The meeting discussed a total of eight complaints and resolved six of them. According to the Complaint Procedure, it's decided to discuss the other two complaints by a joint committee and discuss them by forming the Trust Committee. It was the first time these two articles were practiced.
 
The MCM has two committees – Ethics Committee of Radio and Television, Ethics Committee of Print and Online Media. According to article 7.2 of the Complaint Procedure, if a complainant requests to re-discuss the Ethics Committee's decision, it shall be discussed by the Joint Committee of two Ethics Committee.

It’s decided to resolve one complaint according to the article 5.7 of the Complaint Procedure, which stated that “The Media Council of Mongolia shall have a Trust Committee for affirming professional responsibility mentioned in the article 8 of the Media Codes of Ethics. The Trust Committee shall hand over information about the source received from a complainant and a defendant to the Ethics Committee without losing its reliability. The collected information shall be protected. The Trust Committee includes Committee Chairmen and Executive Director of the MCM. The Trust Committee member can be replaced by an additional representative in case of any conflict of interest happens. The Trust Committee shall decide whether the Committee will receive a complaint before discussing the complaint when related parties make a request.
Forming a Trust Committee was a newly amended article in the regulation in 2019.

One. Urug.mn’s article about “Erdenet” Mining Corporation not breached any ethics

Urug.mn, a news website, published an investigative story titled "Erdenet corporation's money doesn't groan and willful people” on February 6, 2020. In the article, it's reported that "Sod Mongol" group, which participated in bidding for supplying fuel announced by Erdenet Mining Corporation, won the bidding with the cooperation of Erdenet Mining Corporation's management. 
But “Sod Mongol” group submitted a complaint to the MCM because they considered that urug.mn did not verify the facts mentioned in the article, misreported the group’s activities and defamed its reputation, also by taking professional advantage, they disseminated false information.

The Committee discussed previously mentioned article and concluded that urug.mn reported it in compliance with journalism ethics. Notably, first, a journalist used written sources such as "transactions on 'Glass' account," "Procurement suggestions and backgrounds” document, and clearly stated that using these documents. Second, the journalist analyzed it based on facts, and the article was not over exaggerated; third, the journalist reported the article based on his/her collected information. Therefore, the Committee concluded that urug.mn did not breach “Misuse of information, slandering or libeling others and using information for the personal purpose taking advantage of one's profession are not acceptable. Bribe in any form in consideration of either publication or suppression of information shall be rejected”.

Two. Zarig.mn made no mistake
A citizen E.B delivered a complaint on reporting titled “G resident of Orkhon aimag was stabbed with a knife and severely injured. But a criminal is escaping by talking about ‘tunnel’” on January 30, 2020, at the zarig.mn. 
The complainant said that “zarig.mn defamed his/her reputation by disclosing a case which is still under investigation and not yet decided by a court via its report on purpose due to political reasons. I feel hurt because zarig.mn’s journalist defamed me by calling a criminal on his/her Facebook page since a day it’s reported. But zarig.mn did not deliver any explanation regarding this complaint.  
Zarig.mn cited a victim, who is under investigation of related legal authority, and a prosecutor, who is working on that case, in its reporting. Thus, zarig.mn informed that the case has prolonged without any decisions.
The citizen E.B’s complaint has no grounds because the report has no advocacy features. It included the victim's talk and the prosecutor's clarification.

Three. Websites disseminate misinformation
On January 25, 2020, ulsturch.mn and one more website reported the same-titled news – “Brief meeting has been held for releasing D.Jigjidnyamaa and B.Tsogtgerel in Moscow.” A Legal Department at Ulaanbaatar Railway delivered a complaint saying that this information is misinformation, not accurate. These two websites explained that they did not verify the news when they get it from other news websites.
Therefore, the Committee concluded that these two websites breached article 1.1 of the Media Ethics Codes - "To verify accuracy of information whether it complies truth and avoid making accidental errors.” It's decided not to disclose one website's name because they asked apologies and stated that they would correct their mistake in their explanation letter.

Four. Information about a prosecutor of Dundgovi aimag breached several codes
General Prosecutor’s Office of Mongolia delivered a complaint regarding a report titled “O.Bat-Erdene, a governer of Dundgovi aimag, and S.Ganselem, head of the Prosecutor's Office are under investigation" which was published on January 28, 2020, at "Undesnii shuudan” newspaper.

A complainant wrote that any information about prosecutor S.Ganselem has no grounds; disseminating misinformation defamed the Prosecutor's Office and prosecutors' reputation, and it affected prosecutors' independency in its complaint. "Undesnii shuudan” newspaper stated that they don’t think it is misinformation because they obtained the information from “reliable source” in their explanation letter. 
But a Prosecutor’s Office examines any investigated cases according to valid laws and regulations in Mongolia and decides whether to hand over cases to court stage or not.

It’s concluded that following Media Ethics Codes were breached: article 1.1 – To verify accuracy of information whether it complies truth and avoid making accidental errors – was breached because the Prosecutor’s Office which holds above mentioned legal power denied the information in the report; also information source was not mentioned in the report; thus article 1.2 – To identify sources clearly and check their reliability – was breached; article 1.6 – Unconfirmed information, rumors or word of mouth shall be clearly mentioned as assumptions – was breached because sources did not verify illegal actions specified in the report; article 1.8 – People who are criticized or accused shall be given an opportunity to comment – was breached because an accused public servant or authority was not provided any chance to comment for verification, or accuracy.

Five. The third statement of Media Ethics Codes was breached
Zayed Kamal, a Syrian citizen, delivered a complaint regarding the article titled "The threat of radicalism under our nose," which published on June 27, 2019, in "UB Post" newspaper. "UB Post" asked to reject or postpone discussing the complaint due to the reason to consider the complainant also submitted a claim at legal authority. The Committee postponed two times to discuss the complaint by considering UB Post's explanation letter. The Committee resolved the complaint because a primary court decided the case. The complainant considered that the report breached seven media ethics codes of articles 1.1, 1.2, 2.3, 3, 4, 4.2, and 6. The Committee discussed and concluded that only article 3 – No one should have become a victim of discrimination for reasons of race, nationality, gender, age, disability, sexuality, religion, or marital status – was breached. Other articles were not under breach.

The MCM delivered its Ethics Committees’ decisions to related editorial rooms and complaints.