The I World Summit in Geneva on an information society held internationally and representation of our country at this international forum is estimated as integration into an information society. The world summit on an information society is an important event organized by the United Nations Organization and the International Telecommunications Union. Heads of 176 countries, UN representatives of 50 different structures, more than 11 thousand representatives of a hundred nongovernmental organizations, the world’s largest companies and known bodies of media took part on the first stage of the summit on December, 10-12th, 2003 in the Swedish city of Geneva. Within two years after the summit they started carrying out reforms in compliance with the National Strategy accepted within the frameworks of cooperation with the UN Program on Information Communication Technologies Development.

Two opposite approaches to that were formed. One considered the work in an editorial office of a newspaper or a magazine the best school for journalists to gain a necessary experience. The other asserted on necessity of special schools for journalists to be set up. The first school for journalists (comparable with university standards up to the level of education) was founded in 1908 at the university of Missouri. Josef Pulitzer contributed $ 2 mln to a school for journalists in Columbian University in New York which was opened in 1912 thanks to it.

The place to pour out
With approaching elections the Internet starts to function in a regime of “a place to pour out”, in other words, it is started to be used as “a place to pour out” information. Publishing of some information may be of an extreme advantage for one and disadvantage for others. At the same time, it does not matter in principle whether the poured out information is true or not. It is mainly designed to appear when necessary and to stick up to snow white collars and blue (or orange) ties as dirt.

The bill states that in Azerbaijan there is free access to information, consequently, every person himself/herself, or via his/her representative has the right to apply to a source of information and to choose a type and form of access to information.
This document has been prepared by the CoE recommendation. The experience of the leading world countries proves that no access to information for citizenry, lack of transparency in state bodies contribute to corruption, bribe taking, irrational state governing, bureaucracy, human rights and freedoms violation.

Probably, that was the twist of fate: our battalion of artillery protected Armenians from Turks... For me Turkey with closed borders was native and close but at the same time inaccessible as a dream...
In February, the same year the process which had been developing silently as a cancer disease for many years revealed and everyone understood that a problem was in the stage of “metastasis”. Then one Armenian from Iran told me in native Turkish: “Baba, (an old man, a respectful address to somebody) why do you need Karabakh? One sea is enough for you”. Then, as if he joked: “Protect the Caspian sea till we arrive... For us to have a little caviar...”

And here a new reality - the perestroyka reality came. We think that no one but we were ready for it, indeed, we did not have a necessity to be reconstructed and we were turning round with indignation (the consequence of the same habit for quick life reconstruction on order) and found out that other people, organizations, relations, lives are as if still, the changes are neither meaningful nor in proportion to the words spoken nor externally done efforts. And someone, indignant at this, was already ready to withdraw and close the shell down, but someone more desirably speeded up the life with a new tirade of words. The matter is neither of words nor the live we are surrounded; neither of others, i.e., friends, enemies, the matter is of ourselves.

Last Saturday, the world saw real Russia. The 24-hour channel in English Russia Today (RT) which, on officials’ opinion, must recover Russia’s image concerning its former greatness undeservedly desecrated by the Western mass media, has started broadcasting. Observers forecasted revival in the new “button” of the Soviet propaganda department of the standstill epoch, however, many people got surprised on the first day of the channel as the foreign broadcast turned out to be more liberal than the State channels’, including the NTV and REN TV.

Sliska’s project was supported at a presidium session of the faction “Edinaya Rossiya” (United Russia).According to the first vice-speaker, the project will be considered on Tuesday at the Council of the State Duma and is expected to be introduced at the Chamber the nearest Wednesday.

The second bitter truth: dependence of Azerbaijani mass media and/or lack of public control.
If to ask ourselves what relationships are between “media - Azerbaijan political authority”, “media and the Azerbaijan society”, in the first case we will have to agree “a complete dependence”, in the second – “a complete ignore”(maybe even because of the Azerbaijani society’s own customer approach to the press). Nowadays, as 10 and 50 years ago, the Azerbaijani media is still an obedient instrument in the hands of any political and economic groups, and first of all, it is an instrument for the authorities.

Freedom of expression is necessary for democracy and public participation in decision making. Citizens cannot exercise their rights on participation in voting or on decision making if they have neither access to information nor they can express opinions freely. Therefore freedom of expression is important not only for comprehension of self-respect, but also for participation in a political and public life, recognition of responsibility and for democracy construction. Infringement of the right on freedom of expression often goes side by side with other infringements, in particular infringements of the right on free assembly and associations.

In a slaveholding society there were not any problems existing. In particular, there was no problem of access to information. However, there was a problem of possession. People were divided into free proprietors and those who had slaves. The problem of access to information, the problem of control over it became actual when a slaveholding society started to disintegrate, when the movement against tyranny of the Roman emperors that found full parallel in the activity of the Christian church which tried, speaking in the modern language, to establish social justice.

On the same day “Temporary rules on periodicals” with the cancel of preliminary censorship for newspapers and magazines were published but meanwhile there was established duty, when starting distribution of an edition they simultaneously had to send an advance copy to the Committee on press affairs.
The press constrained up to that time by censorship rushed with indescribable energy in fight with the government.

The concept originates back to the English revolution of the XVII century during which the great poet and philosopher John Milton proved the idea of freedom of press. For him it appeared as the most important and natural value of a free person, as the basis of freedom of any society not depending on the form of its political system. Today it may seem surprising, but Milton did not consider freedom of press as indispensable consequence of a republican society, he emphasized that it is possible at any regime, including the British monarchy.

Experience of introduced similar restrictions exists in many countries of the world. For example, in 1960s Great Britain banned TV and radio companies to let terrorists’ spokesmen address audience. However, the ban was bypassed - the speeches of representatives of terrorists’ organizations were read by announcers. In 1970s in the Federative Republic of Germany the law banning mass-media from publishing materials able to encourage readers to act in the way threatening the state stability came into force.

Putin’s epoch is keeping continuity in sense of carelessness concerning criticism, but not an attitude to the fact of criticism at all. Political censorship has returned somehow modernized, somehow of the Soviet kind. “The Soviet’s” approach has been entirely revived on the state TV with the same principles: the head of state and ruling party are “sacred cows” and criticism about official figures is possible only with a sanction from these “cows”.