| Output/Results: |
During the first session the experts gave a general assessment of the Code: overall, the draft code was considered to be an ambitious attempt to draw on the experience and the broadcasting codes of a number of different European countries, as well as broadcaster guidelines from Australia and Europe, and the codes of ethics of various newspapers in the USA and Europe.
However, it was underlined that the difficulty comes from the overall effect which mixes the general law of Georgia, the broadcasting and media law, a regulatory code and guidance, and some of which may be more appropriately included in the internal guidelines of broadcasters.
It was suggested that the Code be reduced and simplified so that it is easier to absorb and that it is divided into clear subject headings and makes a distinction between A- the principle the regulator wants to set as a standard B - the rules that flow from that general principle and C - any guidance, which is non binding, which the regulator is able to offer the broadcasters as they seek to meet the terms of the Code. Some participants proposed that this non-binding guidance be set out in an appendix to the code or on the pages of a website. Some participants thought that the more detailed the code will be, the easier it would be for the GNCC to deal with a complaint. The experts insisted on the fact that the code should be as short as possible and urged the drafters not to have too many guidelines.
It was also proposed that the Code identify clear headings, and that under each, a clear principle should be at the heart of the section followed by the rules that will apply with an indication of issues to be taken into account. The following headings were suggested: Accuracy, Impartiality, Politics and Public Policy and Election Coverage, War, Terror and Emergencies, Fairness, Privacy, Crime, Harm and Offence, Protecting vulnerable minorities, Editorial Integrity and Independence, Advertising, Sponsorship.
Another general point which was raised was that the Code does not distinguish sufficiently between the public service mission and responsibilities of a public broadcaster, which impose clear public value and non-commercial objectives, and the legitimate interest of a commercial broadcaster to maximise revenues. That would be another argument for defining the basic principles which unite all broadcasters together with the appropriate rules, and leave matters of detailed application to the broadcasters’ own codes or guidelines. It was stressed that encouraging broadcasters to write their own codes will help them take responsibility for their actions and assist in the education and training process.
During the second session some important issues dealt with in the draft code were reviewed and discussed (see document ATCM(2006)005 Analysis and comments on proposed Broadcasting Code for Georgia). As regards impartiality, it was stressed that impartiality does not mean that journalists have to be neutral. The experts encouraged the participants to find a definition of impartiality which would suit for Georgia. A question was raised as to what extent the part of the code regarding fairness and balance would apply to specialised broadcasters such as religious TV. It was made clear that these broadcasters are free to report on their religion but that they must not misrepresent the views or denigrate other religions. The principle of fairness and balance were recalled when the issue of election and political coverage was discussed. Several questions were also raised regarding editorial integrity and independence. It was recalled that a Directive from the EU requires that financial journalists make a declaration of their holding to the regulators or to the board. It was also recalled that in cases where there is a conflict of interest of another nature, the journalist concerned should renounce, at its own initiative, to report on the issue but in case he/her does not do so, the broadcaster is of course allowed to decide to send another journalist.
The examination of the complaint review procedures raised several questions and was all the more complicated as there are some discrepancies in the broadcasting law. Mr Malkhaz Narindoshvili explained that broadcasters are obliged to provide for a complaint procedure and will have to review the complaints within 10 days. If seized, the GNCC will only review that the procedure before the broadcasters was correct but will not be allowed to look into the substance of the complaint. The experts stressed the need for an independent body, an appeal body which would be competent to deal with issues of substance. Moreover the time frame for the examination of a complaint should be more flexible as a complaint might be complex. It was also suggested that code only state that “people will be able to bring their complaint” but that the procedure itself be not be included in the code. The experts advise the drafters to keep the courts as far as possible from the code.
|
| Consultants/Experts: |
Mr Christophoros CHRISTOPHOROU, former Director of Cyprus Radio Television Authority, Cyprus
Mr Stephen WHITTLE, independent expert, formerly Controller, Editorial Policy, BBC – United Kingdom
|
