The recent trend in Western media’s attitude towards Azerbaijan can no longer be explained simply by journalistic approaches or the positions of individual editorial offices. The fact that the same topics are brought to the agenda on media platforms in different countries with similar theses, the same emotional overtones, and almost simultaneously raises serious questions. In particular, the material distributed by the Polish “Nexta” channel regarding the Goranboy incident is striking as another example of this approach.
The main problem here is not criticism itself. Criticism is an integral part of journalism. The problem is that the presentation of facts in materials about Azerbaijan is often not separated from the political context.
Events are interpreted one-sidedly, and as a result, the reader is presented with a pre-prepared political narrative rather than an objective picture. What is more interesting is that this approach is not limited to just one media resource. The appearance of materials with similar content against Azerbaijan in the British, French, and Polish media at different times indicates that certain stereotypes have already taken on a systemic character in the Western information space.
Western media have been talking about the dangers of “disinformation,” “hybrid warfare,” “information manipulation,” and “propaganda” for years. However, the same media organizations should also think about the extent to which they allow the methods they criticize in relation to Azerbaijan. Presenting every event in a country as a political crisis, a problem of power, or a question of democracy does not strengthen the principle of objectivity of journalism.
On the contrary, this approach poisons the information space. If even ordinary social or everyday events are immediately put into a political context, the question arises whether there are goals greater than journalistic interest. Such materials, in addition to creating artificial anxiety in the public, can also serve to damage Azerbaijan’s international image.
The most striking point is that the West does not apply the same criteria to different countries within itself and in the region. For example, in Armenia, the authorities’ attitude towards the opposition, the processes related to political opponents, and allegations of pressure on journalists and other public groups are not brought up with the same intensity in Western media compared to Azerbaijan. It should not be forgotten that during the political processes, issues related to the opposition and other controversial events that took place during the era of Robert Kocharyan and Serzh Sargsyan, the West did not use the rhetoric of “democracy” and “human rights” as loudly as it does today.
Extract — continue reading at the source.
