Azerbaijani press: where there is entrance, there is exit

***

- Arif bey, what can you say if we look at the state of the media against the background of housing, award disputes, and other processes taking place today?

- Housing and award disputes have become a seasonal disease in our media. It announces the arrival of summer and the approach of the National Press Day. Doctors say that the disease is a normal reaction of the body to abnormal conditions. Media policy itself is abnormal, so it provokes such reactions. Yes, the government's distribution of apartments and honorary titles to “pen owners” is not a matter of caring for them, it is a form of media management, a Soviet-era approach to the issue. Look at the result: the media is in decline, but if you throw a stone, it hits the “Progress” medalist. If you bring together "honored journalists", you can build an army, but, unfortunately, this is a defeated army in terms of the "state of the media". I may be expressing my opinion sharply but this intensity is proportional to the degree of heartache. After all, despite all our problems, responsibilities, as well as our resources and potential, why should we quarrel over issues every summer like "Who gets the awards?", every three years like "Who should the apartments be distributed?" The answer to this question has long been given by the world media: A journalist should not receive a gift until he puts his pen down, or if he does, he should put his pen down.

- There are many pro-government and pro-opposition media in Azerbaijan. The number of independent media is very small. These media outlets, which are in the majority, can often write and spread evil, slander, and libel campaigns against someone. Do moral norms work in the media today? Who was to control all this, as well as the media's adherence to moral standards? Where are those institutions? Shouldn't the Press Council monitor all this and act objectively?

- Just as the heart is connected to the whole organism, journalism is connected to society with all its veins: on the one hand, it receives blood from it, on the other hand, it gives it blood. Our "public blood" needs to be cleansed. Of course, the media, like the heart, has the function of enriching the "blood" with oxygen. But if its "valves" have been destroyed as a result of years of pressure, how can it cope? The Baku Press Club, the Union of Editors, which once played the role of those valves, were shut down. The New Generation Union, the Union of Journalists of Azerbaijan, the Najaf Najafov Foundation, which was a real monitoring center for moral behavior in the media, were virtually shut down. The Congress of Journalists, the Press Council have been putty in somebody’s hand. Now there are no "valves", no self- regulatory mechanisms. We rely on the calls of individuals, we try to teach manners to journalists and social network activists with fines. If we want to get out of trouble, we must focus not on fines but on the restoration of self-regulatory mechanisms and increase their prestige. There is a very simple truth: in order for the code of professional ethics to work, a corporate spirit and a sense of belonging to the general public must be created in that field. If doctors were also divided into pro-government, pro-opposition, and independent doctors, the Hippocratic oath would go away. In the current situation, this can be done only with the will of high-ranking officials. Because the trouble came from there, and as Erkin Gadirli said, where there is an entrance, there is an exit.

- From time to time, you have taken initiatives to control the media, respect the principles, and protect moral norms. Even this was one of the functions of the Baku Press Club. In addition, there were some unions and initiatives. Why these initiatives, organizations, unions could not develop? What prevented this?

- Politics has hindered and still hinders. Seymur Kazimov has a very interesting study, which gradually examined how the "swearing lexicon" found its way to the Azerbaijani press, and showed that it was part of the political process, and then got out of control. Look, 99% of the carriers and instigators of "hate speech" in the media are journalists, network activists politicized either by themselves or by others. The rest of the question seemed to be answered in a hurry shortly before.

- For many years, the government has been trying to manage, direct, and control the media as it wants. It has achieved this to some extent, though not completely. We can even say that the government has a media policy in the country. Do you think it is normal for the government to try to control the media and set media policy?

- The existence of media policy, more broadly, the existence of information and communication policy is not only normal but also necessary. Keep in mind that we are rapidly moving towards the information society, and sometimes we are even dragged there against our will. In all aspects, including security issues, social and economic areas, etc. If you look at the Forbes list, you will see that information and communication magnates surpass oil kings in terms of revenue. In such a situation, where can you go without information policy and management? But because the information is difficult to manage and requires special skills, they have dispensed with it and tried to manage the media. After all, how far can you climb the same rake? Tell me, is this media, the feet of which millions have tied to, now very useful for the government itself in global information matters? If so, why do they dismiss those responsible for information policy and investigate their activities? If not, why do they continue to follow the path they have set? No, this is the path to defeat: for both the media and the government. Information management is built on a completely different basis, it is very different and effective from the simple "media management" based on the principles of subordination. Was the US media subservient to Russia so that Washington accused the Kremlin of influencing the election through the information and communication tools? Or does Turkey give money and instructions to Azerbaijani televisions so that people watch Turkish channels rather than them?

- It seems that despite the recent changes in the personnel directing media policy in the government, the policy remains unchanged. What changes do you think should be made in media policy? Or is there a need for such a policy in general?

- Media is always a strong, one of the resources that play a decisive role in extreme conditions and in the period of reforms. At present, Azerbaijan has both of these conditions: a pandemic on the one hand, and attempt to reform on the other. However, the way to make full use of the media and gain public support through it is, first of all, to radically update the information policy and to introduce a different approach to the mass communication tools, including the mass media.

This is how it started in Azerbaijan. The dismissal of Ramiz Mehdiyev and Ali Hasanov, followed by others in charge of media policy in the chain, was assessed in the society as a tendency to ideological renewal, which, I must say, created a certain enthusiasm. I do not see the need to mention individual facts, it is not a distant history. Enough time - more than half a year has passed. It is true that it has fallen on a period of turmoil but the issue we are talking about does not lose its relevance, perhaps, it increases because it makes feel the crisis worse. What has changed during this period?

Heads have been replaced. I find it difficult to witness another visible change. The rest is in place: the laws are those laws (even some additional restrictions have been imposed, fines have been increased); press services work in the same way - they respond to whomever they want, they invite those who they know to events as if they are celebrating a birthday; the troll network is operating with the same enthusiasm; in editorial offices, employees compete for housing and honorary titles; small "racketeer journalists" have invaded the cities and villages of the country, big "racketeer journalists" sit in their offices and write ordered articles; The State Support Fund for Mass Media Development continues to distribute budget money to newspapers according to the same formula...

In other words, don't the high-ranking officials see that such media not only cannot support the reforms announced by the government, revive public control but also cannot convince itself of the reality of change in society?

- What is the main reason for the media to fall into the current situation? The toothlessness, despair, or reluctance of the media? For example, with the exception of independent and opposition media, everyone seems to be reconciled, from a small website operating as a media outlet in a country to large holdings. What are the main causes of this situation? What do you think is the way out of the situation?

- There is a desire, there is no trust, and it is lost day by day. Of course, we talked a lot about other reasons, as part of an interview. Our jaws are tired of talking about ways out. Therefore, I will end the conversation with the same words of Erkin Gadirli: “Where there is an entrance, there is an exit.