GPB Board of Trustees Fails Exam
A recently stirred flurry around GPB has come to an end without any surprise. The board has complied with its duties and picked out a candidate who is supposed to carry on the existent GPB policy without alterations. Strange enough, but just as it turned out in the case of selecting the Ombudsman, the society hoped a worthy candidate to assume the post. Chanturia’s resignation marked fairly versatile spectrum of 143 candidates, from mechanical engineers to cashier-operators , aspiring to replace him at GPB. Reading their personal data was of special interest: Not to mention the e-mail address names (email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org etc.), statuses given in nonstandard fonts in parti-colored CVs with Georgian flags filling in the background and so on. Some even applied just for the sake of having fun. As concerns the society, it has unanimously considered Natia Abramia the best candidate of all. So taking into consideration the experience of BBC producer, everybody hoped the Board of Trustees will not overlook the point in such an explicit manner, especially when the process of interviewing the candidates was live broadcasted for the people to follow.
Both the interview and debates have revealed Abramia as the most suitable candidate, but the Board of Trustees apparently picked out the new director judging by their own unique criteria.
We all agree that replacement of a single person doesn’t affect the general situation. That requires change of the entire system. In the case of the Public Broadcaster, everyone, be it competent, incompetent or amateur individuals, believe the board to be the problem.
It’s hard not agree with such rationale when, after having the new director general selected, one of the board members, in order to provide the reasoning behind the decision, names the example of Channel 2 being the television of high standards ensuring the highest quality solely due to the personal merits of Baratashvili. The BBC producer’s professional experience is not of less value, as explained, but the advantage at making the decision was given to the experience of Channel 2.
Perhaps, according to the board’s logic Channel 2 truly meets standards described by Giorgi Meladze, yet the Georgian viewers seem unaccustomed to fully apprehend them (as clearly suggested in the rating). Thus in case the new director is going to operate the Public Broadcaster “based on the principles of Channel 2,” the viewers used to “low standards” will not appreciate the programs of “such a high level of quality and standards”, the circumstance leading to another fiasco for the GPB (something of little concern to everybody, just as it happened in the previous cases).
The society, along with the board, director and other staff members, play important role in the process of formation of GPB. The fact that many applied in a facetious manner demonstrated the light-headed attitude they have for the television, which is a good example of people’s attitude toward the board but, on the other hand, showcases a grave problem.
Sometimes a thought of GPB being a scapegoat for everyone’s cursing and criticism crosses my mind, yet nobody wants to bother themselves to find the ways of its improvement. The fact is certain that regardless the conversations of didactic incline touching upon the functions and duties of GPB, the viewers don’t seem to be seriously concerned with the matter. Apparently because a great number of them is unaware of the concepts and duties of the Public Broadcaster. The GPB management plays important role for the television’s marginalization, so when talking about the channel’s reputation, a highly recommended thing to do is to explain to the people, in the first place, the duties we all have a right of being informed of.
The elections held at Channel 1 has left many people frustrated. To say the truth, however, the different decision from that kind of board would have been even more miraculous. In all probability GPB will carry on its monotonous existence in the regime of making “products of high standards and quality.” As concerns the board, the issue of its reformation should be addressed with great care, as the odds are high the alteration entails opposite kind of extremes-the situation of political “benefit” for certain party, having negative effects on the television and society.
The most reasonable aspect of the processes taking place in the course of last few days, the way I personally see it, is the list of candidates, their professional experience, and number of applicants for the vacancy of director-the people that have applied either seriously or just for the hack of it.
The great number of submitted CVs turned into a subject of general discussion, mockery and jesting, though I believed and still believe this is the most appropriate attitude toward the Public Broadcaster, as the ridiculous working experience of applicants wishing to fill in the vacancy of the director is in full compliance with the standards and condition of today’s GPB.