There got to be limits to Diaspora Journalism

Vaհe H Apelian

Many fine articles appear on the Armenian Weekly, on a variety of subjects and issues, not only about life and living in the Diaspora, but also on the far distant homeland, such as Stepan Piligian thoughtful article about Armenia navigating turbulent waters as powerful whirlwinds stir and change relations in and among nations. 

But in this week’s issue of the Armenian Weekly, there were posts that did away with the expected limits of Diaspora journalism on Armenia.

 Harut Sassounian claimed that the Armenian citizens “voting against the new constitution is the best way to get rid of Pashinyan.” I wonder if there are journals in Armenia that post his political commentaries. After all, it’s the citizens of Armenia who will be doing the voting. 

In the same issue Harut posed the following question to the readers, “Does the Armenian parliament speaker prefer that all Artsakh Armenians were killed?” Surely, he must know that a Weekly reader cannot possibly know whether the Armenian parliament speaker prefers that the Artsakh Armenian are killed or not. I surely do not know. It is fair that I pose the question to Harut, and ask him instead. “Does the Armenian parliament speaker prefer that the Artsakh Armenians are killed? Say what Harut? “

In the same issue, Hoory Minoyan claimed that “Pashinyan pushes ahead with constitutional overhaul amid pressure from Azerbaijan.” Obviously, she implies that the Nikol Pashinyan government is pushing the upcoming constitutional amendment having caved under pressure from the Azeris and is engaged to overhaul the constitution to placate Azerbaijan. Otherwise, why would she tie the two issues as a headline?  Not only that, she had the reported to the readers that a person has said that Zankezur corridor is next. I wonder, is she editorializing, or reporting hear say. Surely, it cannot be an informed journalism.

I don’t know how readers react to such posts. I personalize each and every article I read as if they are directed to me and only me. I take offense of such posts, not because Harut, tells me that Armenian parliament speaker prefers that all Artsakh Armenians be killed, but because he expects me, based on the information he gave, that I do something about it, such as help the citizens of Armenia, in whatever way I can, not to vote for the constitution amendment. But what are the amendments that the citizens of Armenia are called to vote? I do think Harut knows, or if he knows he does not want to share it with readers, but takes the liberty to charge and challenge.

I also took issue with Hoory Manoyan alleging that the Armenian government is caving under Azeri pressure and resorting to placate the Azeris by amending the constriction. There is nothing wrong in amending a constitution. I am sure Hoory Minoyan knows that. Americans have amended their constitution 27 times, on their own free will. But, yes, there is a lot to be concerned if the amending is done under duress to placate the Azeris. What are those articles that are being offered for amending? Hoory Manoyan does not cite a single article. Let us not turn voting on amending the constitution of Armenia into a referendum on Armenia's readiness to declare war on Azerbaijan or not.

I take offense because those who pen such posts take the liberty of a readership offered to them, and pontificate on  unsubstantiated claims, seating thousands of miles away from Armenia and expect me to do something about or at the least expect that I predispose myself against the government the citizens of Armenia elected, much like they have. Otherwise, why would they offer such posts?