While protecting the interests of citizens, providing accurate and factual information is the primary duty of media outlets, the Media Council of Mongolia reminded.

The Ethics Committee for Radio and Television of the MCM held its meeting for the second quarter of 2025 on June 10 and discussed four complaints.

I. Information was distorted and source statements were misrepresented

On March 14, the website Neguun.mn livestreamed under the titles “Indranil Dental Clinic Cut Under Patient’s Jaw and Made a Mistake” and “Did the Dentist at Indranil Dental Clinic Make a Mistake but Blame the Patient?”

Following these broadcasts, the Indranil clinic submitted a complaint to the MCM. The complaint stated that although the dentist had not made any incision, the journalist claimed, “On Lunar New Year’s Day, a patient came in, and the dentist cut under their jaw and made a serious mistake.”

The complainant noted that when they called the newsroom to clarify that this information was false and requested a correction, they were blocked. Even though the patient said that the incision had been made at the First Hospital, the broadcasts were titled “Indranil Dental Clinic Cut Under Patient’s Jaw and Made a Mistake.”

The complainant further pointed out that when the patient came to Indranil Dental Clinic for a tooth extraction, the clinic advised that the tooth did not need extraction and could be treated, and referred the patient to the First Hospital, where the patient later received appropriate treatment. They claimed that such false information amounted to defamation, causing reputational harm to the clinic.

In its response to the MCM on April 22, the newsroom stated that a civil court case had been initiated regarding the livestream.

After reviewing the complaint, the Ethics Committee for Radio and Television concluded that the newsroom distorted the source’s statements, used misleading headlines, and failed to give the medical staff an opportunity to explain the situation. The complainant had also contacted the newsroom by phone to clarify that the information and headline were inaccurate and requested a correction, but this was not accepted.

Based on these findings, the Committee determined that the newsroom violated Articles 1.1, 1.8, and 1.9 of the Media Ethics Codes.

II. Information was not substantiated with sources and evidence

The website Zuv.mn published an article titled “Jenko’s Unjust Court Network Still Not Dismantled”, which the civil courts of Bayangol, Khan-Uul, and Songinokhairkhan districts claimed defamed judges and the judiciary, misled the public, undermined trust in the court, and spread one-sided false information.

The article disclosed the judge’s name, position, and photo in relation to an unresolved case, creating the impression that the court was acting under orders from specific individuals.

After reviewing the complaint, the Committee concluded that the newsroom reported on an unresolved case while pre-judging the judge as corrupt, labeling the judiciary as unjust, and disseminating unsubstantiated claims. The newsroom failed to verify these claims with reliable sources such as open data, oral or written evidence, and instead spread opinions without evidence that seriously damaged reputations.

It was determined that Articles 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.5, and 1.6 of the Media Ethics Codes were violated.

III. Failure to verify accuracy and avoid errors

MIG Insurance LLC submitted a complaint against Neguun.mn, claiming that although the company was resolving issues related to an insurance case and compensation was being processed normally, the newsroom secretly filmed and edited a one-sided broadcast titled “Will MIG Insurance Continue to Harm Its Clients?”, which spread false information.

After reviewing the case, the Committee found that the insurance matter was still being resolved and compensation was indeed scheduled for March 10, but the newsroom visited on March 7 and published a livestream with the misleading headline.

Therefore, the newsroom was found to have violated Article 1.1 of the Media Ethics Codes.

IV. Secretly filming despite refusal to give interviews

Neguun.mn also published reports titled “MIG Insurance Produces Unstated Terms in the Contract and Tells Clients to Sue” and “Does MIG Insurance Deceive Citizens into Contracts?”

MIG Insurance LLC employee Ch.N submitted a complaint, stating that although he had refused to give an interview or consent to audio/video recording, the newsroom secretly recorded and released footage, edited it in a misleading way, and spread one-sided information that damaged reputations.

The Committee found that the newsroom secretly recorded and disseminated the footage despite the refusal, thus violating Article 1 of the Media Ethics Codes.

Appendix – Cited Provisions from the Media Ethics Codes

• 1 – Delivering factual information to the public with respect for humanity and dignity is the supreme value of journalism. Verification of information is a core principle of professional journalism.

• 1.1 – Verify the accuracy of information and avoid careless errors.

• 1.2 – Seek to check the reliability of sources and identify them clearly.

• 1.3 – Ensure that headlines, images, video, audio, graphics, and quotations do not mislead, oversimplify, or distort context.

• 1.5 – Distinguish between fact and opinion; avoid inserting opinions into news reports.

• 1.6 – Label unverified information, assumptions, and hearsay as such.

• 1.8 – Give those accused or criticized the opportunity to respond.

• 1.9 – Promptly correct inaccurate information once established as false.

Prepared by: O. Duurenjargal, Specialist, Media Council of Mongolia