它们未能提供一个思想空间,在这个空间中,政治建设性思想可以通过交流、谈判和对抗形成。文章的核心是对影响亚美尼亚媒体运作的因素进行批判性评估,例如受众的期望、对民主媒体缺乏需求的原因、苏联遗产对影响传媒业的规范框架的影响、政治当局对商业活动的控制日益增强,以及将法治边缘化的法律文化。作者在亚美尼亚进行的一系列研究项目中收集的经验数据说明并支持了整个分析。关键词:民主、依赖形式、新闻自由、媒体消费、法治**********尽管许多社会科学家认识到民主、媒体自由和法治各自有自己的生命,并不一定作为一个整体结合在一起,(1)人们仍然认为引入其中任何一个元素都会加强其他两个元素。(2)在20世纪90年代初,这种假设导致了一种误导性的预期,即如果媒体能够从共产党的控制中解放出来,并置于符合国际标准的监管之下,它将成为后苏联时代向民主过渡的有力催化剂。为了实现这一愿景,西方赞助的强调媒体改革的项目被引入了许多苏联解体后新成立的共和国。伴随着改革的是一种坚持不懈的言辞,强调自由和独立媒体的重要性。但随着时间的流逝,事情变得越来越清楚,这是不可能的。建立独立媒体的目标与亚美尼亚实际发生的情况没有什么关系。(3)亚美尼亚和其他后苏联国家的新闻界没有带头推动民主,而是迅速介入政治和经济事务,肆无忌惮地违反诚信原则,并普遍将“自由”解释为不受任何约束——包括道德约束。(4)为什么后苏联独立国家的传媒业在推动改革方面如此失败?为什么这个行业没有将具有社会意义的信息带入公共领域?为什么它没有提供一种能够形成建设性思想的氛围?为什么在它成立后的第二个十年里,它还受制于政治和经济利益?为什么媒体没有成功地与读者、观众和听众建立起工作关系?为了回答其中的一些问题,有必要将媒体置于社会、经济和政治背景中。这需要检查影响媒体运作的所有因素。因素包括观众的期望、对民主媒体缺乏需求的原因、苏联遗产对媒体框架的影响、政治当局对商业的日益控制,以及将法治边缘化的法律文化。本文将探讨与亚美尼亚媒体有关的上述一些问题。虽然亚美尼亚有一些独特的特点,但该国与媒体有关的进程的一般模式与其他后苏联共和国媒体发展的方式非常相似。我将分析亚美尼亚的媒体受众,检视普通民众使用媒体的模式,以及政治和经济精英对媒体的高度关注。调查结果将表明亚美尼亚社会对媒体的期望,以及对媒体的要求。...
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Armenian Media in Context: Soviet Heritage, the Politics of Transition, Democracy, and the Rule of Law
Abstract: This article considers why the media industry has failed to promote democracy in post-Soviet Armenia. It attempts to explain why the media have been consistently unable to bring socially significant information into the public domain, and why they have failed to provide an intellectual space in which politically constructive ideas could take shape through exchange, negotiation, and confrontation. The core of the article gives a critical assessment of the factors that affect media operation in Armenia, such as the expectations of the audience, the reasons for the lack of demand for democratic media, the impact of the Soviet legacy on the normative framework affecting the media industry, the growing control of the political authorities over business activity in general, and a legal culture that marginalizes the rule of law. The analysis throughout is illustrated and underpinned by empirical data collected by the author during a series of research projects in Armenia. Key words: democracy, forms of dependency, freedom of the press, media consumption, rule of law ********** Although many social scientists recognize that democracy, free media, and the rule of law each have a life of their own, and do not necessarily come together as a package, (1) people still assume that the introduction of any one of these elements will strengthen the other two. (2) In the early 1990s, that assumption gave rise to the misleading expectation that if the media could be freed from Communist Party control, and placed under regulations that met international standards, it would become a powerful catalyst of the post-Soviet transition toward democracy. In pursuit of that vision, Western-sponsored programs emphasizing media reform were introduced in many of the new republics that emerged after the fall of the Soviet Union. The reforms were accompanied by an insistent rhetoric that stressed the importance of a free and independent media. But as time passed it became clear that this was not to be. The goal of an independent media bore little relationship to what was actually happening in Armenia. (3) Instead of taking a lead in promoting democracy, the press in Armenia and other post-Soviet countries quickly became involved in political and economic affairs, unashamedly violated the principles of integrity, and generally interpreted "freedom" as being free from every kind of restraint--including moral restraint. (4) Why was there such a failure of the media industry to promote reform in the post-Soviet independent states? Why did the industry not bring socially significant information into the public domain? Why did it not provide a climate in which constructive ideas could take shape? Why, well into the second decade after its formation, was it beholden to political and economic interests? And why did the media not succeed in building a working relationship with readers, viewers, and listeners? To answer some of these questions, it is necessary to place the media in social, economic, and political context. This requires examining all of the factors that affect media operation. Factors includes the audience's expectations, the reasons for the lack of demand for democratic media, the impact of the Soviet legacy on the framework of the media, the growing control of the political authorities over business, and a legal culture that marginalizes the rule of law. This article will examine some of the above issues in relation to the Armenian media. Although Armenia has some unique peculiarities, the general pattern of media-related processes in the country has a strong resemblance to the manner in which the media developed in the other post-Soviet republics. I will analyze the media's audience in Armenia, examining both the pattern of media use among ordinary people, and the much more intense attention paid to them by the political and economic elite. The findings will give an indication of what is expected of the media in Armenian society, and what is demanded of them. …
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Demokratizatsiya
Demokratizatsiya Social Sciences-Political Science and International Relations
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Occupying a unique niche among literary journals, ANQ is filled with short, incisive research-based articles about the literature of the English-speaking world and the language of literature. Contributors unravel obscure allusions, explain sources and analogues, and supply variant manuscript readings. Also included are Old English word studies, textual emendations, and rare correspondence from neglected archives. The journal is an essential source for professors and students, as well as archivists, bibliographers, biographers, editors, lexicographers, and textual scholars. With subjects from Chaucer and Milton to Fitzgerald and Welty, ANQ delves into the heart of literature.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信