The Armenian Ministry of Defense has called on local media outlets to “fact check” reports about the country’s purchases of what it deems "defensive weapons" prior to publishing such news.

This “fact checking” is to be conducted with the ministry. This would be one-sided "fact checking" at best.

The ministry, without citing examples, claims that foreign media outlets “continue to publish several false articles” about such acquisitions as well as the details of purchase negotiations. 

“Such publications are also rapidly spreading in the media outlets operating in the Republic of Armenia,” the ministry writes, adding that such unverified reports undermine information security.

Recently, the Indian Defense Research Wing news outlet wrote that Armenia is reportedly discussing the procurement of seventy-eight Advanced Towed Artillery Gun Systems (ATAGS) from India.

On November 14, 2023, Indian Aerospace Defense News (IADN) reported that Munitions India Limited will deliver some 150,000 30 mm and 40 mm grenades to Armenia, adding that two months ago the company supplied five million 7.62 mm bullets to Armenia.

On November 7, 2023, EurAsian Times reported that Armenia signed a $41.5 million anti-drone systems supply contract with the Indian company Zen Technologies.

In July, the UK-based Iranian opposition news outlet Iran International alleged that Tehran had sold US$500 million of weapons to Armenia. Iranian and Armenian officials quickly denied the report.

Whether the press in Armenia will comply with the ministry’s request and how such a verification process can be implemented given the ministry’s tightlipped stance on all matters military remains to be seen.

It’s not as if the local media can telephone the defense ministry, or any other government agency, for immediate comment/clarification prior to the publication of news. Most often, government agencies demand that all questions be sent, in writing. 

According to current law, Armenian state agencies must provide answers to written inquiries within five working days. This deadline is often not met and can be extended to thirty days if additional effort is required for providing the information. 

In addition, the Law on State Secrecy adopted in 2023 introduced the new concept of ‘official information of limited distribution’, providing legal grounds for further potential restrictions on information. Simply classifying information as ‘official information of limited distribution’, state bodies will have a larger discretion in rejecting access to information.  (See: Armenia: Draft law on access to information criticised by CSOs)

If the ministry is so concerned with such “false reports”, arguing they undermine national security, it’s up to the ministry to publicly refute or correct them as they appear in the foreign press. 

Calling on the press in Armenia to delay the publication of such news until “official confirmation” smacks of government filtering of what news is “fit to print.” It’s a slippery slope.

It reminds one of the Armenian government’s attempts to regulate news during the 2020 Artsakh War, when news outlets in Armenia were threatened with legal action for publishing news not confirmed by official sources.

Many news outlets in Armenia heeded the government’s call and were all to quick to republish official statements as the truth about how the war was unfolding. After the Armenian military defeat, many of those same news outlets cried "foul", laughably arguing they had been duped by the government.

And it’s not as if the Armenian government hasn’t cited foreign sources when convenient.

Take, for example, the Armenian government’s claim that thousands of “foreign mercenaries” fought alongside the Azerbaijani military in the 2020 Artsakh War.

On the first day of the war, the Armenian government claimed that “According to intelligence information, in the Azerbaijani side about 4,000 militants from Syria are taking part in the military actions unleashed by Azerbaijan. According to verified information, there are 81 victims among those militants.”

Verified by whom? During the entire “44 Day War”, Armenian forces claimed to have captured just two “Syrian mercenaries”.

In an interview five days later, Armenian PM Nikol Pashinyan claimed that “about 30 %” of Azerbaijani casualties were foreign mercenaries.”

The Armenian government was quick to cite foreign news reports about the recruitment and deployment of foreign mercenaries. (For a list see : Turkey’s Syrian Mercenaries in Azerbaijan: A Chronicle).  

Did the Armenian government ask the local press to “fact check” such news before publication. No, it didn’t.

To be fair, however, in this instance, the Armenian Defense Ministry can claim to be a "primary source" for arms purchases. Nonetheless, the ministry's attempt to serve as the "final arbiter" on what news is credible or not, remains problemmatic.

"All the news fit to print" remains a contentious principle that the press must grapple with. More so, when governments feel the need to intervene.