Presidential Elections: How Has the Media Reported?
On October 28, voting for the presidential elections took place across Georgia. Media campaign coverage can have a huge impact on the outcome of elections. In fact, the media can be considered a key pillar of democracy. Campaign coverage is essential since the information available to voters comes almost entirely by means of various media outlets. Biased coverage and improper reporting can, therefore, sway opinion and impact voting. How did the media potentially affect the voting decisions of Georgians through their rhetoric and coverage?
Last Thursday, a meeting held in Tbilisi by the EU and UNDP, together with NGOs, discussed the findings of media monitoring of the presidential elections from 18 June to 15 October. Media monitoring in Georgia has taken place since 2010, covering the past seven elections. This year’s report includes quantitative and qualitative information taken from 72 media outlets.
Speakers George Jologua of the Civic Development Institute, Eka Beridze of Internews Georgia, and Giorgi Mgeladze and Nata Dzvelishvili of the Georgian Charter of Journalistic Ethics, discussed the media coverage from press and online media, radio stations, and TV channels.
Findings showed that the media was generally critical of all presidential candidates with the exception of radio which has had a more neutral tone. For example, the graph below shows that Rustavi 2, Georgia’s most successful private television broadcasting company, scarcely reported anything positive about any of the parties or candidates. Their coverage focused on the Georgian Dream party, who was a typical focal point of coverage for the majority of media outlets.
The minimal praise or criticism of one specific party or candidate could be used to demonstrate that media outlets showed less bias compared to previous years. Although the decrease in biased reporting is a positive trend, it could also underline a scarcity of scrutiny and analysis that is vital during an election.
The lack of critical analysis means “it is hard for the public to decipher what is a lie and what is the truth,” said George Jologua. Voters can access more and more information, especially online. However, the public may be easily misled due to a shortfall of high-quality journalistic work which verifies and scrutinizes evidence. Information was often taken from only a small number of sources and focused on personal attacks, generalized statements, and events, rather than critical analysis and evidence.
Nata Dzvelishvili gave the example of the TV coverage of the marijuana legalization debate. News shows reported on events surrounding the debate rather than the issue itself. They refrained from discussing the social and economic implications of legalization, instead stating basic developments.
Moreover, the media generally shied away from in-depth analyses of the manifestos of candidates, also rarely covering social, regional, and minority issues.
However, independent MP Salome Zourabichvili, supported by Georgian Dream and favored by polls to win on Sunday, has been targeted by media with an above average amount of negative coverage. Newspaper Asaval Dasavali, ran stories entitled ‘Salome’s Cursing’, comparing her to a horror movie. Offensive terminology towards her was commonplace in many news outlets, perhaps in part due to gender bias as she was expected to become the first female President of Georgia.
Four out of seven newspapers analyzed included offensive terminology from journalists and respondents. It was sometimes present even in the titles of articles, demonstrating the explicit intent of journalists to use such language. Nonetheless, the amount of hate speech has decreased year on year since monitoring began. Only two of eleven online outlets were found to have made grave violations of journalistic ethics. In addition, participants of talk shows were able to speak more freely and there were less physical battles.
The election results showed a marginal win for Zurabishvili over Vashadze, with Davit Bakradze lagging behind. The president will now be decided in a runoff. The political unbias of the media perhaps fuelled the closeness of the two candidates. However, more analytical reporting may have better-informed voters of the differences between candidates.
The media landscape in Georgia is improving in many areas, notably showing a reduction in hate speech and bias. However, the panel clearly underlined the need for better quality investigative journalism and critical analysis. Munkhtuya Altangerei, UNDP Resident Representative a.i. in Georgia noted that this is important “so voters can make an informed choice about candidates.” Journalism, after all, is not simply a commentary of events, but rather a means by which democracy should be strengthened. More media monitoring results will be released in December.
By Amy Jones