Charter of Journalistic Ethics Accuses TV Imedi of Campaigning Against NGOs

“On the Imedi TV channel, the existence of an information campaign directed against non-governmental organizations is noticeable, (and) the editorial policy of Imedi is sharply focused on discrediting non-governmental organizations and damaging their business reputation,” reads the decision of the Council of the Charter of Journalistic Ethics of Georgia, which was adopted following the application of the NGO “Association of Young Lawyers of Georgia” (GYLA) against the TV company “Imedi”.

What did the Charter Council discuss?

The Council of the Charter of Journalistic Ethics of Georgia considered the application of the GYLA dated September 11 against the Imedi TV company, in which the organization stated that Irakli Chikhladze, the host of the weekly program “Imedi Week” on the Imedi channel, violated the principle of the charter, which obliges him to provide reliable information to the public, and the journalist Natia Toidze deliberately distorted the facts.

In particular, according to the GYLA, the statement of the host at the beginning of the story that most non-governmental organizations cannot find time for Imedi TV was false, since the GYLA chairman answered the journalist and gave interviews in Imedi several times in the past.

GYLA also stated that the title of the story, which is “a stand-alone journalistic product, (and) has the greatest impact on the mood of the audience”, is “unverified and unsubstantiated”. “At the same time, the story does not contain any significant opinion from any of the respondents, and the journalists themselves are trying to justify why and on what basis the GYLA is a “rich” and “clan” NGO.”

What was the plot about?

The approximately 11-minute segment of the “Imedi Week” program aired on September 11, titled “Rich NGO Clan”, concerned the activities of three non-governmental organizations that criticize the government’s policies – the Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association (GYLA), Transparency International – Georgia (TIG), the International Society for Fair Elections and Democracy (ISFED), which, as the presenter explained, “are mainly engaged in opposing the authorities and supporting one part of the opposition.”

“They spend time and energy on this, and for Imedi, most of them can’t find the time to comment. Based on public facts, Natia Toidze will tell you what kind of game the clan of wealthy NGOs in Georgia is playing,” he added.

Already in the story, the journalist says that information about ongoing and implemented multimillion-dollar projects on the websites of the mentioned non-governmental organizations is “quite scarce”, and information about the funds spent is “not transparent and inaccessible.”

In addition, the following assessments are made in the material addressed to NGOs:

“It is difficult to say whether the three most influential, and now the richest Georgian non-governmental organizations are purposefully spending donor funds, but one thing is clear, they are involved in politics as informal players and try to manage processes on the opposition flank, demand the resignation of the government, the formation of a technical government, withdraw rally and voice political demands.”

“Reports are written, which are then quoted by their own donors in their reports, and the public hears made-up stories about how Bidzina Ivanishvili took over Georgia and how exemplary the National Movement was, which came to power through a revolution with amazing democracy and reforms.”

“The border is blurred, and it becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish where in the Georgian political reality the National Movement ends and where the role of non-governmental organizations operating with multimillion-dollar funding begins.”
“It is difficult to distinguish from the leaders of the National Movement, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, statements made by members of non-governmental organizations against their country.”
“The so-called powerful wealthy NGOs are increasingly clan-like.”
At the same time, the story contains critical assessments of the representatives of the Georgian Dream regarding the non-governmental sector. As a counterbalance, only the commentary of the chairman of the GYLA Nika Simonishvili is given. According to the journalist, two other organizations did not return their calls.

What else did the council decide?

The charter confirmed that the principles challenged by the GYLA were in fact violated in the Imedi TV story.

“The (host) of the author’s program has an ethical responsibility to separate facts and unverified information from each other, to disseminate only verified information as fact, i.e. respect the right of the public to receive reliable information,” reads the decision of the Charter Council.

The Council on Journalistic Ethics also considered that the story of Imedi TV was devoid of rechecking and sources. “A formal balance cannot outweigh an accusation that could cause irreparable damage to the person/organization.”

According to the council, the journalist showed respect for the public’s right to receive accurate and verified information. According to the council’s explanation, it also does not appear that the journalist has fulfilled the ethical obligation to verify information from open sources.

At the same time, according to the council, the journalist knew that he was disseminating incorrect information. In particular, “the story shows how the chairman of GYLA explains to a journalist that it is possible to find detailed information about the spending of funds and arrange an interview later”, but he still says that “information about funded projects (even in the case of GYLA) is scarce and It is not clear what exactly the funds were spent on.