Decision - Open Society Georgian Foundation vs. Nodar Chachua

Applicant : Open Society Georgian Foundation;
Respondent : Nodar Chachua;
Violated Principle : principle1; principle5; principle11;
Decision

June 7, 2019

Case N 281

N(N)LE Open Society Georgian Foundation vs. Nodar Chachua

Head of Council: Nana Biganishvili

Members of Council: Giorgi Mgeladze, Gela Mtivlishvili, Lika Zakashvili, Kamila Mamedova, Laura Gogoladze

Applicant: N(N)LE Open Society Georgian Foundation

Respondent: Nodar Chachua

Description Part

N(N)LE Open Society Georgian Foundation applied to Georgian Charter of Journalistic Ethics. According to the application, material aired on Public Broadcasting First Channel in “Moambe” on 3rd of April, 2019 12:00PM and 15:00PM issues violated Charter principles 1, 5 and 11. Materials were about Caucasian Research Resources Center, N(N)LE Open Society Georgian Foundation and international organization International IDEA common project research result presentation. Author of the materials and therefore the responding journalist was identified to be Nodar Chachua.

Representative of the applicant participated in the hearing process. Responding journalist refused to participate and did not provide any response.

Motivation Part

According to the 1st principle of the Charter: Journalist must respect truth and the public’s right to get precise information. As was mentioned in the description part, material in question was about presentation of sociological research. Moambe at 12:00PM:

During the live transmission Nodar Chachua said:

Text 1: “We accidentally discovered several minutes ago that the research is about media and Public Broadcasting too. But the foundation Open Society hid these results and did not give them to media representatives as other information about healthcare, education and corruption. They did not send the results to televisions via emails either”.

Text 2: “But we still do not have an answer as to why the foundation Open Society” tried to hide the research”.

Text 3: “When we recorded this comment with the head of Open Society Georgia, we did not know that they also researched media and most of the research was about Public Broadcasting; otherwise, we would have asked questions about research methodology and questions around Public Broadcasting too. We still do not have answers from the Foundation representative, as to why they hid the research and why they did not share it with media and public”.

15:00PM issue:

Text 4: host: “The journalist of First Channel was not given a possibility to get more information about this specific data, which was presented with other information”.

Text 5: Nodar Chachua: “We came to cover the presentation and were met with media releases about the fact that the study concerned public’s attitudes towards certain issues, for example corruption and political parties, work of government structures. In the release or in a deeper account later there was no information that the research was about Public Broadcasting too and showed public’s opinion about the channel”.

Text 6: Nodar Chachua: “After this request media was shown in the research, specifically the part about Public Broadcasting and the results were made public”.

Based on the texts above, journalist stated that:

  1. He accidentally discovered that research was about media and Public Broadcasting [text 1].
  2. Research about Public Broadcasting was hidden by the presenter [texts 1, 2, 3].
  3. Research about media was not provided to media representatives [texts 1, 5].
  4. Research about media was made public after Nodar Chachua requested it [text 6].

While consolidating texts, evidences provided by the applicant and additional facts gathered by Council [for example the information from other journalist attending the presentation], following facts were proven:

  1. When in 12:00PM issue Nodar Chachua says that part of the research is hidden, the presentation is not over yet.  Evidence: his own words during this issue: “Presentation of the research is not over yet in Rooms Hotel”.
  2. “Request of publication” the research about media was made by Nodar Chachua after the presentation was over.  Evidence: Text 6.
  3. One day before the presentation, on 2nd of April, media companies [including Public Broadcasting] were given information that on 3rd of April, research would be published, which was about “public’s trust towards governmental institutions and attitudes towards political parties, corruption, media, social fairness, religious groups and other topics”.   Evidence: N(N)LE Open Society Georgian Foundation representative Ana Toklikishvili email sent on 2nd of April, 2019 at 13:52.
  4. In the press release which was available to journalists attending the presentation, it was mentioned that: “Sociological research is about democratic situation in Georgia and studies citizens’ trust towards governmental institutions and attitudes towards political parties, corruption, media, social fairness, religious groups and other topics”. Evidence: Press release
  5. Research presentation included media part too. Evidence: Presentation, interviewed journalists, text 4, N(N)LE Open Society Georgian Foundation representative Ana Toklikishvili email sent on 3rd of April, 2019 at 13:38.
  6. Research presentation file [where media part was mentioned] was sent to Nodar Chachua at 11:57AM, 3rd of April. Evidence: N(N)LE Open Society Georgian Foundation representative Ana Toklikishvili email sent on 3rd of April, 2019 at 11:57.
Based on the information above, the Council thinks that Nodar Chachua violated Charter Principle 1. Specifically, he shared the following incorrect information:

  1. Research about media [and Public Broadcasting] was not hidden. Public Broadcasting knew about this part on a previous day and if interested, the information was readily available. The same information was included in press release given to journalists on the presentation. Information was presented and sent to Nodar Chachua before the presentation was over.
  2. Nodar Chachua’s statement, that the information was hidden was inappropriate when the presentation was still ongoing.
  3. Nodar Chachua’s statement, that he “accidentally discovered” that the research was about media too is incorrect.
  4. Public Broadcasting host and Nodar Chachua’s texts are contradictory too. Nodar Chachua says that the research was publicized after he requested it. Host says the following: “Public Broadcasting journalist was not given a possibility to get more information about this topic during the presentation”.
As was mentioned in the description part, Nodar Chachua did not cooperate with the Council. His position was made somewhat clear based on the conclusion of LEPL Public Broadcasting self-regulation institution/committee. N(N)LE Open Society Georgian Foundation applied to them too. The conclusion does not deny that Public Broadcasting got the information about research beforehand. Conclusion provides an argument that the information included “media” and not specifically “Public Broadcasting” and these words are not identical.

Charter Council cannot evaluate Public Broadcasting self-regulation institute conclusion, but for the sake of including both parties’ views in the discussion, Council decided to investigate it too. Self-regulatory institution report was counted as a respondent’s position. Of course, “media” and “Public Broadcasting” are not identical, but media includes Public Broadcasting and the researchers were not obligated to include specifically channel in the press release. Not identifying something beforehand is not the same as hiding a fact, as journalist thought. According to the information given, the journalist should have anticipated that research would have included media part. If we think it possible that the journalist did not anticipate that “media” might have included “Public Broadcasting” it still does not make it right to use the word “hide”. “Hiding” means that the part of the research was not published. In reality, media [Public Broadcasting] part was presented during the presentation, sent to the journalist and Public Broadcasting. Presentation included clear and direct information about Public Broadcasting.


5th principle of Charter: Media is obligated to correct any incorrect information which misleads public.

Charter Council decided that Nodar Chachua shared incorrect information. It was also proven that applicant notified Public Broadcasting about it, specifically, applied to their self-regulation institution, where specified the incorrect information. Nevertheless, information was not corrected for the hearing date; therefore, 5th principle was violated.

According to the 11th principle of Charter: Journalist should count the following as a severe professional crime: conscious distortion of facts.

During discussing the first principle, it was proven that 12:00PM and 15:00PM issues contained incorrect information. Council also discussed whether the misinformation was purposeful. Charter Council thought it possible, that in the 12:00PM issue, Nodar Chachua might have had reasons for misinforming public, for example he had not seen an email, had not read press release and provided conclusions before the presentation was complete. He might have no thought that media included Public Broadcasting, etc. But when it has been 3 hours after the presentation, at 15:00 and the host also says that presentation included information about Public Broadcasting [text 4], there is presentation sent to Public Broadcasting and Nodar Chachua himself [where slides about Public Broadcasting are included] and after all this Nodar Chachua still says that information was not provided about Public Broadcasting, Council thinks that this was a purposeful distortion of facts by Nodar Chachua in 15:00PM issue.

Resolution Part:

According to aforementioned information:

1. Nodar Chachua violated Charter principles 1, 5 and 11.