On February 24, the Georgian Dream proposed two legislative amendments to the Law on Broadcasting: the first would ban foreign funding of audio-visual broadcasters, while the second would end self-regulation by giving sweeping powers to the Communication Commission (ComCom) to control broadcasting content.

One of the leaders of the Georgian Dream, Mamuka Mdinaradze, earlier claimed that the amendments would be based “on the British model.” The draft amendments are to be discussed at a normal pace, without the fast-track procedure. The one-party parliament is expected to pass the amendments in the coming months.

The draft amendments to the broadcasting law were initiated and authored by the following GD and People’s Power MPs: Archil Gorduladze, Tornike Cheishvili, Rati Ionatamishvili, Davit Matikashvili, Guram Macharashvili, Alexandre Tabatadze, Tengiz Sharmanashvili, Aluda Ghudushauri, Viktor Japaridze, Nodar Turdzeladze, Irma Zavradashvili, Levan Machavariani, Ramina Beradze, Irakli Kirtskhalia, Salome Jinjolava, Tornike Berekashvili, Genrieta Tsitsava, Mamuka Mdinaradze.

Ban on Foreign Funding

The explanatory note attached to the amendments states they “will help reduce the influence of foreign powers in shaping public opinion through broadcasters.” The amendments align with a wider trend of GD restricting foreign funding to non-state actors.

“Broadcasters are prohibited from receiving direct or indirect funding (money or other material benefits) from foreign entities,” the draft states. It adds that this does not apply to commercial advertising, teleshopping, sponsorship, or product placement.

When adopted, “foreign entities” will also be forbidden from “purchasing services” from broadcasters apart from the mentioned commercial placements. They will also be unable to fund the preparation or airing of the broadcasts. In addition, the draft amendments prohibit the broadcasters from receiving any “direct or indirect funding” in exchange for placing social ads.

For the law, “foreign entities” are representatives of foreign governments, non-Georgian citizens, legal entities not established in Georgia, and other organizations such as foundations, associations, companies, networks, or unions established under foreign jurisdiction or international law.

End of self-regulation on content

Another part of the draft changes empowers the Communications Commission and imposes restrictions on broadcasting content.

Restricting of self-regulation

Previous broadcasting legislation left key issues of media ethics to self-regulatory bodies. The amendment to Article 14 considerably weakens the self-regulatory regime and gives ComCom sweeping powers to decide on the content and arbitrate libel claims. This effectively abolishes the privacy of self-regulation in favor of ComCom.

The journalists have previously accused  ComCom of making “unjustified” and “politically motivated” decisions in favor of the ruling party and denounced the Commission’s attempts to regulate the broadcasting of “obscenity.”

Subsequent amendments specify the rules related to the content, many of which were previously set out in the Code of Ethics and arbitrated through self-regulation.

Provisions on accuracy

The amendments to the Article 52 require broadcasters to:

• ensure “adequate accuracy and without prejudice,”
• take “all reasonable measures” to avoid spreading false or misleading information,
• correct “important factual mistakes” publicly and immediately, in a proportional format,
• cite the source for all statistical data,
• identify all sources of information, and clearly state that the source is anonymous if that cannot be avoided.

The interested parties whose “lawful interests,” including reputation, were affected by incorrect or inaccurate facts could appeal to ComCom and demand to correct or refute these facts within ten days, in a proportional format and length, at approximately the same airtime when the original statements were made. It is specified that this provision applies to facts only and does not extend to opinions.

The refusal of the broadcaster to issue refutal or correction can be appealed at the ComCom or the court.

Provisions on Just and Impartial Coverage

The amendments to Article 54 would oblige the broadcasters to “ensure the principles of just and impartial coverage” by:

• clearly separating the facts and commentary in news programs,
• banning the participation of the political appointee or a political party member in news or information program as an anchor, interviewer or journalist,
• ensuring due balance of opinion in each news program or the cycle of programs. If the cycle of programs covers different views in each broadcast, this should be clearly stated,
• coverage of the political or other types of disputes based on the opinion or attitude of the broadcaster is prohibited. Broadcasters are banned from supporting or opposing views of political parties, civic organizations, religious entities, or other groups of interest.
• anchor-led (authors’) programs should be clearly labeled as such and “adequately represent” notable alternative opinions, which should be represented justly, and not misinterpreted,
• a broadcaster shall treat each participant of the programs with due justice and respect,
• if someone is accused in the broadcast, they should be given the opportunity of a timely and due response,
• if only one interested party is invited to clarify their position on a matter of public interest, this shall not be used for “attacking” the groups that are not represented during the broadcast.
• call-ins should be selected with due respect to the diversity of public opinion and avoid manipulation of public opinion.

Inviolability of private life

The new Article 54¹ stipulates the inviolability of privacy by broadcasters. It stipulates that the privacy and internal affairs of the legal entities can be covered only “to protect the lawful interests of the society, in proportion to achieving this aim, and only if the protected public good is superior to the harm inflicted though the violation.”

The amendments specify that:

• Video or audio recordings on private or public property shall only be made with the prior permission of the authorized persons unless the public interest justifies such recording without permission.
• Recording at education establishments, hospitals, prisons, police, and ambulances is permitted only with the express consent of the persons being filmed/recorded and the persons that could be visible unless this is justified by public interest.
• Private contact details may not be unveiled unless an overwhelming public interest exists.
• Interviewing and recording are permitted in public places, but before broadcast, it must be ensured that no such elements of private life are accidentally revealed that may require prior consent.
• Broadcasters are prohibited from filming or distributing footage of victims of tragic accidents or personal tragedies, including those filmed in public spaces, unless express permission is granted.
• Distressed persons should not be forced to respond unless there is an overwhelming public interest.
• Victims should not be identified until the families have been notified unless there is an overwhelming public interest.
• Broadcasters must take all reasonable measures to ensure that their footage or recordings or those obtained from a third party do not violate privacy.

Covert recording

The regulations amended as Article 54² stipulate that covert recording is only permitted in cases of high public interest and if there are reasonable grounds to suspect that such recording would lead to unveiling new factual proof necessary for the subject of coverage. Covert reporting is also permitted as a part of the sociological study when other methods are ineffective, and in comedy programs, if and when this does not cause excessive distress and if prior permission is sought before the broadcasting of such content.

Phone calls can only be recorded with prior consent and broadcasted with prior consent. Interviews or phone calls can only be recorded without prior permission if an open recording would jeopardize the journalistic investigation.

Covering armed conflict, accidents, or other emergencies

Amended Article 55³ stipulates that when covering armed conflict, accidents, or emergencies, the broadcaster shall take utmost care to balance the public interest against the “legitimate expectation to the protection of privacy.” The broadcasters shall also take all reasonable measures so that the lives and security of kidnapped persons, hostages, etc., or the measures to liberate them are not endangered by the coverage.

Covering underage persons

Amended article 56⁴ calls on broadcasters to take special measures to protect the privacy of persons under 18 years of age. They can only participate in broadcasts with permission from their parents or legal guardians and shall never be asked to express their opinions on issues that are beyond their physical or mental capacities. No permission is necessary if such participation is “negligible” or justified by public interest.

Reacting to violations

Article 59¹ of the law is to be amended so that the violations of the newly amended articles above, as well as the pre-existing articles related to content and the previously adopted ethical norms or standards, can be addressed via self-regulation mechanisms (as before) or the ComCom (as amended).

Since the law or the amendments do not stipulate which body has precedence or priority, this amendment would effectively transform ComCom into a regulatory body for broadcasting content.

The article maintains the old provision that the self-regulatory bodies’ decisions (apart from those related to inciting violence or terrorism) can not be appealed, including at the ComCom.

The amended subparagraph 3 of the same article gives ComCom the authority to impose sanctions for violating the content rules. These sanctions may include fines, as well as suspension or withdrawal of the broadcasting licence.