The following report reflects the 2021 practice of allocating budgetary funds for the purpose of advertising and dissemination of information in media and is based on publicly available data of the State Procurement Agency, and, in selected cases, additional information requested from public agencies. To illustrate the editorial policies of media outlets that received budgetary contracts, the study also includes individual examples of media coverage.

The introductory part of the report summarizes the main findings; The main part dissects the practice of allocating budgetary contracts for the purpose of advertising and information dissemination according to different types of media - television, radio, online, print and social media. A separate chapter is devoted to the allocation of budgetary funds on social media, including contracts that obligate individual media outlets to post materials on various Facebook groups and pages. The last part deals with the editorial policies of those media outlets, which in some cases, carry homophobic and anti-Western content, and, in selected cases, are involved in pro-governmental coordinated campaigns aimed at discrediting its opponents.

Author: Mariam Pataridze
Research: Giorgi Rizhvadze
Data processing: Mariam Tsutskiridze
Editor: Tamar Kintsurashvili
Link: The Practice of Allocating Budgetary Funds for Advertising and Dissemination of Information in Media - 2021

Share:

The following report on the financial transparency of media represents data of 2020. In order to illustrate the extent to which budgetary funding influences the editorial policy of the media or to observe the types of editorial policies the concerned media outlets pursue, it also discusses some examples of media coverage. Released by the Media Development Foundation (MDF) annually, the report explores, on the one hand, declared revenues of broadcast media and, on the other, the practice of allocating budgetary funds for advertising and dissemination of information in media outlets.

The introductory part of the report discusses key findings and regulations; the first part reviews financial revenues of broadcasters, whom the law obliges to file relevant declarations; the second part reviews the practice of allocating public funds for advertising and dissemination of information in various types of media outlets. A separate chapter analyzes social media spending, including budgetary contracts that oblige media outlets to disseminate information in various Facebook groups and pages. The concluding part is devoted to the practice of signing budgetary contracts with anti-Western, anti-disinformation, and hate speech media outlets, including some examples of anti-vaxx content.

Authors: 

     Mariam Pataridze, Ani Kistauri

Editor: 

     Tamar Kintsurashvili

Design: 

      Mariam Tsutskiridze

Link: Financial Transparency of Media - 2020

Share:

The present report on financial transparency of the media includes data from 2019. The Media Development Foundation (MDF) releases its reports on financial transparency of the media annually to explore, on the one hand, declared revenues of broadcast media and on the other, the practice of allocating budgetary funds for advertising and dissemination of information in media outlets. 
The introductory part of the report discusses key findings of the study and regulations; its first part reviews financial revenues of broadcasters, whom the law obliges to file relevant declarations; the second part reviews the practice of allocating public funds for advertising and dissemination of information in various types of media outlets. A separate chapter analyzes social media spending, including budget contracts with media outlets on dissemination of information in various Facebook groups and pages.


Authors:
Mariam Pataridze
Editor:
Tamar Kintsurashvili
Design:
Mariam Tsutskiridze

Link: Financial Transparency of Media - 2019

Attached files:

Share:

The Media Development Foundation (MDF) releases annual reports to explore the financial media environment  – sources of media financing, including the practice of allocating budgetary funds for advertising and dissemination of information in media outlets. 

The present report rests on the desk research, among them documents available in an electronic database of the State Procurement Agency and the National Communications Commission, also additional data requested from public agencies and information available in the public domain. Moreover, a qualitative analysis of media content was carried out by applying the principle of random sampling and based on the contracts between administrative bodies and media outlets. It aimed at clarifying what type of media content was financed from the budget. 

The introductory part of the report discusses key findings of the study and regulations; its first part reviews financial revenues of broadcasters, whom the law obliges to file relevant declarations; the second part reviews the practice of allocating public funds for advertising and dissemination of information in media outlets, including media outlets inciting hate speech, fanning anti-Western sentiments and promoting Russian propaganda platforms. The third part of the report depicts practice of formalizing the interference in editorial independence in budget contracts. 

Authors: 
     Mariam Pataridze
Editor: 
     Tamar Kintsurashvili
Design:
     Mariam Tsutskiridze

Link: Financial Transparency of Media-2018

Attached files:

• Financial Transparency of Media-2018

Share:

The intent behind the present study is to explore the financial revenues of media organizations as well as to probe the practice of allocating public funds for advertisement and dissemination of information in media outlets. The study mainly rests on the analysis of documents which included documentation accessible in the electronic database of state procurement agency and the National Communications Commission, also additional data requested from public entities and information available in the public domain. Moreover, a qualitative analysis of media content was carried out by applying the principle of random selection and based on the contracts entered into by and between administrative bodies and media outlets. The first part of the report discusses problems concerning the financial transparency of broadcast media, also the data on the revenues of broadcasters, which are publicly available at the time of writing this report; the second reviews the distribution of budgetary funds among TV channels to ensure the dissemination of advertisements and information; the third part explores whether the budgetary contracts imply the interference into editorial independence of media outlets and whether the media outlets observe professional standards that require the separation of financed materials from editorial content; the fourth part provides examples evidencing whether media outlets observed the professional standard of separating financed materials from editorial content during the 2017 local election campaign.

Authors: Mariam Pataridze

Editor: Tamar Kintsurashvili

Design: Mariam Tsutskiridze


Link: Financial Transparency of Media 2017. Final report

Financial Transparency of Media 2017 by Media Development Foundation on Scribd

Attached files:

• Financial Transparency of Media 2017. Final report

Share:

The intent behind the present study is to explore the financial revenues of media organizations as well as to probe the practice of allocating public funds for advertisement and dissemination of information in media outlets. The report is based on desk research of official information received from public institutions upon request, on accessible electronic data available at the web-portal of Georgian National Communications Commission (GNCC) and State Procurement Agency's database, as well as media reports. The first part of the report reviews the financial transparency problems in broadcasting media; the second part is about the distribution of budgetary funds to the televisions with the aim of disseminating advertisement and information; the third part reflects the budgetary contracts with the media that disseminate hate speech, anti-Western sentiments and Russian propaganda; and the fourth part concerns the distribution of budgetary funds in regional televisions.

Authors: Mariam Pataridze
Editor: Tamar Kintsurashvili
Design: Mariam Tsutskiridze

Attached files:

• Pre-Election Financial Media Environment 2017

Share:

The intent behind the present study is to explore the financial revenues of media organizations as well as to probe the practice of allocating public funds for advertisement and dissamination of information in media outlets. The report is based on desk research of official information received from public institutions upon request, on accessible electronic data available at the web-portal of Georgian National Communications Commission (GNCC) and State Procurement Agency's database, as well as media reports. 

The first part reviews the declared revenues of broadcast media, followed by second part on the practice of allocation of public funds by budgetary organizations for the dissemination of information and advertising in media. The media outlets inciting hate speech and anti-Western sentiments and receiving budgetary contracts are presented separately. The report covers the period of 2016. 

Attached files:

• Financial Transparency of Media, 2016

Share:

The goal of the present research is to study the practice and procedures of allocation of public funds to media outlets for the purpose of advertising and information support. The research also involves the findings of media monitoring aimed to demonstrate what type of information is financed from the budget and whether budgetary funds have an influence on media content; how much the standards set by advertising legislation, code of conduct and professional ethics are observed. The research also reviews the international practice and the forms of soft censorship after the example of various countries. The document provides recommendations on improving current shortcomings and using the materials financed by administrative authorities in a pre-election period. The guidelines related to soft censorship developed by the World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers (WAN-IFRA) have been taken into consideration in the process of developing the recommendations.  

Attached files:

• Practice of allocating budgetary resources among media for the release of information and advertisement (full version)
• Methodology, Main Findings and Recommendations
• Soft Censorship – International practice
• I. Practice of allocating budgetary resources in Georgian media
• II. Budget contracts with media outlets promoting hate speech, anti-western sentiments and Russian propaganda platforms
• III. Broadcasters
• IV. Print media
• V. Online media
• Prohibition of the Use of Administrative Resources in Pre-election Period
• Appendix 1: Soft censorship case study by countries
• Infographic attached to Chapter II

Share:

Gela Bochikashvili

Gvantsa Kvaratskhelia

Share:

Introduction

Since 2014 Media Development Foundation (MDF) has been monitoring public spendings for information dissemination. Throughout the monitoring process, MDF found that number of Ministries and their subordinated legal entities practice contracting media organizations that are known for promoting hate speech and intolerance toward different social groups[1]. Media monitoring activities carried out by MDF throughout 2014-2015[2] also demonstrated that these media organizations are repeatedly expressing anti-western attitudes. Moreover, number of Ministries[3] implements joint projects with these media outlets.

This research focuses on problems linked to above mentioned cooperation established between these media organization and state institutions.

It is important to mention, that data presented in the research is not complete due to the difficulties of obtaining information from number of legal entities of public law (LEPL) and non-commercial, not-for-profit legal entities (NNLE), as well as due to prolonged court hearings. On June 11, 2015, as a result of a Tbilisi City Court decision on MDF’s law suit, Judge Shota Getsadze made a precedent and established a standard[4] obliging all institutions carrying out public responsibilities to make public all information related to spendings whether public or private undertaken to fulfill their public duties. The court decision and establishment of the precedent created a foundation for making work and financial affairs of LEPLs and NNLEs more transparent. 

Obtaining public information from the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MIA) yet remains challenging thus leaving only possibility for MDF to acquire information through addressing court of law. Obtaining complete information from the State Procurement Agency’s online database is also challenging. For instance, from the agreements signed with media-union Obiektivi only contract with National Wine Agency (LEPL of Ministry of Agriculture) is available online, while service agreement signed between the same media organization and MIA is not. Moreover, State Procurement Agency remains unresponsive when addressed to make publicly available all information related to MIA. Accordingly, due to these shortcomings public information obtained during this research is incomplete and the process of attaining them has been time consuming and linked to additional efforts.

1. Research Methodology

The proposed research is based on public information obtained from state institutions, online database of State Procurement Agency, monitoring performance of media organizations, analyzing other research findings and international practices.

Public information related to service agreements between public institutions and media organizations signed throughout 2013-2014 were obtained. In particular, contracts signed by Ministries, LEPLs and NNLEs, as well as local self government entities with different media organizations for providing information distribution, advertising and other services, were analyzed. The proposed research focuses only on media organizations that are observed to promote hate speech and practice discriminative editorial policies toward different identity groups.

International regulations providing guidelines for indiscriminative policies for public authorities, including fiscal affairs and relevant state responsibilities were also analyzed.

Alongside to 2013-2014 data, financial support provided for TV program Etaloni in 2015 is also included in the research. The TV program is aired on channel Obiektivi and is illegally funded by administrative resources. Complete data from 2015 will be analyzed in the next report. The case of Etaloni is incorporated in this research to illustrate illegal practices.

2. International Practice   

There is a straightforward answer to this question provided by European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI). In particular, #7 recommendation for member countries developed by ECRI on National Legislation to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination[5] states:

9. The law should place public authorities under a duty to ensure that those parties to whom they award contracts, loans, grants or other benefits respect and promote a policy of non-discrimination. In particular, the law should provide that public authorities should subject the awarding of contracts, loans, grants or other benefits to the condition that a policy of non-discrimination be respected and promoted by the other party. The law should provide that the violation of such condition may result in the termination of the contract, grant or other benefits.

16. The law should provide for an obligation to suppress public financing of organisations which promote racism. Where a system of public financing of political parties is in place, such an obligation should include the suppression of public financing of political parties which promote racism.[6]”

3. Statistical Data

In 2013-2014 public funds were used for providing advertising services of following media organizations proved to promoted hate speech: newspaper Sakartvelos Respublika (GEL 63 923,33), media-union Obiektivi (GEL 52 167,84), Alia Holding members – newspaper Alia and Kviris Chronika (GEL 48 650 – data is not complete[7]) and newspaper Asaval-Dasavali (GEL 1 200).

Ltd Etaloni-Media received GEL 68 616.01 for producing TV program Etaloni aired on Obiektivi.

Chart 1. Public funds for media outlets promoting hate speech (2013-2014, partly 2015).

As already mentioned above, provided data is incomplete as number of Ministries and LEPLs as well as NNLEs were reluctant to disclose public information. For instance, Agricultural Projects’ Management Agency (NNLE of Ministry of Agriculture) provided only a joint figure of GEL 1 043 845, 57 that has been transferred to various media outlets[8], media unions[9] and other companies[10] throughout 2013-2014. Newspapers Alia and Kviris Chronika are listed in the document provided by the Agency, though it refused to provide copies of relevant service agreements. Accordingly at this point, it is impossible to calculate exact amount of funds transferred to separate media organizations, including newspapers that are part of Alia Holding.

On June 11, 2015, Tbilisi City Court (Judge Shota Getsadze) announced a precedential decision and approved MDF law suit against Ministry of Agriculture and NNLE Agricultural Projects’ Management Agency and obliged state institutions to make above mentioned information public.

Data related to law suits: To obtain information regarding public spendings for providing media services, MDF approached 112 public entities including: 19 Ministries, Georgian Government State Chancellery, Parliament of Georgia, Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia, administration of state representatives in regions (governors), local municipalities (30), as well as 69 LEPLs and NNLEs.

Ministry of Internal Affairs and Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia provided information only after MDF addressed court for support. 13 out of 69 LEPLs and NNLEs also declined request to disclose information. At this point 6 refusals were appealed in court and 7[11] are planned to be appealed in the nearest future. One appeal out of 6 refusals has already been revoked by the court (the case of MDF against Agricultural Projects’ Management Agency), 4 cases against Ministry of Internal Affairs and Georgian Chamber of Commerce and Industry were resolved during the main hearings by delivering requested public information to MDF and one case against SC “Georgian Energy Development Fund” is at the main hearing stage.

4. Media-union Obiektivi

Media-union Obiektivi received funds from public institutions directly as well as indirectly for providing advertising services and producing and airing TV programs. In particular, according to State Procurement Agency web page, Ltd Etaloni-Media signed agreements and received funds for producing and airing a TV program from various public institutions in 2015, which is an illegal activity.

Below presented data is not complete as number of public institutions declined to issue relevant information (for more see pg. 8).

At the point of publication of this research, MDF gathered information that indicates that media-union Obiektivi signed various service agreements with different public institutions worth of GEL 52 167, 84 throughout 2013-2014. Ltd Etaloni-Media, on its own, received GEL 68 616, 01 from different public organizations in 2015 for preparation of a TV program that is aired on Obiektivi.

Funds allocated for these media organizations per public institution are as follows:

Table 1. Value of service agreements signed between public institutions and meida-union Obiektivi.

Table 2. Value of service agreements signed between public institutions and Ltd Etaloni-Media

4.1 Etaloni on Obiektivi

TV program Etaloni is illegally aired on Obiektivi from May 9, 2015, since according to the Law on Broadcasting, administrative authorities are not allowed to finance TV programs.

No financing

1. An administrative authority, a political party, an official and a public servant shall not finance a broadcaster, also shall not purchase its service and finance or co-finance, directly or indirectly, the production of broadcaster’s programs or/and airing thereof except in cases envisaged in Paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Article.

Information available on State Procurement Agency proves that Ltd “Etalon-Media” is providing following two services to its customers: sponsorship and participation in the program.

Article 66¹ (No Financing) of the Georgian Law on Broadcasting states:

Third paragraph of the Article 66¹ allows exception only for electoral administration and the second paragraph for following services:

Exception:

2. An administrative authority may purchase a broadcaster’s service only for airing social advertising and reporting information important for society provided that such purchase is envisaged in a separate clause of its budget. In such a case, if an administrative authority is a procuring entity as specified in the Law of Georgia on State Procurements, the purchase shall be carried out in accordance with the procedure defined by the Law of Georgia on State Procurements

Moreover, first paragraph of the Article 67 of the Law on Broadcasting, clearly states that sponsorship of a TV program by an administrative authorities is illegal:

Prohibition of sponsorship

1. An administrative authority, a member of a collegial administrative authority or a public servant, a political party, a leader or an official of a political party, a coalition or a bloc of political parties or any other electoral entity shall not be a sponsor of a program.

 

It is important to mention, that almost all public institutions were purchasing services from Ltd Etaloni-Media under different coding defined by the State Procurement Agency. Only municipalities of Adigeni, Oni, Khulo and Kaspi indicated coding for TV and Radio services (CVP 92200000) as the purpose of purchasing advertising services from Etaloni. MIA Academy indicated the code for marketing and advertising services (CVP 79340000), while in other service agreements the same service is indicated as: organization of cultural events (CVP79952100), group games (CVP 37524400), educational games (CVP 37524100), market and economic research, survey and statistics (CVP 79300000), various commercial and other related services (CVP 79900000), recoding in a studio (CVP 79961350), event organization (CVP 79952000).

All above mentioned agreements foresee delivery of following services: “preparation of questions for the TV program with participation of the customer, recoding of the program, editing and airing of the program and in accordance to the program framework - presentation of high school students selected by the customer”. These services are considered illegal by the Article 66¹ of the Law on Broadcasting as it prohibits “purchasing service and finance or co-finance, directly or indirectly, the production of broadcaster’s programs or/and airing”. Moreover, the service agreements also enable public institutions to be involved in editorial and creative process that violates article 29.2 of the Code of Conduct for Broadcasters (principle that guarantees editorial independence of a broadcaster). 

It should be oted that alongside with the services indicated in agreements with local Municipalities, the agreement signed by MIA Academy has an additional service in it:

MIA Academy

• Customer’s video (8-11 seconds) should be aired at the beginning and in the middle of the program (at least once);
• Responsible persons representing the customer should be invited as guests at least twice throughout the contract period; the guest should have an opportunity to briefly present own organization, as well as implemented and planned projects;
• Students of the customer should be invited and seen during the program (at least twice throughout the contract period);
• Banners (two)  with the logo of the customer should be placed in the studio and be seen during the program;
• Customer’s messages should be read and customer’s logo should be illuminated at least once during every program.

Almost identical services are included in the agreement signed with Ltd Tbilisi Transport Company too.

The Law on Advertising states (Article 13: Sponsorship):

Sponsorship

Sponsorship As per this law the sponsorship is a contribution of a natural or legal person to the activity of another natural or legal person (in the form of money, assets, outcome of intellectual activity, rendering service or rendered service, performing the work) on conditions that the product manufactured by the sponsor will be promoted. A sponsor’s contribution is regarded as the cost of advertising whilst a sponsor and the one who has been sponsored as advertiser and advertising distributor, respectively. The sponsor has no right to interfere in the activity of the producer and distributor of advertising. Sponsorship is not allowed for persons whose product or activity is prohibited to be advertised under this Law.

All service agreements signed by public institutions with Ltd Etaloni foresee sponsorship and accordingly violate articles 66¹ (prohibition of financing broadcasting) and 67 (prohibition of sponsorship) of the Law on Broadcasting. They also create grounds for the customer to interfere in the editorial work of service provider through the right to engage in designing questions and selecting participant students.

This practice violates local legislature as well as recommendations issued by European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI). In particular, TV program prepared by Ltd Etaloni is aired on media-union Obiektivi - the channel that openly promotes hate speech.

It should be noted that, in service agreements signed between Ltd Etaloni and public institutions, media-union Obiektivi is not usually indicated. Moreover, in number of agreements, TV program is supposed to be aired on Public Broadcaster, that hosted the program from November 2012 to April (11), 2015. April 15, 2015 agreement signed with MIA Academy, Etaloni-Media takes responsibility to deliver advertising services through media-union Obiektivi instead of Public Broadcaster.

Annex 1. Agreement between MIA Academy and Ltd Etaloni-Media on airing TV program Etaloni on media-union Obiektivi (available in Georgian).

Responsibility to address the cases of violation of principles of the Law on Broadcasting lies with Georgian National Communications Commission (GNCC). According to the Article 17¹ of the Law on Advertising, broadcast advertising monitoring is carried out by the GNCC:

Control in the sphere of broadcast advertising

The sole institution responsible for controlling the timing, placement and means of broadcast advertising as well as the compliance of broadcast advertisement distributor with the restrictions in broadcast advertising specified in the Laws of Georgia On Broadcasting and On Advertising and other legislative acts, is the Georgian National Communications Commission which within the scope of its competence.

On March 26, 2015 for similar activities, in particular, for airing TV program Etaloni sponsored by public institutions: Department of Security Policy of Ministry of Internal Affairs and MIA Academy, Georgian National Communications Commission imposed administrative charge and issued written warning against Public Broadcaster[15]. This decision by the Commission was preceded by the monitoring report on the performance of Public Broadcaster prepared by the Georgian Charter of Journalistic Ethics that expressed concerns in regard to violations by TV program “Etaloni”[16].

4.2 Obiektivi and Georgian Public Broadcaster

Giorgi Popkhadze, correspondent of European Bureau of Georgian Public Broadcaster (GPB) who has been known for homophobic rhetoric simultenousely serves as a co-anchor of a TV show Noon on Obiektivi.

Giorgi Popkhadze is appointed as a corrspondent of European Bureau of GPB’s news program since November 1, 2014. This appointment has been criticized by human rights activists due to his previous homophobic statements[17].

Before his employment by GPB, Giorgi Popkhadze was involved with media-union Obiektivi as a reporter based in Europe. Monitoring of the programs aired on Obiektivi proves that his cooperation with this TV channel has not been terminated. He is a co-anchor of a TV show Noon aired on Obiektivi from Mondays to Fridays at 14:30-16:30[18].

Annex 2. European Bureau correspondent of GPB works as a co-anchor of TV Show Noon aired on media-union Obiektivi (according to the anchor search engine on the web page of Obiektivi).

According to the Paragraph 6 of the Article 23 of the Law on Broadcasting that regulates interest conflicts of employees of Public Broadcaster: “An employee of the Public Broadcaster shall not be an official of or perform any remunerated work for another broadcaster.” It should be noted, that Irakli Tsilikishvili, Chair of the Board at Obiektivi explains that Giorgi Popkhadze does not receive remuneration for his work at Obiektivi and their cooperation is entirely voluntaristic. Though, in this case, there is no direct violation of the law, but conflict of interest still remains.

Giorgi Popkhadze is not listed as a correspondent among other reporters and journalists under the section “Our Team” on the web page of Public Broadcaster[19]. Public Broadcaster was reluctant to issue information about the number of reports prepared by Brussels’ Bureau arguing that reports are not archived according to the name or surname of the journalists but under the relevant event and topic.

Public Broadcaster usually sends a crew from Tbilisi to Europe to cover European Union events or other international forums, visits of Georgian Government officials to Europe and other important developments. Ketevan Kardava, former reporter of the Brussels’ Bureau is most active in covering these events. As she is currently based in Tbilisi, her trips to cover Euro-Atlantic integration issues from different capitals of European countries are linked to additional expanses. At the same time, reporter of the Brussels’ Bureau of Public Broadcaster is on air of the TV show Obiektivi on daily bases as an anchor, that creates impression that GPB is indirectly financing anchor on “Obiektivi” from its own budget. Monthly budget to cover salaries of the Bureau staff in Brussels is GEL 4 300. With the argument, of nondisclosure of private information, Public Broadcaster did not issue information regarding number of employees and salary per employee in its Brussels’ Bureau. Alongside to financial issues, concerns raised by human rights activists are also quite legitimate, indicating conflict of interests, on the one hand, with homophobic and anti-western statements made by Giorgi Popkhadze, and, on the other hand, with content related obligations that GPB should observe according to the Law on Broadcasting. In particular, according to the Article 16 (content obligations):

Public Broadcaster shall:

h) reflect ethnic, cultural, linguistic, religious, age and gender diversity in programs;

m) promote main directions of Georgia’s foreign policy, including the integration into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (hereinafter - the NATO) and the European Union.

 

During discussions around anti-discriminative law in Georgian Parliament, presented as a part of the Association Agreement with EU, Giorgi Popkhadze in his interview with newspaper Kviris Chronika (May 5-11, 2014) made following homophobic statement:

Giorgi Popkhadze: „It was Soso Jachvliani [GD MP] who introduced the term – “bottom givers”. Wasn’t he the one, who fought tirelessly against the pederasts?! Nondiscriminated Georgia, we are entering Europe with its ass?.. We did not only entered Europe’s bottom, but went so far, that we are there!.. We are stepping back and doing so with ass“.

In a conversation with Asaval-Dasavali newspaper (27 April-3 May 2015) about the NGOs, who are often depicted in the anti-Western context as hired agents promoting interests of foreign countries, the representative of the Europe Bureau of the Public Broadcaster made the following statement:

Giorgi Popkhadze: „The sources of financing of the NGOs must be studied and legally prohibited organizations living off the foreign resources, which are acting against the Georgian state. In France no one will allow for an NGO to be financed from Saudi Arabia, or even from America!“

Giorgi Popkhadze’s comment[20], regarding the U.S. State Department 2014 report on human rights, printed in the Kviris Chronika newspaper for 29 June[21] and other online outlets, points at the Public Broadcaster’s Brussels Bureau correspondent’s party connections and his advocacy for the Georgian government in Europe. The Public Broadcaster’s correspondent describes his own lobbying efforts in the European Parliament and the Council of Europe, which, according to him, is conducted on the basis of materials provided by Irma Inashvili [Secretary General of the Patriots Alliance].

Giorgi Popkhadze: „I was really upset on my way back from Strasbourg. I was sitting in a train and thinking – why do I put strain on myself, why am I engaged in this, if these people [the Georgian government] is not by my side at all. It is only us, me and Inashvili, who keep visiting Europe covering our own expenses and talk to the politicians there. What we are doing should be done by the government”.

 

According to Article 29 of the Broadcasters Code (requirements to editorial independence):

Requirements to editorial independence

7. Journalists shall not compromise broadcasters’ independence by their civic, political, economic or social activities and must avoid any conflicts of interest.

According to Article 30 (guidelines for editorial independence):

Guidelines for editorial independence

1. Broadcasters and their employees should avoid any conflicts of interest which may compromise broadcasters’ editorial independence, impartiality and fairness.

3. Journalists should not simultaneously work for such employers which may give rise to conflicts of interest.

4. Broadcasters should not support any organization, its products, actions, or services.

 

According to Article 22.1 of the Public Broadcaster’s Code of Conduct (personal activity and conflict of interest):

Personal activity and conflict of interest

22.1 Personal activity and conflict of interest The GPB’s journalists, presenters reporters, producers, and other responsible persons must not by their public, political or other non-broadcasting activity bring into question the principles of impartiality and fairness being advocated by the Broadcaster.

 

On 6 July 2015 the Monitoring Council of the Public Broadcaster addressed[22] the Board of Trustees and the Broadcaster’s Director General, calling them to study the conflict of interest in the case of the Moambe news program’s Brussels correspondent and to ensure this process is open to the public.

4.3. Obiektivi and joint projects with the government

Cooperation between media union Obiektivi and a number of ministries is demonstrated by various TV programs broadcasted by Obiektivi. For instance, in the summer of 2014, by Thursdays, the first part of Obiektivi TV program Night Studio was dedicated to the joint project of the Ministry of Agriculture and Obiektivi. The program was visited by high-level officials from the Ministry   (for instance, Deputy Minister of Agriculture David Galegashvili[23]).

According to the information from the Ministry of Agriculture, they did not fund the preparation of this program. However, the information regarding funds transferred to the media by the Ministry of Agriculture’s subordinate organization is not public yet.

Another agency cooperating with Obiektivi and denying financing of the joint projects is the Ministry of Sport and Youth Affairs of Georgia. In spring there was a joint TV project broadcasted by Obiektivi in the Night Studio program, where the Ministry’s activities were discussed with its representatives[24].

Every Sunday at 21:30 Obiektivi broadcasts program Prime Minister’s Hour, covering the Prime Minister’s meetings during the week.

At the same time, Obiektivi radio and TV program Kulturis Saati  (Culture Hour) is anchored by the Minister of Education and Culture of Abkhazia Dima Jaiani, who has often been criticized by NGOs for his homophobic and anti-Western statements[25]:

Dima Jaiani, Ministre of Education anc Culture of Abkhazia: “Pedarasty is not Europe! And If Europe is pederasty, than I don’t want such Europe!”

 

Dima Jaiani was appointed to this position in 2013. Prior to that he had been a member of the Public Assembly – organization connected to Nino Burjanadze’s Democratic Movement.

4.4. Obiektivi and its partner media outlets and NGOs 

Research conducted by the Media Development Foundation[26] makes it clear that Obiektivi and its partner media outlets have identical editorial policy and are leaders in promoting anti-Western sentiments, hate speech, xenophobia and homophobia (see annexes, p. 35). These same media outlets rely on the Russian sources which, besides incorrect interpretations regarding values, often blatantly fabricate information and mislead the public.

The infographics below: 1. Shows Russian-language sources relied on by the media union Obiektivi and its partner organizations Georgia and the World  (Geworld.ge) and Saqinformi in their reporting (February, 2014-2015)[27]. 

Infographic 1.

Russian-language films in violation of law. Russian-language films were aired by Obiektivi with violation of the law on broadcasting. Specifically, Andrei Kondrashov’s film Crimea – The Road Back to Motherland on 22 March 2015 and Vladimir Soloviov’s film President on 3 May were aired in Russian language without subtitles in Georgia’s state language.

According to article 51¹ of the law on broadcasting, “films in a non-state language must be broadcasted only duplicated in Georgia’s state language”, and according to the second section of the same article, “the Commission [GNCC] can establish obligations for general and specialized broadcasters to place in the weekly schedule a film in non-state language (except series) in its original language(s), without it being duplicated in the state language, with subtitles in Georgia’s state language”. According to the Commission’s resolution from 30 October 2009, “Feature and documentary films in non-state language (all those except films in Georgian and Abkhazian languages), TV shows and series, can be broadcasted by a private (general or special) license holder and by the Public Broadcaster when duplicated in the Georgian language, and in the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia – in Georgian or Abkhazian language".

On 19 May Media Development Foundation addressed the Georgian Natioinal Communication Commission (GNCC) and requested to the study the violation of the law and the GNCC’s resolution by the media union Obiektivi while broadcasting Russian-language films[28]. The GNCC launched administrative proceedings regarding this case.

Geworld.ge and Saqinformi. Besides Obiektivi, its partners - Geworld.ge  and Saqinform - relied on Russian-language sources as well. These outlets have openly pro-Russian editorial policy and, together with other outlets presented in this report, are leaders in hate speech, homophobia, xenophobia and anti-Western sentiments. The IDFI’s research “Russian Influence in the Georgian NGO Sector and Media”[29] highlights pro-Russian organizations’ and their satellite media outlets’ connections with various other media outlets, including media union Obiektivi.  According to this study, the publisher of internet portals Geworld.ge and Saqinformi is organization Historical Heritage, which is a partner of Eurasian Institute supporting Georgia joining Eurasian Union and has strongly anti-Western rhetoric.

Each Wednesday at 11:30 Obiektivi TV and radio broadcast weekly TV program “Hour of Geworld” that present overview of the newspaper “Georgia and the World” (Geworld).  This newspaper, besides its very strongly anti-Western and xenophobic sentiments, widely promotes support to the Kremlin’s policies. Online version of the newspaper published President Dmitry Medvedev’s address to its publishing organization Historical Heritage[30].

Valeri Kvaratskhelia, one of the anchors of Obiektivi talk show Night Studio, actively cooperates with Geworld.ge. At the same time, Kvaratskhelia actively participates in the events organized in Georgia by the Kremlin-connected organizations Historical Heritage and Center for Problems of Globalization[31].

Asaval-Dasavali. There is also another media outlet promoted by Obiektivi TV and radio, which is notable for hate speech and anti-Western sentiments. Every Monday at 11:30 Obiektivi airs TV program “Hour of Asaval-Dasavali”. This newspaper’s platform is more of ethno-nationalistic nature, but, as demonstrated by the MDF’s research, its content is identical to the narrative of openly pro-Russian outlets. 

4.5. Obiektivi and political union Alliance of Patriots’

One of the co-founder of media union Obiektivi is a member of Alliance of Patriots’ Irma Inashvili. According to the Obiektivi license documents, on 11 July 2013 Media House Obiektivi Ltd. and Media Union Obiektivi addressed the Georgian National Communications Commission (GNCC) in order to transfer private broadcasting licenses #B62 and #B114 from Media House Obiektivi Ltd. to Media Union Obiektivi. Owner of 28.5% share of Media House Obiektivi Ltd., according to the public registry data from 2013, is Irma Inashvili.

According to the GNCC’s decision #511/5 (16 August 2013), it is clear that during the transfer of license, board members of Media Union Obiektivi were Irma Inashvili, Mamuka Gobechia and Regan Teloyani.  The GNCC’s decision also says that Chairman of the board Irakli Tsilikashvili confirmed in his compliance declaration that the license applicant and/or its beneficial owners do not represent a political party or any political party official.

According to the registry of political organizations, the Alliance of Patriots’ is registered on 22 January 2013. According to the party founding documents received by request from the Public Registry, the Alliance of Patriots’  held its founding congress on 19 December 2012. The congress protocol indicates that the chairman of the organization is David Tarkhan-Mouravi, while identities of secretary general and chairperson of audit commission are concealed and establishing them by these documents is impossible. The party does not have a website where it would be possible to check this data, but media union Obiektivi news call Irma Inashvili the Secretary General of Patriots Alliance[32], while Mamuka Gobechia, who at the moment of the transfer of license (16 August 2013) was board member of media union Obiektivi, is anchoring Politikuri Azri (Political Opinion) TV program by Sundays at 16:30 on Obiektivi and speaks there on behalf of the Alliance of Patriots’ („I am happy to represent this political organization“).[33] Mamuka Gobechia also spoke for the Patriots Alliance on Palitra TV[34] while assessing the local elections of 2014, saying the following: 

Mamuka Gobechia, Allaince of Patriots, Obiektivi anchor: “We [Alliance of Patriots’] are not a new organization… This is a team of people who created media-inion Obiketivi in 2003”.

Annex 3. Charter of the Patriots Alliance, the names of secretary general and chairperson of audit commission are concealed by the Public Registry.

Because the Public Registry does not fully publicize the party’s founding documents it is impossible to establish whether at the time of the transfer of license there was a conflict of interest in the media union Obiektivi, where Irma Inashvili and Mamuka Gobechia already were board members.

Public Register explains its decision by protecting personal information and appeals to the 1^st Part of Article 44 of Georgian administrative code, according to which “public agency must not publicize personal data without the person’s consent, or without the court’s decision in cases envisioned by law”.

Georgian organic law on Political Unions (Article 3) clarifies that creation and activities of a party are based on the following principles:

Basic principles of the foundation and activities of a party:

a) Voluntarity of membership of and withdrawal from party;

c) Elections and accountability;  

e) Publicity of the foundation and activities of a party.

Publicity of the foundation and activities of a party, elections and accountability, and general openness of political process also means openness of identities of the party leadership, which Public Registry interpreted in violation of the law and, along with secretary general and chairperson of audit commission, also concealed identities of members of the party’s 9-person executive agency, which had been elected by the party congress. The Public Registry’s decision is also questionable because the principle of personal data protection has been applied selectively and not in the case of the party’s chairman.

According to the public information available in the media, one of the anchors of Obiektivi talk show Night Studio, Soso Zaalishvili is also member of the Patriots Alliance. In the Voice of America report about the Patriots’ Alliance founding congress (22 December 2012) Soso Zaalishvili spoke as a member of Patriots Alliance and said that the goal of their political organization is the defeat of liberalism in Georgia[35].

According to Obiektivi TV schedule, various programs are also anchored by other members of the Patriots Alliance: Monday (19:30)  - „Literatura, Khelovneba, Suliereba” (Literature, Art, Spirituality) program  - party member Vazha Otarashvili; Tuesday (16:30) -  „Mebrdzol Devnilta Saati“ (Hour of Figting IDPs) – member of the party’s political council Ada Marshania; Sunday (16:30) - „Politikuri Azri“ (Political Opinion) – Mamuka Gobechia, Patriots Alliance. The Chairman of the party David Tarkhan-Mouravi promotes Turkophobic[36] and anti-Western[37] sentiments mostly through Obiektivi broadcasts:

Davit Tarkhan-Mouravi, Alliance of Patriots: “Never during its existence Turkey did any good neither for Georgia, nor for any European country or anyone else in the World. For all its history Turkey was conqueror destroying states and people...  Turkey wants to occupy Georgia again and does not hide this desire”.

Davit Tarkhan-Mouravi, Alliance of Patriots: “Europe actually destroyed Greece, erased its economy, trampled upon its culture, morals, orthodox Christianity… Bondo Mdzinarishvili, presenter: “In other words, this is the fight against Orthodox Christianity.” Davit Tarkhan-Mouravi: “Of course and seeing that, pro-Russian sentiments have been on the rise there because Russia is the Orthodox Christian country too”.

 

5. Other media outlets

Other media outlets notable for the use of hate speech and promotion of anti-Western sentiments also received financing from the budget for placing advertisement in 2013-2014. These outlets include: Sakartvelos Respublika newspaper (63 923, 33 lari), Alia Holding - newspapers Alia and Kviris Chronika (48 650 lari), also Asaval-Dasavali newspaper (1 200 lari).

Sakartvelos Respublika.  The largest financing has been received by Sakartvelos Respublika newspaper, which in the past was printed under the names of “Communist” and “Akhali Sakartvelo”. MDF does not conduct regular monitoring of this newspaper, but content analysis of its several issues, randomly chosen, made clear the homophobic and xenophobic character of its editorial policy. We shall bring several headlines and illustration from Sakartvelos Respublika as an example: “Does the road towards NATO and Europe go through the Georgians’ asses? (corresponding illustration is attached)“[38], "Before we have turned into Sodom and Gomorra" „France turned pederast, Vladimer “the Strong Man” and a lawyer in Nakhalovka”[39], „Will Georgia turn Chinese or Wonderful?“[40]  and others.

The following public agencies have transferred money to this outlets:

Table 3. Value of service agreements signed between public institutions and Sakartvelos Respublika newspaper.

Alia Holding. The state agencies have also service contracts with Alia Holding, the newspapers of which – Alia and Kviris Chronika – are also notable for hate speech, homophobia and anti-Western sentiments. As has been already noted, these data are not full, since as of now the Agricultural Projects’ Management Agency has not complied with the court decision and has not provided information on what funds had been allocated by the Agency for Alia and Kviris Chronika newspapers from the 1 043 845,57  lari the Agency had transferred to the media in 2013-2014.

The following state agencies have contracts with the newspapers in the Alia Holding:

Table 4. Value of service agreements signed between public institutions and Alia Holding.

Asaval-Dasavali. The least financing from the state agencies, according to existing data, has been received by Asaval-Dasavali newspaper, which is the print media leader in hate speech and homophobia. In 2013 Social Service Agency of the Ministry of Labor, Health and Social Affairs signed service contract for 1200 lari for advertisements with Asaval-Dasavali.

6. Conclusions and recommendations

The following issues have been identified by the study:

• Spending of the budgetary funds in media is not transparent, especially regarding the media outlets whose editorial policy is blatantly based on hate speech and various forms of discrimination. Existing practice contradicts international norms which stipulate the states’ anti-discrimination policy.
• In the case of the Public Broadcaster we have a situation when there probably is indirect financing of an Obiektivi TV program anchor at the Public Broadcaster’s expense. There also is a conflict of interest in the case of its Brussels bureau correspondent regarding not only bias of values, but also his party affiliation.
• State agencies violate requirements of the law, according to which they are prohibited from sponsoring TV programs and interfering in editorial decisions. Such relations are often formalized by contracts between the state agencies and media outlets.
• Articles of the General Administrative Code regarding freedom of information in practice meet obstacle in the form of both non-provision of data and, in the case of legal entities of public law and non-profit legal entities, questionable interpretation of legislation.
• Public Registry’s justifications of non-provision of information regarding individuals engaged in public political process by protection of personal data contradict the fundamental principle of publicity of establishment and functioning of political parties.
• Court cases regarding provision of information are prolonged ones, which hinders timely informing the general public.

In order to fix these problems the following is important:

• The government of Georgia and its specific agencies must take into account ECRI recommendations #7 on the national legislation and refrain from signing contracts with the organizations that have discriminatory editorial policy.
• On the basis ECRI recommendations they must work out regulations which make compliance with and support of anti-discrimination policy by the other side a pre-condition for making contracts.
• State agencies must publicize the funds transferred to media for advertisements and publishing of information. They should publish this data on their websites proactively.
• The Public Broadcaster should react on the basis of the Monitoring Council’s recommendations and study the case of conflict of interest.
• Georgian National Communications Commission must effectively monitor compliance with the advertisement legislation, so that all media outlets have equal conditions; particular attention should be paid to the sponsoring of those programs in the cases of which administrative violations have already been found.
• State agencies should not sign contracts that contain obligations which contradict the law and in some cases constitute interference in the editorial activities.
• Public Registry must fully publicize and make accessible online the data on political parties, just like it is in the case of other legal entities.
• The Parliament should review the part of the article on freedom of information of the Administrative Code which regulates access to public information, and decrease the timeframe of hearings of such cases in courts in the interest of timely obtainment of public information.

Annex 4. Tables and charters from annual media monitoring report (February 2014- February 2015).

Attached files:

• Public Funds for Media Promoting Hate Speech and Anti-Western Sentiments

Share: