The main report of the Public Television of Armenia (First Channel) included a reportage entitled “86 absentees at Zartonk School” (36:30-39:40), which states that “Zartonk residents have set conditions for children to go to school only in case someone from them is appointed as a deputy of the community leader or secretary and when the school principal resigns. The absentees turned to be the children of those parents who demand the resignation of the former community leader. The school has politicized the children, has made them demonstrators, driving them to the court for hours, demanding the release of the grandson of the former community leader who in fact instigated an armed incident: parents say.”
On the one hand, one may see the parents who persuade children not to go school, on the other hand the teachers who try to make them change their opinion but what is noteworthy in such situation is that in addition to teachers, school principal and parents, the reporter also talked to children who continue attending school.
Subparagraph 3 of the 4th paragraph of the Ethics Code of the Media and Journalists of Armenia sets out the following: “Being particularly tactful when information sources or heroes of publications are children and teenagers”, in accordance with subparagraph 5 of the same paragraph, “the consent of the child and of the person responsible for the child should exist desirably, in a written form and obligatory in a child-friendly language before interviewing, filming, photographing, or publishing factual information about him/her. Consent must be voluntary and exclude any form of compulsion. The child and the person responsible for it must clearly understand that they are talking to a journalist who intends to disseminate the material through the media.”
It is not clear whether the child’s consent existed or not. There are scenes with participation of children, as well as several pupils express their opinion about the absence of their classmates. These opinions seem contradictory, one states “they say teachers are bad, they do not teach well, but if they are bad, how did they get excellent marks”, the other notes, “… “the demonstrationist children” love teachers and we do not understand why they behave this way”, “ … they say we do not want to come to this school, but they do not say the reason”, the third one says.
A question arises: Is it proper to use the children in the report when the problem is exacerbated and has political subtext? Moreover, there are also scenes of the demonstration in front of the court, where demonstrator children are clearly visible – this is nothing but a gross violation.
It should be noted that the Public Television has attempted to provide a balanced and neutral report to the audience by presenting the opinions of the two sides, but they failed for one or another reason as the opinion of one side is clear and straightforward, while the other is vague and incomplete.
All this, when the Public Television of Armenia, which is financed from the state budget, should perfectly comply with all the norms and value the rights of the most vulnerable group, that is, children.
