By not challenging the homophobic views of Malkhaz Gulashvili (pictured), the Georgian Times Media owner, during a television interview, Kavkasia TV journalist Aleko Elisashvili apparently violated Article 7 of the journalist charter of Georgia (the country, not the state), which has Inclusive Foundation president Paata Sabelashvili filing complaints over the network encouraging discrimination. Heh. Imagine if the United States had similar journalism ethics provisions; CNN would be buried in paperwork.
Malkhaz Gulashvili apparently went beyond just talking about Georgia-Russia relations during the debates. He touched on Church and state relations, criticised the Government for what he called its ‘pseudo-liberal’ values and said that that there is an “unruly propaganda for profanity, for instance homosexuals and lesbians” in Georgia.
Aleko Elisashvili, the host of the programme, interrupted Gulashvili and asked him to let them (homosexuals) alone, which induced giggles in the studio guests, and the discussion shifted back to politics. The debate weaved back to the issues of homosexuality and same sex marriage later but the anchor did not comment this time, giving other guests the opportunity to express opinions. This is where his fault lay, according to Sabelashvili.
jason
“Homosexuals and lesbians”???? LOL. Can’t these retards understand simple definitions? Lesbians are homosexuals. There is no such thing as “homosexuals and lesbians”.
Dodgy
I sincerely the imposition of a code of ethics of this nature in Georgia, and journalists’ obvious desire to be seen to be being responsible in their reporting and discussion of such sensitive topics and handling of such abhorrent views.
On the other hand, there is a second edge to many swords and this is one of those swords, particularly if those, appointed or self appointed, who look to have the codes applied.
If one is overzealous in the prosecution of such a code then does this not run the inevitable risk of stifling any discussion of LGBT issues, or, indeed, any issues of discrimination? Which journalist would be willing to tackle an issue if (s)he was forced, every time they attempted to do so, to inspect every word in excruciating detail, to guard every word spoken in a round table discussion, to interrupt every discussion between guests to repeatedly challenge a discriminatory comment, regardless of whether it was challenged elsewhere or not? Who could be bothered with the hassle.
Far better, is in not, to allow some freedom of the flow of natural discussion, and suffer the occasional insult to one’s sensibilities than to find oneself cut out of the media altogether.