Paradoxes of Georgian media

George Kalatozishvili, Tbilisi.Exclusively for Vestnik Kavkaza

The international organization "Reporters without Borders" published the "index of press freedom in the world", in which Georgia ranks one hundredth. During the year after the change of authorities the country moved up four points.

Of course, the rating of an international human rights organization is not holy scripture, and it can be regarded critically. As you know, it is common for "rating agencies" to dislike discussing the criteria according to which they make their verdicts. However, recent data about Georgia indicates that the main one among them is the level of direct or indirect influence of government agencies to the work of media. It is much more important than that of, say, big business, which in Georgia (as, indeed, in any country) is trying to control the flow of information through the control of the most serious and influential media.

What exactly made Georgia move up? First of all, it was the change of the basic attribute of the television space: the former government led by Mikhail Saakashvili did everything to make national television follow the "correct course". Two of the best companies - "Imedi" and "Rustavi-2" - belonged to businessmen who were close to the authorities.Unlike the similar situation in some other post-Soviet states is that, if in oligarchic systems big business controls the authorities through the media, thereby protecting themselves and their interests, under Saakashvili the configuration in Georgia was slightly different: the authorities tightly controlled businesses, giving oligarchs major projects, and luring their enterprises with an annual write-off of tax debt.

Michiko has created a system of subsidizing broadcasters to buy their loyalty this way.It is understood that the annual write-off of tax debt is a great help for television enterprises in a small country with a limited advertising market, where TV stations can never be profitable if they pay all taxes.

 The new authorities have canceled such subsidies and any interference with the television business, but the result is paradoxical: a kind of subsidy for television had allowed them to create quality products in a variety of shows and competitions of quite European level. It would be sufficient to mention the annual contests "Dancing Stars" on "Imedi TV" or the young singers competition on "Rustavi-2". Now this diversity may come to an end. Broadcasting companies are forced to fill the airwaves and attract viewers only due to scandalous talk shows, and not the creation of high-quality television products that would do good to society, educating people's sense of style and taste.

Another thing is that behind the scenes, Saakashvili's regime used this leverage for political purposes, instead of encouraging creativity for the creators of quality television product through legal benefits.

But for the schematic and "linear" rating of international agencies such nuances are not important. They are afraid of paradoxes like the devil fears holy water.

As for print media, in Georgia this media segment is miserable because the circulation of the most "advanced" newspapers and weeklies does not exceed 3000 in a country with 4 million people.