Change of guards: The Law on Media is replacing the Law on Mass Media

***

- Seymur bey, is there a need for a new media law in Azerbaijan? Doesn’t the media legislation meet international standards and allow the activities of the mass media and journalists?

- If we give a short answer to the question, we can easily say yes, there is a need. The current law was adopted in 1999 and has been amended up to 20 times. In other words, it does not meet modern standards. If we answer the second part of the question briefly, well, it does not meet and allow, because these addendums and amendments have been restrictive.

- The media legislation has been repeatedly amended in a retrogressive way. Can’t the drafting of a new media law now be aimed at restricting the activities of the mass media and interfering with it?

- To date, the media and all laws related to it in one form or another have been subjected to retrogressive addendums and amendments. Since there is a lot of talk about it, I do not need to mention those laws again and again. I do not think the new law will be different from the previous ones. Yes, they may say that there is no actual project developed but we are already criticizing it; however, let's agree that, as mentioned above, we have not seen any positive changes in the media and media laws so far. That is, our assumptions today are based on past bad experiences. There are many controversial points in the charter of the newly established agency named MEDIA. The agency may take action in accordance with the Code of Administrative Offenses when it detects administrative violations in online and print media. If signs of a crime are found, the agency will inform the relevant authorities. Then the question arises, who will determine whether the journalist committed an administrative offense or committed a criminal act? Will there be anyone from law enforcement and prosecutor's offices among the employees of this agency? There are many questions…

- Why do you think the new draft law is not brought up for public discussion? Or why aren’t the proposals of media executives and independent journalists collected? Could the goal be to limit journalists within the scope of the law and manage them?

- When I said the bad experience I mentioned above, I meant these. It is true that when the Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan on Mass Media was adopted in 1999, other groups besides deputies also participated in the discussions in the Milli Majlis. They only reported the results to the public and the media about what happened in the following years. That is, a law was passed, an amendment was made, and so on. The Draft Law on Defamation is also in the hands but has not yet been adopted. Although some groups that had unofficial control over the country's media have been dismissed, their tradition still lives on. However, in 1999, Rizvan Jabiyev, the head of the working group on drafting a law on the mass media and then a deputy, called it "the most sensitive law in society". We also approach it as the most sensitive law. Because freedom of speech and press is the most sensitive issue. It requires more sensitivity nowadays, especially, against the background of the development of new information and communication technologies, at a time when fake news and disinformation are on the rise.

- As a journalist, have you noticed any changes in the activities of the media or the approach to the media since the establishment of the Media Development Agency?

- In this case, the agency has probably focused all its potential on drafting the law. For once, they held training for press secretaries. Then the head of the agency, Ahmad Ismayilov, made a statement about the unified journalist card, which was met with dissatisfaction by a large group. It would be good to hold meetings with members of the independent media and take their proposals into account.

- The charter of this body does not contain provisions such as free press, free speech, independent media, or strengthening the support of the media. Is it possible to conclude that the government does not have these targets?

- The Constitution of Azerbaijan recognizes the right of everyone to freedom of speech, and if we go a little deeper, it also recognizes the international conventions to which we have joined. Theoretically, there is no problem. In practice, we see the opposite. It is not important whether the support of the media and any points you mention are reflected in this charter. The important thing is to improve the legal framework. Because the law is above all charters. It does not matter what the charter says if the law exaggerates factors such as free speech and independent media and makes it a task for the state, and if it is followed.

- Could the activities of journalists with a unified card be intended to limit someone?

- This practice was applied once and there were no results. The Press Council distributed such cards on the one hand and set up a commission on complaints on the other. Ninety percent of those who applied to the commission also complained about racketeering journalists. So, there was no effect, you need to think of other methods. The Media Development Agency should work to create a legislative framework that allows the development of the media in the country, to contribute to the development of the advertising market, the development of financial support for the media. Who will be given unified cards? Who will determine who is a journalist or not? Who can guarantee that the Media Development Agency will not take a subjective approach to these issues?!

-What would you suggest? Do we need a law or conditions for the free and normal functioning of the media?

- Adopt the fairest law in the world; however, if there are no conditions for it to be a working mechanism, then no one needs this law. Ideally, both are needed; however, conditions are more important.