"Rails-rails, sleepers-sleepers, the train drives belated .."

***

- For some time now, the post of an official of the Presidential Administration in charge of the government’s information policy has been empty. The editors of numerous pro-government media are experiencing some confusion in this regard. What is the situation with delaying a new appointment to such an important position?

- The political leadership of the country, at least to this day, is interested in maintaining control over the media. That is, it does not see at the moment how to build a different media-state relationship. This moment is very important. Another thing is that the question is how to make such work effective. It is no secret that the media created by the authorities and the media controlled by it - television and radio channels, print media, online agencies and online newspapers - are already losing influence on the audience. And the question is how to regain influence, how to maintain control - that’s what they’re thinking now. And to do this, of course, is very difficult - because the audience needs objective, truthful information about different processes and events - people are interested in this. When a person discovers that instead they are being given propaganda materials, he turns his back on such media. That is, the issue is very serious and complex, especially in the context of the fact that they want to continue to control everything.

In the future, everything will depend on what decision the authorities themselves will make. I believe that the task should be set as follows - in order for the institution of high-quality, responsible, independent, self-regulatory media to emerge in our country, we need to make the relations between the current government and the media a partnership. These relations do not exist today, so they need to be created. These are relations in which the interests of both the authorities and the media will be equally taken into account. But there is another point - the interests of individuals in power. On the one hand, they are officials, and on the other, they own large family businesses, with their own financial interests, which do not always coincide even with the position they hold. And there are a lot of such business officials in power. And independent free media are to some extent an obstacle to the realization of their business interests. Because when some material comes out about their business, it annoys them. They do not want the media to deal with such issues even more actively. That’s what they’re afraid of - strengthening the media can lead to tougher control over their interests. This is the second problem. And although on the whole the question is really complicated, I do not see another option for solving it, except for the creation of partnerships. For example, officials could legalize their business, and separate it from the state. In this way, media attention and interest in such topics can be reduced.

At the moment, there is indeed a vacuum in the sphere of these relations. In the sense that there was a certain ideologist who gave commands to controlled media, controlled them, told them what to write and what to broadcast. Everything went within the framework of a specific political line.

But if the authorities want to overcome the created vacuum, it is necessary to develop a new information policy - on the one hand, to create a new political form of media-state relations, and on the other, to develop mechanisms for its implementation, and think about how to make this work effective, how to create harmony in these relationships, and even ensure audience satisfaction.

But now there is not even a temporary administrator on the part of the state in this matter and a team working under his command, either. Naturally, someone has to take on this mission. I do not know if there is a person in the administration who could do this. So far, apart from the presidential press service, I see nothing concrete. Recently, they created a certain department for working with the media there, but nothing is clear with it.

- What should be the new information policy? And how exactly is it necessary to arrange relations between the authorities and the press?

- I think that under the new conditions, the authorities who will be entrusted with this area will have to deal with a more detailed coverage of the President’s activities and announce some forthcoming decisions. In this sense, they should give “impulses” to the media. After all, journalists cannot invent and create events themselves. They are always waiting for new facts. Therefore, the task of government officials is to cover as actively as possible the activities of all power structures from top to bottom - the President, the government, and district authorities. All state information structures should work more actively, first of all, the press services of various departments. They should be given a command to create a new work program - what they will talk about, what and how to report to the media, organize press conferences, interviews, and so on, - in general, give answers to questions of interest to the population. In fact, there are plenty of questions. After all, each ministry has adopted programs and work plans - and we need to concentrate on covering their implementation. The main question is how to ensure openness ad access to information, and interest the media so that they cover it. Moreover, managed media can be set so that they do this work. What for are they, after all, paid a salary from the country's budget?

That is, in other words, to begin with, it is necessary to force all existing structures to engage in truly fulfilling their duties. Indeed, under Ali Hasanov, they did not actually do their work - it was all pure formalism, a completely uninteresting presentation of material for the public. On any topic, you can create a story that is something interesting to the reader. Unfortunately, while the entire media system of Azerbaijan, controlled by the authorities, is operating in the old way. But they must follow the interests of the audience. You can carry out monitoring of what people are talking about at least through social networks.

Another important point is that it is necessary to “squeeze” out all this negativity and often obscene language from the controlled media about political opponents of the government. Ali Hasanov ruled over this, and with his departure such a shameful tradition should be put an end to. Both the media and trolls were connected to this. In social networks, everything happened much more unbridled. It is necessary that public censure be expressed in relation to such things, but after all, the public institutions themselves that could do this are morally destroyed. The Press Council, for example - who will listen to it? Moreover, they themselves are a participant in these processes. Their Board includes the editors of those newspapers, which behave inappropriately. This is also a big problem.

- And how, in your opinion, should the authorities in the new conditions work with independent foreign Azerbaijani media, such as Meydan TV, for example? Access to a number of them in Azerbaijan is still blocked.

- The authorities must promptly formulate a new information policy. If the government intends to set the task of creating responsible, high-quality media that comply with all accepted standards, then it should extend the same conditions to the mentioned foreign resources - please let them criticize, write and speak. I do not think that something needs to be blocked and prohibited. This is not the way. We must always build a dialogue. Have a problem, have a question? Let's solve them. This is where the work of the authorities with the media lies - in a different way it is impossible. With this scenario, I think the situation will improve. It definitely won't get any worse.

And if we continue the previous policy of “declaring war”, when the government blocks and suppresses dissatisfied voices, accordingly, a response will follow. Indeed, if you evaluate the past few years, it is clear that in this information war, the Azerbaijani authorities are clearly losing. And its continuation promises even greater defeats. Therefore, the authorities simply have no other choice. Either you need to close the entire media space, drown it out, or you need to agree - there are no other options.

- Moreover, this policy applies not only to Azerbaijani publications abroad, but also to some foreign media. For example, access to Radio Liberty or to the websites of individual Armenian media is still blocked.

- Any such actions are unproductive. If the authorities want to advance their interests in the information space and have the confidence of the audience, they should work in these areas. And such measures indicate, first of all, their incompetence, their inability to really work. It’s just some kind of subjective idealism: I don’t see you - that means you are not there. But they are, and they work. You don’t see them, but everyone else sees them very well. Therefore, no matter who it is - the Armenian media, or the publications of the worst enemies of the current Azerbaijani government - they should work with them. They must polemicize, persuade, and be in a state of contact with them.

For example, the Armenian media - Azerbaijani journalists rarely resort to reprints from there. There are tons of other sources. So why block them? Interest in their publications increases only during periods of some vivid political or other events in this country. That is, they turn to them for any additional details, information that is easier to get on the spot. And what kind of threat can these Armenian websites pose in general? All this comes from the inability to conduct controversy and counter-propaganda work. As a result, there is a total suppression of everything that you don’t like, and no work with any media, either Azerbaijani or foreign. We put mediocrity at the head of this sphere, which brought other mediocrity to the posts of media editors.

But the Armenians in this regard are pursuing a more thoughtful policy. We are losing in many ways. Russian-language intra-Armenian network resources are often not inferior in level to well-known Russian news and analytical websites. Can we say the same thing about our Russian-language news agencies? On the other hand, ethnic Armenians today are represented in the editorial offices of the leading mass media of the Russian Federation and Ukraine, and in their creative unions this is also a powerful resource. In addition, the Armenian authorities never tried to completely crush the media space. No, they just made attempts to build partnerships. And there the media were not in the hands of only one political group. And did the Armenian society or the state lose from this? No, they won! But with those apartments, ranks, and other “toys” you won’t achieve anything and you won’t create anything - it’s just not serious.

- How do you generally feel about the reform policy declared by the President? Are the declared intentions credible? After all, a significant part of society believes that all this is just some imitation, which has other goals.

- The fact is that the country needs changes. Just the state machine is already slipping. If it creates problems of a socio-economic nature, it means that something in it is not working properly, and its restructuring is needed. A malfunctioning machine creates more and more socio-economic problems, as a result of which public discontent is growing, protest moods are emerging, and, accordingly, the confrontation between the government and the people is growing. This problem exists, and it must be solved. That is, you need to build new relationships in society. For example, I am in favor of restoring fully the activities of NGOs, and allowing foreign donors to work in our country — that is, returning what a certain number of years ago fell under a complete ban. Because even most of the current NGOs controlled by the authorities at one time brought up precisely international funds. They brought technology, knowledge, and specialists in certain industries. The state could use all this for the benefit of itself. There should be a cooperative relationship between civil society and government. These NGOs may recommend certain measures to the government to address certain social and economic problems. They are not enemies, they are not calling for a change of order or for revolution. No, they explore various areas, find problems, point to them and suggest methods for solving them. This is an auxiliary system with which the authorities must establish relations. It is necessary to restore this institution.

The power saw the problem for itself a long time ago - about 5 years ago. But they did nothing, hoping that somehow they would manage. And when it became clear that they couldn’t leave it at random, the authorities began to make decisions - to a certain extent somewhat belated. I just think that the pace of change needs to be accelerated, which is very important. There must be a dynamic decision making. And I think that civil society must be involved in this process. Because bureaucracy has a certain problem. I’m not saying that they all lack intelligence or they don’t know anything, no, there are real specialists among them. But just like officials, they are used to doing everything with an eye to the top, slowly, with reinsurance. And when civil society is connected (and there is a dialogue with the authorities), they will react much more actively to everything. And then decisions will be made more balanced, because officials in their development will defend the interests of the authorities, and NGOs - the society, people, and business.

I want to note another important point. Personnel changes are taking place in the highest government circles. Now, personnel changes in parliament have begun in parallel - the dissolution and new elections, and the replacement of the deputy corps. But there is a third branch of government - the judicial branch, which also requires reform. I believe that these processes should be synchronized, as you cannot change one without the other. And the parliament needs to return the original role of the discussion platform. All of this already needs to be connected to civil society.

Now there is a destruction of the previously existing system that was engaged only in suppression. As a result, we got a crisis. Therefore, if now the authorities understand that they need a policy of openness and partnership with society, this crisis can be overcome - not in a revolutionary, but in an evolutionary way. There’s simply no time to lose.