Decision N 94

may 8 2016

Case – Shalva Ramishvili VS Giorgi Bakhtadze

Chairman of the Council: Nino Zuriashvili Members of the Council: Nino Narimanishvili, Tazo Kupreishvili, Nino Japhiashvili, Maia Mamulashvili, Maia                                                     Metskhvarishvili. Applicant: Shalva Ramishvili Respondent: Giorgi Bakhtadze

Descriptive part

The Georgian Charter of Journalistic Ethics received a complaint from Shalva Ramishvili who claimed being pressured by director general of Imedi TV company, Giorgi Bakhtadze. Namely, there was a correspondence between Shalva Ramishvili and Giorgi Bakhtadze on December 17/18, 2015 via Viber, in which Bakhtadze asked Ramishvili to invite to the talk show "Politics"[produced and hosted by Shalva Ramishvili] the guests specified by him (Bakhtadze). The case hearing was attended by the applicant, Shalva Ramishvili, and Bakhtadze’s representative, Akaki Gigineishvili.

Motivational part: 

Principle 2 of the Charter prescribes- "It is unacceptable to coerce a journalist to express an opinion against his/her conscience" The applicant produced the correspondence carried out through Viber as the evidence to the fact of coercion, which authenticity hadn’t been called in question by the defendant. As stated by the applicant, he planned to have Levan Murusidze in the Politics program together with his opponents, in order for them to ask critical question to Levan Murusidze. The correspondence from December 17/18, 2015 reads that Giorgi Bakhtadze had been involved in the selection of opponents, and had asked Ramishvili to invite in the capacity of opponents active judges- Tkavadze, Gvritashvili, Alania, and Gabinashvili, and provided their contact numbers. On Ramishvili’s question whether they would act as opponents to Levan Murusidze, Bakhtadze responded that "they would". As seen from the correspondence, and which has as well been confirmed in the course of the hearing by Shalva Ramishvili, he contacted the judges specified and revealed them not being the real opponents of Levan Murusidze. Consequently, Shalva Ramishvili didn’t agree with Giorgi Bakhtadze as to the invitation of the judges: Tkavadze, Gvritashvili, Alania, and Gabinashvili. Following that, Giorgi Bakhtadze wrote to Ramishvili in the form of request – "invite the judges which I had pointed out to act the opponents". The message serves as a clear evidence of Bakhadze’s  attempt to interfere with the journalists’ editorial independence. In response Shalva Ramishvili specified that the judges would not ask critical questions to Levan Murusidze, and that he once again expresses his negative attitude regarding the invitation of those judges by Giorgi Bakhtadze. Later, Bakhadze says to Ramishvili that " they are now going to find the new ones". The implication of the notice is that person(s) unknown to the Charter’s Council are supposed to select alternative respondents for Shalva Ramishvili as invitees to the program. Therefore, based on the above, the Charter considers Giorgi Bakhtadze’s notifications being of a compulsory nature, expressing his desire that Ramishvili invited the persons designated by him. The correspondence then shows Ramishvili’s attempt to once again explain to Bakhtadze that inviting the specified judges doesn’t comply with the program’s interests, as they do not actually represent Murusidze’s opponents and do not act as such. Nonetheless, Giorgi Bakhtadze continues pushing his categorical request with Ramishvili now asking to "invite one opponent" from the list [i.e. the list of judges] -"OK. Choose him one real opponent and one from that list". Those notifications once again attest to the judges picked out by Bakhtadze hadn’t actually been Murusidze’s opponents. According to the correspondence, Giorgi Bakhtadze is able to guarantee the judge specified by him asked questions to Levan Murusidze; the ones which Ramishvili wants- "tell me who you’d like to have [i.e. the judge] and he will have one [i.e. a critical question]". Following the above notifications, Shalva Ramishvili hadn’t still agreed to invite the acting judges specified by Giorgi Bakhtadze. The correspondence resumes approx. half an hour later, by Ramishvili informing Bakhtadze that he had received a call from judge Dimitry Gvritishvili [being on Bakradze’s list], and expressing this time his consent to have Gvritishvili as a guest. Later, when Gvritishvili revealed to Ramishvili the question he was going to ask Levan Maisuradze, Ramishvili replied- "well, such a "poignant" question would sound very stupid and  plotted, you know". The next day, December 18, Giorgi Bakhtadze and Shalva Ramishvili apparently had a conversation through Viber. As suggested by the statement of Ramishvili made during the hearing, Bakhtadze once again demanded that he invited the specified judges, stressing that would positively reflect on the program’s rating. Giorgi Bakhtadze then wrote: Gabinashvili [judge] + Tkavadze [judge] + Shavgulidze", followed by Ramishvili’s response- "yes". Ultimately, persons invited to the program in the capacity of Levan Murushvili’s opponents were the following judges: Merab Gabinashvili, Dimitry Gvritishvili, and Giorgi Tkavadze, which according to Ramishvili hadn’t in fact been the real opponents, but members of Murusidze’s team [a single brigade – reads one of Ramishvili’s messages]. During the hearing the representative of the respondent stressed with respect to the correspondence, that it was just a routine working process, and that in his opinion there had been no coercion, adding that apart from being director general, Giorgi Bakhtadze also combined the duties of editor-in-chief, and had been participating in the planning of programs. The given fact has as well been confirmed by Shalva Ramishvili, yet he stressed that prior to the moment in question there hadn’t been any pressure, and that all programs were planned on a consensual basis. Based on all the aforementioned the Charter’s Council considers there has been obvious encroachment and pressuring over Shalva Ramishvili’s editorial independence on the part of Giorgi Bakhtadze, through the invitation of persons according to his own preference. Despite that Ramishvili had refused several times to invite the persons specified, Giorgi Bakhtadze continued demanding invitation of these concrete persons. Notifications by Giorgi Bakhtadze attest to the exertion of pressure: "invite the judges that I had pointed out to you", "now they are going to find the new ones", "[invite] one opponent from that list", "get him a real opponent and one from that list", "tell me who you’d like to have and he will have one (i.e. a question), "invite Gabinashvili+Tkavadze+Shavgulidze. Giorgi Bakhtadze was aware of the fact that persons designated by him hadn’t been real opponents to Levan Murusidze. This notwithstanding, he suggested a number of times that Ramishvili invited those concrete judges, therefore not only exerting pressure on Ramishvili, but also deliberately offering the audience artificial debates without real confrontation. Another aspect to consider is Giorgi Bakhtadze’s being director general of Imedi TV, whose sphere of reference also includes the definition of the legal outcome of contractual relations with Shalva Ramishvili. Though Giorgi Bakhtadze didn’t directly refer to the possibility of sanctioning that might follow the non-compliance with his requests, his stressing on the program’s rating, taking into consideration his official post, had constituted for Shalva Ramishvili a legitimate expectation that non-compliance with the requests could affected his employment contract. The council, in turn, finds appropriate to assess Shalva Ramishvili’s actions from the point of view of ethical journalism. Though it’s true that Ramishvili first resisted inviting respondents by order, yet he ultimately yielded to the pressure, and had, therefore, offered the audience fictitious debates, misleading both the audience and the host, Teona Gegelia [who hadn’t been aware of the invited judges not being real opponents].  In compliance with the objectives of ethical journalism, Shalva Ramishvili was liable to not submit to the fact of pressuring and immediately report about it. Operative part: Based on the above the Council ruled out:

1. Giorgi Bakhtadze has violated Principle 2 of the Charter.

Case materials

• Statement of Shalva Ramishvili
• Correspondence between Shalva Ramishvili and Giorgi Bakhtadze
• Statement of Giorgi Bakhtadze
• Facebook statues of Teona Gegelia