- Հայ
- Рус
- Eng
Today, the Pedagogical students had a fascinating opportunity to participate in a “TV” debate in the hall of the Faculty of Culture. The debate was organized by the sophomores of
the Department of TV Journalism of the same faculty.
After the discussions and researches of the Armenian History, the students found out during their debates the journalistic activities of two prominent people who made an outstanding contribution in the creating path of Armenian press.
The first hero of the debate was the Editor of the newspaper “Hyusisapayl/Northern Lights” Stepanos Nazaryants. First of all, the reporting side of the debate introduced Stepanos Nazaryants, his biography and work-activities.
Furthermore, outlining the due importance to the public speaking of Stepanos Nazaryants, the reporters also drew their attention to the firstling Armenian periodical “Hyusisapayl/Northern Lights” in Moscow the Editor of which Nazaryants was.
Referring to a number of sources, the reporting side assured that “Hyusisapayl/ Northern Lights” was the periodical which played a significant role in the life of all Armenians.”
Contrary to them, the opponent side started a vigorous debate under the motto “To Act for the Nation, Be in the Nation!” about the activities of Stepanos Nazaryants.
Outlining the significance of the work of Stepanos Nazaryants and based on a number of literary sources, the opponents came up with a consequential questioning: Why did the New Armenian of Nazaryants remained abstract and unpractical for the people? Why wasn’t he, even after becoming a scientist, ultimately accepted by the society as a popular man?
Afterwards, the next public figure to be discussed was the Chief Editor the periodical “Mshak/Farmhand”, Grigor Artsruni.
The reporters presented Grigor Artsruni as a straightforward, trustworthy and diligent person, who unmasked the century’s enslaving, and denunciative policy, and liberally came up with a revolution.
As opposed to the above mentioned, the opponents, despite his journalistic work, characterized Artsruni a no-patriot, quoting the latter’s words, “ An Armenian is not a social being; I am despondent to be Armenian”.
The TV Journalism sophomore Zara Ghazaryan was an opponent on the subject of Stepanos Nazaryants. She was sad to mention the emptiness after months-lasting-work. “We have been working on the topic for about two months; now, I guess I can state that the debate was a success. What should be outlined is that such a team-work is a meaningful experience for a future work in the sphere of debates.
Likewise, Lilit Avagyan, the same course student, was reporting about Grigor Artsruni. She considers the arrangement of debates quite important and thinks that it greatly assists
journalists to feel accomplished in their profession. As she mentions, “We gained a good deal of experience on the preparatory stage; very few of us knew that it was Grigor Artsruni who set the basics of Armenian press.”
debate went on preserving all the corresponding rules, interrupted by questions and answers, and the audience had special questionnaires to assess the reporters’ and the opponents’ skills, speech content and culture, level of activity and style.
It is wise to mention, that the supervisor of the 2nd year students of the Department of TV Journalism, TV journalist, Arthur Bakhtamyan had his immense contribution in the arrangement of the debate.
The latter is unpleased to observe the fact that despite the good comprehension of theoretical information, the students still do not have a chance to practice that knowledge. As he mentions, “They do not have the necessary environment to form their mind and speech in public, they do not manage to quickly concentrate in short periods. Thus, I consider this occasion a brilliant opportunity to make mistakes and to become tempered in such a popular genre of nowadays-in debates.”
