Bright Armenia Fraction MP Anna Kostanyan considers some points of the Law on Audiovisual Media problematic

On July 16, the National Assembly adopted in the second reading the package of draft laws on changes in the Law on Audiovisual Media and the Law on Licensing. Bright Armenia Fraction MP Anna Kostanyan considers some points of the Law on Audiovisual Media problematic. “Media Advocate” initiative asked the deputy to present them.

“The first and most important issue was the issue of regional TV companies, which, in fact, will not be solved by this law, because during the tenure of the previous government there were some regional TV companies that were closed, and now, during the tenure of this government, they do not have an opportunity to restart their operation. We mainly emphasized the fact that if this law is introduced in order to create equal conditions for all TV channels, then why, first of all, no steps were taken by the ruling fraction to reopen these very TV channels. The other issue was the issue of foreign broadcasters. As you know, the Russian embassy raised the issue that, in fact, after the adoption of this law, Russian TV channels may not have the opportunity to be presented in public multiplex, as the law stipulates that from now on the restoration of broadcasting opportunities will be under international agreements. Some time after expressing our concerns, ahead of the second reading, the draft was somewhat changed. A deadline has been set for foreign broadcasters to be able to regulate their broadcasting issues in Armenia by the beginning of January 2021, after which the issue of considering broadcasting opportunities will be discussed through an interstate agreement.”

The reason for hurriedly passing the law, according to Anna Kostanyan is as follows: “The haste was conditioned by the expiration of the licenses, as ten-year term ends in July. The law that was in force was quite outdated and did not comply with the rules of modern media և surface broadcasters. That was the reason why a bill was brought, the authors emphasized that it would solve the problems that were missing in the old law: the time will show to what extent it will correspond to reality.”

As for the danger of censorship, the deputy mentioned: “I noticed the danger of censorship in one of the provisions when conducting my research. The regulatory body, the commission, must identify the problems of the broadcasters. It is not excluded that a case of censorship will be registered in the future. Of course, it is commented that there will not be any content intervention, but only related to technical issues, but since the law clearly states that the regulatory body has the authority to determine the scope of important events, we have the impression that the intervention will refer to content too. In general, no one has a right to define to the broadcaster or a mass media what the scope of important events is.”