Decision N124
April 1, 2017


Head of Council: Giorgi Mgeladze

Members of Council: Jaba Ananidze, Nino Jafiashvili, Tazo Kupreishvili, Tea Zibzibadze, Tamar Uchidze.

Applicant: Partnership for Human Rights

Respondent: Mari Malazonia

Description

Partnership for Human Rights applied to Georgian Charter of Journalistic Ethics about the show “Private Doctor – Mari Malazonia” which was aired on 27th of January, 2017. They thought that it violated principles 8 and 10 of Charter. The show was about D vitamin and calcium deficiency in children and the negative consequences. There was a minor showed half naked while talking about specific illness.

Case discussion was attended by representatives of applicant and respondent journalist. Applicant canceled the case of violation of principle 10 in the process of discussion.

Findings of the Council

According to the principle 8 of the charter:

A journalist is obligated to protect children’s rights; children’s interests have the highest priority during work. They should not prepare and disseminate information about children in articles or materials which will harm them”. Applicant thought that principle 8 was violated according to this argument: “The child who was a guest in the show had their privacy and dignity violated. Child’s body was used as a showcase object. Therefore, the dignity was violated and by showing deformed chest the privacy was violated too. At the same time, the material of the show could have been used as a bullying base in an educational institution”.

Respondent Mari Malazonia said that child’s condition was not discussed to be an illness in the show but as a temporary, reversible condition. It was not said that specifically, this child has “chicken’s breast” condition. Moreover, parent agreed to child’s participation in the show. Child’s mother who attended the discussion said the same thing. Respondent also said that they have only positive aims of informing society about negative consequences of calcium and vitamin D deficiency.

Charter cannot agree with respondent and based on arguments provided below thinks that audience would have been left with the impression that the child had the condition:

Mari Malazonia takes clothes off of the child’s upper body and says: “parents don’t often look at how child’s chest and stomach look”, then the child is given to the invited doctor, who points to its body and says: “Chest deformity is evident. In the past, it was called chicken’s breast condition”.

Afterward, Mari Malazonia talks to the audience and points their attention to the child’s body and the doctor continues: “Harrison’s line is evident, which is one of the signs of calcium deficiency”. “Often parents want to improve this [points to child’s chest] with message”. Then they use child’s wrist and say that this is one of the signs of rachitis.

Based on these facts, it is evident that child’s interests were violated. Society thought of him as a person with specific condition whether he had it or not. Confidentiality of information about a person’s health is not just keeping the news quiet, but also not implying directly or indirectly that a person has a disease, because both of the situations can have same negative effects in regards to privacy and dignity protection.

Council also points to the terms “Chicken’s breast” and “Rachitis” and agrees with the applicant that these can be used as a basis for bullying. A child can be called someone with “Chicken’s breast” or “Rachitis”.

Prevention of illness is a social interest subject but it should not violate child’s rights. Showing the body and promoting the idea that it is deformed can be a violation of dignity now and in the future.

As of the parent’s consent council once again said that when working with children the most important thing is children’s rights, not legal representative agreement. Ethical journalistic principles obligate journalist to support children’s rights. Parents’ consent should not be considered as a basis of getting free from responsibility when logic dictates that child’s rights are violated as is his privacy. It is clear that child does not understand the consequences of participating in the show. Maybe it is fun for him to be shown on TV and the same can be said about parent. We need to consider what a child will say when he grows up when someone calls him “Chicken breast” and deformed. Sharing private information is a right of adult, independent person. The child cannot make this decision and often parents’ interests and agreement don’t agree with child’s interests.

Resolution

According to the information above:

• Mari Malazonia violated principle 8 of the Charter.