Case – G.A. VS M.K [1]

Chairperson of the Council: Natia Kuprashvili

Members of the Council: Giorgi Mgeladze, Irina Kurua, Nino Narimanishvili, Irakli Absandze, David Mchedlidze

Applicant:G.A.

Respondent: M.K

Descriptive part

Individual G.A. applied to the Charter of Journalistic Ethics with a complaint against the Charter’s non-signee journalist, M.K. The applicant pointed out to the violation of journalistic principles in the story prepared by M.K. concerning the growth of the number of specific virus carriers. Prior to the preparation of the program, M.K on request/mediation of a certain organization had contacted G.A. as a carrier of the mentioned virus, and asked for commenting on the issue. G.A. expressed consent on the basis of confidentiality. The broadcasting of the story revealed the respondent’s confidentiality has been breached, due to the unaltered voice making for the possible identification. Accordingly, on the above grounds the applicant believes Principles 4,6,7, and 10 of the Charter have been violated. The session was attended by the applicant and defendant. In the course of the Council’s questioning the defendant M.K confirmed failing to take all the necessary measures to properly safeguard the respondent’s confidentiality, namely leaving the voice unchanged.

Operative part:

1. Regarding violation of Principle 4 of the Charter. As prescribed by Principle 4: Journalists must only rely on scrupulous and fair methods when collecting information, photo materials, or documents.

The Council concludes that Principle 4 hasn’t been violated, as the journalist hadn’t resorted to deception in recording the respondent, so that the latter was fully aware as to what the story concerned and the how would the interview be used. Therefore, the journalists had obtained the information through fair and conscientious methods.

1. Regarding violation of Principle 6 of the Charter

According to Principle 6: Journalists have a moral responsibility not to disclose confidential sources.

After the consideration of the story in question, the Council unanimously agreed on the complete possibility of identification of the respondent’s voice due to the non-fulfillment of the appropriate measures, and that in addition, it was also possible to visually identify the respondent in a number of videos. The Council underscores that the interview concerned the respondent’s heath condition, and the positive liability of the journalist implied to safeguard the confidentiality of the respondent’s identity. Furthermore, the journalist had been noticed beforehand that the ensuring of confidentiality was the pre-requisite of recording the interview. Consequently, based on the aforementioned the Council concludes that the journalist has violated Principle 6- breaching respondent’s confidentiality. Also, the Council appeals to the TV company that has broadcasted the controversial story with a pertinent recommendation to make the story unavailable at public sources.

1. Regarding violation of Principle 7 of the Charter. Principle 7: Journalists must understand the dangers of encouraging discrimination on the part of the media; therefore, he/she must exert every effort to avoid discrimination of any person on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation, language, religion, political and other opinion, national or social origin, or any other grounds.

The Council reckons that the story contained a number of photo-material describing a healthy and  virus-affected person, being of discriminative nature, promoting enhancement of stigmatization and adding to the inopportune dramatization of the situation, and as such discriminating every virus carrying individual.

Based on the above the Council concludes there has been no violation of Principle 7 of the Charter on the part of the journalist.

1. Regarding violation of Principle 10 of the Charter. Principle 10: Journalists must pay respect to privacy, and not intrude into the private lives of people unless there is special public interest

The Charter’s Council considers that the journalist hasn’t infringed the respondent’s privacy. The private information was disclosed by the respondent. Only the confidentiality has been violated, which the Council already discussed with respect to Principle 6.

Operative part:

Based on the above the Council ruled:

1. K. has violated Principles 6 and 7 of the Charter. Journalist M.K. hasn’t violated Principles 4 and 10 of the Charter.

[1] As the case concerns confidential information on person’s health, the disclosure of which has already caused serious problems to the applicant, the Council preserves anonymity of the case and doesn’t specify the TV company, and refers to the parties by initials, so as to safeguard against further dissemination of confidential information.