On August 27, the Facebook page “Wise Critic” shared a fragment of an interview with journalists Nanuka Zhorzholiani and Davit Kashiashvili. In the video, the journalists discuss Georgian media and its independence. In the first part, Davit Kashiashvili states that he worked at Rustavi 2 TV station in 2008. Then, both journalists say that during that time, TV journalism was at its most independent, with Kashiashvili referring to those years as the “golden age of TV journalism.” The video’s caption implies that the journalists are speaking about the years when the United National Movement (UNM) was in power, and suggests they consider that era the best for Georgian journalism. The caption reads: “They claim during the UNM era, journalism was at the zenith of freedom.”
The video of Zhorzholiani and Kashiashvili is a fabricated clip. It is not a continuous recording – two separate segments are spliced together in a way that creates the impression that the journalists are discussing media independence during the UNM government. In reality, they are referring to the period before the UNM came to power, which they describe as the “golden age of TV journalism.”
On July 20, Nanuka Zhorzholiani appeared as a guest on Davit Kashiashvili’s show “Third Page.” In the interview, they discussed the current and past state of the media, as well as the ongoing protests. At the beginning of the interview, Kashiashvili recalled his first visit to Rustavi 2 and meeting Zhorzholiani. He said he started working at the TV station in 2008. The first part of the video circulating on social media uses exactly this segment (0:30):
Davit Kashiashvili: “I met you somewhere, like, here.”
Nanuka Zhorzholiani: “Really?”
Davit Kashiashvili: “Yes, just a bit lower down.”
Nanuka Zhorzholiani: “Kashik, what are you talking about? Were you at Rustavi 2 during Erosi [Kitsmarishvili]’s time?”
Davit Kashiashvili: “No, no – 2008. You were a producer. You used to sit somewhere around here, I think.”
They continued discussing the earlier state of the media. The journalists said that Georgian media was most independent when the editorial policies of the Public Broadcaster and Rustavi 2 were similar. Zhorzholiani also clarified that despite the Ministry of Security entering Rustavi 2, the media was still most independent at that time. This event occurred on October 30, 2001, when the United National Movement had not yet come to power.
Nanuka Zhorzholiani: “The First Channel was our equal competitor. And the main thing, what I mean by ‘equal competitor’ – so the audience understands – they were hunting the same information as then-oppositional Rustavi 2. […] They were our competitors, full-fledged competitors, and I say that was the time when the Ministry of Security stormed this building and paid dearly for it later. Despite that, I believe media freedom was probably at its highest back then.”
Davit Kashiashvili: “It was at its highest then. I always call that the golden age of TV journalism. And then there was a certain decline. Don’t you think, since you brought it up yourself, that the reason for the decline was too close a connection to a powerful political force at the time…”
Therefore, when Zhorzholiani and Kashiashvili speak about media independence, they are referring to the period before the UNM government, not 2008 or the UNM era in general. This is confirmed by their remarks about Rustavi 2’s editorial policy and the entry of security ministry employees into the station.
Journalists critical of the ruling party Georgian Dream are frequently targeted in social media disinformation campaigns. Disinformation aimed at damaging reputations has often been spread about Nanuka Zhorzholiani. Myth Detector regularly fact-checks false claims and visual manipulations involving journalists:
- Gela Mtivlishvili’s Quote About Mzia Amaghlobeli’s Arrest Spread Without Context
- Photomanipulation Is Being Circulated Regarding the Search of Nanuka Zhorzholiani’s House
- A Manipulated Video from TV Channel “Formula’s” Street Interview Is Being Circulated
The article has been written in the framework of Facebook’s fact-checking program. You can read more about the restrictions that Facebook may impose based on this article via this link. You can find information about appealing or editing our assessment via this link.
Read detailed instructions for editing the article.
Read detailed appeal instructions.
