Russian and Russian-Language Journalism in the Perception of the Armenian Press of Tiflis (1865–1918)

The article analyzes journalistic criticism in Armenian periodicals. Examining the large textual material of the informational analytical genre, the author reveals a generalized image of the Russian press. According to Armenian opinion journalists, representatives of the press and literature were the “stepchildren” of the Russian Empire, since publishing was on an unequal basis with other types of entrepreneurship. According to the Armenian periodicals, the only characteristic inherent in all periodicals published in the empire was defining the “non-native”. In other cases, a differentiated approach to journalistic activity was observed, which was the result of the program policy of the newspaper’s editorial board, ideological orientation, economic benefits, and interpersonal relations. Speaking about the work style of the capital city’s press, Armenian journalists emphasized the regularity of its superiority and dominant position, andpointed to the hierarchical subordination of the non-Russian press. The onesidedness and verticality of the information flow were criticized. These were thought to be due to the indifference of the metropolitan press to the newspaper and literary activities of other peoples. Armenian journalists noted that Russian writers generally stood above selfish intentions and loyalty to the party, wanting only the freedom of speech and pen, while Russian journalism was characterized by stereotypical thinking (in particular, in relation to other nations), commercialization, and – in some cases – mercantile interest. Expanding their activities in the same cultural space, formed when comparing the cultures of different nations, journalists of Tiflis often opposed each other taking into account these cultural characteristics. According to Armenian journalists, periodicals published by Russians, Armenians, Georgians and representatives of other nationalities, just like representatives of these periodicals, were alienated from the local society and marginalized. The Russian-language periodicals mostly ignored the “natives” and rarely addressed their problems. Moving away from the national essence, Armenians publishing Russian-language newspapers, involuntarily, or on the basis of personal motives, harmed the national publishing business and, with their actions, hindered the development of Armenian culture. In the perception of Armenian journalists, part of the Russian periodicals published in the two capitals and in Tiflis adhered to a stricter colonial policy, which often acquired a xenophobic character. Recognizing that the Russian conservative press was more established and, unlike the liberal press, developed according to a clear ideological program, Armenian journalists considered the representatives of this trend to be the defenders of regression, not of national identity. The alienation of some Russian and Russian-language publications was especially evident during periods of interethnic clashes and socio-political tension. Since national regions were governed situationally, often unevenly, the press, as an echo of this style of action, further aggravated the chasm between the peoples inhabiting the Caucasus Viceroyalty and contributed to the deterioration of relations between the Russian and national peoples, and extremist calls were reflected in Armenian periodicals.