What does ComCom’s “Mediacritic” see in the West, and what can it not see in Georgia?

In the period from March 2023 to July 2024, “Mediacritic,” the web platform of the regulatory body, the Communications Commission (ComCom), which Myth Detector has written about before, again focused much of its attention on criticizing media outlets with editorial policies critical of the government. Myth Detector analyzed 139 articles published on the mediacritic.ge website between March 1, 2023, and July 31, 2024. The monitoring revealed the following trends:

• ComCom’s “Mediacritic” mostly focuses on media outlets with editorial policies that are not under the control of the government.
• In addition to disproportionate coverage, criticism in some cases is motivated not so much by the defense of media professional standards as by the desire to justify or support the government’s positions.
• Sometimes, the regulatory body’s platform criticizes respondents, not journalists, for their positions (for example, the President of Georgia, an opposition MP).
• “Mediacritic” ignores information about the government influence on Georgian media and the deterioration of the media environment, and at the same time, covers materials focused on the problems of Western media, which creates a dichotomy suggesting that media in Georgia are free from state influence and face problems only in traditional democracies.
• “Mediacritic” has problems with transparency as well.
• Previously, many publications on the “Mediacritic” platform were written by journalists from government propaganda media, but this trend has recently changed: the number of their publications has decreased, and instead, the number of articles by authors who appear to publish under pseudonyms has increased.
• Between 2019 and 2022, the budget of “Mediacritic” totaled GEL 1,678,103.65, most of which went on salaries. However, it is unclear how much is spent on fees for external authors.

According to the monitoring for almost one year and a half (March 1, 2023 – July 31, 2024), out of 136 articles published on “Mediacritic,” 111 were about local media outlets, and 25 about Western media and relations of Western politicians with media. Out of 111 articles concerning local media, seven were without a specific addressee and referred to general trends; 109 articles (85.2%) were directed at media outlets not controlled by the government; media outlets pursuing pro-government editorial policy (Imedi, Rustavi 2, and the Georgian Public Broadcaster) were criticized only in 19 cases (15.8%). It should be noted that some articles concerned several media outlets at once. 

Of the 109 articles about media outlets not controlled by the government, the most frequently targeted were TV Pirveli (38 articles), Mtavari Arkhi (33 articles), and Formula (27 articles). Regarding pro-government media outlets, Imedi TV (11) and Rustavi 2 (7) were mentioned most often in “Mediacritic” articles, while the Public Broadcaster was mentioned only once, as shown in the diagram below. “Mediacritic” completely ignored the government propaganda channel POSTV, along with other media outlets loyal to the government, as well as pro-Kremlin and far-right publications that not only disregard professional standards but also incite hatred.

• On what topics does “Mediacritic” criticize Georgian and Western media?

In addition to the disproportionate coverage of pro-government and government-critical media outlets, there are instances where criticism appears to be driven by a desire to justify or support government positions rather than uphold professional journalistic standards. For example, one article criticized not Imedi TV’s pro-government editorial policy but President Salome Zourabichvili for her answer to a question related to November 7th, and as a counterargument to her answer, the article explained why Imedi TV cannot and should not forget Saakashvili. In contrast to this case, Zviad Liparteliani, an author writing under a pseudonym, in one of his articles criticizes an Imedi journalist for not asking the newly appointed US ambassador Robin Dunnigan sufficiently tough questions. For example, in one of the excerpts, the anonymous author criticizes the journalist for not asking the ambassador, in response to Dunnigan’s comment in which she described the Georgian government’s narrative about a “global war party” as ridiculous, how the ambassador assesses the repeated calls of Ukrainian high-ranking officials to open a second front.

In case of another pro-government TV channel, Rustavi 2, the addressee of criticism was not the journalist but the guest of the program, opposition MP Tina Bokuchava, who, according to “Mediacritic,” instead of answering the presenter’s questions voiced part political messages during the interview. In defense of the presenter, the article noted that during the interview, the journalist repeatedly tried to prevent the respondent from deviating from the topic, but in response she received only pre-election party slogans. 

“In other words, one of the leaders of the political party urges viewers to protest against the law in the street but does not consider it necessary to explain why she calls the law Russian,” writes “Mediacritic” author Kato Tavartkiladze.

Another example when the regulator’s “Mediacritic” engaged in reviewing opinions of respondents, concerned the interview of the President of Georgia with French media and journalists of French media outlets (France 24 and Radio France). According to “Mediacritic,” “instead of an interview with the President of Georgia, the French audience heard questions and answers that did not reflect objective reality.” Anonymous author Zviad Liparteliani found the president’s description of the government as “pro-Russian” and obstructing reforms towards European integration problematic. The anchor of the BBC program Hard Talk also became the object of Mediacritic’s criticism because of her questions to the president about the change of Georgia’s foreign policy vector.   

• Taboo topics about Georgia’s media environment and the search for problems in the West

In addition to the critical analysis of Georgian media coverage, which is largely driven by a desire to defend government positions, “Mediacritic” writes about the challenges and biases present in Western media, which may be part of legitimate discourse in those countries. However, when “Mediacritic” ignores topics related to the Georgian media environment and the government’s influence on the media, it creates a dichotomy suggesting that media in Georgia are entirely free from government influence in Georgia and that only media in traditional democracies face problems. For example, “Mediacritic” wrote why Tucker Carlson left FoxNews; or how a BBC journalist was taken off the air for “criticizing the government,” but totally ignored the fact that journalists left the Imedi TV channel, citing interference in editorial policy and unacceptable editorial policy as reasons. As shown in the table below, “Mediacritics ignored incidents of vandalizing against journalists’ offices and homes that occurred alongside the hearings of the “agents law” in the parliament; it also did not cover the new rule restricting journalist accreditation in the parliament, which sparked protests from local and international media advocacy groups. Instead, the regulator’s web platform featured articles on Joe Biden giving instructions to the media and the problem of politicization of the British media, using Boris Johnson as an example.

Georgian media environment	Coverage of the Georgian media environment on “Mediacritic”	Coverage of the Western media environment on “Mediacritic”
On June 17, 2024, journalist Tamar Sharikadze left the pro-government TV company Imedi, citing interference in editorial policy. May 10, 2024: Presenters Zurab Balanchivadze, Natia Orvelashvili, and Ekaterine Amirejibi quit Imedi TV because they opposed the “agents law.”  On June 1, 2024, Imedi journalist Tiko Peikrishvili left the channel. On December 1, 2023, journalist Rusa Shelia left Imedi TV, citing interference in editorial policy and an anti-American editorial agenda.	X     X      X	Tucker Carlson left FoxNews
The Media Advocacy Coalition issued a statement on the cancellation of TV programs on the Public Broadcaster	X	BBC sports commentator Gary Lineker was taken off air for criticizing the government.
RSF, May, 2024: Georgia’s ranking dropped 26 places in the Press Freedom Index June, 2024: The Media Advocacy Coalition commented on information passed by TV Pirveli about obstacles in attending court hearings.	X	“Mediacritic” criticized the presenter of the BBC’s HARDtalk program for questions questioning Georgia’s European future. The article about Joe Biden’s speech at the journalistic Gridiron Club’s dinner, stated that the White House administration instructed the media in writing how to cover the presidential impeachment process.
May: In parallel with the introduction of the Law on Transparency of Foreign Influence, offices of journalists, activists, and nongovernmental organizations were vandalized and individuals received threatening phone calls. The International Press Institute (IPI), together with a group of media and human rights organizations, called on Irakli Kobakhidze to ensure the safety of journalists and uphold press freedom.	X	The article “Lessons for Journalists form the White House” focused on letters sent by the White House to media organizations on how to cover the presidential impeachment process.
April 16: At a rally against the Law on Transparency of Foreign Influence, the riot police physically assaulted journalists from Tabula, April, and Publica. The Media Advocacy Coalition, Charter of Journalistic Ethics, and RSF condemned the incident and called for an investigation.	X	April 16: “Mediacritic” published an article about the OJ Simpson trial and case law from the 1990s on the role of media in the trial.
2023-2024: GDI,  Social Justice Center, Media Advocacy Coalition (2), at various times, made statements on the rule and practice of restricting journalistic activity in the parliament.	X	The article “Boris Johnson Changes Profession?” focused on the politicization of media and Boris Johnson’s political column in the Daily Mail.
2023: The Media Advocacy Coalition condemned the law abolishing the board of advisors of the Ajara Public Broadcaster.	X	“Mediacritic,” in addition to President Salome Zourabichvili, criticized French media outlets, France 24 and Radio France, for their critical questions about the Georgian government.

• What do we know about “Mediacritic” and its authors?

“Mediacritic” (Mediacritic.ge) is part of the Media Academy created by the Communications Commission. According to the information on the webpage, the aim of the platform is to improve the quality of media by analyzing and evaluating content. The Media Academy is financed from the budget of the Communications Commission.

According to the information on the website, the head of the Media Academy is Shorena Shaverdashvili, former editor-in-chief of Liberali magazine, and the head of “Mediacritic” is Irina Tevdorashvili. Previously, the head of “Mediacritic” was Zviad Avaliani, former host of the government propaganda channel POSTV, who before joining the communications regulatory body was the presenter and executive producer of the Obieqtivi TV channel, known for its face speech and affiliated with the Alliance of Patriots.

The creation of “Mediacritic” was met with skepticism from some experts. According to an article published by Netgazeti in 2019, media professionals believed that by introducing such a practice, the regulator exceeded its authority and intruded into the realm of self-regulation. There were also concerns that the regulatory commission would use the platform as a tool against media outlets critical of the government. In addition to targeting media outlets that criticize the government, “Mediacritic” lacks transparency in its operations. Following an IDFI complaint about not receiving requested public information from this entity, a Supreme Court ruled on December 21, 2023, that the Media Academy must provide the requested public information. 

Since some of the authors of “Mediacritic” cannot be identified, a doubt has arisen that some of the authors are publishing their articles on the platform under pseudonyms. In May 2024, Myth Detector requested public information about the authors from the Media Academy. In its response, the Media Academy said that the “Mediacritics” department has only two employees and that they select authors based on their journalistic qualification, experience, and the compliance of their skills with media standards. When asked whether their authors use pseudonyms, the executive director of the Media Academy replied that the Law of Georgia on Personal Data Protection does not allow them to provide such information.

It is worth noting that the platform does not provide profiles of its authors, and it is difficult to identify them only by first and last name, even if it is a pseudonym, without a photo and biography. As of August 30, 2024, articles on the “Mediacritic” have been published under the following authors’ names: poet Ninia Sadghobelashvili and literary critic Levan Bregadze mainly write about media from the perspective of cultural and linguistic, grammatical issues. Other authors of articles published on “Mediacritic” include: journalist Lela Kurdghelashvili, Keti Chokheli, Zviad Liparteliani, Nata Mindeli, Davit Kobakhidze, Tuta Jgushia (since January 2024), Mariam Gigani (since February 2024), and Kato Tavartkiladze (since March 2024).

It is also worth noting that in the past, articles for the webpage were written by journalists of the state propaganda media outlet, POSTV, and government experts:

As noted above, the former head of Mediacritic was Zviad Avaliani, who is now the host of the POSTV channel. Between 2019 and 2022, he published a total of 28 articles on “Mediacritic” webpage, the most recent of which was dated August 30, 2022. It is worth noting that two months after this date, a new author, Zviad Liparteliani, joined “Mediacritic.” Information about Zviad Liparteliani and media content created by a person with such a first and last name cannot be found on any other platform except “Mediacritic.” Liparteliani may well be a pseudonym of Zviad Avaliani, who now works for the government propaganda TV channel POSTV and is known for anti-Western rhetoric. 

In 2020-2021, “Mediacritic” also frequently published articles by Archil Sukharulidze (21 articles in total), who is a frequent respondent of the Russian-language media outlet, Sputnik, and attends events organized by the Primakov Center. 

It is worth noting that progovernment expert Gia Abashidze often shares “Mediacritic” posts in various Facebook groups (1,2). 

Budget

According to data posted on the Media Academy webpage, the budget of “Mediacritic” for 2019-2022 totaled GEL 1,678,103.65, most of which (GEL 1,215,858.47) went for salaries. The Academy does not publish the amount spent on author fees. 

GEL 136,798.15 is shown as social media costs for 2019-2022. However, according to Meta’s ads library, $33,728 has been spent on the platform since August 4, 2020, to date.

Myth Detector’s monitoring in 2020 revealed that “Mediacritic” only sponsored articles that criticized media outlets disloyal to the government.

Myth Detector has reported about “Mediacritic” before. Read more in the articles:

• Who Is Maxim Shevchenko and Why Does Not GNCC’s Media Critic Deem Him “Pro-Kremlin Propagandist”
• Who Sponsors Tucker Carlson’s Propagandistic Messages in Georgian Media?
• Who is “worth” of media critics?
• How reliable is the source used by Regulator’s Critic to criticize media?
• Fight against “Internal Enemy” and Cohabitation with Russian Propaganda
• Regulator’s “Sponsored Criticism”, Pro-Government and Antiliberal Pages against Sanaia