On February 24, 2017, the Executive Board of the Public Broadcaster issued a statement, which was a response to the Public Defender's statement of 23 February. The text includes several issues to which we would like to respond briefly, by indicating the main arguments:

Discussion about the planned reform does not represent interference with the editorial independence

The Executive Board believes that the opinion expressed by the Public Defender on the closure of the programs creates the sense of interference with the editorial independence, which we consider as groundless. This kind of statement might actually include a wish to carry out a reform at the Public Broadcaster without the involvement of the interested parties, by trying to distance them from the process. The Public Broadcaster cannot act in isolation; it must be interacting with the interested parties, while the reform must be the result of the inclusive democratic process.[1] According to the program priorities of the Public Broadcaster approved by the Board of Trustees (page 3), “For achieving its goals, the Public Broadcaster should cooperate with [...] especially with human rights groups and institutions /including the Public Defender's Office/." It should also be noted that the Public Defender acts within the mandate granted by the Constitution and the law and is independent in his activities, including from political entities.

Programs should not be assessed only according to the rating

According to the Executive Board, programs can be evaluated only according to the rating and no other criteria can be used. They think it is irrelevant to conduct a survey concerning the quality of programs and it is unprofessional to assess the impact of programs that have low ratings.

It should be noted that in 2016, some of the programs were assessed by expert and qualitative panel studies, though the Executive Board did not take them into view. As for the fact that consideration of the impact of the programs that have low ratings is regarded as unprofessional, it must be said that the Public Broadcaster is a broadcaster for "everyone" and "for each person".[2] According to the Board of Trustees, impact is the general benefit brought by the broadcaster (1) for the public and (2) for each person. Therefore, automatic exclusion of the impact assessment due to low rating of programs contradicts the idea of ​​the Public Broadcaster and leaves the small audience without feedback.

We would like to reiterate that rating is important, but not insufficient. Private broadcasters may not finance programs oriented to ethnic, linguistic and other minority groups, as well as on person with disabilities due to the low rating of programs. Such programs are of high importance and that’s why they are considered to be the obligation of the public media. [3]

The credibility of the rating should be a subject of discussion

It was indicated in the Public Defender’s statement that there are questions about the credibilityof the rating in the society. However, the Executive Board alleges there is no reason to consider the reliability of rating assessment. It should be noted that according to the information published by the Transparency International Georgia a few months ago, even one of the members of the Executive Board said that there had been some questions about this issue.[4]

As for the role of the management in the low rating of the programs by putting them on the program timetable, the Executive Board says that in this particular case this has nothing to do with the low rating of programs, and that "in 2016, the program timetable was formed on the basis of a segment-analysis based on very high-quality and costly studies”. We believe that more discussion is needed about this issue and it is also important to publicize the mentioned study and let the public know what guidelines were used by the management in the formation of the program timetable and whether it might be the reason for the low rating.

As for the rating assessment, currently there are two companies on the market which carry out assessment of ratings, and according to the individuals associated with the Public Broadcaster, [5] the results of the companies do not coincide with each other. It should be noted that in 2017 the Public Broadcaster will spent only GEL 1000 on the assessment of ratings. Appropriate technical equipments, the so-called people meters will be installed in all TV sets in at least 400 families. According to the information provided by the rating assessment company[6] to the tender commission, the families were selected by them in 7 cities of Georgia. Of course, the subject of discussion should be whether the data obtained in this way are sufficient grounds for closing down programs.

Protection of the labour legislation is a subject of study for the Public Defender

The Executive Board indicates that the statement of the Public Defender contained factual inaccuracies concerning the signing of 1-month contracts with the part of employees. In his statement the Public Defender directly refers to the reports[7] and does not allege anything. The issue is currently being studied by the Public Defender’s Office. Relevant information was requested from the Public Broadcaster and only after thorough examination of the materials it will be possible to make a final assessment.

The Public Defender is ready to discuss the abovementioned issues at face to face meetings with representatives of both the Executive Board and the Board of Trustees.