Decision

June 7, 2019

Case N 281


Head of Council: Nana Biganishvili

Members of Council: Giorgi Mgeladze, Gela Mtivlishvili, Lika Zakashvili, Kamila Mamedova, Laura Gogoladze

Applicant: N(N)LE Open Society Georgian Foundation

Respondent: Nodar Chachua

Description Part

N(N)LE Open Society Georgian Foundation applied to Georgian Charter of Journalistic Ethics. According to the application, material aired on Public Broadcasting First Channel in “Moambe” on 3rd of April, 2019 12:00PM and 15:00PM issues violated Charter principles 1, 5 and 11. Materials were about Caucasian Research Resources Center, N(N)LE Open Society Georgian Foundation and international organization International IDEA common project research result presentation. Author of the materials and therefore the responding journalist was identified to be Nodar Chachua.

Representative of the applicant participated in the hearing process. Responding journalist refused to participate and did not provide any response.

Motivation Part

According to the 1st principle of the Charter: Journalist must respect truth and the public’s right to get precise information. As was mentioned in the description part, material in question was about presentation of sociological research. Moambe at 12:00PM:

During the live transmission Nodar Chachua said:


15:00PM issue:


Based on the texts above, journalist stated that:

1. He accidentally discovered that research was about media and Public Broadcasting [text 1].
2. Research about Public Broadcasting was hidden by the presenter [texts 1, 2, 3].
3. Research about media was not provided to media representatives [texts 1, 5].
4. Research about media was made public after Nodar Chachua requested it [text 6].

While consolidating texts, evidences provided by the applicant and additional facts gathered by Council [for example the information from other journalist attending the presentation], following facts were proven:

1. When in 12:00PM issue Nodar Chachua says that part of the research is hidden, the presentation is not over yet.  Evidence: his own words during this issue: “Presentation of the research is not over yet in Rooms Hotel”.
2. “Request of publication” the research about media was made by Nodar Chachua after the presentation was over.  Evidence: Text 6.
3. One day before the presentation, on 2nd of April, media companies [including Public Broadcasting] were given information that on 3rd of April, research would be published, which was about “public’s trust towards governmental institutions and attitudes towards political parties, corruption, media, social fairness, religious groups and other topics”.   Evidence: N(N)LE Open Society Georgian Foundation representative Ana Toklikishvili email sent on 2nd of April, 2019 at 13:52.
4. In the press release which was available to journalists attending the presentation, it was mentioned that: “Sociological research is about democratic situation in Georgia and studies citizens’ trust towards governmental institutions and attitudes towards political parties, corruption, media, social fairness, religious groups and other topics”. Evidence: Press release
5. Research presentation included media part too. Evidence: Presentation, interviewed journalists, text 4, N(N)LE Open Society Georgian Foundation representative Ana Toklikishvili email sent on 3rd of April, 2019 at 13:38.
6. Research presentation file [where media part was mentioned] was sent to Nodar Chachua at 11:57AM, 3rd of April. Evidence: N(N)LE Open Society Georgian Foundation representative Ana Toklikishvili email sent on 3rd of April, 2019 at 11:57.

Based on the information above, the Council thinks that Nodar Chachua violated Charter Principle 1. Specifically, he shared the following incorrect information:

1. Research about media [and Public Broadcasting] was not hidden. Public Broadcasting knew about this part on a previous day and if interested, the information was readily available. The same information was included in press release given to journalists on the presentation. Information was presented and sent to Nodar Chachua before the presentation was over.
2. Nodar Chachua’s statement, that the information was hidden was inappropriate when the presentation was still ongoing.
3. Nodar Chachua’s statement, that he “accidentally discovered” that the research was about media too is incorrect.
4. Public Broadcasting host and Nodar Chachua’s texts are contradictory too. Nodar Chachua says that the research was publicized after he requested it. Host says the following: “Public Broadcasting journalist was not given a possibility to get more information about this topic during the presentation”.

As was mentioned in the description part, Nodar Chachua did not cooperate with the Council. His position was made somewhat clear based on the conclusion of LEPL Public Broadcasting self-regulation institution/committee. N(N)LE Open Society Georgian Foundation applied to them too. The conclusion does not deny that Public Broadcasting got the information about research beforehand. Conclusion provides an argument that the information included “media” and not specifically “Public Broadcasting” and these words are not identical.

Charter Council cannot evaluate Public Broadcasting self-regulation institute conclusion, but for the sake of including both parties’ views in the discussion, Council decided to investigate it too. Self-regulatory institution report was counted as a respondent’s position. Of course, “media” and “Public Broadcasting” are not identical, but media includes Public Broadcasting and the researchers were not obligated to include specifically channel in the press release. Not identifying something beforehand is not the same as hiding a fact, as journalist thought. According to the information given, the journalist should have anticipated that research would have included media part. If we think it possible that the journalist did not anticipate that “media” might have included “Public Broadcasting” it still does not make it right to use the word “hide”. “Hiding” means that the part of the research was not published. In reality, media [Public Broadcasting] part was presented during the presentation, sent to the journalist and Public Broadcasting. Presentation included clear and direct information about Public Broadcasting.


5th principle of Charter: Media is obligated to correct any incorrect information which misleads public.

Charter Council decided that Nodar Chachua shared incorrect information. It was also proven that applicant notified Public Broadcasting about it, specifically, applied to their self-regulation institution, where specified the incorrect information. Nevertheless, information was not corrected for the hearing date; therefore, 5th principle was violated.

According to the 11th principle of Charter: Journalist should count the following as a severe professional crime: conscious distortion of facts.

During discussing the first principle, it was proven that 12:00PM and 15:00PM issues contained incorrect information. Council also discussed whether the misinformation was purposeful. Charter Council thought it possible, that in the 12:00PM issue, Nodar Chachua might have had reasons for misinforming public, for example he had not seen an email, had not read press release and provided conclusions before the presentation was complete. He might have no thought that media included Public Broadcasting, etc. But when it has been 3 hours after the presentation, at 15:00 and the host also says that presentation included information about Public Broadcasting [text 4], there is presentation sent to Public Broadcasting and Nodar Chachua himself [where slides about Public Broadcasting are included] and after all this Nodar Chachua still says that information was not provided about Public Broadcasting, Council thinks that this was a purposeful distortion of facts by Nodar Chachua in 15:00PM issue.

Resolution Part:

According to aforementioned information:

1. Nodar Chachua violated Charter principles 1, 5 and 11.

Head of Council: Nana Biganishvili

Council Members: Giorgi Suladze, Gela Mtivlishvili, Kamila Mamedova, Lika Zakashvili, Giorgi Mgeladze, Irma Zoidze


Giorgi Meladze applied to Georgian Charter of Journalistic Ethics. He thought that material aired on Imedi TV, in the show “Irakli Chikladze’s Imedi’s Week”, about murder in Khada gorge, violated Charter principles 1 and 10. Host/author of the show Irakli Chikhladze and the author of the disputed material Tamar Gogesashvili were designated as respondents.

Applicant attended the hearing. Respondent journalists did not attend the hearing or provide counterclaim.


According to the Charter principle 1 – Journalist must respect truth and society’s right to get precise information. As was mentioned above, the material was about murder of two US citizens and their child in Khada gorge. During the preparation for the show, one of the accused was a shepherd – Malkhaz Kobauri, who asked for jury trial. Of course such cases deserve objective public interest, but in this situation, Council underlines two factors: 1. the way that journalist delivered news to the audience; 2. the fact that jury was deciding the case outcome.

The material follows the agenda of prosecutor’s office – as is evident, prosecutor provided the journalist with all evidence that would have been presented in the court [DNA samples, photos, witness testimonies, possible weapon, investigation experimental and other expertise samples]. Moreover, big part of the material is dedicated to the interview with prosecutor’s office representative, who talks about facts in a declarative manner. The material is similar to the prosecutor’s testimony in the court, which is given a semblance of journalistic product. There is no attempt to verify prosecutor’s version, evidence from the journalist. She delivers their opinion as proven facts. Material shows an interview with a lawyer of Malkhaz Kobauri, who comments on one of the evidence of the prosecution and questions it, but the opinions of parties are not equally well presented.

The material does not show whether journalist herself has questions to the investigation and their evidences. She does not ask clarifying and critical questions to the prosecution’s representative in an interview. According to the criminal code principles “every doubt is resolved to the benefit of the accused” which underlines the fact that in a criminal case government has more responsibility and obligation to prove the crime. If the journalist has decided to cover such issues, journalist shares the similar responsibility. They have to showcase it with depth and details according to evidence. Journalist is obligated not only to formally provide both opinions to public, but to look at the evidence critically herself, verify them as well as possible and to not be just a mean of prosecutor’s office of forcing their view on public. In some cases, the material was not even formally balanced. For example, the host stated as a fact in an introduction the following idea: “watch the case materials which prove physical and sexual assault on Laura Smith”. The only way to prove assault is the court’s decision.

Council also underlined the situation that the journalist critically views and questions the defendant’s position: “Lawyer does not have an answer on why the society must believe them. He finds it hard to explain why did the seven people, who in his version committed the crime and murdered the family and a 4 year old child, leave the only witness, Kobauri alive, what they knew about Kobauri’s being in the gorge and why did they take him to the place, where in his version they kept Smith family. The conflict started when Kobauri was already there. The main question is why the people, who were there to kill Smith family, have only one weapon – Kobauri’s hunting gun, which apparently did not even have enough bullets on the place”. Journalist did not ask such critical questions about prosecutor’s version. Moreover, she takes care of their image in one of the moments by saying: “in the end, no matter what type of discreditation is used by the defendant, it is unimaginable, that an investigator asked shepherd to find bodies in the gorge and take the pictures to verify information”. These episodes strengthen Council’s opinion, that the journalist prepared material not as a critical viewer but tried to make audience believe that prosecutor’s opinion was correct.

At the end of the material, the text of journalist is directed towards chosen jury members: “It is hard to say, whether jury members will have these questions”. This underlines the idea, that jury members make decisions based on human emotions and not only facts. As it was mentioned above, the journalist tries to make society believe that the prosecution is right. Jury members are part of this society; therefore the material is directed towards them too to create preconceptions in them before the case hearing, which is not ethical journalism.

According to the 10th principle of Charter – Journalist must respect privacy and must not violate it if there is no public interest. In the material above, the details of probable sexual assault on Laura Smith are publicized. The prosecutor describes in detail how the body looked, the situation [possible forms of sexual violence and the evidence] which proves the fact of sexual assault. Charter Council refrains from providing details in this decision not to support their dissemination. Council decided that there was no objective public interest to these details and the journalist was not obligated to publicize them. Therefore, 10th principle of Charter was violated.


According to information provided above:

1. Irakli Chikhladze and Tamar Gogesashvili violated Charter principles 1 and 10.

Head of Council: Nana Biganishvili

Council Members: Giorgi Mgeladze, Gela Mtivlishvili, Kamila Mamedova, Lika Zakashvili, Irma Zoidze, Giorgi Suladze, Maia Merkviladze, Tamuna Uchidze


Supreme Court of Georgia applied to Georgian Charter of Journalistic Ethics versus media companies versia.ge, marshalpress.ge, digest.pia.ge, exclusivenews.ge and resonancedaily.com. These media companies published identical article on 21st of January, 2019 with the title “Is Eka Beselia going to jail?” Applicant thought that the material violated charter principles 3 and 5. In case of “Versia” material was published on webpage and printed edition of the newspaper.

Responsible person for “Versia” was chosen to be the editor in chief Maia Purtseladze. Other media companies did not identify authors of the article and did not give the information to the council secretariat, therefore, the Charter guidelines state that “unidentified author” can be named an author.

Specifics of the case: The decision was made by distant voting from Members of Council. According to the Charter’s rules: “Council members can state their opinion about the case/get involved in council’s work by distant communication means [social networks, electronic mail, online video and audio calls]”.


According to the Charter principle 1 – Journalist must respect truth and society’s right to get precise information. There were different factual circumstances in the article, for example:

“Okuashvili was offered by Eka Beselia to stop this case [Zaza Okuashvili’s wife – Nato Chkheidze is Eka Beselia’s committee’s member in Parliament]. Confidential source tells us that she got good sum of money for taking care of this case and started establishing previously tested schemes energetically”.

“As they say, Mrs. Beselia always took care of cases with the help of her close friend and cooperator in financial corruption – Mzia Todua. Mzia Todua is a person who now is head of Georgian civil court head and interim head of Supreme Court”.

“They also say, that the businessmen asked the parliament member to give back his bribe. Probably, Mrs. Eka gave back what she got honestly, but Mzia Todua refused to return money, because she thought, that by stretching time, she gave benefits to the head of Omega”.

“After this, situation developed rapidly. Mrs. Eka, based on Gvaramia’s order, “blows up” the so known judge’s case and sabotages the government: leaves the legal committee head position. Instead of her, Gedevan Popkhadze is appointed by violating the procedures”.

The circumstances have the signs of a crime, in which a Parliament Member and Supreme Court judge are accused. The information is not verified. There is no sign of sources being reliable. The media calls source “reliable”, but they are described as confidential. “The information had already been leaked in media [no mention of when or by whom]”, “source close to the court lobby”. The article does not have comments of the “accused”. There is no sign that the journalist tried to get their comments and/or verify the information some other way. Therefore, Charter Council thinks that the first principle was violated, as the journalist did not respect society’s right to get precise information or even try to verify information.

The first version of the article was published on versia.ge. As of marshalpress.ge, digest.pia.ge, exclusivenews.ge, resonancedaily.com, they published identical articles and sourced Versia. This note does not lift the ethical obligation from media. It was proven that Versia published unverified information, therefore, for others, versia.ge was the source and to protect ethical obligations, they had to verify their information. Copying the information with no changes made them violate same ethical principles, which the Council mentioned above.

According to the 3rd principle of the Charter - Journalist must share information which is bases on verified sources. Journalist should not hide facts or falsify information and documents. The applicant thought that the third principle was violated based on the argumentation of the first principle; therefore, the 3rd principle violation was not proven.

According to the 5th principle of the Charter - Media is obligated to correct the published information which was not correct and lead audience to errors. After publishing the material, Supreme Court sent the statement to the media companies denying the information. None of the companies used this information. They neither changed the published article, nor published the statement itself. The articles [which violate the first principle] can still be found as they were. Therefore, the 5th principle of the Charter was also violated.

Charter Council thought that the printed version of versia.ge deserved separate discussion. Versia.ge published the same article which was published online in the printed newspaper, page 3. It occupied the whole page. The same issue, page 4, was dedicated to the Supreme Court statement, but it was printed in smaller font. Charter cannot count this as correction, because for the date of publishing the article, Supreme Court’s statement was already known, therefore it should have been shown in the article itself, not on the separate page and smaller font size. The article did not mention that the same issue of the newspaper contained Supreme Court’s position on the topic. Therefore, the right of audience to get the second party statement was violated.


According to information provided above:

1. Maia Purtseladze and unidentified journalists of marshalpress.ge, digest.pia.ge, exclusivenews.ge, resonancedaily.com violated Charter principles 1 and 5.

2. Maia Purtseladze and unidentified journalists of marshalpress.ge, digest.pia.ge, exclusivenews.ge, resonancedaily.com did not violate Charter principle 3.

Head of Council: Nana Biganishvili

Members of Council: Giorgi Mgeladze, Gela Mtivlishvili, Kamila Mamedova, Lika Zakashvili, Irma Zoidze, Giorgi Suladze, Maia Merkviladze, Tamuna Uchidze

Georgian Supreme Court applied to the Georgian Charter of Journalistic Ethics vs. online publishing ITV.ge. Applicant thought, that the article: “Scandal about 3 Million Bribe – What Awaits Eka Beselia and Ivanishvili’s Judge Todua?” published on 22nd of January, 2019, violated Charter principles 1, 3 and 5.

There was no author indicated in the article. Coucil secretariate asked the media company to identify who was responsible for the material, but the information was not given and therefore, nobody was identified. In these situations, according to Charter guidelines, “unidentified person” can be given in the decision.

Specifics of the case: The decision was made by distant voting from Members of Council. According to the Charter’s rules: “Council members can state their opinion about the case/get involved in council’s work by distant communication means [social networks, electronic mail, online video and audio calls]”.


According to the Charter principle 1 – Journalist must respect truth and society’s right to get precise information. There were different factual circumstances in the article, for example:

“The information has already leaked to media that the Omega group founder, Zaza Okuashvili, paid 10% of the sum in question (which is 3 million from 30 million) to win the case”.

“Supreme Court interim head Mzia Todua, who is a trusted person of Ivanishvili and ex lawyer of Kartu, took responsibility to Eka Beselia, that she would decide the case in favor of Zaza Okuashvili and the case will be closed like that”.

“Because Beselia and Ivanishvili’s judge Todua could not solve the problem of Okuashvili, he asked his bribe to be returned”.

“To be more precise: Omega group founder says that he has evidence on how one of the founders of Georgian Dream and the interim head of Supreme Court take bribe.

The circumstances have the signs of a crime, in which a Parliament Member and Supreme Court judge are accused. The information is not verified. At the end of the article it says: “Mrs. Beselia says that there are no evidences or bribes. “I don’t want to believe that Gia Abashidze was told to write this” – says she. Mzia Todua is hiding from media. Zaza Okuashvili is quiet for now, in London”. Council does not think that this phrase stands as verification trial. Council does not believe, that “Mzia Todua is hiding from Media” is true.

Supreme Court shared a statement as soon as the article was published and denied the details, which proves, that they were ready to comment on the information. It is also important to note about the information’s nature and importance. Article accused a Parliament Member and judge of the Supreme Court in corruption. Therefore, journalist should have done everything to verify the information, when there were no open, proven sources. The journalist did not specify which media companies it based the ideas upon, when they said that “there was a leak to media”. Journalist could have asked Supreme Court for information, could have contacted expert Gia Abashidze, whose Facebook status they were using as a source. Therefore, Charter Council thinks that the first principle was violated, as the journalist did not use many ways to verify information.

According to the 3rd principle of the Charter “Journalist must share information which is bases on verified sources. Journalist should not hide facts or falsify information and documents”. The applicant thought that the third principle was violated based on the argumentation of the first principle; therefore, the 3rd principle violation was not proven.

According to the 5th principle of the Charter: Media is obligated to correct the published information which was not correct and lead audience to errors”. After publishing the material, Supreme Court sent the statement to the media denying the information. ITV.ge did not use this information. They neither changed the published article, nor published the statement itself. The article [which violates the first principle] can still be found as it was. Therefore, the 5th principle of the Charter was also violated.


According to information provided above:

ITV.ge unidentified journalist violated 1st and 5th principles of the Charter.

ITV.ge unidentified journalist did not violate 3rd principle of the Charter.

Decisio N166
December 22, 2017


Head of Council: Giorgi Mgeladze

Council members: Tamar Uchidze, Jaba Ananidze, Tazo Kupreishvili, Nino Jafiashvili, Maia Mamulashvili.

Applicant: Lasha Bordzikuli [Hegumen Dionise]

Respondent: Khatuna Kontkhonjia

Description

Hegumen Dionise applied to the Georgian Charter of Journalistic ethics. He thought that the magazine “Tbiliselebi” issue of September 25 – October 2 article: “What was the relationship of model Koba Fartenadze with priest Giorgi Mamaladze and how was he oppressed by father Andria Turmanidze” violated Charter’s 1st, 10th and 11th principles. Article was by Khatuna Kortkhonjia.

Applicant Hegumen Dionise attended the hearing. Respondent did not attend it or provide written statement.

Proven facts:

Magazine “Tbiliselebi” issue of September 25th – October 2nd had the article: “What was the relationship of model Koba Fartenadze with priest Giorgi Mamaladze and how was he oppressed by father Andria Turmanidze”. Main part of the article was the interview with Koba Fartenadze, who was in one of the photos which the accused in relations with the “cianyde case” Giorgi Mamaladze said that prosecutor’s office was blackmailing him with. The information about interview was printed on the cover of the magazine accompanied by the photo of Koba Fartenadze and Hegumen Dionise together.

Article did not mention Hegumen Dionise or identify him in any indirect way.

Findings of the Council

According to the first principle of the Charter “a journalist must respect the truth and society’s right to get precise information”. Facts make it clear, that Hegumen Dionise did not have anything to do with the article, in relation to which his photo was printed on the cover of the magazine. Charter mentioned in multiple of decisions, that the printed photo on the cover, the title printed there, can be considered as separate journalistic product, because it is what creates first impression on the reader and there is a chance that they might not read the rest of the article, which leaves the chance that they will have incorrect opinions about the fact.

To analyze the case example, the first and the second facts mentioned in descriptive part create the perception that Hegumen Dionise was connected with Giorgi Mamaladze of father Andria Turmanidze oppressing Koba Fartenadze. The circumstances were made more sensitive because Giorgi Mamaladze is accused in “cyanide case”, where Koba Fartenadze was also mentioned. As a conclusion, Council wants to say, that using Hegumen Dionise’s photo was not connected to the journalistic product, created incorrect perceptions and impressions, therefore it violated the first principle of the Charter.

According to the 10th principle of the Charter: “a journalist must respect personal life of a person and not violate privacy if there is no specific public interest”. Charter contacted Koba Fartenadze to understand how the photo was obtained. As Koba Fartenadze told the Council, he had posted the photo publically on Facebook and gave the journalist permission to use any photo from his Facebook Page himself. Therefore, the Charter thinks that the privacy violation did not take place.

According to the 11th principle of the Charter: “journalist must consider the following as a severe work crime: distorting facts deliberately”. Charter did not see a reason or any other circumstances, which would have proven the journalist’s aim to deliberately print a photo where Hegumen Dionise was depicted even though he did not have anything to do with the product. In this case, Council thinks that only 1st and not the 11th principle was violated.

Resolution

From everything mentioned above:

• Khatuna Kortkhonjia violated the first principle of the Charter.
• Khatuna Kortkhonjia did not violate 10th or 11th principles of the Charter.