| Output/Results: |
All participants who were at the final evaluation, paid tribute to the organisers of the seminar and the course leader. They had found the seminar very useful and stimulating. They appreciated the methods used during the seminar, which gave them many chances to have discussions in plenary sessions and in smaller groups. The general atmosphere during the seminar was also very much appreciated.
Most of the participants were looking forward to a follow-up meeting to have the opportunity to get more deeper into some elements that only could be briefly discussed during this seminar. There was also a request to try to organise some similar event for those who, within public administration (‘our bosses’), are responsible for the public information services.
|
| Conclusions/Follow Up: |
The results are presented by seminar goal as defined under objectives
1. To make participants aware of the great importance of a professional system of public information in a democratic society;
The first part of the programme was to explain and discuss the importance of information as a strategic policy instrument. In Armenia, only a few ministries seem to be aware of this. There are also some ministers that simply refuse to talk to journalists or to present information about their policies in another way. Ministers hardly ever react to criticism. They quite easily can ignore criticism by the print media, because their circulation is very limited.
The participants were asked to present their own ideas about the tasks and qualifications a PIO in Armenia should have. They presented a lot of different opinions. The general outcome was that they should concentrate on analysing political developments and public opinion, be transparent and open, maintain good relationships with journalists and needed professional education. The discussion afterwards showed that most participants were well aware of the importance of their task, but they have to deal with politicians who do not necessarily see the importance of a professional system of public information. Most of then do not seem to take their PIO’s seriously. They consider them as a personal assistant who’s main task is to help to strengthen the position of the politician.
It turned out that there is also a lack of co-ordination between the various ministries and de offices of the president and the prime minister. There is no co-ordination board or any kind of formal or informal structure of meetings between the various PIO’s working for the national government.
During the second day there was a round table on the issue: ‘who is the boss of the PIO? The political authority or the general public? There was an interesting contribution of some young students in journalism who attended this part of the seminar. They supported an independent approach. Some more experienced people stated that many politicians simply refuse to have contact with representatives of the mass media. That makes PIO’s quite vulnerable, because if press reports are found to be negative, the blame goes to the PIO.
Some final conclusions were:
• The status of Pio’s must be improved
• More co-operation and co-ordination is necessary
• Differences in money, recourses, equipment etc. are too big
• Professional education for PIO’s is absolutely necessary
• Political authorities must be convinced of the importance of a professional public information system
• PIO’s should be involved in the decision-making process at a very early stage
• A permanent dialogue between all parties involved (politicians, PIO’s and journalists) is necessary
• PIO’s should promote and support a better professional education for journalists.
2.To present them with concrete methods and models to help them to plan and structure their work in a more professional way.
The method used for these type of seminars combines theoretical information and practical training ‘on the spot’ by working with concrete cases. On the first day of the seminar, the theory concentrated on the importance of working on the basis of a concrete communication strategy. Thereafter, the participants were asked to apply the theory to a case that dealt with important matters as economic development in regional areas, environmental problems, activities of NGO’s like ‘green organisations’ etc. Although no one of the participants had a professional education as a PIO some of them managed to come up with good suggestions based on experience, information from books, readers etc. and common sense. The ideas and suggestions however, mainly concentrated on details like the most useful means of communications etc. They were not able to come up with an overall strategy, containing all the elements needed for an professional approach of a case like the one presented.
The same happened on the third day. The theory focused on ‘translating’ the communication strategy as it was developed in a concrete action plan. From a professional point of view, again a lot of suggestions were quite good to deal with a case like this. The feedback was used to make clear that all these ideas and suggestions should be collected and discussed but in the end, there must be a concrete proposal on how to act. This proposal must also deal with elements like emotional effects of the information on the public, the approach that can be expected from the mass media and NGO’s and of course also the resources available.
On the third day, the course leader gave a general overview on how public information services operate at the national level in Western European countries. At the request of the participants, he paid particular attention to the legislations and rules regarding free access to information.
3. to give them a better understanding of the modus operandi of the mass media.
Mr. Tigran Liloyan, working for ITAR-Tass, made a presentation on the first day of the seminar. He confronted the PIO’s with some personal observations.
• A negative approach towards the mass media
• A big difference between the quality of information of the various ministries
• There is no professional education for PIO’s in Armenia
• PIO’s should take more initiatives instead of just waiting for journalist to come up with questions.
The reactions to his presentation were different. Some participants defended their own organisation as being more or less professional already. Others said they recognised the points Mr. Liloyan had made and wanted to discuss how their position and professional attitude could be iproved. Most of them saw the importance of a well developed co-ordination structure between the PIO’s of the presidency, the prime ministers’ office and the various ministries. They asked for the support of organisations like the Yerevan Press Club, the Council of Europe and the EJC. One of the suggestions was to organise a special meeting or conference about this topic.
On the second day, Mr Vigen Sargsian, representative of the World Bank in Armenia, gave a lecture on the way NGO’s look upon the public information services. His conclusions were:
• NGO’s in general have a negative impression of the work of PIO’s
• More attention must be given to free access of information
• The quality of the mass media in Armenia is very poor
• The same goes for most of the NGO’s
• Key governmental organisations like the Statistics Bureau and the Energy Committee simply refuse to give relevant information to the public and the mass media
4. Giving public information officers from various ministries, organisations and companies the opportunity to exchange views, opinions and experiences
Already during the evaluation session after the first day, many participants expressed their gratitude for having the opportunity to meet colleagues dealing with the same problems they have. Although Armenia is a “small” country, until now they had no opportunities to meet and discuss professional matters.
Also during the final evaluation, the participants expressed their gratitude for having had the opportunity to meet each other and to share views, experience and opinions.
|
