That psychological state in which we live in today can be called tiredness. And mainly tiredness from the media.

After the revolution which took place a year ago, it is clear that the most problematic is not the judicial system rather, the positioning of the mass media. It seems as if there is an aim to wear out the audience’s vigilance nerve and guide their chaotic questions towards the idea that on a larger scale nothing has changed. They’ve even gotten worse.

And so there is a need to change media figures and actors. So the same people should speak, even though they are now wearing different masks. For example, persecutors, adults, or classic fellow journalists who have something to lose (money, connections, shadow commitments, and a call to having a career) and do not want to lose it.

Actually, the biggest change took place a year ago the political elite changed, the layer formed by party members and partisan “experts” and “responsible media outlets” came out of the game, which riding the patriotic waved covered any public discourse in the vast majority of media platforms.

One party could argue or extinguish disputes whenever it wants, as the news agendas and news media are under the control of their peers.

As the screenwriter, so in social networking circles, that layer would show and speak, sparking ridicule and trolling towards any oppositionist thought.

After the revolution, that layer suddenly turned out to be uninteresting, viewed as retrograde and time-consuming. Their train left, leaving behind only steam.  

The audience and the target of the revolution are not tired but enthusiastic people, who are awake to enthusiastically join in the change voluntarily and with pleasure.

It was important for the former authorities to have a media return operation so that the enthusiasm of the revolution would turn into tiredness. That the audience, seeing the faces of the old political actors with a new passion, would fee that the push to join the changes is no longer attractive.

And many media outlets started to prove once again that the best thing is to become tired, to pull away from changes, to slow down, look back, to turn a blind eye on the shortcomings of those in the past. Especially because the new ones are no less flawed. And so, nothing has changed but the threats have increased (of war, for example).   

The idea that nothing has changed, but are only deteriorating, is a destructive message for any society. It suggests that there was no point in changing, even if it was bad because it could get worse.

The situation in Armenia has changed dramatically over the course of a year, but many media outlets (starting from Public Television, ending with a conventional mushroom site) are actively engaged in public discussion, and with the new authorities as a counterbalance to those people whose only goal is revenge.

The editors-in-chief know very well that even if new parties are formed or well-forgotten old ones are called under the name of new movements, this is done in the framework of the operation “Return of the Old.”

This allegation might have seemed to be unreliable if the main, mood-generating media showed that they were searching for it. Let’s say that they are searching for new words, new formats, at last, new speakers.

It was difficult for reporters to say what was said to the judges, “go and works in such a way that you are dictated by the law and conscience.”  

Journalists and editors can say with a clear conscience that they have always worked well, providing pluralism, sharp debate and balances.

Theoretically, they will not be mistaken, but practically they would be lying.

The conventional and classical rule (and most manipulative) in journalism, which imposes two opposing views, it is a trap in which the audience finally ends up in. Again and again, it appears.

It is vividly proven by the choice of guests for TV debates and the opinions of other media outlets. As opposed to the new ones, revenge demanders are selected as part of the operation “Return.”

And within the framework, media outlets cannot say that they provide information, diversity of opinions and sharp discussions. They make a choice as to who they give the opportunity to speak to and who to ignore.

To have a tired audience, you need to ignore more. Even those faces which have new political ambitions, for the sake of the old ones.

Nune Hakhverdyan

The views expressed in the column are those of the author's and do not necessarily reflect the views of Media.am.