In 2020 the activities of the media was limited

***

- Alasgar bey, what events did you remember in 2020 in the field of media?

- The year 2020 has not been a year with a memorable and distinguished event in the field of media. As a routine, the problems that existed in 2018 and 2019 were experienced in 2020 as well. At the same time, nothing has changed significantly in terms of the legal and practical environment of the media in general. The only change was the resignation of the person who had curated the media on behalf of the state and official bodies. Even after the resignation of Ali Hasanov, the Head of Department of Public and Political Issues of the Presidential Administration, there has been no change in the activities and quality of the media.

- Were there any positive changes in the last year regarding media freedom?

- The state of media freedom remained stable and bad. In general, in the international rankings, Azerbaijan fell from 166^th to 168^th place in terms of media freedom. There are objective reasons for this. Because new restrictions were brought in the legal aspects of the activity of the media. Especially, in connection with the pandemic, as well as the declaration of martial law. At the same time, in practice, especially discriminatory and different regimes have been applied to journalists, mainly in terms of information gathering and information retrieval, which, in a sense, did not lead to any positive change in media freedom.

- Early parliamentary elections were held in 2020. How do you assess the conditions created for the activity of the media in the elections? Were there normal conditions for the activity?

- In 2020, as you said, early parliamentary elections were held. As usual, the media operates in two directions in the elections. One of them is the direction of enlightening the political processes of the media, informing the public. That is, information support. The other is the ability to be a platform for politicians. That is, giving airtime to politicians. In the first aspect, as usual, the media, mainly television, covered the official sides. The monitoring, especially by the Institute for Democratic Initiatives, clearly showed that the state media carried out one-sided propaganda with an overwhelming majority. In terms of information dissemination, there has been widespread information pluralism, in part on social networks, including online media. However, things were not significantly different for traditional media and its online version. Unfortunately, the discussions on social media were not widely covered in other media, neither traditional nor online.

- This year was also a year of pandemics. The introduction of the permission system during the pandemic has hampered the work of journalists. Has this affected the activity of the media in any way?

- The most memorable event of 2020 was the ongoing pandemic and limited work regimes in the conditions of struggle with it. The restriction was for everyone, including the media. One of the biggest problems to remember here is that the Cabinet of Ministers regulates and restricts the activities of the media without any legal basis. According to the Constitution, the media can be restricted only during a state of emergency. However, although no state of emergency was declared in the country as part of the fight against the pandemic, the Cabinet of Ministers added journalists, television, and radio to the list of those regulated. This step was contrary to all legislation in force today. Because the Cabinet of Ministers has no such authority. Unfortunately, although this illegality is unconstitutional, it has been implemented in practice and discriminated against. In particular, while journalists of some media outlets were given the opportunity to roam freely and gather information, very strict restrictions were imposed on independent and freelance journalists to enter and leave Baku, to come to Baku from the regions, and to do his/her job without SMS permission for two reasons during the initial periods of the quarantine regime, especially in April-May. Later, although some independent individuals received partial permits on the permit portal because they were taxpayers, this was very limited. It also restricted journalists' ability to gather information in public, both formally and sometimes informally, on their own initiative, which is, of course, one of the most negative processes to remember.

- This year, high-ranking officials in the field of media were also fired. But the issue of centralized media management still remains. Has the impact of these personnel changes been felt in the media?

- As I said earlier, the dismissal of the Head of Department of Public and Political Issues of the Presidential Administration, who had directed the media and civil society in the name of directing the socio-political sector, did not lead to any qualitative changes. Unfortunately, that task was simply delegated to another person. However, the trend of centralized management continued. Particularly, this has been widely felt in the official media, including those that are close to the government or funded by government sources, even if they appear to be private, which are, in fact, non-private. This shows that the attitude of government officials to the media has not changed. They want to see the media under control. They cannot accept the real public control function of the media. Unfortunately, this process lasted until the end of 2020.

- It is felt that a new dynamic has emerged in the activity of televisions. But if you look closely, it seems that there are still certain frameworks. How do you assess the performance of televisions?

- I would also say that there is a certain dynamic. In particular, the quality of the long-used blacklists on television has changed slightly. While the same lists remain in some of them, surnames are partially different in some of them. At least we have the opportunity to partially see faces we have never seen before on television. I attribute this not to the approach to the issue but to the weight of the events on the agenda. Because during the pandemic, there was a serious need for people who had a say in society. From this point of view, the televisions were forced to invite different faces to the air. It was a bit forced step. The second forced step was to show different faces and live broadcasts on television during the country's struggle for the liberation of its territories, especially after the operation against occupation launched on September 27. However, they were not aimed at directly discussing the country's socio-political problems but rather at discussing external problems, such as those that do not arise from the inside, such as pandemics and occupation. However, for example, discussions on how to build national reconciliation, how to prevent political discrimination, how to ensure the ease of political activity, how to more effectively establish public control of civil society, unfortunately, are not yet on television. But for comparison, in 2020, compared to 2019, the change of management of AZTV, in particular, has led to a tendency to take innovative steps in television, contributing at least in part to the work of journalists. But there is still a long way to go. On Public Television (ITV), although the head was changed, the format has not changed. ITV has ceased to be public in general and has more become a television directed by one person. The activities of the Public Broadcasting Council are generally unknown. Even when you visit the website, it is impossible to know who they are. I am not sure that they have been gathered in the last year. In other words, the setback is felt more on ITV than on state television.

- How do you assess the activity of the media during the war? During this period, martial law was declared. And in accordance with the Law on Martial Law, the activity of the media was restricted. At the same time, social networks were restricted. What did you observe in the activity of the media during this period? Could the Azerbaijani media respond to media outlets that publish one-sided articles against Azerbaijan in the information war?

- A day after the start of the war, martial law was declared in the country. The Law on Martial Law provides for censorship in violation of the Constitution. This is very clearly stated in the law. Numerous restrictions have been imposed on the media. There were significant restrictions on travel to the war zone, especially at the time when the operation was coming to an end, as well as on travel to areas bombed outside the war zone during operations. There was a discriminatory approach, especially in these matters. Journalists were discriminated against. This is not a good thing at all. At the same time, journalists in Azerbaijan were not allowed to travel to the war zone, except for some televisions. However, during this period, foreign TV channels, mainly from Turkey, performed a more operative reporting function. I attribute this more to the unprofessionalism of our journalists. In general, we have lost out to Turkish journalists by a wide margin in this direction due to the lack of experience, i.e. the fact that we do not have enough experience on how to deliver information in an extreme situation and how quickly to deliver it. The second important point was that journalists themselves were sometimes more royalist than the king; in other words, they referred to official information rather than disseminating information that was generally newsworthy. However, journalists could disseminate information of public importance and operational information from the primary source. This was specifically the information society needed. But this did not happen. Most of the information was spread by the Ministry of Defense and the President's tweets. This was the information that anyone with access to the social network could get. That is, there was no point in learning this information from third parties. From this point of view, it was seriously felt in the Azerbaijani media that, apart from the problems in the environment, the problem of professionalism is also serious. The third important point is the issue of centralized coordination of the media, and the process is still going in the same direction in this area. Only allowed journalists and permitted locations. That is, permissions came to the fore. Martial law was lifted after December 11. However, although martial law was lifted, it has not been easy for journalists to gather information freely from the war zone by the end of December. Again, permissions, which are not prescribed, are still valid.

- Were there any positive steps in connection with the arrest and persecution of journalists and the reopening of the closed media outlets?

- One of the most harassing problems of 2020 is that there are still criminal charges against journalists for defamatory allegations in the courts, and even court decisions in this regard. There have been several court rulings against journalist Anar Mammadov and other social media activists. This shows that the non-adoption of the Law on Defamation and the fact that defamatory statements are still criminally prosecuted are actively supported by the courts too. At the same time, it is actively on the agenda by public figures who have filed lawsuits. The second point is that some journalists, unfortunately, more critical journalists, continued the tradition of being summoned to police stations and prosecutor's offices under the guise of violating the rules of the pandemic or for other reasons. Unfortunately, none of this was within the scope of media freedom provided by law. The last point is that the media outlets that have been closed for any reason could not have resumed their activities. ANS TV could be the first thing that comes to mind here. But online during the war, i.e. not as a television. It tried to resume its activity as an online media. At the same time, its former employees tried to reach their audience through online media in a different way. But if we look, traditionally, the blocks of neither RFE / RL, nor the Azadlig newspaper, nor Meydan TV were removed. Restrictions on their spectators and viewers were not lifted.

In conclusion, 2020 was marked by very important events, such as the pandemic and the 44-day war. During this period, the Azerbaijani media, unfortunately, again faced processes that tied their hands. In the maximum environment that media freedom is not allowed. From this point of view, I think that the media needs to be reconsidered in many directions, the legislation of state bodies that control and regulate the activities of the media must be reconsidered, and there is also a great need for journalists to seriously develop their own standards in terms of professionalism and some criteria. Both are very obvious.