Comments on the articles
Shahin Hajiyev’s comment on Gegham Baghdasaryan’s article: “Azerbaijani Journalists and Media about Armenia and Armenians”
On the “Analysis” by the Analyst
We must pay tribute to the author, who literally read through the Azerbaijani media in search of evidence of Armenophobia. Not bothering to speculate on the reasons for this, he considered it beneficial to collect the maximum number of anti-Armenian statements, which, according to his logic, should make his conclusions more convincing.
However, the main thing the “analysis” of the author, in my opinion, lacks is the recognition that both parties are equally bad. Both nations and societies are like zombies, both have an image of the enemy, and this is a common disease. But the most important thing is that in warring societies there is no other way.
The presented analysis also lacks ideas and recommendations on ways out of this situation. It’s all very simple: Armenians are true angels, while the others are nomadic savages. One gets an impression that the author initially set himself a goal of leading to this conclusion. Thus, in his analysis, there is no single reference to positive publications in the Azerbaijani media. The author, who thoroughly studied numerous publications, could not help noticing, say, articles and interviews by Zardusht Alizade and Georgi Vanyan about the need for reconciliation, about the zombie state of the two societies and the senselessness of hostility between Armenians and Azerbaijanis:
http://www.contact.az/ext/news/2018/6/free/Want%20to%20Say/ru/72910.htm
http://www.contact.az/ext/news/2018/9/free/Want%20to%20Say/ru/74827.htm
And it’s quite hard to believe in the objectivity of the analyst, who did not notice a whole series of publications by Turan agency with several interviews with Armenian figures held in Yerevan last February.
In these materials, politicians, military and public figures of Armenia spoke and presented their version and position on the conflict without censorship.
Also authentic articles to Armenia were also published on the visit to Armenia made by the editor of Turan Agency. These articles also present what was seen and heard during the visit, and there is no Armenophobia in these articles. The mentioning of these publications is not intended to acknowledge the merits of the author of these publications. It is a fact to denote that the Armenian party was given a voice and place in the Azerbaijani press:
2019 February 06 (Wednesday) 13:23:58
A trip to Yerevan (Part 1)
2019 February 14 (Thursday) 14:58:31
A trip to Yerevan (часть 2)
2019 February 19 (Tuesday) 12:05:36
A trip to Yerevan (Part 3 – finale)
2019 February 18 (Monday) 15:27:22
Vova Vartanov: “Give away all your arms, and we may give back some territory”
2019 February 13 (Wednesday) 14:34:15
Kiro Manoyan: We are for the unification of Armenia and Karabakh
2019 February 12 (Tuesday) 15:35:00
Tevan Poghosyan: We waited for 70 years to return Karabakh
2019 February 11 (Monday) 17:17:32
Armenia is under Russian occupation – Tigran Khzmalyan
2019 February 08 (Friday) 16:07:37
Levon Zurabyan: It is necessary to be ready for mutual concessions
2019 May 16 (Thursday) 14:48:14
FILM 1: Azerbaijani Journalist in Yerevan. For the first time in 15 years
2019 June 27 (Thursday) 11:57:08
FILM 2: Azerbaijani Journalist in Yerevan.
How could the author, claiming the role of an objective analyst, help to notice this? Can he give similar examples from the Armenian press?
How could he fail to notice two video stories of interviews with Armenian politicians about the Karabakh conflict, about the search for ways of reconciliation with Azerbaijan? There was nothing of the kind in the Armenian press. For a long time, the opinion of the Azerbaijani side has been a taboo for the Armenian media …
The author especially relishes the situation around Mkhitaryan’s refusal to come to Baku without explaining in any way the reasons for the refusal, despite all the guarantees. And again, he “did not notice” the material, expressing an alternative opinion on this matter:
http://www.contact.az/ext/news/2019/5/free/Want%20to%20Say/ru/81171.htm
Summing up, we can conclude that the author has prioritized the desire to be speak ironically with and without any reason and to present this as an indicator of analytical depth.
And finally, the author “sincerely” thinks that in a country whose territory is captured by an adversary and who suffered more human and material losses in a war, there should be no Armenophobia. But he does not explain in any way, where such hatred for Azerbaijanis comes from in the “victorious country”? Why does the Armenian press continually hear appeals to continue the liberation of the “original” Armenian lands and reach the Kura and “release Nakhijevan”?
Apparently, Armenian style analysis does not imply such trifles …
Gegham Baghdasaryan’s comment on the article by Shahin Hajiiyev “What Do Armenian Media Write about Azerbaijan?”
Sometimes We Just Don’t Have Enough … Sense of Humor
Before proceeding with the reading of the analytical review of Shahin Hajiyev, I got into a very serious mood and was preparing for a long and very difficult process of digesting serious observations, arguments and facts. However, in the course of reading I caught myself thinking that there was more levity and irony in me than seriousness, and I liked it, because there was a premonition of something extraordinary and interesting. However, I am amused not by the search for humor in the mentioned analytical notes, but rather, on the contrary – its complete absence. I understand the importance and seriousness of the topic, therefore – I understand the important and serious look (approach) of the analyst, but I have a feeling that excessive seriousness left its mark on the observations, not allowing me to notice the frankly humorous layers of the analyzed topic.
For example, it was hardly worth seriously analyzing David Babayan’s publication on the origin of the Azerbaijani nation. The author of the analytical review criticizes him for “Babayan who claims to be a historian makes his “conclusions” without any references and proofs.”
Well, judge for yourself what could be the links for such a humorous opus:
“In present-day Azerbaijan there is a city of Cuba. But there is a state called Cuba in Latin America. The capital of this country, Havana, comes from the word hava (in Azerbaijani, the weather), which once again proves the Azerbaijani origin of Cuba. Well, it is impossible that the name of the country and its capital be of Azerbaijani origin and not Azerbaijani.”
Seriously analyzing lightweight material, Hajiyev with the same weight transfers his arrows towards the Russian agency Regnum, arguing that “this resource has always been distinguished by its pro-Armenian position.”
For some reason, it seems to me that Regnum staff enjoyed the fun of acquaintance with such an evaluation.
Willy-nilly, I recalled how at one time the Azerbaijani press harshly criticized the comic TV program Az.TV, which was published in a Karabakh newspaper. The programs, allegedly, were as follows: “Early in the night on a scimitar”, “Good night, Talyshes”, “And Zori is not quiet there”.
Sometimes you just have to smile and move on …
Hajiyev writes: “In continuation of the topic on exchange travel, I would like to give an example of reactions in social media to such visits. For example, last February, I visited Yerevan as a journalist. This is what the reaction was in the social media in Armenia, which took place on the page of an active Armenian blogger who was indignant at the admission of an Azerbaijani journalist to Yerevan.”
Then he gives a screenshot of this “discussion”. It is idiotic, of course, but how was it possible not to notice that most of all the irony, sarcasm and frank hatred was against the new Armenian authorities?
Or: “And here’s how the Aravot publication reveals the “cunning” plans of Azerbaijan with regard to Georgia.”
It seemed to me that the author had finally begun to joke and was preparing a surprise, that is, he would write at the end that this was not the Aravot newspaper at all, but the Georgian (regional) portal OC-Media, and the author was Rakhim Shaliev (https: // oc -media.org/ru/biblioteki-polnye-nenavisti-iz-azerbaydzhana-v-gruziyu/). The Poor Aravot had simply reprinted this article.
Right, it takes just one step to get to absolutism from excessive seriousness.
“One can hardly agree that the assessments of the Armenian society are objective, rather the contrary.”
Very objective observation, and most importantly, a funny one.
And here is more: “Another important point concerns the fact that in the Armenian press there are virtually no materials – articles, analyses, interviews on the topic of finding ways of reconciliation with Azerbaijan. There are no ideas and programs for finding peace and compromises. There are also no positive examples from the past, on which one could build reconciliation between the two peoples.”
This is one of the main conclusions of the analytical review. It is true that a few paragraphs above there was a statement of a different kind: