During the night air of April 27, the Founder of the Objective media union Irma Inashvili applied to the Objective’s direction with the request to close the media union. The direction had granted Inashvili’s demand and ceased the broadcasting the same night. On April 29, the direction, however, decided to resume the broadcasting and launched the process of reorganization. According to the direction, the Objective is going to have new management that will entail changes in the format of the programs, replacement of the anchors and development of a new programming net. The Objective is going to continue to abide by the principles of a public broadcaster and develop a new form for the reception of telephone calls.”- As regards Inashvili, she has left the position of the Objective’s Manager.
Why has she demanded the closure of the Objective? Why did she leave during the ongoing process of reorganization and where is she going now?- Irma Inashvili gives Media.Ge her answers to these and other questions.
Mrs. Irma, how did you arrive at the conclusion that is was necessary to close the Objective?
I believe that the society started misusing the model that I’d proposed to the Objective as its manager. The model implied the concept of a public broadcaster, interactive television, where non of the incoming call were supposed to be blocked, despite that many would throw remarks at me that I had connection to politics, especially after Bidzina Ivanishvili’s statement, when he mentioned me within the context of a third political party. Those who were watching the Objective would have noticed that nearly all the politicians had been presented and that the tendency was meant to continue in the future.
I’ve been watching the Objective during the last month and came to the conclusion that the free airtime of the program had been misused. Organized groups had been established by the order of certain political groups in order to make calls during the program and discredit their opponents. The circumstance that we didn’t block any of the telephone calls that we were receiving during the program, gave rise to another problem – there were many insults, swearing and abuse, which was unacceptable for me. I saw that the model that I envisioned had entailed such problem. People ask me whether my decision is related to the elections- it does, but indirectly. It’s related to the pre-election period, to those pre-arranged calls that our program started to receive in bulk two weeks earlier before the elections.
I as well thought that a new concept should be adopted on the Channel- the Objective’s door was open to many anchors. There were human rights defenders, representatives of youth movements, people of different profession, that hosted the program, but many of them didn’t comply with the television standards –another aspect that my colleagues will have to set right. The concept and style of the channel must be further refined and qualified anchors selected.
Why did you decide to close the Objective instead of reorganizing it?
I applied to the direction with the request to close the Objective, and they did so. To make this pause was necessary in order to make society consider its readiness to accept a model of free television. The people frequently criticized televisions for not being free, that they were blocking their calls! Now they had a free television, and what did they do with it? The current team is going to develop forms of call reception and strategy that allows us being interactive, and to avoid undeserved insults and swearing during airtime.
The truth to say, I have as well received a great deal of insults outside the program during the last six months, including the opinion that it was my ingratitude that had entailed my decision.
Why did the direction decided that the channel must continue functioning?
We receive a great number of calls, many come personally, and we feel obliged to allow for the interests of society and satisfy them. Hence the decision to continue.
Why did you leave the post of the Objective’s manager?
What I wanted to show with my resignation, was that one must leave when an unsolvable problem occurs. One of the aspects of the problem was that my personality was making difficulties to the Objective, as people were saying that the manager is involved in politics, that she makes political statements. It’s all nonsense in the long run, as all the channels are partisans one way or another, yet the difference was that they, unlike me, never invited political opponents. Sometimes you’re just tired and want to do something new. So I entrust my post to new people. Taking to consideration all that circumstances, the direction decided to satisfy my notice of resignation. Given the fact of the Objective’s enjoying a large audience, the direction decided to reformat the program, which is going to be accomplished within one week, and continue broadcasting.
Where are going now? Perhaps in politics?
I quit the Objective, but I will consult them if case they need it, but the new team seems strong enough to get along without my assistance. I think that now I will benefit more from the status of a free journalist- without being attached to any organization, considering the fact of my uncompromising nature and inability to make allowances. Yet for the sake of the Objective, I made some trade-offs and silenced myself in certain situations, but I don’t want it any more. My first announcement is that the next week I’m going to name those who had undeservedly reviled at me, including those who were doing it because I had circulated the prison footage. I rule out the possibility to come to the politics, at least for now, but I don’t think that something will make change my mind in the future.
Who’s the current manager of the Objective?
The direction is currently executing the duties, but they’ll select the proper candidature to fill in the vacancy in the future.