Time restrictions in the media passed

***

- Rashid bey, editors-in-chief of some sites have been brought to trial due to the Gyandja developments, their sites blocked, and many social site users brought to justice. In your view, how far are these steps of the authorities justified?

- The attempted assassination against a senior governmental official in the city of Gyandja spurred a public uproar across the country. Excitement has been at its height in society in terms of the recent electric crisis. The most dangerous and deplorable aspect of the incident is that the government has become confused; some responsible officials and top officials have made inconsistent statements and comments. These statements resembled a dragon whose numerous heads are unaware of each other. A Presidential aide stated that the Gyandja case was an ordinary criminal act. A YAP functionary declared that the act had nothing to do with religion and that some persons were eager to fuel dissent in society. Others alleged that the suspect is a Russian agent. Or was trained in Iran and advocated radical religious views. It is a carefully planned act of terror directed to stirring up a chaos in the country. The last version is endorsed by a joint statement of the Public Prosecution Office, Ministry of Internal Affairs and National Security Service. Pro-governmental mass media are just echoing the statement. The same is true of "Yandaş media" allegations that spared, at most, 1-2 metres to the fact. As a matter of fact, independent media is next to none. Physically lacking or, at best, is spread outside the country. As for those inside or outside the country, they are deprived of material resources and the opportunity to gather information nor act independently. Incapable of acting as independent media in terms of information deficiency, they have to resort to alternative sources. Note that it is sometimes impossible to verify correctness of information available. At any rate, formal mass media is notable for more responsible attitude; it tries out and weighs the evidence; scrutinizes views on the subject; assumes professional and personal responsibility to the readership and submit to editorial discipline. If a normal, institutionalized mass media falls out, it is replaced by the one with lesser responsibility and inobservant principles of information led by one or two proprietors. And again, the point here is about enhanced responsibility. In case where a formal, classic mass media is suppressed and its editors junked, journalists jailed or libeled, the individual space in social networks fills out and the audience of individual videos FB or YouTube-disseminated materials increasingly grow. The point is about a certain freedom of expression. However, we can only dream that the news disseminated is in line with journalism principles as we see it. Under the circumstance, in the crunch the responsibility is taken away from journalists and imposed on unlimited, sometimes anonymous sources. All this come as a result of the steps of the government to lay aside independent mass media. However, the government declines to acknowledge its mistake. It transpires that social networks cannot be closed. One is closed, another opened, new platforms appear, all sorts of Telegram, What Sapp, Twitter, etc. It is impossible to muzzle mass media. To close YouTube is to isolate the country. To crush the opposition is to disable normal criticism; to remove the court of justice is to trigger lawlessness of functionaries and hence, new incidents in Quba, Siyazan, etc. with, perhaps, more tragic consequences. To chase journalists away is to get uncontrolled mass of social network users unaware of what to create and what to destroy. It is a good thing that there are still responsible bloggers-proponents of civilized and open struggle with their impact on citizens. Actions of the government may cause us pin our hopes on underground workers or radical religious extremists. Current steps of the government in respect of mass media are none other than a replay of previous mistakes. Besides, all these steps are both unlawful and ungrounded. On what specific grounds has an action been brought before the court? What information did Bastainfo.com or criminal.az spread to get deemed illegal? The political put-up job is one thing and the law is another issue altogether. Let"s suppose, the government did not like a publication that criticized its activity, and the former decided to remove those stalling its political line. It should be noted that the prosecution and court stand to attention to fulfill the political put-up job. Government"s hint and Seyavush-muallim"s last word may easily be turned into imputation and court verdict. In the meanwhile, no information about FB users is available so far. What did they write? What information did the court consider to be illegal (call to terror, to unrest, etc.)? Unknown.

- In general, there is a lot of these tendencies lately. Whatever happens in our social life, the blame is laid on journalists, sites and social networks; measures are taken against them and amendments are made in the legislation. How far are the authorities right in their attempts to?

- It has been a while since the act on media censorship has been adopted and taken effect in practise. What has changed in the reviewed period? Was radical extremism suppressed? Social tensions eased? Everything went pear-shaped from the very start. All normal, civilian, high-quality but critical mass media have been completely blocked. Not a site taken separately. All sites. What were these sites? Radio Azadlyg, newspaper Azadlyg, Meydan TV, site Azerbaijan, Turan TV. Normal, alternative news sources. These resources were to operate normally inside the country together with their advertisements, incomes. Who stands to benefit? I"m confident that these mass media unsparingly served interests of Azerbaijani citizens, country"s today and tomorrow, its transformation into strong nation. The government is wending the way towards retardation and profound crisis to enter the era of underground, invisible and irresponsible news sources.

- May persecutions against social network users and barrage of accusations on these resources lead to restricting social networks in the country?

- A graphic example is the situation in Iran. However, even restricted social communication during social and political cataclysms are suffice to mobilize people. However, in the course of time it becomes more and more difficult to keep it back. Azerbaijan disposes of no resources to completely isolate itself from the world, place its economy and finances in the closed regime and form a society without Internet and means of communication. It is impossible. Any restrictions are temporary to aggravate the situation.

- There is a difference of opinion in social networks. Disputes over society"s issues in social networks are attractive for the authorities as well. The people are given a free hand to lighten their emotional load and internal tensions. Unless emotions and internal tensions are eased in social networks, this may splash out in other places. Given the social networks are restricted, who will benefit from this? The current power explains these measures as contributing to the stability in the country. Will the power attain goals desired?

- It is the competence of the government to judge about benefits or prejudices of social networks. The good government is content not only with social networks but strong mass media as well. Critically motivated media. Even contributing to the opposition activity. It all depends upon plans of the government. The latter may serve interests of the nation or, on the contrary, misappropriate the power and enrich itself, muzzle those discontent? Should restrictions cross the red line, new rules, new hazards and dangerous processes would start. In the meanwhile, social networks enable people to open their hearts and calm down. As a matter of fact, social networks enlighten the minds, help individuals making right decisions.

- What can embolden the government to ensure freedoms of speech and press?

- The political demand only, i.e. institutionalized demand of society. It is a tough thing to put an end to malicious monopoly of the authorities and force it to decline from a destructive policy. This notwithstanding, when faced with society"s inflexible determination, the current power will have to trigger reforms.