Azernews.Az

AzerNEWS Staff

Read more

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.

In Georgia, the situation looks different. As political differences between the authorities and the West deepen, international pressure and media campaigns are also increasing. In particular, the international support shown to the actions of the pro-Western opposition reveals how selective the West’s attitude to political processes in the region can be.

Thus, a simple question arises: is the West's problem really democracy and human rights, or are these principles remembered when they are more convenient for certain political interests?
The same double standard is felt in the case of Azerbaijan. Even the smallest incident in the country is framed in a broad political framework, but the same sensitivity is not demonstrated when there are more serious problems in other states of the region.
This approach of the Western media, first of all, undermines its self-confidence. When the reader sees that the same incident is treated completely differently in different countries, questions about the objectivity of the Western media are inevitable.

The task of journalism is to present the event with facts. Giving a political assessment of the event in advance and then selecting facts in accordance with that assessment is another approach. This problem is precisely what attracts attention in some Western media materials about Azerbaijan.

Azerbaijan, however, has been facing such an attitude for many years. Therefore, it is no coincidence that the country pursues an independent line in foreign policy based on its national interests. The message for Baku is quite clear: no media campaign, political pressure or manipulative information can change Azerbaijan's strategic decisions.

On the contrary, continuous information attacks can damage the West's reputation in the region. Because the more double standards are demonstrated, the more trust in the objectivity of Western institutions and their media partners decreases.

Today, the main need of the South Caucasus is not new conflicts, but peace and stability. Azerbaijan is interested in normalizing relations with its neighbors and supports the formation of long-term peace in the region. However, using information manipulation as a means of political pressure in the face of this cannot be considered a constructive approach.

The Western media must finally accept one truth: Azerbaijan is no longer a country that accepts every political scenario written from abroad. Disinformation, one-sided materials and double standards will not change Azerbaijan's policy.

If the West talks about peace and stability in the region, it must first of all put an end to this biased approach towards Azerbaijan. Applying a different criterion to Azerbaijan, Armenia or Georgia for the same incident does not create a reliable and fair policy effect. Such an attitude does not serve peace in the region either.

Otherwise, the very image of the "objective Western media" will be increasingly questioned.