The Armenian government has introduced a new initiative proposing changes to the existing funding models for media outlets, political parties and civil society organizations.
The draft would use the individual income declaration system to allow citizens to provide financial support to various organizations, including media outlets, through donations.
According to the initiative’s authors, its main objective is to increase the financial independence and transparency of the media sector.
Ashot Melikyan, chairman of the Committee to Protect Freedom of Expression, says the proposed mechanism is positive in principle because it would allow citizens to participate directly in supporting media organizations. However, its effectiveness and fair implementation will depend on clear legislative regulations.
Citizens Could Support the Media Outlets They Trust
According to Melikyan, the principal advantage of the proposal is that members of the public would be able not only to consume information but also to support the media outlets they consider trustworthy, interesting or essential sources of news.
Although individual contributions would not be large, the participation of thousands of citizens could generate meaningful financial support for media organizations.
Such a model could broaden the revenue base of newsrooms and partially reduce their dependence on a limited number of major sponsors.
At the same time, Melikyan warns that any instrument can serve both legitimate objectives and the opposite purpose.
He argues that precise legislative provisions must be developed in advance, while the initiative’s actual effectiveness will become clear only after it is implemented in practice.
Political Funding Could Continue Under a Different Form
The expert also identifies several risks.
Armenia’s media environment is highly polarized, and many outlets serve the interests of particular political forces, often placing the public interest in a secondary position.
Under those conditions, existing political funding practices could simply continue through a different mechanism.
Melikyan says political forces may continue financing affiliated media outlets while dividing the money into thousands of small transfers formally made by individuals.
Political parties could encourage their supporters to direct the available funds from their declared income toward specific outlets. The formal appearance of the funding would change, but its actual political source and purpose could remain the same.
Citizen donations could therefore become a mechanism for disguising centrally organized political financing.
Transparency, Not Additional Restrictions, Is the Solution
Discussing how such practices could be prevented, Melikyan argues that the answer lies not in introducing further restrictions but in ensuring full transparency regarding media ownership and sources of funding.
The public should clearly understand who a particular outlet is affiliated with, what ideas it promotes and whose interests it represents.
Many polarized media organizations have effectively become propaganda instruments while continuing to describe themselves as independent and impartial.
Melikyan considers this dishonest toward audiences and a form of hypocrisy.
Media outlets may legitimately hold political or ideological positions, he says, but they should openly disclose their affiliations and financial sources.
Existing Legislation Does Not Ensure Genuine Transparency
Melikyan recalls that the Committee to Protect Freedom of Expression has repeatedly proposed bringing Armenia’s legislation into line with international standards and clarifying media transparency requirements.
Those proposals, however, did not receive sufficient support in parliament.
He also addressed questions raised by government representatives, particularly the parliamentary leadership, regarding the funding sources of opposition media outlets.
While such questions are legitimate, Melikyan says an even more legitimate question is why the authorities themselves have failed to adopt legislation making the funding sources of all media organizations fully visible to the public.
The 2021–2022 Amendments Remained Largely Formal
Melikyan notes that legislative amendments adopted in 2021 and 2022 were mainly formal in nature.
Although the law requires the publication of financial reports and ownership information, oversight of those requirements and enforcement mechanisms remain extremely weak.
In practice, they are rarely applied.
As a result, the legal requirements often remain declarative and have little real impact on transparency in the media sector.
Without effective oversight, Melikyan argues, the new funding mechanism could also become a formal structure that fails to change the existing relationship between media outlets, political forces and financial centers.
The Model’s Success Will Depend on Its Rules
The proposed system could create new opportunities for public funding of media outlets and increase citizens’ participation in supporting the information sources they choose.
Its effectiveness, however, will depend on whether the authorities can guarantee transparency, oversight and meaningful accountability for concealing sources of funding.
Without such safeguards, citizen donations may become not an instrument of media independence but another channel for maintaining political influence over the information environment.