The case – insurance company GPI Holding versus Jaba Khubua

Chairperson of the Council: Natia Kuprashvili

Council members: David Mchedlidze, Natia Rokva, Giorgi Mgeladze, Nino Zuriashvili, Lasha Zarginava

The applicant : insurance company GPI Holding LLC

Respondent: Jaba Khubua

Descriptive part

Insurance company GPI Holding LLC applied to the Georgian Charter of Journalist Ethics claiming that journalist Jaba Khubua had violated Principles 3,5,7,8,10, and 11 of the Charter.

According to the statement, the Charter’s principles were violated in the Asaval Dasavali newspaper article "Relation between Horrendous Tragedy in Gora Village of Vani District with Mamuka Khazaradze", from  April 21, 2014.

The article in question dealt with the events  unfolded in one of the Vani district villages, namely the fact of Merab Karchkhadze’s suicide, preceded by a fracture got by the child of the deceased person. The article suggests that Merab Karchkhadze’s decision to commit suicide was determined by the fact that GPI Holding insurance company refused to fund the treatment of the child.

The case examination was attended by the applicant’s representative, Tinatin Stambolishvili, while the defendant journalist was absent and hadn’t submitted the response.

Motivation part

The Council identified the following factual circumstances:

• The girl got a fracture March 18, 2014
• Merab Karchkhadze committed suicide March 21, 2014.
• The documents submitted reveal that the injured person was supposed to undergo an operation within 5 days following the first application to the hospital.
• The girl had an operation on March 30, 2014, which was fully covered by GPI Holding.

According to 1^st Principle of the Charter: " Journalist must respect the truth and the right of society, in order to receive accurate information."

Article 1 prescribes there has to be an attempt of the part of a journalist attesting his/her having been respectful of the society, and has properly verified the facts in order to publish the truth and accurate information. Adequate information, as per the agreement, is an information verified at two sources, with identification of a person, location, event- everyone and everything pertaining to the information.

A journalist in an affirmative form spreads information that the GPI Holding insurance company has refused to fund a medical operation. The following phrase has as well been explicitly stated: "If Khazaradze’s GPI Holding hadn’t refused to allot 2000 GEL to fund a medical operation for 13 year old Irina Karchkhadze, her father, Merab Karchkhadze, 39, would have been alive today".

In the meantime, the investigation has proved that the medical operation has actually been funded by the insurance company, as opposed to the statement suggested in the article. In addition, the Council hasn’t agreed with the position specified in the article saying that "GPI Holding decided to provide funds for the operation only after the development of the tragedy". The article neither contains  references to the circumstances objectively confirming the father’s suicide has been a result of the insurance company’s refusal to cover the costs, nor the position/clarification of GPI Holding. Furthermore, there hasn’t been an attempt on the part of the journalist to contact with the insurance company for explanation. Based on the aforementioned, the judgment of the Council reads that the journalist has spread incorrect information, without preliminary verification, and hasn’t reflected the position of the other side in the article.

The claimant also considers Part 2 of the 3^rd Principle of the Charter as violation, which states: "Journalist mustn’t conceal important facts, nor falsify documents and information." According to the claimant, the statement of GPI holding providing the company’s clarification with respect to the issue had been hushed up. As suggested in the controversial article, the journalist based his material on the interview of the girl’s mother published in the New Press newspaper (newspess.ge- online version of the paper). The Council studied the given interview and concluded that the journalist, Jaba Khubua, had used an interview published on newpress.ge under the heading: "Family of the Deceased in Vani-  Child’s Surgery Made with Delay". The hyperlink (http://newpress.ge/index.php?page=1&news_id=3485) for the given interview specifies GPI Holding’s statement concerning the issue. Therefore, the journalist knew of the statement in which the company described a number of clarifying circumstances, including the fact of surgery performed on the minor. This notwithstanding, the journalist concealed all the facts provided in the GPI’s statement necessary for the conveyance of complete information to the reader.

5^th Principle of the Charter: "The media is liable to correct substantially incorrect information which misleads society." Following the consideration with respect to the 1^st principle, the Charter’s Council revealed that the information published by the journalist contained inaccurate facts. Additionally, the Council has been submitted an evidence attesting that on April 25, 2014, GPI Holding appealed to the newspaper to have the information corrected. The Asaval Dasavali newspaper didn’t fulfill the request, thus violating the 5^th Principle of the Charter.

According to the 7^th Principle of the Charter: " 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.". What the claimant considered as discriminatory, was the following phrase used in the article: "Look at Doghead Rex and image Merab Karchkhadze dangling from a tree in one of the Vani district villages, who had to hang himself in order to save his child’s life". The appellant also believed that the article was discrediting Mamuka Khazaradze, which went in violation of Article 7. The Council clarifies that discrediting and discrimination must be told apart. Discrediting implies the smearing of a person’s reputation, name, honor or dignity. Whereas the 7^th Principle of the Charter safeguards a person/group from discrimination (unequal treatment, hate speech due to a certain distinction, etc.) and addresses the fact of violation. The Council, in this case, hasn’t found any signs of discrimination in the phrase the appellant referred to. As per the 8^th Principle: " Journalists are liable to protect children’s rights; in his/her professional activity, given the highest priority to children’s interests, neither can journalists prepare nor publish articles or reports regarding children that may be harmful to them. Journalist must not interview, as well as photograph, a youth under the age of 16 on issues related to the welfare of the given or any other youth without the consent of the parents or the guardian". There has been a full identification of a minor in the article, with naming of the sufferer’s full name, residence, and photo. It’s evident that the facts described in the article might have inflicted psychological distress on the minor. That’s coupled with the journalist’s effort to artistically describe both the anguish of the injured and the emotional state of the suicidal father. All that further aggravates the condition around the minor girl, and associates her directly with the tragic event. In preparation of the material the journalists didn’t allow for the children’s interests and created a basis for the child’s further association with the fact of her father suicide by the society, and thus continue her psychological suffering. The 10^th Article of the Charter prescribes: "Journalists must pay respect to privacy, and not intrude into the private lives of people unless there is special public interest". The Council explicitly agrees on the fact that there has been public interest concerning the issue, and that the journalist hasn’t arbitrarily uncovered the details of the minor’s private life. The Council further adds that in this case (Principle 10) it’s not discussing the minor’s interests, due to having done that previously. The Council agrees on the violation of Principle 11 of the Charter, i.e. deliberate distortion of facts. The pre-condition to the above decision is based on the below circumstances:

• With respect to Principle 3 the Charter resolved that the journalist was aware of the GPI’s official statement, and the facts described therein, yet despite that he, nonetheless, published the incorrect information.

The article carries the element of campaigning, and having studied it the Council has had the impression that the purpose of the article wasn’t aimed at providing correct and verified information to the reader, but rather acting against GPI Holding, and a concrete person-Mamuka Khazaradze. Only a part of the article is dedicated to the tragedy that took place in the Gora village of the Vani district, the rest of it contains poignant comparisons and manipulation with facts on the part of the journalist [Look at Doghead Rex and imagine Merab Karchkhadze that had to hung himself in order to save his child’s life. However, it seems that the funding  of the most profligate books of Burchuladze, Deisadze, Bugadze, Karumidze, and some other authors, is a higher priority for Mamuka Khazaradze than human life and health!"] in an attempt to represent the insurance company  GPI Holding and Mamuka Khazaradze as responsible for the person’s suicide. That serves the Council as a ground to consider that the journalist has disseminated the wrong information intentionally, so as to dishonor concrete person’s business reputation.

The Council stresses that the language used in the article is incompatible with the ethical journalism.

Operative part

Based on the aforementioned the Council ruled:

1. Jaba Khubua has violated Principles 3, 5, 8, 11 of the Charter.
2. Jaba Khubua hasn’t violated Principles 7 and 10 of the Charter.