Armenia’s Proposed Media Self-Regulation Law
At a Yerevan conference hosted by The Armenia Project, panelists stressed the need for independence, transparency, and strong incentives in the draft law’s framework.
Yerevan, Armenia – Dec. 10, 2024 - Leading media figures and democracy advocates gathered in Yerevan today to urge clarity, transparency, and independence in Armenia’s proposed media self-regulation law. In a series of lively discussions, local and international experts emphasized the importance of creating a landscape that promotes ethical journalism, combats disinformation, and deepens media literacy. The event comes as Armenia’s parliament prepares to finalize amendments to the Law on Mass Media.
The panels were hosted by The Armenia Project, an organization dedicated to fostering accountability, innovation, and resilience in Armenia’s media and democratic institutions. Known for bringing together thought leaders to address pressing societal challenges, the organization aimed to provide actionable recommendations for Armenia’s evolving media landscape.
Jeanne Cavallier, the head of the Eastern Europe and Central Asia Desk at Reporters Without Borders, said in her keynote address that self-regulation, “widely accepted in the European Union, provides a framework where media outlets can voluntarily adhere to ethical and transparent practices, helping to foster both trust and accountability in journalism.
“At the core of our discussions today will be the potential of self-regulation to protect democratic values, uphold journalistic integrity, and contribute to a healthier media environment,” she said, speaking from Paris by video hookup.
The Media Law and Armenia’s Unique Challenges
Self-regulation emphasizes voluntary compliance with ethical standards, independence from political influence, and public accountability, making it a preferred model in democratic societies. The concept, which Armenia is trying to implement via amendments to its Law on Mass Media, has gained significant prominence in Europe, particularly through the influence of the European Union and the Council of Europe, which advocate for media freedom while emphasizing ethical standards and public accountability. While self-regulation has deep roots in Europe, similar models have been adopted globally in places like Canada, Australia, and Japan. They are seen as a flexible alternative to state regulation, which can threaten press freedom.
The Venice Commission, a key advisory body of the Council of Europe, has recommended clarifying critical definitions in Armenia’s proposed law, such as who qualifies as a journalist and how digital platforms, bloggers, and foreign media fit into the regulatory framework. The finalized draft is expected to be presented for public discussion in 2025.
Armenia faces unique challenges as it attempts to reform its media environment. As a fledgling democracy in a volatile region, the country contends with the legacy of authoritarian media practices and disinformation campaigns. Geopolitical tensions with Azerbaijan and Turkey add another layer of complexity. The ongoing conflict with Azerbaijan, including the 2023 ethnic cleansing of Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh, has heightened the stakes for responsible media. Meanwhile, unresolved tensions with Turkey, rooted in the 1915 Armenian Genocide by the Ottomans, have created a climate where media narratives are often influenced by national security concerns. Against this backdrop, fostering a resilient and independent media ecosystem is essential to Armenia’s democratic aspirations.
Clear Legal Framework Needed for Self-Regulation
The first panel, moderated by Shawn McIntosh, American University of Armenia’s chair of MA in Multiplatform Journalism, explored the question: “Can Self-Regulation Work in Local Media? What Legal Framework Is Needed?” Panelists included Irish Press Ombudsperson Susan McKay, Media Initiatives Center Managing Director Nouneh Sarkissian, and media law expert with the Ministry of Justice Marietta Mnatsakanyan.
McIntosh asked Sarkissian about the existing media self-regulatory environment in Armenia, and asked Mnatsakanyan about how the law was planning to be implemented at the government level and asked why a law was needed. She explained that the government wanted to support the effort.
McKay highlighted lessons from Ireland’s Press Council, which successfully balances independence and accountability. “A self-regulation model can only work if it is built on trust—trust from the public, journalists, and the government,” she said. “What Ireland and Armenia have in common is a shared appreciation of the precariousness of democracy and it’s preciousness. And in such a situation, the public should hold the media to account and the media holds the government to account.”
Self-Regulation as a Tool Against Disinformation
The second panel, titled “Can Self-Regulation Address the Disinformation Challenge?”, delved into one of the most pressing threats to democratic societies. Moderated by Dan Perry, former Associated Press chief for Europe, the Middle East, and Africa, the discussion featured Corina Cepoi (Internews), Mariam Gogosashvili (Georgian Charter of Journalistic Ethics), Seda Muradyan (Public Journalism Club), and Andranik Shirinyan (Freedom House Armenia).
Dan Perry set the stage by emphasizing the stakes: “Disinformation is not just an abstract problem—it’s a crisis with profound real-world consequences. It erodes trust in institutions, fosters confusion, and amplifies societal divisions. It has been used both by internal agents of chaos in various places, but also by outside players.” He noted that the problem wil not be resolved merely by the industry but will require the public to reject irresponsible journalism.”
Corina Cepoi said it was a global problem, and said that eventually a way will have to be found to address the social media aspect. Mariam Gogosashvili advocated for stronger institutional support for ethical journalism. Seda Muradyan pointed out that in traumatized societies journalists are also traumatized, and this can create irresponsible journalism and hamper the fight against disinformation.
Andranik Shirinyan said it was critical to ensure that all voices are represented, especially given the wide range of opinion in Armenia – and emphasized the toll of development programs aimed at spreading media literacy.
Takeaways from the panels include:
● It is critical for the process to be voluntary and for there to be no possibility of impression that the regulatory process is a masked means for state control.
● Any media code of ethics should be simple and based on principles that are widely accepted. This enables there to be just one code.
● Social media must submit to regulation as it is a main driver of the rampant spread of misinformation and disinformation.
● It is important to define terms like “media” and “journalism.”
● In Armenia, the self-regulation frameworks must take account of the fragmented and polarized media landscape.
● Self-regulation should be a collaborative effort involving international partnerships and multi-stakeholder approaches.
● A key goal is accountability for digital platforms whose algorithms amplify disinformation.
● Educational initiatives around media literacy and critical thinking are crucial for creating a foundation for ethical journalism, fighting disinformation, and elevating the public’s demand for quality information.
