Categories
Journalistic Survey
Articles
Reportage
Analitic
Photo Reportage
Exclusive
Interview
Foreign Media about Georgia
Editorial
Position
Reader's opinion
Blog
Themes
Children's Rights
Women's Rights
Justice
Refugees/IDPs
Minorities
Media
Army
Health
Corruption
Elections
Education
Penitentiary
Religion
Others

Article 19 advises the authors of “Broadcasting Code of Conduct”

December 13, 2006

Article 19 advises the authors of “Broadcasting Code of Conduct” to screen the compatibility of the Code with the internationally protected right to freedom of expression

Influential international human rights NGO Article 19 advises the Georgian authors of “Broadcasting Code of Conduct” to screen the compatibility of the Code with the internationally protected right to freedom of expression, since the code is legally binding.  

The provisions which limit the freedom of expression must be formulated in a clear and precise language which will enable citizens, including broadcasting journalists to regulate their conduct.

The comments and recommendations of Article 19 are published on the website of this organization (the link can be found on media.ge website) in August, which means that the NGO had expressed criticism before the public discussions of the code started and the document obtained its current form.
In its comments Article 19 points out that in the project there is no distinction made between hard-and-fast rules and good practice principles, which are supposed to guide the work of journalists, but in case of violation are not punished by sanctions.

Article 19 recommends to “clearly distinguish between rules intended to be directly enforceable and good practice principles, which are supposed to guide the work of journalists”.

The international organization also points out that the Code is a “loose patchwork of loosely connected excerpts which would be difficult, if not impossible, to apply in practice”.

According to Article 19 one of the most obvious deficiencies of the Code is that in many cases same subjects are scattered across different sections. Also, there are frequent repetitions and contradictions between different sections. Therefore, Article 19 notes, the Code must be transformed into a more precise legal form and must be divided into chapters, articles and sub-clauses, which will make it a more user-friendly document.

The recommendations and comments of Article 19 address the following issues:

The Code regulates “broadcasters” conduct, but it neither limits its field of application to only broadcasters, nor gives a precise definition of the term “broadcaster”. According to the Law on Broadcasting the term “broadcaster” refers to license holder. It is necessary to point this out in the provision which defines the scope of the Code. Otherwise citizens might mistakenly make complaints about non-license holders, such as Internet broadcasters, foreign TV broadcasters and other types of media, for instance newspapers.

Another serious concern is the fact that the Code exceeds its permitted scope. Even though the Law on Broadcasting does not specify limits of the Code in relation to license holders, it should not be used as a cart-blanche for interfering in any activities of broadcasters. The code should only regulate those aspects which are directly connected to the use of the license. It is not appropriate to interfere in other activities, for instance to regulate the material used by broadcasters’ newspapers.

In chapter VI it is required to remove the provision which is intended for regulating broadcaster websites. There is a fundamental distinction between the regulation of broadcasting and the regulation of the Internet. The holder of a broadcast license has been granted a special facility by the
State – the right to exploit part of the electromagnetic spectrum. As for websites, they can be started by anyone; hence it is not connected to the use of license and consequently its regulation can not be justified.

Other parts of the Code exceed its permitted scale as well. The best illustrations of this are the provisions which aim to guarantee journalist rights. While journalist rights definitely need to be guaranteed, it must be provided by a much more competent law than the Code.

Equally difficult issues are raised by the provisions which deal with the internal practices of broadcasters. Of course a certain degree of regulation may be necessary to ensure that programming truly serves the public interest, presents reliable information and avoids the use of unethical methods for gathering information, but on the other hand it must not limit the broadcaster autonomy in managing its own company.

It must be emphasized that the fragments of internal practices of the Code are borrowed from BBC and CBC internal codes. Internal codes quite differ from normative acts. Also, both these companies are public broadcasters who are expected to observe higher standards than regular broadcasters. For this reason it is appropriate to review how suitable these standards are for being included in the Code.

Also special attention should be paid to chapter VII (Personnel Standards). Of course it is desirable that the license holders establish internal rules which will prevent conflict of interests amongst their staff, but Commission interference in minor issues such as hiring decisions, regulation of acceptance of gifts by journalists and so on will be ineffective and will divert Commission resources from its primary objective.

Recommendations

• A provision should be added to the draft Code, early on, defining its scope of application as being limited to license-holders
• A provision should be added to the draft Code, early on, defining its scope of application as being limited to license holders.
• All provisions which seek to regulate the way license holders manage their websites should be removed from the draft Code.
• All provisions which seek to regulate the rights and obligations of non-license holders should be removed from the draft Code.
• All provisions taken from internal practice codes of media outlets should be reviewed for their suitability for enforcement by the Commission. This applies particularly to Chapter VII.

Article 19 also advises the authors to take into consideration that some of the rules will be more difficult for small broadcasters. “Consideration should be given to adopting the model followed in some countries, such as Australia, where small broadcasters are exempted from less vital parts of the Code”, Article 19 advises.

Source: media.ge

News