During his speech at the Chatham House analytical centre in London, UK, the Prime Minister of Georgia, Giorgi Kvirikashvili, stated: "According to the reports of Freedom House and Reporters Without Borders, Georgia has achieved significant progress in terms of media freedom."

FactCheck

verified the accuracy of Giorgi Kvirikashvili’s statement.

According to the 2016 Freedom House Report,

Georgia’s rating in terms of media independence did not change as compared to the previous year (4.00). As for the same ratings throughout the years, they look like this:

Table 1: Independent Media Index, 2007-2016^[1]

Year	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016
Independent Media	4.00	4.25	4.25	4.25	4.25	4.25	4.25	4.00	4.00	4.00

Source: Freedom House

As the table makes clear, the situation in Georgia in terms of media independence worsened by 0.25 points in 2008. This indicator stayed constant from 2007 up until 2013 but returned to its previous score in 2014. The Independent Media Index for Georgia has not changed from 2014 to date.

Based upon the information from local non-governmental organisations, the Freedom House Report includes the proceedings against Rustavi 2 and the politicisation of the whole process. More specifically, it talks about the signs of political pressure applied by the ruling Georgian Dream coalition. The Report also mentions the closing down of political talk shows on various channels in the summer and autumn of 2015 which, according to the local non-governmental organisations, also showed signs of political pressure. In particular, representatives of the Georgian Dream coalition pressured various broadcasting companies and tried to alter their editorial policies.

Reporters Without Borders also studies the media environment in various countries. According to the organisation’s 2016 Report, the Press Freedom Index for Georgia worsened by 0.26 points as compared to the previous year. However, in terms of positions, the country moved forward by five positions, from 69^th to 64^th

in the global ranking. This was due to a serious worsening in the ratings of other countries. The Press Freedom Index for Georgia from 2007 to 2016 looks like this:

Table 2: Press Freedom Index, 2007-2016[2]

Year	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011-2012	2013	2014	2015	2016
Position	66	120	81	100	105	100	84	69	64
Index	20.83	31.25	18.83	27	38	30.09	29.78	27.70	27.96

Source: Reporters Without Borders

As the table shows, the Press Freedom Index for Georgia worsened significantly in 2008. It improved in 2009 but started worsening again in the period from 2010 to 2012. The Press Freedom Index kept improving upon an annual basis starting from 2013. According to the 2016 data, this Index has worsened again by 0.26 points.

The 2016 Reporters Without Borders Report

says that the media is still polarised in Georgia and despite small progress, the owners of the media companies still talk about the attempts by politicians to influence their editorial policies. In addition, the battle for shares in broadcasting companies still remains among the top reasons for concern in terms of media pluralism.

Another international organisation, the International Research and Exchange Board (IREX), also studies the media environment of different countries. Its latest Report

was published in April 2016. The 21 countries presented in the Report are put into four different categories in terms of media sustainability: Unsustainable, Anti-Free Press (A/A), Unsustainable Mixed System (U/M), Near Sustainability (N/S) and Sustainable (S). The Media Sustainability Index for Georgia from 2007 to 2016 looks like this:

Table 3:

 Media Sustainability Index, 2006-2016

Year	2006-2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016
Index	2.40	2.07	1.89	1.82	2.07	1.88	2.15	2.63	2.51	2.42
Category	-	-	U/M	U/M	N/S	U/M	N/S	N/S	N/S	N/S

Source: IREX (International Research and Exchange Board)

As the table makes clear, Georgia was categorised in the Unsustainable Mixed System in 2009 and 2010. It moved to the category of Near Sustainability in 2011, moving down again in 2012. In 2013 Georgia once again assumed the place in the category of Near Sustainability and has stayed there ever since. The Index points, however, have worsened slightly since 2014.

In terms of the panel discussion held by IREX in the process of preparing its 2016 Report, participants underscored the negative trends in the field of media in Georgia. The court case against Rustavi 2 was in particular focus. The rapid adoption of the Law on Advertising Time by the Parliament of Georgia was also said to be among the major challenges for Georgian broadcasting companies. The participants of the discussion also mentioned the lengthy process of electing the two members of the Georgian Public Broadcaster’s Board. The Report also talks about the strengthening of the pro-Russian narrative in the media. Parallel to this, however, the Report positively assessed the transfer to digital broadcasting. However, it also says that the technical flaws in this process left parts of the population in the regions without access to Georgian TV channels.

Conclusion

According to Freedom House reports, small progress was indeed observed in terms of media independence in Georgia after 2014 as compared to the period from 2008 to 2013. However, Georgia’s points have not improved in the Independent Media Index over the past three years. According to the Reporters Without Borders reports from 2013-2015, the Press Freedom Index for Georgia showed improvement. It worsened by 0.26 points in 2016. The advance in the country’s positioning in the ratings, on the other hand, was due to the much sharper worsening in points by other countries. In addition, the aforementioned reports highlight numerous problems in Georgia’s media environment.

FactCheck concludes that the Prime Minister’s statement is MOSTLY FALSE.

______________________________ [1]

 The lesser the ranking point in the Freedom House Independent Media Index, the higher the media independence.

[2] The lesser the ranking point in the Reporters Without Borders Press Freedom Index, the higher the freedom of the press.