DOCSLIB.ORG

Monitoring of Media Content of Local/Regional Television Broadcasters During Pre-Elections

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Monitoring of Media Content of Local/Regional Television Broadcasters During Pre-Elections Monitoring of Media Content of Local/Regional Television Broadcasters during Pre-Elections Subagreement # S-12-155 Report for: July 2 - November 11, 2012 Project Period: 11 June 2012 - 10 December 2012 Total Budget: 31 000$ Monitoring of Media Content of Local/Regional Television Broadcasters Results Summary/Impact Statement Main findings of monitoring: • Very few of the monitored subjects were dedicated airtime on regional TV channels; • Out of the monitored subjects the activities carried out by five political unions including United National Movement (UNM), Georgian Dream coalition, New Rights, Christian- Democratic Movement and Free Georgia were dedicated airtime; • Following the official announcement of the election campaign the amount of reporting on the UNM and the GD activities considerably went up; • In the aftermath of elections political parties were virtually provided with no TV coverage, apart from UNM and the Georgian Dream coalition; The amount of airtime devoted to the aforementioned two monitored subjects gradually decreased; • Most of the TV stories implied superficial information about the activities of the monitored subjects and failed to demonstrate dissenting or criticizing opinions over the issue; • In the aftermath of elections the extent of subjective coverage of events went down; • Following the elections some of the TV Companies mostly reported on social, cultural and economic issues ongoing in the region rather than political developments; • Prior to the elections the greater majority of regional TV channels dedicated a fair amount of airtime to reporting on the activities carried out by the local self-government. Reporting was almost always positive in tone. During the pre-election period reporting on the activities carried out by the local self-government considerably went up but this time reporting was not solely positive in tone; • The programs initiated by the authorities were covered in a superficial manner, without providing any additional arguments; • In the greater majority of TV Companies reporting was positive in tone. In this regard the period of September 17-23 was the exception which excelled with strictly negative tone in relation to government and authorities since within this period all of the TV Companies more or less covered the main topic of the week – the release of prisoner abuse video and protest rallies organized against violence. Internews Georgia 2 Monitoring of Media Content of Local/Regional Television Broadcasters Background The report represents the results of the survey carried out within the period of July 2 - November11, 2012 by the Internews Georgia monitoring team. Media monitoring helps raise standard of professionalism and is conducive to the development of independent unbiased journalism. The goal of our survey is to reveal, through monitoring main news programs aired on Georgian regional TV broadcasters, the proceeding and trends of media coverage of pre-election campaign. Activities The survey was carried out on 20 regional broadcasters operating nationwide, including: Channel 25 (Batumi), Rioni (Kutaisi), Kvemo Kartli TV and Radio Company (Rustavi), Odishi (Zugdidi), Tanamgzavri (Telavi), 9th Channel (Alkhaltsikhe), Trialeti (Gori), Guria (Ozurgeti), Imervizia (Chiatura), Argo (Zestaponi), Gurjaani (Gurjaani), Borjomi (Borjomi), Marneuli TV (Marneuli), LTV (Lagodekhi), 12th Channel (Bolnisi), Mega TV (Khoni), Zari (Samtredia), 9th Wave (Poti), Kronika (Dusheti), Egrisi (Senaki). During the project no news programs were produced by Dusheti-based TV Company Kronika and Senaki-based TV Company Egrisi. Methodology Monitoring was conducted on the regional broadcasters’ main evening news programs during so- called prime time when the number of viewers is at its peak. The technique applied in the project is based on quantitative and qualitative research. Quantitative monitoring determines quantitative indicators that can be counted and analyzed. While qualitative monitoring is applied to evaluate the efficiency of media outlets’ activities in relation to the indicators such as ethical or professional standards whose quantitative measurement is complex. In particular, the distortion of news, unbalanced coverage, bias or anything else that might affect quality news was focused on. Quantitative data includes the running time (seconds) of the stories produced about our preselected subjects or making mention of them. In the given charts the time dedicated to the subjects is shown in seconds. In case the chart is missing any political party, which is the subject of monitoring, it means no channel dedicated any time to it within the monitoring period. Internews Georgia 3 Monitoring of Media Content of Local/Regional Television Broadcasters Direct and indirect coverage shows whether the subject is speaking on one’s own or is being spoken about either by a journalist or other respondents. In the given charts direct and indirect coverage is shown in percentage. 100 percent indicates the time dedicated to each subject on a particular channel. The tone of coverage is attributed to a subject when being indirectly spoken about or when speaking directly about oneself, other subjects or some general issues. Charts illustrate three categories of tones: positive, neutral and negative. When conducting monitoring on news programs it was interesting to find out which events, either central or regional, were covered by the TV Companies. Based on qualitative data the efficiency of media activities in terms of adherence to ethical or professional standards, will be evaluated. The qualitative part embraces components such as balance or whether diverse opinions over the covered issue are represented in the stories; accuracy or whether mistakes are in place in the names or numbers; the vocabulary used and all those important aspects that are not subject to quantitative measurement. The cases of manipulation through shots and music used in the news programs were also brought into focus. The monitoring subjects include: Parliament (speaker, vice speaker, MPs, committees); President (administration, advisors, press speaker); government (prime minister, ministers, deputy ministers, governors); authorities (when mentioned with no specification); local self-governments (mayors, chairs of Sakrebulo and Gamgeoba); Adjara government, Adjara Parliament, Central Election Commission; election observers; State Audit Agency (in relation to elections); commission in charge of verifying voters' list; United National Movement; Georgian Dream – Democratic Georgia; coalition Georgian Dream; Free Democrats; National Forum; Georgian Republican Party; Georgian Conservative party; People’s Party; Georgia’s Way; Free Georgia; New Rights; Democratic Movement for United Georgia; National Democratic Party; Labor party; Industry Will Save Georgia; Georgian Democratic Party; Georgian Troupe; Christian-Democratic Movement; European Democrats; Voters’ League; People’s Assembly; opposition (when mentioned with no specification). Internews Georgia 4 Monitoring of Media Content of Local/Regional Television Broadcasters Along with the appearance of elections-related subjects the number of monitored subjects went up. In particular the following new monitored subjects were added: For Renewed Georgia, Future Georgia, Georgian Green Party, Georgian Traditionalists Union, Whites, Social-Democratic Party, Monarchist Party, Freedom - The Way of Zviad Gamsakhurdia. News programs monitoring resulsts per channel: Channel 25 (Batumi) – The TV Company dedicated the total of 16 hours and 4 minutes to reporting on the monitored subjects. Out of the given figure 2 hours and 54 minutes falls on reporting on local self-government, 2 hours and 39 on the Georgian Dream coalition, 1 hour and 48 minutes to Adjara government. Almost equal share of airtime was received by UNM (1 hour and 24 minutes dedicated in total) and government (1 hour and 22 minutes dedicated in total). Time for Subjects ‐ Total 16 hr. 04 min. TV "Channel 25" Local self‐governance 2:54:49 Georgian Dream Coalition 2:39:04 Adjara Government 1:48:32 United National Movement 1:24:23 Government 1:22:42 Central Election Commission 1:13:02 Authorities (unspecified) 1:02:08 Christian‐Democratic Movement 0:47:44 Adjara Parliament 0:30:55 President 0:25:48 Free Georgia 0:22:24 New Rights 0:21:27 Labour Party 0:18:44 Opposition 0:10:41 Movement for Fair Georgia 0:10:33 Parliament 0:10:11 Rerpublican Party 0:09:25 Election Observers 0:07:24 Commission for Ensuring Vopters' List Accuracy 0:02:59 Georgian Dream ‐ Democratic Georgia 0:01:15 Reporting on the monitored subjects was mostly neutral in tone. 33 and 29 % positive tone was attached to reporting on New Rights (21 min dedicated in total) and Christian-Democratic Movement (47 min dedicated in total). Reporting was negative in tone in regard to the authorities - 81 percent (1 hour of dedicated time), government – 46 percent (1 hour and 22 minutes dedicated in total), UNM – 42 percent (1 hour and 24 minutes dedicated in total). Internews Georgia 5 Monitoring of Media Content of Local/Regional Television Broadcasters Tone towards Subjects (%) TV "Channel 25" Positive Neutral Negative Local self‐governance 19 56 25 Georgian Dream Coalition 21 73 6 Adjara Government 24 67 9 United National Movement 15 43 42 Government 14 40 46 Central Election Commission 7 60 33 Authorities (unspecified) 9 10 81 Christian‐Democratic Movement 29 67 4 Adjara Parliament 9 75 16 President 14 50 36 Free Georgia 24 73 3 New Rights 33 66 1 Labour Party
Load more

Recommended publications
  • INTERNATIONAL ELECTION OBSERVATION MISSION Georgia — Municipal Elections, 30 May 2010
    INTERNATIONAL ELECTION OBSERVATION MISSION Georgia — Municipal Elections, 30 May 2010 STATEMENT OF PRELIMINARY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS The 30 May municipal elections marked evident progress towards meeting OSCE and Council of Europe commitments. However, significant remaining shortcomings include deficiencies in the legal framework, its implementation, an uneven playing field, and isolated cases of election-day fraud. The authorities and the election administration made clear efforts to pro-actively address problems. Nevertheless, the low level of public confidence persisted. Further efforts in resolutely tackling recurring misconduct are required in order to consolidate the progress and enhance public trust before the next national elections. While the elections were overall well administered, systemic irregularities on election day were noted, as in past elections, in particular in Kakheti, Samtskhe-Javakheti and Shida Kartli. The election administration managed these elections in a professional, transparent and inclusive manner. The new Central Election Commission (CEC) chairperson tried to reach consensus among CEC members, including those nominated by political parties, on all issues. For the first time, Precinct Election Commission (PEC) secretaries were elected by opposition-appointed PEC members, which was welcomed by opposition parties and increased inclusiveness. The transparency of the electoral process was enhanced by a large number of domestic observers. Considerable efforts were made to improve the quality of voters’ lists. In the run-up to these elections, parties received state funding to audit the lists. Voters were given sufficient time and information to check their entries. As part of the recent UEC amendments, some restrictions were placed on the rights of certain categories of citizens to vote in municipal elections, in order to address opposition parties’ concerns of possible electoral malpractices.
    [Show full text]
  • Country of Origin Information Report Republic of Georgia 25 November
    REPUBLIC OF GEORGIA COUNTRY OF ORIGIN INFORMATION (COI) REPORT Country of Origin Information Service 25 November 2010 GEORGIA 25 NOVEMBER 2010 Contents Preface Paragraphs Background Information 1. GEOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................ 1.01 Maps ...................................................................................................................... 1.05 2. ECONOMY ................................................................................................................ 2.01 3. HISTORY .................................................................................................................. 3.01 Post-communist Georgia, 1990-2003.................................................................. 3.02 Political developments, 2003-2007...................................................................... 3.03 Elections of 2008 .................................................................................................. 3.05 Presidential election, January 2008 ................................................................... 3.05 Parliamentary election, May 2008 ...................................................................... 3.06 Armed conflict with Russia, August 2008 .......................................................... 3.09 Developments following the 2008 armed conflict.............................................. 3.10 4. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS ..........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Relevance of the Actual Values of the Political Actors of Georgia with the Ideologies Declared by Them
    The Relevance of the Actual Values of the Political Actors of Georgia with the Ideologies Declared by Them Dr. Maia Urushadze1, Dr. Tamar Kiknadze2 1Caucasus International University 2Head of the Doctoral Program in Political Science, Caucasus International University Abstract The permanent ideological impact of the propaganda narratives of powerful political entities on the international community is perceived as one of the most important challenges of the 21st century. The international agenda is full of controversial interpretations, produced by powerful international political actors. As a result, the international media agenda is getting like the battlespace for the struggle of interpretations, where the ruthless kind of "frame-games" between the strongest global agenda-setting political entities takes place. The information field is open for all countries, including the small states, where political parties are not strong enough to have their propaganda to resist the ideological pressure from outside. Due to this, the societies of these countries are still easily influenced by the narratives of global political actors creating a suitable psychological environment for internal conflicts in societies. We consider Georgia among these states. Therefore, our research aimed to study the relevance of the actual values of local (Georgian) political actors with the ideologies declared by them. In this regard, our primary objective was to understand the specifics of strategic communication of local political actors, then, to compare their narratives with the rhetoric of international actors, and finally, to determine the strength of local society's resistance to these narratives. We hope that in this way we can assess the long-term impact of global actors’ propaganda communication could have on a small country.
    [Show full text]
  • Recent Elections in Georgia: at Long Last, Stability?
    Recent Elections in Georgia: At long Last, Stability? DARRELL SLIDER G eorgia held its fourth contested parliamentary elections 31 October 1999 (the fifth, if one includes the 1918 multiparty elections that produced a Social Democratic government that was forced into exile by the Red Army in 1921) and its fourth presidential election on 9 April 2000. Press reports emphasized the endorsement the elections provided to President Eduard Shevardnadze and his party, the Citizens' Union of Georgia, which won a clear majority in the parlia- ment. At the same time, both the parliamentary and presidential elections were marred by heavy-handed manipulation of the political atmosphere preceding the balloting. The parliamentary elections also continued a troubling trend in Geor- gian politics: the exclusion of significant segments of the political spectrum from representation in the legislature. Perhaps more than any other former Soviet republic, Georgia has emphasized the development of political parties. Party list voting is the chief method for choosing members of parliament: lince 1992, 150 of 235 parliamentarians have been chosen by proportional voting.' The remainder, just over one-third, are cho- sen from single-member districts that correspond to Soviet-era administrative entities.2 Each election, however, has taken place under a different set of rules, which has had a major impact on the composition of the parliament. The party list system was also employed in November 1998 to choose local councils. In theory, a party list system should contribute to the formation of strong par- ties and a more stable party system. In practice, however, Georgian political par- ties remain highly personalized and organizationally weak.
    [Show full text]
  • Hate Speech in Pre-Election Discourse, Presidential Elections 2018
    Hate Speech in Pre-Election Discourse Presidential Elections 2018 Author: Tina Gogoladze Editor: Tamar Kintsurashvili Monitoring by Tamar Gagniashvili, Khatia Lomidze, Mariam Tskhovrebashvili, Sopo Chkhaidze Designed by Mariam Tsutskiridze The report Hate Speech in Pre-Election Discourse has been prepared by the Media Development Foundation (MDF) within the USAID-funded Promoting Integration, Tolerance and Awareness Program in Georgia (PITA), implemented by the UN Association of Georgia (UNAG). The contents are the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or UNAG. 1 Methodology The present report provides the results of monitoring conducted by the Media Development Foundation (MDF) ahead of the 2018 presidential elections. The monitoring was carried out on the cases of hate speech and discrimination on various grounds expressed by electoral subjects and political parties, as well as hate speech used against presidential candidates and political parties. The report involves only the cases of discrimination on ethnic, religious, racial and gender grounds, as well as the cases of encouraging violence; it does not provide insulting comments made by political opponents against each other. The monitoring covers the period from 1 August 2018 to 15 October 2018. The subjects of monitoring were selected from both mainstream and tabloid media. The monitored subjects were: ● News and analytical programs of five TV channels: Georgian Public Broadcaster (Moambe); Rustavi 2 (Kurieri; P.S.); Imedi (Kronika; Imedis Kvira); Maestro (news program) and Obieqtivi (news program). ● Talk-shows of five TV channels: Rustavi 2 (Archevani); Imedi (Pirispir); Iberia (Tavisupali Sivrtse); Obieqtivi (Gamis Studia, Okros Kveta); Kavkasia (Barieri, Spektri). ● Seven online media outlets: Sakinformi, Netgazeti, Interpressnews, Georgia and World, PIA, Kviris Palitra, Marshalpress.
    [Show full text]
  • Technical Election Assessment Mission: Georgia 2020 Parliamentary Election Interim Report
    TECHNICAL ELECTION ASSESSMENT MISSION: GEORGIA 2020 PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION INTERIM REPORT TECHNICAL ELECTION ASSESSMENT MISSION: GEORGIA 2020 PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION INTERIM REPORT International Republican Institute IRI.org @IRI_Polls © 2020 All Rights Reserved Technical Election Assessment Mission: Georgia 2020 Parliamentary Election Interim Report Copyright © 2020 International Republican Institute. All rights reserved. Permission Statement: No part of this work may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system without the written permission of the International Republican Institute. Requests for permission should include the following information: • The title of the document for which permission to copy material is desired. • A description of the material for which permission to copy is desired. • The purpose for which the copied material will be used and the manner in which it will be used. • Your name, title, company or organization name, telephone number, fax number, e-mail address and mailing address. Please send all requests for permission to: Attn: Department of External Affairs International Republican Institute 1225 Eye Street NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20005 [email protected] IRI | Technical Electoral Assessment Mission: Georgia 2020 Parliamentary Election Interim Report 3 INTRODUCTION In June and July of 2020, the government of Georgia adopted significant constitutional and election reforms, including a modification of Georgia’s mixed electoral system and a reduction in the national proportional threshold from 5 percent to 1 percent of vote share — presenting an opportunity for citizens to pursue viable third-party options and the possibility of a new coalition government after decades of single-party domination.
    [Show full text]
  • Political Forum: 10 Questions on Georgia's Political Development
    1 The Caucasus Institute for Peace, Democracy and Development Political Forum: 10 Questions on Georgia’s Political Development Tbilisi 2007 2 General editing Ghia Nodia English translation Kakhaber Dvalidze Language editing John Horan © CIPDD, November 2007. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or oth- erwise, without the prior permission in writing from the proprietor. CIPDD welcomes the utilization and dissemination of the material included in this publication. This book was published with the financial support of the regional Think Tank Fund, part of Open Society Institute Budapest. The opinions it con- tains are solely those of the author(s) and do not reflect the position of the OSI. ISBN 978-99928-37-08-5 1 M. Aleksidze St., Tbilisi 0193 Georgia Tel: 334081; Fax: 334163 www.cipdd.org 3 Contents Foreword ................................................................................................ 5 Archil Abashidze .................................................................................. 8 David Aprasidze .................................................................................21 David Darchiashvili............................................................................ 33 Levan Gigineishvili ............................................................................ 50 Kakha Katsitadze ...............................................................................67
    [Show full text]
  • Public Opinion Survey Residents of Georgia March – April 2016 Detailed Methodology
    Public Opinion Survey Residents of Georgia March – April 2016 Detailed Methodology • The survey was conducted by Dr. Rasa Alisauskiene of the public and market research company Baltic Surveys/The Gallup Organization on behalf of the International Republican Institute. The field work was carried out by IPM Research, Ltd. • Data was collected throughout Georgia (except for the occupied territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia) between March 12 – April 2, 2016, through face-to-face interviews at respondents’ homes. • The sample consisted of 1,500 permanent residents of Georgia older than the age of 18 and eligible to vote. It is representative of the general population by age, gender, education, region and size/type of settlement. • Multistage probability sampling method was used with the random route and next birthday respondent selection procedures. • Stage one: All districts of Georgia are grouped into 10 regions plus Tbilisi city. The survey was conducted throughout all regions of Georgia, except for the occupied territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. • Stage two: The territory of each region was split into settlements, and grouped according to subtype (i.e. cities, towns and villages). • Settlements were selected at random. The number of selected settlements in each region was proportional to the share of population living in a particular type of the settlement in each region. • Stage three: primary sampling units were described. • The margin of error does not exceed plus or minus 2.5 percent. • Response rate was 72%. • Charts and graphs may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. • The survey was funded by the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Residents of Georgia August 4-21, 2020 Detailed Methodology
    Public Opinion Survey: Residents of Georgia August 4-21, 2020 Detailed Methodology • The fieldwork was carried out by the Institute of Polling & Marketing. The survey was coordinated by Dr. Rasa Alisauskiene of the public and market research company Baltic Surveys/The Gallup Organization on behalf of the Center for Insights in Survey Research. • Data was collected across Georgia between August 4 and August 21, 2020 through face-to-face interviews in respondents’ homes. • The sample consisted of 1,500 permanent residents of Georgia aged 18 and older and eligible to vote. It is representative of the general population by age, gender, region and size of the settlement. • A multistage probability sampling method was used with the random route and next birthday respondent’s selection procedures. • Stage one: All districts of Georgia are grouped into 10 regions. All regions of Georgia were surveyed (Tbilisi city – as separate region). • Stage two: selection of the settlements – cities and villages. • Settlements were selected at random. The number of selected settlements in each region was proportional to the share of population living in a particular type of the settlement in each region. • Stage three: primary sampling units were described. • The margin of error does not exceed plus or minus 2.5 percent and the response rate was 75 percent. • Charts and graphs may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. • The survey was funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development. 2 Frequently Cited Disaggregates Disaggregate Disaggregation Category Base Male n=691 Gender Female n=809 Age 18-29 n=299 Age Groups Age 30-49 n=567 Age 50 and older n=635 Secondary/Incomplete secondary n=714 Education level Vocational n=223 Higher/Incomplete higher n=557 Rural n=634 Settlement type Urban (excluding Tbilisi) n=414 Tbilisi n=452 *Cited bases are weighted.
    [Show full text]
  • Intra-Party Democracy in the Georgian Political System
    INTRA-PARTY DEMOCRACY IN THE GEORGIAN POLITICAL SYSTEM BAKUR KVASHILAVA eecmd.org INTRA-PARTY DEMOCRACY IN DEMOCRACY INTRA-PARTY THE GEORGIAN POLITICAL SYSTEM THE GEORGIAN POLITICAL The publication was commissioned by the Eastern European Centre for Multiparty Democ- racy (EECMD) as part of the Enhancing Institutional and Electoral Capacities of Democratic Political Parties project funded by the Danish Institute for Parties and Democracy (DIPD). The author is responsible for the content of this publication, and the opinions expressed in it do not necessarily reflect the views of the EECMD and DIPD. eecmd.org CONTENT 01 INTRODUCTION 05 METHODOLOGY 09 RESEARCH FINDINGS APPENDIX eecmd.org 21 INTRODUCTION Political parties play a significant role in the modern state. It is difficult to imagine running a country without them. There are still countries where no political parties exist; however, these are exceptions to the norm. Without political parties, it is difficult for the government of any 1 country to solve the complex and diverse issues that the modern state is responsible for solv- ing. Foreign policy, economics, social security, education, environmental protection, public development, law enforcement – this is just a small and general list of functions performed by a state in the modern world. When political parties do not function, we are dealing either with a government based on antiquated principles or with a microstate with a population of less than 20,000. Political parties are an integral part of modern reality and perform their functions not only in democratic nations but also even in authoritarian regimes. INTRA-PARTY DEMOCRACY IN DEMOCRACY INTRA-PARTY THE GEORGIAN POLITICAL SYSTEM THE GEORGIAN POLITICAL Naturally, political parties have a special role to play in a democratic system as the optimal means of gaining power.
    [Show full text]
  • GEORGIA This File Contains Election Results for the Georgian Parliament
    GEORGIA This file contains election results for the Georgian Parliament in 2012. Voters cast ballots in single- member plurality constituencies for candidates as well as for party lists in the single national proportional constituency. Candidate names are recorded in Kartuli (Georgian) script. Geography and Voters YEAR Election Year DISTNO Constituency Number DIST_KAR Constituency Name in Kartuli (Georgian) DIST_ENG Constituency Name in English ELEC Number of Electors Candidates and Votes in Single-Member Constituencies C_FRG1 Political Union “Kakha Kukava - Free Georgia” (Party#1) Candidate Name S_FRG1 Political Union “Kakha Kukava - Free Georgia” (Party#1) Votes C_NDP4 National Democratic Party (Party#4) Candidate Name S_NDP4 National Democratic Party (Party#4) Votes C_UNM5 United National Movement – More Benefits to People (Party #5) Candidate Name S_UNM5 United National Movement – More Benefits to People (Party #5) Votes C_JFG9 Justice for Georgia (Party #9) Candidate Name S_JFG9 Justice for Georgia (Party #9) Votes C_CDU10 Giorgi Targamadze - Christian Democratic Union (Bloc #10) Candidate Name S_CDU10 Giorgi Targamadze - Christian Democratic Union (Bloc #10) Votes C_F19 Freedom - The Way of Zviad Gamsakhurdia (Party #19) Candidate Name S_F19 Freedom - The Way of Zviad Gamsakhurdia (Party #19) Votes C_JB23 Political Union “Jondi Baghaturia – Georgian Group” (Party #23) Candidate Name S_JB23 Political Union “Jondi Baghaturia – Georgian Group” (Party #23) Votes C_NR24 Political Union “New Rights” (Party #24) Candidate Name S_NR24 Political
    [Show full text]
  • Georgian Orthodox Church; the Country’S Hopeful but Fragile Transition to Democracy; And, of Course, Its Past and Present Relationship to Russia
    GEORGIA’S INFORMATION ENVIRONMENT THROUGH THE LENS OF RUSSIA’S INFLUENCE PREPARED BY THE NATO STRATEGIC COMMMUNICATIONS CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE 1 Georgia’s Information Environment through the Lens of Russia’s Influence Project Director: Elīna Lange-Ionatamišvili Project Manager: James McMillan Content Editors: Elīna Lange-Ionatamišvili, James McMillan Language Editors: Tomass Pildagovičs, James McMillan Authors: Nino Bolkvadze, Ketevan Chachava, Gogita Ghvedashvili, Elīna Lange-Ionat- amišvili, James McMillan, Nana Kalandarishvili, Anna Keshelashvili, Natia Kuprashvili, Tornike Sharashenidze, Tinatin Tsomaia Design layout: Tornike Lordkipanidze We would like to thank our anonymous peer reviewers from King’s College London for their generous contribution. ISBN: 978-9934-564-36-9 This publication does not represent the opinions or policies of NATO or NATO StratCom COE. © All rights reserved by the NATO StratCom COE. Reports may not be copied, reproduced, distributed or publicly displayed without reference to the NATO StratCom COE. The views expressed here do not represent the views of NATO. CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................4 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................7 CHAPTER 1: GEORGIA’S STRATEGIC INTERESTS ............................................. 11 By Tornike Sharashenidze CHAPTER 2: RUSSIA’S STRATEGIC INTERESTS IN GEORGIA .......................... 23 By Nana Kalandarishvili
    [Show full text]