MEDIA MONITORING
Tbilisi, 21 October, 2013 – The Charter of Journalistic Ethics, an
independent, non-profit professional journalist association that
promotes the values of freedom and democracy, has been
systematically monitoring the media coverage of the 27 October
presidential election. This project is conducted in cooperation
with the Slovak media-monitoring organization MEMO 98 and with the
support of the Open Society Foundation Georgia (OSFG).
Following is the second preliminary report that includes the main monitoring findings covering three weeks of the official campaign period (16 September – 10 October):
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The preliminary media monitoring results for the period of 16 September – 10 October indicate that similar to the first monitoring period (2 – 15 September), most media continue to offer a generally balanced coverage of political parties and candidates in their political and election-related prime time news and current affairs programmes. The second monitoring period was characterized by an overall decrease in the amount of coverage devoted to the government and an increase in the coverage devoted to political parties and candidates (the biggest decrease of the government’s share of coverage was noticed on Adjara TV – from 73 per cent to 30 per cent). This could be explained by the fact that the campaign has been slowly picking up in the last few weeks. However, news coverage of the campaign continues to focus on campaign events with little or no focus on issues and differences between the candidates. To date, monitored media have not provided analytical and in-depth coverage that could help voters to better analyze and assess the qualities and programmes of electoral contestants.
At the beginning of September, the Charter and MEMO 98 initiated a Media Code of Conduct that is a summary of generally applicable standards and principles to be observed by media during an election period. The code is drawn upon international documents and guidelines with special attention to recommendations of the Council of Europe, OSCE, and other international organizations of which Georgia is a member state. The main goal of the project is to help in improving professional standards during elections. To date, five TV channels (GPB, Rustavi 2, Imedi, Maestro and Adjara) signed the code and generally agreed to voluntarily abide by its provisions. It should be noted that similar to the first monitoring period, the media continue to follow the principles outlined in the code, with only a very few instances where these principles were not fully respected. This contributes to an overall improvememt in the media coverage of elections (in comparison with the 2012 elections) which was also acknowldged by the OSCE/ODIHR report.
Monitoring results
The Georgian Public Broadcaster’s first channel (GPB1) devoted the bulk of its political and election-related coverage to the government – almost 34 per cent. However, it was less than during the first monitoring period (50 per cent). At the same time, the share of coverage dedicated to the political parties increased. Both the Georgian Dream (GD) and the United National Movement (UNM) received almost identical proportions of mostly neutral coverage (18,5 and 18,8 percent respectively). There was also a slight increase in the coverage of the president (from 7,4 to 9,4), which is due to his activities during the monitoring period (for example his speech in the UN and the UNM congress).
As for the coverage of presidential contestants, the two frontrunners – Giorgi Margvelashvili and Davit Bakradze – received comparable proportions (12,7 and 17 percent respectively) of mainly neutral or positive prime time news coverage.[2] The next most covered candidates were Giorgi Targamadze and Nino Burjanadze receiving respectively 14 and 15 percent of the coverage. The CDM and the UNM candidates had the biggest amount of direct time.
Similar to GPB1, Rustavi 2 also decreased the share of its prime time news coverage devoted to the activities of the cabinet ministers (29,4 against 38,5 percent during the first period). At the same time, however, the channel devoted two times more coverage to President Saakashvili (of which 27 percent was positive and 6 percent negative). As for the coverage of the two main parties, the channel gave more coverage to the UNM (23,3 percent) than to the GD (18,4 percent). While as much as 18 per cent of the UNM coverage was positive and 4 was negative, only 3 per cent of the GD coverage was positive and 7 per cent was negative.
In addition, while the two main candidates received almost identical share of the coverage on Rustavi 2 (29 percent respectively), Davit Bakradze received more positive coverage than his main rival. The UNM candidate also received the biggest amount of direct time. The next most covered candidates were Giorgi Targamadze (12 percent) and Nino Burjanadze (11,2 percent).
Another private channel Imedi also allotted the largest portion of its coverage to the government (33,3 percent) but it was a significant decrease in comparison with the first period – 62,3 percent). The tone of the coverage was mainly neutral. Similar to other channels, Imedi also devoted more coverage to political parties and candidates. The two main parties – UNM and GD – received similar proportions of mostly neutral coverage (23,1 per cent and 19,6 per cent respectively). The activities of the president were devoted 10 percent of mainly neutral coverage (which is an increase in comparison with the first period when he received 5,9 percent).
As for the coverage of candidates, Imedi devoted more time to Davit Bakradze (30 percent) than to Giorgi Margvelashvili (18,9 percent). The tone of their coverage was mainly neutral or positive. Nino Burjanadze (14,3 percent) and Giorgi Targamadze (13 percent) were the next most covered candidates. The UNM candidate was devoted the biggest amount of direct time.
Of the monitored TV channels, Maestro TV devoted the biggest share of its prime time news coverage to the activities of the government (46,1 per cent – only a small decrease in comparison with the first period – 49,1 per cent). At the same time, the channel was more critical towards Ivanishvili’s cabinet than in the first monitoring period (26 percent of the government’s coverage was negative and 9 per cent was positive). This was mainly in connection with the government’s response to the ‘borderisation’ in Dvani and in relation to the prime minister’s lengthy briefings (on September 25 and October 2, Mr. Ivanishvili held four-hour long briefings for experts and journalists). As for the coverage of political parties, there was a small increase in the amount of their coverage but not as significant as on other monitored channels. The channel gave a similar coverage to the UNM and the GD (19,2 and 16,6 per cent respectively). President Saakashvili received 10,9 percent of the coverage that was mainly neutral in tone.
Giorgi Margvelashvili and Davit Bakradze received the biggest proportions of the candidates’ related coverage on Maestro – it was 30,5 and 26 percent respectively. The next most covered candidates were Nino Burjanadze and Giorgi Targamadze who both received respectively 10 percent of the coverage. The UNM candidate received the biggest amount of direct time.
Similar to other monitored channels, also Kavkazia decreased the share of its coverage devoted to the government (from 46,7 percent in the first period to 39,4 percent in the second period). It should be noted that the actual share of positive coverage for the government also decreased – while during the first period, as much as 46 percent of the government’s coverage was positive and only 14 per cent negative, during the second period, only 24 per cent was positive and 19 percent was negative. As for the presentation of the two main parties, GD and UND received almost identical amount of coverage – 19,1 and 19,5 percent respectively. The tone of the coverage was mainly neutral. The president received some 11,1 percent of the coverage that was mainly neutral (more than in the first period when he had only 3 per cent).
Unlike other monitored channels that devoted most of their candidates’ related coverage to the two frontrunners, Kavkazia gave the bulk of its candidates’ coverage to Nino Burjanadze (34,8 percent). This coverage was almost exclusively positive or neutral. The GD and the UNM candidates followed with 21,2 and 19 percent of mainly neutral or positive coverage. Nino Burjanadze also received the biggest amount of direct time. TV Adjara significantly decreased its coverage of the government and devoted it 30 per cent of its coverage (against 73,1 percent devoted to the government in the first period). As for the tone of this coverage, it was overwhelmingly neutral. At the same time, the channel increased its coverage of the main parties – the GD received 19,3 percent and UNM 14,2 percent respectively. This coverage was also mainly neutral. There was also an increase in the coverage of independent candidates (10,2 per cent). The government of Adjara received some 9,1 percent of mainly neutral coverage. As for the coverage of candidates, Adjara TV allocated two times more time to the GD candidate Giorgi Margvelashvili (21 per cent) than to this his main opponent Davit Bakradze (9 per cent). The television provided substantial coverage to some independent candidates, including Chanishvili (11 percent), Gharibashvili (8 percent) and Saluashvili (7 percent). Qualitative analysis GPB During the monitoring period, we monitored the main news bulletin at 19.00; the main news “Moambe” at 20.00; and political talk show “The First Studio,” launched on 1 October. All significant topics were covered by GPB 1 news. The majority of stories were balanced, with no bias shown, but there were some problems. Most important news in this period was related to events concerning Dvani village in the zone of conflict. Special attention was paid to three families left on the other side of the barbed wires. The channel dedicated several stories, live syncs and live stand-ups to it. According to these materials, three families were forced to leave their houses and dwellings, without any place to live. It was not mentioned that these families have already received financial compensation and cottages to live in from the previous government. Other TV channels presented the above mentioned facts about these families in their stories but the audience of Channel 1 learned about it only on October 7 from the Minister of Reintegration Paata Zakhareishvili, who was a guest of the talk-show “The First Studio”. In October 10, “Moambe” had a story (at 20.28) covering the death of a teenager inmate. By that time public already knew that the inmate was found hanged in his solitary cell. “Moambe” story began by showing a close-up photo of deceased that showed a long wound across the whole chest, presumably made during the autopsy. It should be mentioned here that according to the Article 56 of the Code of Conduct for Broadcasters, showing similar close up shots “should be avoided in all cases except when there exists an overriding public interest.” The story really represented big public interest, but based on the content of the story, it was not clear why the photo was shown in close-up because it did not contain any additional information. It was impossible to understand, by means of this photo, whether the inmate committed a suicide or whether he was hanged. A criminal expert from the same story never said anything about the importance of the mentioned photo. It is thus not clear what was the reason behind showing it to the audience in a close-up. It should also be mentioned that according to the Article 47 of the same Code, when showing material that may cause negative emotions, broadcaster should warn the audience beforehand. The Public broadcaster did not do so and there was no warning either by the presenter or the reporter. During the second stage of the monitoring period, from October 1, Channel 1 launched a new programme “The First Studio.” This talk show is broadcast every day except Saturdays and Sundays. The talk show discusses current important events together with government representatives, experts and opposition. The talk show consists of several blocks. The last block is devoted to presidential candidates, each of them given about 15-20 minutes. This programme is balanced, the anchor is not biased, and there were no cases of using hate speech or other terms inappropriate for broadcasting. Rustavi 2 Most of the stories from 18.00 and 21.00 Courier of Rustavi 2 were balanced and unbiased during the monitoring period. There were only a few stories where balance was not observed, namely: On October 5, at the beginning of “Courier” at 21.00, there was a headline concerning arsenic storage in Lentekhi region. According to the headline, ecological disaster was threatening several regions of the western Georgia. The story was 4 min and 21 sec. long. We learned from the story that there were several sources of arsenic pollution in Lentekhi region that were polluting soil, plants and poisoning cattle, while the government was doing nothing to solve this problem. In spite of the fact that the topic itself, as well as the allegations towards the government, was grave, there was no comment from any representatives of local or central governments. It was not clear from the story whether the journalist attempted to find out what their position was. There were neither experts nor representatives of NGOs working on the ecological issues. The problem was dramatized, and presented as a tragedy, based only on three local residents, thus the story itself was incomplete, one-sided, the facts not checked and balance was not maintained. We assume that it was necessary to have a comment from the Ministry of Environment whose direct responsibility is to protect and monitor the environment in the country. On September 25, there was a story of 6 min.15 sec about the events related the trial of Vano Merabishvili. Merabishvili made a political statements for 2 minutes in live sync in which he was criticizing the incumbent government saying: “there is a huge gap/deficit in the budget of Georgia for 750 million laris, from which 650 million laris is the gap in the revenue section only. The budget cannot collect even 500 million laris and any expert economist can prove that.” He further said: “the incumbent government faces serious challenges. Not only it becomes impossible to fulfill their promises, but from the beginning of January, there will be serious problems in distributing salaries and pensions, so that the only thing left for the government is to continue repressions against mass media and opposition.” In spite of the fact that in the story dedicated to Merabishvili trial, the author devoted 2 minutes, there was neither a response of the government representatives to Merabishvili’s allegations. We think that since Rustavi 2 put out live the political statement of Merabishvili, they should have given the opportunity to the other party to respond. There was one more case where balance was breached. On September 17 (“Kurieri” at 18.0), the Secretary of Security Council Giga Bokeria strongly criticized the ruling party concerning the constitutional amendments and blamed it for putting pressure and persecuting opposition MPs. Rustavi 2 did not give any chance to the ruling party to respond on Bokeria’s accusations, neither in the same nor in the following news bulletins. During the monitoring period, Rustavi 2 had two political talk shows: “Archevani/The Choice” and “The Position.” The talk shows covered important current events, with invited guests representing all parties. The anchors were unbiased and there were no cases of using hate speech or other breaches of the code. Imedi TV During the monitoring period, we monitored the main news bulletin of Imedi TV “Qronika.” The news covered the main events and were balanced and unbiased. There were no cases of violating balance in the main news. The stories comply with the journalist standards outlined in the code. One detail was highlighted in this period that is based on the results of the quantitative analysis. It indicates that compared with the other broadcasters, Imedi TV’s main bulletin had more materials showing successful work of the government which Imedi is presenting it in a positive way. For example, one can mention “the ceremony of oath-taking in the Ministry of Defense.” During this ceremony, government members spoke about the positive changes in the Ministry of Defense. In the main news, there was a story of “Mountain trainings” that told the audience how successful Georgian military is in the process of training together with Hungarian and Czech soldiers. During the monitoring period, Imedi TV broadcast two political talk shows. One was Thea Sichinava’s “Time for Politics” and the other was Vakho Sanaia’s “Live.” The guests in the shows were from various parties; topics were interesting and comprehensive; the anchors were not biased towards political subjects; and there were no cases of using hate speech or other inappropriate language. Maestro TV During the monitoring period, Maestro TV had two news bulletins: “News at 18.00” and “News at 21.00”. Most of the stories were balanced and unbiased although in three occasions, the GD candidate was given preferential treatment over other candidates. On September 20 in “News at18.00,” there was a story about “the situation in the conflict zone” with a subtitle saying, “the candidate for presidency Giorgi Margvelashvili evaluates Karasin-Abashidze meeting.” The channel had a comment of Margvelashvili under the banner marked 41. Not showing any other candidates in the same story puts Margvelashvili in the preferential position. Similar facts were observed in the news of September 18 and 21 when the channel only had Margvelashvili’s comments about the events happening in GPB. During the monitoring period, Maestro TV had the following talk shows: “Subjective Opinion” 5 times a week, “Arguments” Twice a week and “Politmeter” twice a week. Most talk shows were balanced concerning the invited guests – there were representatives of the government as well as of the opposition. There were no cases of using hate speech or other inappropriate language. However, on September 24, when the guest of the talk show “Arguments” was the Minister of Probation Sozar Subari, there was a special report on the situation in the Kutaisi N2 prison which positively featured government’s achievements in improving the overall conditions of inmates. In the report, a number of inmates said that they had exceptionally good conditions in this prison and unlike under the previous government, they had been treated well. Neither in this story, nor after it did Maestro TV offer its audience any comment by human rights activists, ombudsman or of any competent person concerning the problems existing in the penitentiary institutions. The anchor herself had no concrete cases concerning prison problems. After the report, Subari again spoke on conditions in prisons in general stating that there were improvements in other prisons as well. Adjara TV There were no cases of breaching journalistic standards during the monitoring period in the news programmes of “Adjara TV.” The stories were balanced with no cases of being biased towards any political subject. In this period, a special section “Dros Obieqtivi” was added to the news bulletin “Dro” which dealt with portraits/personal stories of different presidential candidates who were mostly shown in a positive way. The channel often suffers from technical defects in not having relevant subtitles for respondents. For example, in the news of September 18, an interviewee responding to the allegations towards the Government had no subtitle so that we can only assume that the respondent was a representative of either local or of the central government. During the monitoring period, presidential candidates were invited twice in the talk shows of “Adjara TV” but in both cases, they were invited alone without any opponents. There were no important violations of journalistic standards in talk shows; the anchor had neither positive nor negative attitudes towards the guests. There were no cases of using hate speech or other terms inappropriate for broadcasting. Kavkasia TV During the monitoring period, we analyzed news bulletin of Kavkasia TV “Today” that is aired three times a day – but in spite of this fact, it is short of events from the point of view of information and news are mainly broadcast in live sync. The news is often repeated in all three bulletins and the audience has little opportunity to get something new. News programmes in Kavkasia TV are balanced. There were only some cases when balance was not observed or when the other party was not given the opportunity to present its position. For example, on September 24, there was a story in news concerning the report of GYLA (Georgian Young lawyers Association) on the rehabilitation of Batumi city. The story was based on the comments of three GYLA representatives as they were blaming Batumi municipality in breaching the law and using budget expenditures inappropriately. In the whole story (lasting three minutes), there was not a single a comment from a representative of the Batumi municipality. Another case of breaching the balance was in the news bulletin of October 5, where Koba Davitashvili accused the leader of parliamentary majority David Saganelidze of making secret deals with the former government. He also spoke of Saganelidze’s financial interests and said that he was one of the important heads of Georgian mafia. In spite of these heavy accusations, Kavkasia TV gave no opportunity to Saganelidze to respond; there was no indication that there has been even an attempt on the journalist’s part to obtain his comment on the story. During the period of monitoring Kavkasia TV had the following talk shows: “Spectrum”, “Hot Line” and “Barrier” as well as “Elections 2013”. We would like to single out daily talk show “Spectrum” and his anchor David Akubardia. It should be noted that the incumbent government is presented in an exceptionally positive way, while the former government is presented in a negative way. In addition, during the monitoring period, there were no guests from the UNM or from the former government in the studio. The anchor nevertheless repeatedly criticized them very sharply. For example, on October 1, the anchor said “congratulations on the anniversary of the revolution. I’d like to stress one more time that bad guys are gone”; “at weddings and at funerals, criminals from the UNM would sit next to you as if nothing had happened… the former government was a bloody government, they don’t even feel the huge sin they committed against the nation and still, they have claims to come to the power, those rats…” At the same time, the anchor doesn’t try to hide his friendliness towards the incumbent government. Addressing the government’s presidential candidate, Giorgi Margvelashvili, in his programme of September 19 the anchor said: “generally you’re a good guy and Bidzo (diminutive for Bidzina PM) has selected you. Many are critical; and there are many things that I don’t like about you – but in general, you are better than all the others. You know what, Gio? (diminutive for the presidential candidate) You have too many commitments. You have to fulfill them, Gio, or public will eat you alive.” The anchor often uses phrases inappropriate for presenters, thus, insulting the audience as well as the concrete group of people. For example, “Your administration (the admin of Tbilisi State University) resembles the admin of the Zoo, they have the similar mentality -both of them are idiots” – September 16, “Spectrum.” “I’m expressing my surprise once more. Everything that was published in the newspapers about this “office” (The Institute of Theatre and Cinema) shows that they were the gang of “Nationals” (UNM)… It really has some criminal edge to it” September 17, “Spectrum.” Anti-Turkish rhetoric was also observed on David Akubardia’s part: “they are eating you alive ‘cause you are a Georgian businessman, don’t allow you to do anything and at the same time, they give cart blanche to some Turks to build shops and similar things” September 20, “Spectrum”. The anchor had quite a negative attitude towards the ethnic Indians. “We should get rid of all these Indians…” October 4, “Spectrum.” The anchor of “The Hot Line” Alexandre Elisashvili stands out for his emotional evaluations of different issues. He never hides his position and sometimes uses phraseology inappropriate to the anchor: “Just tell me what is all the clowning about at Akhalaia’s trial? That’s some kind of a circus, but it sucks” October 10. One of his guests expressed his opinions on David Paichadze and Eka Kvesitadze: “One was obviously well-trained bullterrier, the other addressed the guests in such a dull, stupid voice…” September 18. The anchor didn’t urge his guest to refrain from such expressions, on the contrary, Elisashvili stated that he had absolutely no feeling of solidarity towards those journalists. As to the programme “Elections 2013, no ethical violations were observed there.
Conclusion Data from the second monitoring period reveals that most monitored media continue to provide a generally balanced coverage. However, unlike during the first period, the focus of monitored media has generally shifted from the government to political parties and candidates. To date, monitored media have not provided analytical and in-depth coverage that could help voters to better analyze and assess the qualities and programmes of electoral contestants. The Charter and MEMO 98 will continue to monitor the media coverage until the election day. The next report will evaluate the entire monitoring period and it will provide an overall assessment of the media coverage of the 2013 elections. Methodology The Charter & MEMO 98 have sought to evaluate the mass media’s performance in providing objective and balanced coverage of contestants and their platforms so the citizens of Georgia can make well-informed choices at the ballot box. The project’s findings have been determined through a well-defined and rigorous methodology and are not intended to support any one candidate or political party, but the integrity of the media environment as a whole during the campaign season. On 2 September, the Charter commenced the monitoring of six TV channels (GPB, Rustavi 2, Imedi TV, Maestro TV, Kavkazia and Adjara TV).[4] The Charter uses methodology that has been developed by MEMO 98 which has carried out similar projects in 47 countries in the last 15 years. Given its comprehensive content-oriented approach, it is specially designed to provide in-depth feedback on pluralism and diversity in media reporting, including coverage of chosen subjects/themes. As such, the outcome of the monitoring is not a set of empty and superficial data, but a detailed analysis and evaluation of the current level of political diversity in media reporting, examined in the proper context, including concrete comparisons and analysis.[5] The Charter & MEMO 98 will issue one more preliminary reports and a comprehensive final report, including recommendations for potential improvements, in four weeks.
Following is the second preliminary report that includes the main monitoring findings covering three weeks of the official campaign period (16 September – 10 October):
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
- Monitored media continue to provide a generally balanced coverage of the campaign.
- Most media decreased their coverage of the government and increased coverage of political parties and candidates, focusing mainly on the Georgian Dream and the United National Movement.
- Davit Bakradze was the most presented candidate on GPB, Rustavi and Imedi whereas Giorgi Margvelashvili on Maestro and Adjara TV.
- News coverage of the campaign continues to focus on activities of candidates and parties rather than on issues.
- To date, monitored media have not provided analytical and in-depth coverage that could help voters to better analyze and assess the qualities and programmes of electoral contestants.
- Media continue to follow the principles outlined in the Code of Conduct for Elections, but there were a few instances where these principles were not fully respected.
The preliminary media monitoring results for the period of 16 September – 10 October indicate that similar to the first monitoring period (2 – 15 September), most media continue to offer a generally balanced coverage of political parties and candidates in their political and election-related prime time news and current affairs programmes. The second monitoring period was characterized by an overall decrease in the amount of coverage devoted to the government and an increase in the coverage devoted to political parties and candidates (the biggest decrease of the government’s share of coverage was noticed on Adjara TV – from 73 per cent to 30 per cent). This could be explained by the fact that the campaign has been slowly picking up in the last few weeks. However, news coverage of the campaign continues to focus on campaign events with little or no focus on issues and differences between the candidates. To date, monitored media have not provided analytical and in-depth coverage that could help voters to better analyze and assess the qualities and programmes of electoral contestants.
At the beginning of September, the Charter and MEMO 98 initiated a Media Code of Conduct that is a summary of generally applicable standards and principles to be observed by media during an election period. The code is drawn upon international documents and guidelines with special attention to recommendations of the Council of Europe, OSCE, and other international organizations of which Georgia is a member state. The main goal of the project is to help in improving professional standards during elections. To date, five TV channels (GPB, Rustavi 2, Imedi, Maestro and Adjara) signed the code and generally agreed to voluntarily abide by its provisions. It should be noted that similar to the first monitoring period, the media continue to follow the principles outlined in the code, with only a very few instances where these principles were not fully respected. This contributes to an overall improvememt in the media coverage of elections (in comparison with the 2012 elections) which was also acknowldged by the OSCE/ODIHR report.
Monitoring results
The Georgian Public Broadcaster’s first channel (GPB1) devoted the bulk of its political and election-related coverage to the government – almost 34 per cent. However, it was less than during the first monitoring period (50 per cent). At the same time, the share of coverage dedicated to the political parties increased. Both the Georgian Dream (GD) and the United National Movement (UNM) received almost identical proportions of mostly neutral coverage (18,5 and 18,8 percent respectively). There was also a slight increase in the coverage of the president (from 7,4 to 9,4), which is due to his activities during the monitoring period (for example his speech in the UN and the UNM congress).
As for the coverage of presidential contestants, the two frontrunners – Giorgi Margvelashvili and Davit Bakradze – received comparable proportions (12,7 and 17 percent respectively) of mainly neutral or positive prime time news coverage.[2] The next most covered candidates were Giorgi Targamadze and Nino Burjanadze receiving respectively 14 and 15 percent of the coverage. The CDM and the UNM candidates had the biggest amount of direct time.
Similar to GPB1, Rustavi 2 also decreased the share of its prime time news coverage devoted to the activities of the cabinet ministers (29,4 against 38,5 percent during the first period). At the same time, however, the channel devoted two times more coverage to President Saakashvili (of which 27 percent was positive and 6 percent negative). As for the coverage of the two main parties, the channel gave more coverage to the UNM (23,3 percent) than to the GD (18,4 percent). While as much as 18 per cent of the UNM coverage was positive and 4 was negative, only 3 per cent of the GD coverage was positive and 7 per cent was negative.
In addition, while the two main candidates received almost identical share of the coverage on Rustavi 2 (29 percent respectively), Davit Bakradze received more positive coverage than his main rival. The UNM candidate also received the biggest amount of direct time. The next most covered candidates were Giorgi Targamadze (12 percent) and Nino Burjanadze (11,2 percent).
Another private channel Imedi also allotted the largest portion of its coverage to the government (33,3 percent) but it was a significant decrease in comparison with the first period – 62,3 percent). The tone of the coverage was mainly neutral. Similar to other channels, Imedi also devoted more coverage to political parties and candidates. The two main parties – UNM and GD – received similar proportions of mostly neutral coverage (23,1 per cent and 19,6 per cent respectively). The activities of the president were devoted 10 percent of mainly neutral coverage (which is an increase in comparison with the first period when he received 5,9 percent).
As for the coverage of candidates, Imedi devoted more time to Davit Bakradze (30 percent) than to Giorgi Margvelashvili (18,9 percent). The tone of their coverage was mainly neutral or positive. Nino Burjanadze (14,3 percent) and Giorgi Targamadze (13 percent) were the next most covered candidates. The UNM candidate was devoted the biggest amount of direct time.
Of the monitored TV channels, Maestro TV devoted the biggest share of its prime time news coverage to the activities of the government (46,1 per cent – only a small decrease in comparison with the first period – 49,1 per cent). At the same time, the channel was more critical towards Ivanishvili’s cabinet than in the first monitoring period (26 percent of the government’s coverage was negative and 9 per cent was positive). This was mainly in connection with the government’s response to the ‘borderisation’ in Dvani and in relation to the prime minister’s lengthy briefings (on September 25 and October 2, Mr. Ivanishvili held four-hour long briefings for experts and journalists). As for the coverage of political parties, there was a small increase in the amount of their coverage but not as significant as on other monitored channels. The channel gave a similar coverage to the UNM and the GD (19,2 and 16,6 per cent respectively). President Saakashvili received 10,9 percent of the coverage that was mainly neutral in tone.
Giorgi Margvelashvili and Davit Bakradze received the biggest proportions of the candidates’ related coverage on Maestro – it was 30,5 and 26 percent respectively. The next most covered candidates were Nino Burjanadze and Giorgi Targamadze who both received respectively 10 percent of the coverage. The UNM candidate received the biggest amount of direct time.
Similar to other monitored channels, also Kavkazia decreased the share of its coverage devoted to the government (from 46,7 percent in the first period to 39,4 percent in the second period). It should be noted that the actual share of positive coverage for the government also decreased – while during the first period, as much as 46 percent of the government’s coverage was positive and only 14 per cent negative, during the second period, only 24 per cent was positive and 19 percent was negative. As for the presentation of the two main parties, GD and UND received almost identical amount of coverage – 19,1 and 19,5 percent respectively. The tone of the coverage was mainly neutral. The president received some 11,1 percent of the coverage that was mainly neutral (more than in the first period when he had only 3 per cent).
Unlike other monitored channels that devoted most of their candidates’ related coverage to the two frontrunners, Kavkazia gave the bulk of its candidates’ coverage to Nino Burjanadze (34,8 percent). This coverage was almost exclusively positive or neutral. The GD and the UNM candidates followed with 21,2 and 19 percent of mainly neutral or positive coverage. Nino Burjanadze also received the biggest amount of direct time. TV Adjara significantly decreased its coverage of the government and devoted it 30 per cent of its coverage (against 73,1 percent devoted to the government in the first period). As for the tone of this coverage, it was overwhelmingly neutral. At the same time, the channel increased its coverage of the main parties – the GD received 19,3 percent and UNM 14,2 percent respectively. This coverage was also mainly neutral. There was also an increase in the coverage of independent candidates (10,2 per cent). The government of Adjara received some 9,1 percent of mainly neutral coverage. As for the coverage of candidates, Adjara TV allocated two times more time to the GD candidate Giorgi Margvelashvili (21 per cent) than to this his main opponent Davit Bakradze (9 per cent). The television provided substantial coverage to some independent candidates, including Chanishvili (11 percent), Gharibashvili (8 percent) and Saluashvili (7 percent). Qualitative analysis GPB During the monitoring period, we monitored the main news bulletin at 19.00; the main news “Moambe” at 20.00; and political talk show “The First Studio,” launched on 1 October. All significant topics were covered by GPB 1 news. The majority of stories were balanced, with no bias shown, but there were some problems. Most important news in this period was related to events concerning Dvani village in the zone of conflict. Special attention was paid to three families left on the other side of the barbed wires. The channel dedicated several stories, live syncs and live stand-ups to it. According to these materials, three families were forced to leave their houses and dwellings, without any place to live. It was not mentioned that these families have already received financial compensation and cottages to live in from the previous government. Other TV channels presented the above mentioned facts about these families in their stories but the audience of Channel 1 learned about it only on October 7 from the Minister of Reintegration Paata Zakhareishvili, who was a guest of the talk-show “The First Studio”. In October 10, “Moambe” had a story (at 20.28) covering the death of a teenager inmate. By that time public already knew that the inmate was found hanged in his solitary cell. “Moambe” story began by showing a close-up photo of deceased that showed a long wound across the whole chest, presumably made during the autopsy. It should be mentioned here that according to the Article 56 of the Code of Conduct for Broadcasters, showing similar close up shots “should be avoided in all cases except when there exists an overriding public interest.” The story really represented big public interest, but based on the content of the story, it was not clear why the photo was shown in close-up because it did not contain any additional information. It was impossible to understand, by means of this photo, whether the inmate committed a suicide or whether he was hanged. A criminal expert from the same story never said anything about the importance of the mentioned photo. It is thus not clear what was the reason behind showing it to the audience in a close-up. It should also be mentioned that according to the Article 47 of the same Code, when showing material that may cause negative emotions, broadcaster should warn the audience beforehand. The Public broadcaster did not do so and there was no warning either by the presenter or the reporter. During the second stage of the monitoring period, from October 1, Channel 1 launched a new programme “The First Studio.” This talk show is broadcast every day except Saturdays and Sundays. The talk show discusses current important events together with government representatives, experts and opposition. The talk show consists of several blocks. The last block is devoted to presidential candidates, each of them given about 15-20 minutes. This programme is balanced, the anchor is not biased, and there were no cases of using hate speech or other terms inappropriate for broadcasting. Rustavi 2 Most of the stories from 18.00 and 21.00 Courier of Rustavi 2 were balanced and unbiased during the monitoring period. There were only a few stories where balance was not observed, namely: On October 5, at the beginning of “Courier” at 21.00, there was a headline concerning arsenic storage in Lentekhi region. According to the headline, ecological disaster was threatening several regions of the western Georgia. The story was 4 min and 21 sec. long. We learned from the story that there were several sources of arsenic pollution in Lentekhi region that were polluting soil, plants and poisoning cattle, while the government was doing nothing to solve this problem. In spite of the fact that the topic itself, as well as the allegations towards the government, was grave, there was no comment from any representatives of local or central governments. It was not clear from the story whether the journalist attempted to find out what their position was. There were neither experts nor representatives of NGOs working on the ecological issues. The problem was dramatized, and presented as a tragedy, based only on three local residents, thus the story itself was incomplete, one-sided, the facts not checked and balance was not maintained. We assume that it was necessary to have a comment from the Ministry of Environment whose direct responsibility is to protect and monitor the environment in the country. On September 25, there was a story of 6 min.15 sec about the events related the trial of Vano Merabishvili. Merabishvili made a political statements for 2 minutes in live sync in which he was criticizing the incumbent government saying: “there is a huge gap/deficit in the budget of Georgia for 750 million laris, from which 650 million laris is the gap in the revenue section only. The budget cannot collect even 500 million laris and any expert economist can prove that.” He further said: “the incumbent government faces serious challenges. Not only it becomes impossible to fulfill their promises, but from the beginning of January, there will be serious problems in distributing salaries and pensions, so that the only thing left for the government is to continue repressions against mass media and opposition.” In spite of the fact that in the story dedicated to Merabishvili trial, the author devoted 2 minutes, there was neither a response of the government representatives to Merabishvili’s allegations. We think that since Rustavi 2 put out live the political statement of Merabishvili, they should have given the opportunity to the other party to respond. There was one more case where balance was breached. On September 17 (“Kurieri” at 18.0), the Secretary of Security Council Giga Bokeria strongly criticized the ruling party concerning the constitutional amendments and blamed it for putting pressure and persecuting opposition MPs. Rustavi 2 did not give any chance to the ruling party to respond on Bokeria’s accusations, neither in the same nor in the following news bulletins. During the monitoring period, Rustavi 2 had two political talk shows: “Archevani/The Choice” and “The Position.” The talk shows covered important current events, with invited guests representing all parties. The anchors were unbiased and there were no cases of using hate speech or other breaches of the code. Imedi TV During the monitoring period, we monitored the main news bulletin of Imedi TV “Qronika.” The news covered the main events and were balanced and unbiased. There were no cases of violating balance in the main news. The stories comply with the journalist standards outlined in the code. One detail was highlighted in this period that is based on the results of the quantitative analysis. It indicates that compared with the other broadcasters, Imedi TV’s main bulletin had more materials showing successful work of the government which Imedi is presenting it in a positive way. For example, one can mention “the ceremony of oath-taking in the Ministry of Defense.” During this ceremony, government members spoke about the positive changes in the Ministry of Defense. In the main news, there was a story of “Mountain trainings” that told the audience how successful Georgian military is in the process of training together with Hungarian and Czech soldiers. During the monitoring period, Imedi TV broadcast two political talk shows. One was Thea Sichinava’s “Time for Politics” and the other was Vakho Sanaia’s “Live.” The guests in the shows were from various parties; topics were interesting and comprehensive; the anchors were not biased towards political subjects; and there were no cases of using hate speech or other inappropriate language. Maestro TV During the monitoring period, Maestro TV had two news bulletins: “News at 18.00” and “News at 21.00”. Most of the stories were balanced and unbiased although in three occasions, the GD candidate was given preferential treatment over other candidates. On September 20 in “News at18.00,” there was a story about “the situation in the conflict zone” with a subtitle saying, “the candidate for presidency Giorgi Margvelashvili evaluates Karasin-Abashidze meeting.” The channel had a comment of Margvelashvili under the banner marked 41. Not showing any other candidates in the same story puts Margvelashvili in the preferential position. Similar facts were observed in the news of September 18 and 21 when the channel only had Margvelashvili’s comments about the events happening in GPB. During the monitoring period, Maestro TV had the following talk shows: “Subjective Opinion” 5 times a week, “Arguments” Twice a week and “Politmeter” twice a week. Most talk shows were balanced concerning the invited guests – there were representatives of the government as well as of the opposition. There were no cases of using hate speech or other inappropriate language. However, on September 24, when the guest of the talk show “Arguments” was the Minister of Probation Sozar Subari, there was a special report on the situation in the Kutaisi N2 prison which positively featured government’s achievements in improving the overall conditions of inmates. In the report, a number of inmates said that they had exceptionally good conditions in this prison and unlike under the previous government, they had been treated well. Neither in this story, nor after it did Maestro TV offer its audience any comment by human rights activists, ombudsman or of any competent person concerning the problems existing in the penitentiary institutions. The anchor herself had no concrete cases concerning prison problems. After the report, Subari again spoke on conditions in prisons in general stating that there were improvements in other prisons as well. Adjara TV There were no cases of breaching journalistic standards during the monitoring period in the news programmes of “Adjara TV.” The stories were balanced with no cases of being biased towards any political subject. In this period, a special section “Dros Obieqtivi” was added to the news bulletin “Dro” which dealt with portraits/personal stories of different presidential candidates who were mostly shown in a positive way. The channel often suffers from technical defects in not having relevant subtitles for respondents. For example, in the news of September 18, an interviewee responding to the allegations towards the Government had no subtitle so that we can only assume that the respondent was a representative of either local or of the central government. During the monitoring period, presidential candidates were invited twice in the talk shows of “Adjara TV” but in both cases, they were invited alone without any opponents. There were no important violations of journalistic standards in talk shows; the anchor had neither positive nor negative attitudes towards the guests. There were no cases of using hate speech or other terms inappropriate for broadcasting. Kavkasia TV During the monitoring period, we analyzed news bulletin of Kavkasia TV “Today” that is aired three times a day – but in spite of this fact, it is short of events from the point of view of information and news are mainly broadcast in live sync. The news is often repeated in all three bulletins and the audience has little opportunity to get something new. News programmes in Kavkasia TV are balanced. There were only some cases when balance was not observed or when the other party was not given the opportunity to present its position. For example, on September 24, there was a story in news concerning the report of GYLA (Georgian Young lawyers Association) on the rehabilitation of Batumi city. The story was based on the comments of three GYLA representatives as they were blaming Batumi municipality in breaching the law and using budget expenditures inappropriately. In the whole story (lasting three minutes), there was not a single a comment from a representative of the Batumi municipality. Another case of breaching the balance was in the news bulletin of October 5, where Koba Davitashvili accused the leader of parliamentary majority David Saganelidze of making secret deals with the former government. He also spoke of Saganelidze’s financial interests and said that he was one of the important heads of Georgian mafia. In spite of these heavy accusations, Kavkasia TV gave no opportunity to Saganelidze to respond; there was no indication that there has been even an attempt on the journalist’s part to obtain his comment on the story. During the period of monitoring Kavkasia TV had the following talk shows: “Spectrum”, “Hot Line” and “Barrier” as well as “Elections 2013”. We would like to single out daily talk show “Spectrum” and his anchor David Akubardia. It should be noted that the incumbent government is presented in an exceptionally positive way, while the former government is presented in a negative way. In addition, during the monitoring period, there were no guests from the UNM or from the former government in the studio. The anchor nevertheless repeatedly criticized them very sharply. For example, on October 1, the anchor said “congratulations on the anniversary of the revolution. I’d like to stress one more time that bad guys are gone”; “at weddings and at funerals, criminals from the UNM would sit next to you as if nothing had happened… the former government was a bloody government, they don’t even feel the huge sin they committed against the nation and still, they have claims to come to the power, those rats…” At the same time, the anchor doesn’t try to hide his friendliness towards the incumbent government. Addressing the government’s presidential candidate, Giorgi Margvelashvili, in his programme of September 19 the anchor said: “generally you’re a good guy and Bidzo (diminutive for Bidzina PM) has selected you. Many are critical; and there are many things that I don’t like about you – but in general, you are better than all the others. You know what, Gio? (diminutive for the presidential candidate) You have too many commitments. You have to fulfill them, Gio, or public will eat you alive.” The anchor often uses phrases inappropriate for presenters, thus, insulting the audience as well as the concrete group of people. For example, “Your administration (the admin of Tbilisi State University) resembles the admin of the Zoo, they have the similar mentality -both of them are idiots” – September 16, “Spectrum.” “I’m expressing my surprise once more. Everything that was published in the newspapers about this “office” (The Institute of Theatre and Cinema) shows that they were the gang of “Nationals” (UNM)… It really has some criminal edge to it” September 17, “Spectrum.” Anti-Turkish rhetoric was also observed on David Akubardia’s part: “they are eating you alive ‘cause you are a Georgian businessman, don’t allow you to do anything and at the same time, they give cart blanche to some Turks to build shops and similar things” September 20, “Spectrum”. The anchor had quite a negative attitude towards the ethnic Indians. “We should get rid of all these Indians…” October 4, “Spectrum.” The anchor of “The Hot Line” Alexandre Elisashvili stands out for his emotional evaluations of different issues. He never hides his position and sometimes uses phraseology inappropriate to the anchor: “Just tell me what is all the clowning about at Akhalaia’s trial? That’s some kind of a circus, but it sucks” October 10. One of his guests expressed his opinions on David Paichadze and Eka Kvesitadze: “One was obviously well-trained bullterrier, the other addressed the guests in such a dull, stupid voice…” September 18. The anchor didn’t urge his guest to refrain from such expressions, on the contrary, Elisashvili stated that he had absolutely no feeling of solidarity towards those journalists. As to the programme “Elections 2013, no ethical violations were observed there.
Conclusion Data from the second monitoring period reveals that most monitored media continue to provide a generally balanced coverage. However, unlike during the first period, the focus of monitored media has generally shifted from the government to political parties and candidates. To date, monitored media have not provided analytical and in-depth coverage that could help voters to better analyze and assess the qualities and programmes of electoral contestants. The Charter and MEMO 98 will continue to monitor the media coverage until the election day. The next report will evaluate the entire monitoring period and it will provide an overall assessment of the media coverage of the 2013 elections. Methodology The Charter & MEMO 98 have sought to evaluate the mass media’s performance in providing objective and balanced coverage of contestants and their platforms so the citizens of Georgia can make well-informed choices at the ballot box. The project’s findings have been determined through a well-defined and rigorous methodology and are not intended to support any one candidate or political party, but the integrity of the media environment as a whole during the campaign season. On 2 September, the Charter commenced the monitoring of six TV channels (GPB, Rustavi 2, Imedi TV, Maestro TV, Kavkazia and Adjara TV).[4] The Charter uses methodology that has been developed by MEMO 98 which has carried out similar projects in 47 countries in the last 15 years. Given its comprehensive content-oriented approach, it is specially designed to provide in-depth feedback on pluralism and diversity in media reporting, including coverage of chosen subjects/themes. As such, the outcome of the monitoring is not a set of empty and superficial data, but a detailed analysis and evaluation of the current level of political diversity in media reporting, examined in the proper context, including concrete comparisons and analysis.[5] The Charter & MEMO 98 will issue one more preliminary reports and a comprehensive final report, including recommendations for potential improvements, in four weeks.
20.02.2014
more
Tbilisi, 26 September 2013 – The Charter of Journalistic Ethics, an
independent, non-profit professional journalist association that
promotes the values of freedom and democracy, has been
systematically monitoring the media coverage of the 27 October
presidential election. This project is conducted in cooperation
with the Slovak media-monitoring organization MEMO 98 and with the
support of the Open Society Foundation Georgia (OSFG).
Following is the summary of the main monitoring findings covering two weeks of the official campaign period (2 – 15 September):
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Most of monitored media have so far provided a generally balanced coverage of political parties and candidates in their political and election-related prime time news reporting. The media devoted the bulk of their news coverage to the activities of the government and the two main parties – the United National Movement and the Georgian Dream. News coverage of the campaign has so far focused primarily on campaign rallies. Voters would benefit from a more analytical and in-depth coverage that could help them to better analyze and assess the qualities and programmes of electoral contestants. While the media generally follow the principles outlined in the Code of Conduct for Elections, there were a few instances where these principles were violated.
The preliminary media monitoring results for the period of 2 – 15 September indicate that most media have so far provided a generally balanced coverage of political parties and candidates in their political and election-related prime time news reporting. At the same time, however, the news coverage of the campaign has so far focused primarily on campaign events with little or no focus on issues and differences between the candidates. Voters would benefit from a more analytical and in-depth coverage that could help them to better analyze and assess the qualities and programmes of electoral contestants.[1]
In the publicly-funded GPB1 newscasts, both the Georgian Dream (GD) and the United National Movement (UNM) received almost equal proportions of mostly neutral coverage (15,9 and 16,4 per cent respectively). The most presented political entity was the government that received 42,9 percent of mainly neutral coverage. By comparison, the coverage of the president totaled 7,5 percent – it was also mainly neutral.
The qualitative analysis of GPB1 has so far indicated that the channel adheres to the Code of Conduct, with most of its news items being balanced and unbiased. There were only a very few occasions when GPB1 departed from this approach. For example, on 15 September, Moambe news programme featured an interview with the president that lasted some 2 minutes and 40 seconds. During the interview, the president criticized the prime minister for stopping the project of the railway bypass through Tbilisi, using a strong language: “ I want to urge the prime minister to come to senses because it is his personal decision. Why is this project stopped? What is the matter? Maybe he thinks it is Chorvila’s (the prime minister’s village) hiking path.” The public broadcaster has not attempted to obtain a response from either the prime minister or any other members of the government.
When covering the campaign, GPB mostly does it by means of coverage from the campaign events. In the second part of the Moambe, all candidates are usually given approximately one minute and their meetings are presented by the standard phrase: “He/she has met the voters and presented them with his/her presidential platform.” To date, GPB has not been providing more details on positions of different candidates on various issues and how they would try to solve them if elected.
Similar to GPB1, the privately owned Rustavi 2 also devoted the bulk of its prime time news coverage to the activities of the cabinet ministers (38,5 per cent of the coverage). While this coverage was mainly neutral in tone, there was also negative coverage of the government (more than on any other monitored channel). In addition, the channel gave more coverage to the UNM (24,2 per cent) than the GD (13,3 per cent). While 25 per cent of the UNM coverage was positive and only 5 was negative, as much as 15 per cent of the GD coverage was negative and 15 per cent was positive. The president received 8,5 percent of the coverage that was mainly neutral.
The qualitative analysis of Rustavi 2 has so far indicated that the channel adheres to the Code of Conduct, with most of its news items being balanced and unbiased. On one occasion, however, the monitoring team observed that the channel did not fully adhered to the Code and showed a story where balance was not fully observed. This story was broadcast on 14 September (in “Kurieri”) and it featured description of the Georgian economy. After a five-minute long criticism of the incumbent government, the Minister of Finance had some 23-25 seconds to defend the government’s position. This was not proportional to the allegations waged by the anchor and two experts presented in the story.
Another private channel Imedi also allotted the largest portion of coverage (62,3 per cent) to the government – the tone of the coverage was mainly neutral. The two main parties – UNM and GD – received similar proportions of mostly neutral coverage (13,4 per cent and 8,6 per cent respectively). The activities of the president were devoted 5,9 percent of mainly neutral coverage.
Similar to GPB1 and Rustavi 2, the qualitative analysis of Imedi has so far indicated that most of its news items are balanced. The monitoring team, however, noticed a few stories that were largely uncritical of the incumbent government. For example, on September 6, Imedi broadcast a story dedicated to open prisons. The whole story was a positive presentation of the government, featuring the deputy minister of corrections and legal assistance in a positive context, uchalenged by anyone whose position on this project might be different.
Similar to GPB 1, Maestro TV devoted almost identical coverage to the UNM and the GD (16,1 and 15,4 per cent respectively). The most covered entity was the government with 49,1 percent of the coverage. As for the president, he received 7,9 percent. All this coverage was mainly neutral in tone.
The qualitative analysis of Maestro has so far indicated that most of its news items are balanced and unbiased. On 5 September, however, Maestro featured a nine-minute long item on destruction of secret recordings showing private life. While the former government was blamed for the crimes committed in this respect, there were no comments from any UNM member. In the part of the item that relates to the incumbent government initiative, a news reporter informed that the position of UNM was unknown at the time of reporting.
By contrast, the local Tbilisi-based Kavkazia adopted a different approach. It devoted almost half of its political and election-related news coverage to the government – as much as 46 per cent of this coverage was positive and only 14 per cent negative. As for the presentation of the two main parties, GD and UND received 14,9 and 21,1 percent respectively. Fifty eight per cent of the GD coverage was positive and only ten percent was negative. As for the coverage of UNM, it was mainly neutral and positive. The president received some three per cent of the coverage that was mainly neutral.
TV Adjara devoted as much as 73,1 percent of its political and election-related news coverage to the activities of the government – this coverage was overwhelmingly neutral. The GD received two times more coverage than the UNM (10,3 per cent and 4,7 per cent respectively) of mainly neutral coverage. The government of Adjara received some 7,3 percent of mainly neutral coverage.
The qualitative analysis of Adjara has so far indicated that the channel adheres to the Code of Conduct, with most of its news items being balanced and unbiased. There were only a very few occasions when TV Adjara departed from this approach. For example, on 9 September, a news item showed a protest by local residents in Kirnati village against the government (in relation to a construction of a hydro electricity power station). No one from the government was approached to comment.
Conclusion
Data from the first two weeks of media monitoring by the Charter & MEMO 98 reveals that most monitored media have provided a generally balanced coverage, focusing primarily on the government and the two main parties and their candidates. A few occasions occurred, however, where TV channels neglected to offer viewers opposing views on particular stories. The Charter & MEMO 98 will continue their monitoring throughout the pre-election period to determine if these are consistent trends. The next report will also include analysis of the coverage of presidential candidates and of the current affairs programmes (debates & talk shows).
Methodology
The Charter & MEMO 98 have sought to evaluate the mass media’s performance in providing objective and balanced coverage of contestants and their platforms so the citizens of Georgia can make well-informed choices at the ballot box. The project’s findings have been determined through a well-defined and rigorous methodology and are not intended to support any one candidate or political party, but the integrity of the media environment as a whole during the campaign season. On 2 September, the Charter commenced the monitoring of six TV channels (GPB, Rustavi 2, Imedi TV, Maestro TV, Kavkazia and Adjara TV).[2]
The Charter uses methodology that has been developed by MEMO 98 which has carried out similar projects in 47 countries in the last 15 years. Given its comprehensive content-oriented approach, it is specially designed to provide in-depth feedback on pluralism and diversity in media reporting, including coverage of chosen subjects/themes. As such, the outcome of the monitoring is not a set of empty and superficial data, but a detailed analysis and evaluation of the current level of political diversity in media reporting, examined in the proper context, including concrete comparisons and analysis.[3] The Charter & MEMO 98 will issue two more preliminary reports and a comprehensive final report, including recommendations for potential improvements, in four weeks.
Following is the summary of the main monitoring findings covering two weeks of the official campaign period (2 – 15 September):
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Most of monitored media have so far provided a generally balanced coverage of political parties and candidates in their political and election-related prime time news reporting. The media devoted the bulk of their news coverage to the activities of the government and the two main parties – the United National Movement and the Georgian Dream. News coverage of the campaign has so far focused primarily on campaign rallies. Voters would benefit from a more analytical and in-depth coverage that could help them to better analyze and assess the qualities and programmes of electoral contestants. While the media generally follow the principles outlined in the Code of Conduct for Elections, there were a few instances where these principles were violated.
The preliminary media monitoring results for the period of 2 – 15 September indicate that most media have so far provided a generally balanced coverage of political parties and candidates in their political and election-related prime time news reporting. At the same time, however, the news coverage of the campaign has so far focused primarily on campaign events with little or no focus on issues and differences between the candidates. Voters would benefit from a more analytical and in-depth coverage that could help them to better analyze and assess the qualities and programmes of electoral contestants.[1]
In the publicly-funded GPB1 newscasts, both the Georgian Dream (GD) and the United National Movement (UNM) received almost equal proportions of mostly neutral coverage (15,9 and 16,4 per cent respectively). The most presented political entity was the government that received 42,9 percent of mainly neutral coverage. By comparison, the coverage of the president totaled 7,5 percent – it was also mainly neutral.
The qualitative analysis of GPB1 has so far indicated that the channel adheres to the Code of Conduct, with most of its news items being balanced and unbiased. There were only a very few occasions when GPB1 departed from this approach. For example, on 15 September, Moambe news programme featured an interview with the president that lasted some 2 minutes and 40 seconds. During the interview, the president criticized the prime minister for stopping the project of the railway bypass through Tbilisi, using a strong language: “ I want to urge the prime minister to come to senses because it is his personal decision. Why is this project stopped? What is the matter? Maybe he thinks it is Chorvila’s (the prime minister’s village) hiking path.” The public broadcaster has not attempted to obtain a response from either the prime minister or any other members of the government.
When covering the campaign, GPB mostly does it by means of coverage from the campaign events. In the second part of the Moambe, all candidates are usually given approximately one minute and their meetings are presented by the standard phrase: “He/she has met the voters and presented them with his/her presidential platform.” To date, GPB has not been providing more details on positions of different candidates on various issues and how they would try to solve them if elected.
Similar to GPB1, the privately owned Rustavi 2 also devoted the bulk of its prime time news coverage to the activities of the cabinet ministers (38,5 per cent of the coverage). While this coverage was mainly neutral in tone, there was also negative coverage of the government (more than on any other monitored channel). In addition, the channel gave more coverage to the UNM (24,2 per cent) than the GD (13,3 per cent). While 25 per cent of the UNM coverage was positive and only 5 was negative, as much as 15 per cent of the GD coverage was negative and 15 per cent was positive. The president received 8,5 percent of the coverage that was mainly neutral.
The qualitative analysis of Rustavi 2 has so far indicated that the channel adheres to the Code of Conduct, with most of its news items being balanced and unbiased. On one occasion, however, the monitoring team observed that the channel did not fully adhered to the Code and showed a story where balance was not fully observed. This story was broadcast on 14 September (in “Kurieri”) and it featured description of the Georgian economy. After a five-minute long criticism of the incumbent government, the Minister of Finance had some 23-25 seconds to defend the government’s position. This was not proportional to the allegations waged by the anchor and two experts presented in the story.
Another private channel Imedi also allotted the largest portion of coverage (62,3 per cent) to the government – the tone of the coverage was mainly neutral. The two main parties – UNM and GD – received similar proportions of mostly neutral coverage (13,4 per cent and 8,6 per cent respectively). The activities of the president were devoted 5,9 percent of mainly neutral coverage.
Similar to GPB1 and Rustavi 2, the qualitative analysis of Imedi has so far indicated that most of its news items are balanced. The monitoring team, however, noticed a few stories that were largely uncritical of the incumbent government. For example, on September 6, Imedi broadcast a story dedicated to open prisons. The whole story was a positive presentation of the government, featuring the deputy minister of corrections and legal assistance in a positive context, uchalenged by anyone whose position on this project might be different.
Similar to GPB 1, Maestro TV devoted almost identical coverage to the UNM and the GD (16,1 and 15,4 per cent respectively). The most covered entity was the government with 49,1 percent of the coverage. As for the president, he received 7,9 percent. All this coverage was mainly neutral in tone.
The qualitative analysis of Maestro has so far indicated that most of its news items are balanced and unbiased. On 5 September, however, Maestro featured a nine-minute long item on destruction of secret recordings showing private life. While the former government was blamed for the crimes committed in this respect, there were no comments from any UNM member. In the part of the item that relates to the incumbent government initiative, a news reporter informed that the position of UNM was unknown at the time of reporting.
By contrast, the local Tbilisi-based Kavkazia adopted a different approach. It devoted almost half of its political and election-related news coverage to the government – as much as 46 per cent of this coverage was positive and only 14 per cent negative. As for the presentation of the two main parties, GD and UND received 14,9 and 21,1 percent respectively. Fifty eight per cent of the GD coverage was positive and only ten percent was negative. As for the coverage of UNM, it was mainly neutral and positive. The president received some three per cent of the coverage that was mainly neutral.
TV Adjara devoted as much as 73,1 percent of its political and election-related news coverage to the activities of the government – this coverage was overwhelmingly neutral. The GD received two times more coverage than the UNM (10,3 per cent and 4,7 per cent respectively) of mainly neutral coverage. The government of Adjara received some 7,3 percent of mainly neutral coverage.
The qualitative analysis of Adjara has so far indicated that the channel adheres to the Code of Conduct, with most of its news items being balanced and unbiased. There were only a very few occasions when TV Adjara departed from this approach. For example, on 9 September, a news item showed a protest by local residents in Kirnati village against the government (in relation to a construction of a hydro electricity power station). No one from the government was approached to comment.
Conclusion
Data from the first two weeks of media monitoring by the Charter & MEMO 98 reveals that most monitored media have provided a generally balanced coverage, focusing primarily on the government and the two main parties and their candidates. A few occasions occurred, however, where TV channels neglected to offer viewers opposing views on particular stories. The Charter & MEMO 98 will continue their monitoring throughout the pre-election period to determine if these are consistent trends. The next report will also include analysis of the coverage of presidential candidates and of the current affairs programmes (debates & talk shows).
Methodology
The Charter & MEMO 98 have sought to evaluate the mass media’s performance in providing objective and balanced coverage of contestants and their platforms so the citizens of Georgia can make well-informed choices at the ballot box. The project’s findings have been determined through a well-defined and rigorous methodology and are not intended to support any one candidate or political party, but the integrity of the media environment as a whole during the campaign season. On 2 September, the Charter commenced the monitoring of six TV channels (GPB, Rustavi 2, Imedi TV, Maestro TV, Kavkazia and Adjara TV).[2]
The Charter uses methodology that has been developed by MEMO 98 which has carried out similar projects in 47 countries in the last 15 years. Given its comprehensive content-oriented approach, it is specially designed to provide in-depth feedback on pluralism and diversity in media reporting, including coverage of chosen subjects/themes. As such, the outcome of the monitoring is not a set of empty and superficial data, but a detailed analysis and evaluation of the current level of political diversity in media reporting, examined in the proper context, including concrete comparisons and analysis.[3] The Charter & MEMO 98 will issue two more preliminary reports and a comprehensive final report, including recommendations for potential improvements, in four weeks.
20.10.2013
more
The results of the monitoring of the May 17 newscasts of the
following TV companies – the GPB, Rustavi 2, Imedi, Maestro/Maestro
24, Ninth Channel, Kavkasia, Adjara TV.
Television channels adequately covered the events of May 17 that took place on Rustaveli Avenue. The viewers were given an opportunity to more or less see the footages of the rally and the confrontation that followed, and listen to comments and assessments made thereafter. New information and materials were broadcasted promptly after these events took place. There was an obvious attempt on the part of the television channels to reduce broadcasting, as much as possible, comments containing hate speeches. One of the anchors of the Ninth Channel even apologized to a viewer during the coverage, in a case where such a speech was still aired despite their attempts to prevent this from happening. Yet, in spite of the efforts made, abusive language expressed towards the participants of a rally, which stood against homophobia, by their opponents was still featured by all the aforementioned television channels.
The main problem which related to the coverage of the May 17 events, and became more evident throughout the daytime newscasts, concerned the inappropriate use of terms, which ultimately misled viewers. For instance: the majority of the television channels referred to the participants and organizers of the rally against homophobia/transphobia using the following terms: LGBT persons, LGBT representatives, representatives of the LGBT community and representatives of sexual minorities. In the subtitles of one of the newscasts the rally was referred to as a “LGBT” rally. The TV company Kavkasia turned out to be an exception in this respect, its newcasts were working in an extreme regime, the TV company started broadcasting from 17:00, and from the very beginning was mentioning the rally as a rally planned by “identities” or a rally held against homophobia.
The majority of the television channels corrected the given mistakes in the second half of the day and started to refer to the rally held in front of the parliament building as a rally against homophobia, while changing the aforementioned subtitles as well.
However, there still were some inaccuracies that had slipped in the evening newscast of Imedi TV. For the 20:00 newscast the anchors did not repeat the mistakes of their colleagues, however one of their journalists still referred to the rally during the live connection as a rally carried out by LGBT representatives, and that those who were chased by opponents were representatives of sexual minorities.
In the hours after the confrontation had taken place, the positions, comments, and videos of the opponents of the rally organized by “identities” were prevalent on television channels, while the position of the organizers and supporters of the rally held against homophobia was afforded scarce coverage. From the footage provided by some of the channels it was evident that such channels tried, but ultimately failed, to obtain comments from the organizers of the rally.
The TV company Maestro 24 clarified that they had contacted the representatives of “identities”, yet they were denied a reply. Alongside Maestro, other television channels were also trying to fill this void with respective comments of various human rights activists and representatives of society.
Due to improper use of terms by the media, it would have been difficult for viewers to identify the concrete purpose behind the rally which took place on May 17 in front of the parliament, which ultimately failed, while the difference between “a gay parade” and a protest against homophobia/transphobia was not defined properly. During daytime transmissions journalists were reiterating that representatives of the Orthodox congregation had confronted representatives of sexual minorities. There was an impression that only representatives of sexual minorities were participating in the rally. Some other problems included an inaccuracy of facts, imbalanced assessments, and a possibility of identifying the victims of violence. There were instances of the circulation of inaccurate and unverified information; in the 13:00 newscast of the Ninth Channel the anchor stated that the situation had become tense around the rally, and that “ teargas had been used”, while “the police had to use teargas”. Later, one of the midday anchors-Shalva Ramishvili denied the truth behind this information, while the anchor of the 14:00 newscast once again stated, without making an apology, that “ the information regarding the use of teargas hasn’t been confirmed”.
By transmitting unverified information the Ninth Channel failed to ensure compliance with the principle of “protection of due accuracy” as stipulated by the Code of Conduct for Broadcasters. In the newscasts of the GPB (Georgian Public Broadcaster)it was evident that the broadcaster had dedicated much more time to covering the viewpoints of the opponents of the rally. The stories featured to a lesser extent people with different opinions. Only several public persons and a small group of politicians stated in the given stories that every person or a group has a right of gathering and that freedom of expression was safeguarded by the constitution.
“Moambe” featured in all its newscasts the comment of a well-known actor Givi Sikharulidze, in which he referred to representatives of sexual minorities using abusive and inappropriate terms. This comment was also shown in the main issue of Moambe (20:19). We believe that the GPB has preventing responsibility to prevent the circulation of such expressions through its broadcasting.
In the recording, which features the public defender and youth and which was shown in the 16:00 newscast, several young people referred to the organizers of the rally using abusive words. The editorial staff of Moambe could have removed this specific section, as they were not made whilst live, and with particular regard to Paragraph 3 of Article 33 of the Code of Conduct for Broadcasters, which states that: “a broadcaster must avoid broadcasting content abusing any group of people on the basis of religion, ethnic, or any other grounds, including the use of certain kind of terms and videos.”
GPB’s code of conduct suggests a concrete recommendation, which is obligatory to all the journalists who make public broadcasts: Article 15.9 states that one must be cautious in choosing words and expressions. Use the words homosexual or bisexual. It is unacceptable to use words such as sodomite, pederast, gay, whilst guests should be discouraged from using such words.
It was also possible to identify the participants of the scheduled rally in the reports aired on May 17, while according to those reports, the participants had congregated in Pushkin Square. Also, in several reportages, a girl was shown to have been subjected to an assault from rally opponents while she held posters and sang against homophobia. It was shown in the footage that she was trying to cover her face, but her veil had fallen in the brawl, which made it possible to identify her on the footage. In another instance, in the special newscasts from Rustavi 2 journalists reporting about congregation of the LGBT persons and the routes they were supposed to march through, representatives of the clergy and their followers discovered the course of the rally by listening to those reports. Article 51 of the Code of Conduct for Broadcasters says that “a broadcaster must exercise utmost prudence when covering armed confrontations, accidents, states of emergency, and respect the emotions of the viewers, and keep balance between providing information of high public interest and the inviolability of person’s private life”. The editions should have exerted every effort and to treat with care the issue of the identification of those that had become the target of the assaulters on that particular day.
Based on the results of a week-long monitoring of the newscasts it can be said that the TV channels’ journalists’ reports were neutral, but at the same time the channels reported opinions that changed throughout the day. Despite the aforementioned shortcomings, the Georgian Charter of Journalistic Ethics believes that the TV companies – GPB, Rustavi 2, Imedi TV, Maestro/Maestro 24, the Ninth Channel, Kavkasia, Adjara TV – managed to provide more or less complete and comprehensive information, reflecting the position of the majority of groups related to the issue, and to society as a whole. Ultimately, society had an opportunity to receive adequate information regarding the events that had taken place on Rustaveli Avenue from Georgian television channels.
The Georgian Charter of Journalistic Ethics makes assessment concerning the effort of TV journalists and TV producers to exercise the utmost care with respect to the coverage of topics and events of such a nature. The charter believes that such levels of prudence are required not only in relation to covering events similar to those of May 17, but every time when the media is dealing with minorities-related topics. The accuracy of information and the appropriateness of terms while working on any issue related to the LGBT community’s rights must ensure for the provision of accurate information, which will be transmitted to society. This will in turn translate into a greater awareness of society in general, which also helps to promotes the enhancement of civil education and consciousness.
Television channels adequately covered the events of May 17 that took place on Rustaveli Avenue. The viewers were given an opportunity to more or less see the footages of the rally and the confrontation that followed, and listen to comments and assessments made thereafter. New information and materials were broadcasted promptly after these events took place. There was an obvious attempt on the part of the television channels to reduce broadcasting, as much as possible, comments containing hate speeches. One of the anchors of the Ninth Channel even apologized to a viewer during the coverage, in a case where such a speech was still aired despite their attempts to prevent this from happening. Yet, in spite of the efforts made, abusive language expressed towards the participants of a rally, which stood against homophobia, by their opponents was still featured by all the aforementioned television channels.
The main problem which related to the coverage of the May 17 events, and became more evident throughout the daytime newscasts, concerned the inappropriate use of terms, which ultimately misled viewers. For instance: the majority of the television channels referred to the participants and organizers of the rally against homophobia/transphobia using the following terms: LGBT persons, LGBT representatives, representatives of the LGBT community and representatives of sexual minorities. In the subtitles of one of the newscasts the rally was referred to as a “LGBT” rally. The TV company Kavkasia turned out to be an exception in this respect, its newcasts were working in an extreme regime, the TV company started broadcasting from 17:00, and from the very beginning was mentioning the rally as a rally planned by “identities” or a rally held against homophobia.
The majority of the television channels corrected the given mistakes in the second half of the day and started to refer to the rally held in front of the parliament building as a rally against homophobia, while changing the aforementioned subtitles as well.
However, there still were some inaccuracies that had slipped in the evening newscast of Imedi TV. For the 20:00 newscast the anchors did not repeat the mistakes of their colleagues, however one of their journalists still referred to the rally during the live connection as a rally carried out by LGBT representatives, and that those who were chased by opponents were representatives of sexual minorities.
In the hours after the confrontation had taken place, the positions, comments, and videos of the opponents of the rally organized by “identities” were prevalent on television channels, while the position of the organizers and supporters of the rally held against homophobia was afforded scarce coverage. From the footage provided by some of the channels it was evident that such channels tried, but ultimately failed, to obtain comments from the organizers of the rally.
The TV company Maestro 24 clarified that they had contacted the representatives of “identities”, yet they were denied a reply. Alongside Maestro, other television channels were also trying to fill this void with respective comments of various human rights activists and representatives of society.
Due to improper use of terms by the media, it would have been difficult for viewers to identify the concrete purpose behind the rally which took place on May 17 in front of the parliament, which ultimately failed, while the difference between “a gay parade” and a protest against homophobia/transphobia was not defined properly. During daytime transmissions journalists were reiterating that representatives of the Orthodox congregation had confronted representatives of sexual minorities. There was an impression that only representatives of sexual minorities were participating in the rally. Some other problems included an inaccuracy of facts, imbalanced assessments, and a possibility of identifying the victims of violence. There were instances of the circulation of inaccurate and unverified information; in the 13:00 newscast of the Ninth Channel the anchor stated that the situation had become tense around the rally, and that “ teargas had been used”, while “the police had to use teargas”. Later, one of the midday anchors-Shalva Ramishvili denied the truth behind this information, while the anchor of the 14:00 newscast once again stated, without making an apology, that “ the information regarding the use of teargas hasn’t been confirmed”.
By transmitting unverified information the Ninth Channel failed to ensure compliance with the principle of “protection of due accuracy” as stipulated by the Code of Conduct for Broadcasters. In the newscasts of the GPB (Georgian Public Broadcaster)it was evident that the broadcaster had dedicated much more time to covering the viewpoints of the opponents of the rally. The stories featured to a lesser extent people with different opinions. Only several public persons and a small group of politicians stated in the given stories that every person or a group has a right of gathering and that freedom of expression was safeguarded by the constitution.
“Moambe” featured in all its newscasts the comment of a well-known actor Givi Sikharulidze, in which he referred to representatives of sexual minorities using abusive and inappropriate terms. This comment was also shown in the main issue of Moambe (20:19). We believe that the GPB has preventing responsibility to prevent the circulation of such expressions through its broadcasting.
In the recording, which features the public defender and youth and which was shown in the 16:00 newscast, several young people referred to the organizers of the rally using abusive words. The editorial staff of Moambe could have removed this specific section, as they were not made whilst live, and with particular regard to Paragraph 3 of Article 33 of the Code of Conduct for Broadcasters, which states that: “a broadcaster must avoid broadcasting content abusing any group of people on the basis of religion, ethnic, or any other grounds, including the use of certain kind of terms and videos.”
GPB’s code of conduct suggests a concrete recommendation, which is obligatory to all the journalists who make public broadcasts: Article 15.9 states that one must be cautious in choosing words and expressions. Use the words homosexual or bisexual. It is unacceptable to use words such as sodomite, pederast, gay, whilst guests should be discouraged from using such words.
It was also possible to identify the participants of the scheduled rally in the reports aired on May 17, while according to those reports, the participants had congregated in Pushkin Square. Also, in several reportages, a girl was shown to have been subjected to an assault from rally opponents while she held posters and sang against homophobia. It was shown in the footage that she was trying to cover her face, but her veil had fallen in the brawl, which made it possible to identify her on the footage. In another instance, in the special newscasts from Rustavi 2 journalists reporting about congregation of the LGBT persons and the routes they were supposed to march through, representatives of the clergy and their followers discovered the course of the rally by listening to those reports. Article 51 of the Code of Conduct for Broadcasters says that “a broadcaster must exercise utmost prudence when covering armed confrontations, accidents, states of emergency, and respect the emotions of the viewers, and keep balance between providing information of high public interest and the inviolability of person’s private life”. The editions should have exerted every effort and to treat with care the issue of the identification of those that had become the target of the assaulters on that particular day.
Based on the results of a week-long monitoring of the newscasts it can be said that the TV channels’ journalists’ reports were neutral, but at the same time the channels reported opinions that changed throughout the day. Despite the aforementioned shortcomings, the Georgian Charter of Journalistic Ethics believes that the TV companies – GPB, Rustavi 2, Imedi TV, Maestro/Maestro 24, the Ninth Channel, Kavkasia, Adjara TV – managed to provide more or less complete and comprehensive information, reflecting the position of the majority of groups related to the issue, and to society as a whole. Ultimately, society had an opportunity to receive adequate information regarding the events that had taken place on Rustaveli Avenue from Georgian television channels.
The Georgian Charter of Journalistic Ethics makes assessment concerning the effort of TV journalists and TV producers to exercise the utmost care with respect to the coverage of topics and events of such a nature. The charter believes that such levels of prudence are required not only in relation to covering events similar to those of May 17, but every time when the media is dealing with minorities-related topics. The accuracy of information and the appropriateness of terms while working on any issue related to the LGBT community’s rights must ensure for the provision of accurate information, which will be transmitted to society. This will in turn translate into a greater awareness of society in general, which also helps to promotes the enhancement of civil education and consciousness.
14.05.2013
more
12
