Bu xəbəri paylaş
The crux of the entire discussion here is about journalism. Journalism is to be professional. Professionalism is contingent upon neutrality. Sensitivities are to be borne in mind too. To this effect, the presentation of the "Washington Post" is nothing but an example of sheer incompetence. The style is heavily intoxicated with political bias. And it is not the first time that we are witnessing such cases. This self-same campaign has been been carried out for a while. The intention is clear - to damage the international reputation of Azerbaijan and its Head of State. It seems the public has already developed a strong immunity to these sorts of pathetic attempts. People can tell the truth from what is not remotely related to it and judge properly.
The attempt to draw parallels between the fact of journalists being provided with flats and that of the imprisonment of Mehman Aliyev is deeply unethical. I have not referred to sensitivity above for nothing. The "Washington Post' was bound to appreciate the sensitivity involved, as the accused side here is Azerbaijani journalists. For the "Washington Post", 411 journalists being provided with flats amounts to a bribe. Such a view is contradictory and absurd.
The State is not - even on a theoretical level - in need of reciprocation while taking these measures; there is none and has never been any need for this. The media has been a key concern and focal point during all the post-independence reforms. The New Azerbaijani State has been heavily reliant on the free media while pursuing its aims.
Secondly, those provided with flats form an all-encompassing cross-section of the Azerbaijani media. The selection criterion was not based upon differentiating between opposition and pro-government newspapers. Those with newly-acquired accommodation fulfil their functions as freely as they did prior to being provided with flats. It is utterly inconceivable to them that the government could have expected or would expect them to write on or refrain from covering certain topics influenced by virtue of this decision. Those journalists are still very much of a critical outlook and I expect they will continue to be so. Reflecting on what they perceive to be failures and drawing public attention to these are crucial to the evolution of society and that of the State, to boot. The "Washington Post" is sadly indifferent to Azerbaijani realities.