Op-ed by @hrantich Karen Harutyunyan argues in his op-ed that Armenia’s June 7 parliamentary elections unfolded amid an unprecedented information war, where media outlets became political actors and geopolitical narratives eclipsed domestic issues. He identifies four major media camps: pro-government media, opposition media, Russian media, and a much smaller group of independent outlets. According to Harutyunyan, the first three groups largely served political interests, often relying on information manipulation, disinformation, and opaque funding, while independent media and fact-checkers played a critical role in exposing falsehoods and holding all sides accountable. He notes that the campaign was marked by growing information polarization, AI-generated disinformation, and extensive efforts by political actors to shape public perceptions. Russian media and authorities sought to influence the debate through information campaigns and economic pressure, particularly around Armenia’s relations with the European Union. At the same time, opposition and pro-government media ecosystems waged parallel campaigns against one another, turning the election into a contest of narratives rather than policies. Harutyunyan’s central argument is that geopolitics overshadowed Armenia’s real challenges. The election was widely framed as a choice between Russia and the West, despite the fact that Armenian voters were grappling with the consequences of the 2020 war, the loss of Artsakh, and broader questions about governance and accountability. He argues that both foreign and domestic actors openly signaled their preferred outcomes. Russia intervened through information campaigns and economic pressure, while Western support for the Armenian authorities was conveyed through high-level visits and political messaging. In the end, Harutyunyan contends that international coverage often reduced Armenia’s election to a chapter in the broader Russia-West rivalry. This simplistic lens obscured the country’s internal realities and reinforced the assumption that a pro-Western orientation automatically equates to democratization. Such narratives, he argues, risk distorting public understanding and demonstrate how even quality media can be tempted to tailor reality to audience expectations rather than confront more complex truths. Read the full article on CivilNet.am/en