Newsroom

Caucasian Media Conference Inspires Debates on Professional Standards

At the 4th annual South Caucasus Media Conference in Tbilisi, journalists, editors and NGOs from three South Caucasian countries stressed the need for a self-regulating body and self-regulation standards, but they also noted that they are currently absent or inadequately functioning in these countries.

OSCE held South Caucasus Media Conference in Tbilisi, on October 11-12. Media representatives and NGOs debated about media quality and freedom, responsibilities of the media, ethical standards of journalists, the institution of the media ombudsman and other related issues.

A self-regulatory mechanism for the media was the focus at this year’s conference. Media self-regulation is crucial to maintain high standards of professionalism in the media, to protect the interest of those who are covered by the media, to make sure that journalists uphold the ethics code, and thus to better serve public interests. A media self-regulatory body is meant to ensure the media’s accountability and improve journalism practices by defining clear standards on the functions, rights and duties of journalists and provide sanctions in case of non-compliance.

Azerbaijan has a kind of self-regulatory body called the Press Council. Aflatun Amashov, Chairman of the Azerbaijani Press Council said it is currently working effectively. Aflatun Amashov said the press council has received 1000 complaints and made decisions on 400 of them. The Press Council has also forced a number of newspapers to apologize for slander and biased reporting, Amashov noted.

A media council is still in an embryonic state in Armenia. It is an experimental body- not formalized but rather, just a volunteer creation of two dozen media companies. Armenian journalists say that the formalization of the council is likely to follow this year.

“When it shapes into a serious organization we then can announce that we have a press council. There are quite a number of complaints about journalism standards. So, we have enough materials for work,” Boris Navasardian, President of Yerevan Press Club told Georgian Times.

Tamara Shamil, Civil Society Expert, Caucasus Institute for Peace, Democracy, and Development, found a unique epithet for Georgia’s Media Council- calling it “Sleeping Beauty” as she described its failure to transform into a viable body. She explained how the council was created and how it is faring now.

Georgia’s media council was established in 2005, and five TV stations, four newspapers, 11 regional media organizations and three NGOs have joined. But its credibility was challenged right away. Four newspapers - Akhali Versia, Alia, Khvalindeli Dghe and Rezonansi - have refused to join the council. Since the proposal for a media council came from the government associated Liberty Institute NGO, those dissident newspapers allege that the Media Council would act to fulfill instructions from the government.

Besides credibility, Media Council faces financial challenges. The OSGF supported the Media Council in 2006 but as funding from the donor ceased, Media Council stopped functioning because its founders were reluctant to pay a membership fee. Last year, six complaints were filed to the Media Council, five of which it considered. But according to Irex’s Media Sustainability Index 2006-2007, “The council failed the first test in nonpartisanship and independence, according to many. Corporate and political interests mingled during the review process.”

Why are self-regulation mechanisms not working in the South Caucasus? Shamil said one of the reasons is the apparent reluctance of editors-publishers, journalists, public authorities to have one. Shamil said that it’s a cultural problem- journalists in these three countries do not want to admit that they make mistakes.

“The issue of media ethics is not relevant,” says Shamil. “The media responds to the needs of the society. There is no demand from the society now to raise the ethical standards. The Georgian media is now oriented on narrow nationalistic ideas rather than on liberal values,” Shamil explained.

Arif Aliyev, Chairman of Yeni Nasil NGO, named three ways the Media Council can become functional:

“Firstly, society should be ready to accept the Media Council. Public opinion must mature enough to require high standards of journalism and increase media accountability. Secondly, journalists themselves should be ready to set self-regulatory mechanisms. Journalists are fragmentized today, divided into sects and they have no common principles. Thirdly, there should be an inner movement. Unless journalists set the standards and norms themselves, then the government will do it and the blow will be more painful.”

Boris Navasardian, President of Yerevan Press Club, warned however of overdoing the self-regulatory norms. “Some media professionals sometimes try to blame journalists who make material more expressive, sensational,” Boris Navasardian said in an interview with GT, “While if we are speaking on journalism as a life profession, we have to understand that sometimes a sensational component is very much needed. This is a product which should be sold and journalists have to find a good package for it. That is why journalists should be involved in creation of press councils and their voice should be heard.”

In more general terms, the lack of finances is the key challenge for media organizations in the South Caucasus. Conference participants noted that little money means little editorial independence for the media. The print media in all the three South Caucasian countries are again going through hard times. Although there is diversity in the newspapers, their print runs are low. The advertising market is not big and the press gets only a small piece of the pie prompting the owners to search for alternative funding from political groups.

Although belief in the independence of Georgian media has been marred by the latest war between two Georgian TV channels Rustavi 2 and Imedi, Georgian experts think that there is a higher level of media freedom in Georgia than in many other places.

Shamil said, “Although Rustavi 2 and Imedi TV Channels have become a kind of political actors rather than unbiased observers, I think other media outlets are more or less unbiased. There is almost no direct censorship on the journalists- in the capital of Tbilisi at least.”

Keti Khachidze
2007.10.15 13:24

E-mail this page

This article was originally published by The Georgian Times.