“Georgia is a safe country for journalists but this should not mean they are free to spread disinformation,” said Georgian Parliament Speaker, Shalva Papuashvili addressing Georgian Media Advocacy Coalition via Facebook.

According to the Speaker, Georgian Media Advocacy Coalition has recently disseminated a statement “celebrating the fact that five European organizations commented on discrediting a prominent Georgian journalist.”

Here is the Speaker’s statement in full:

“The Media Freedom Rapid Response partners alleged that my comments on journalist Gela Mtivlishvili came ‘amid a broader wave of smear campaigns against independent media in Georgia’. It is worth noting that these assertions, in themselves, represent disinformation about media freedom in Georgia in general, and about my statements, in particular. How prominent a journalist Gela Mtivlishvili is is a matter of a separate discussion but this is not the main inaccuracy of the statement. We are dealing with a much deeper problem, which I will try to explain here, once again.

My attitude towards reporting about the Shovi tragedy is well known. In several statements, I indicated that Mtivlishvili’s coverage of the tragic natural disaster in Shovi last August contained unverified information, which raised doubts about his truthfulness and professionalism. Consequently, an independent Swiss organization, which has recently investigated the disaster, and agreed with the State Environmental Agency’s primary conclusion, thus ascertaining that Mtivlishvili’s allegations were, indeed, misleading: he reported that authorities ignored swelling of the river, which proved false; his alleged that the reason of the tragedy was woodcutting, which turned out equally untrue; he claimed that a protective construction would contain the landslide, which proved to be a lie; and, finally, he insisted that an early warning system would predict the disaster.

However, again and again, the impartial experts said the opposite: no such system would have been able to forewarn such a landslide, with enough time to react. Thus, Mtivlishvili’s case that the Georgian government failed to take precautions to avert the disaster finally fell apart, but the journalist’s false presumptions, broadcast from the epicenter of the disaster and presented as facts, aggravated the already dire situation surrounding the victims and their aggrieved families. His coverage of the disaster did not fit journalistic standards and was far from human empathy. However, this did not stop him from turning his ‘findings’ into a film, presented as a journalistic investigation, which received accolades from some international bodies.

Exposing Mtivlishvili’s disinformation is essential, especially because it becomes more and more apparent that his misleading reports were premeditated falsehoods that aimed at spreading panic. Criticism of his ‘journalism’, which is our duty even, so that to prevent further disinformation. Unfortunately, not a single journalistic organization attempted to establish the truth before defending Mtivlishvili. Apparently, this happened for the sake of corporate solidarity, without even thinking that by doing so they put such solidarity above the society’s right to receive accurate information. What is, then, the use of journalism that distorts information? This particular case illustrates a significant malaise characteristic of Georgian ‘critical’ journalism and their foreign partners. Any criticism and accusations, leveled by the media against the government, must be accepted at its face value, but also recognized as perfectly legitimate and true by the very fact that they are reported by journalists.

Moreover, any expression of doubt, even if buttressed with arguments, from the government officials, is taken to be ‘discrediting of a legitimate media outlet and contribution to increasing distrust in the media’, in the words of the above mentioned international NGO. Moreover, if a government official, God forbid, repeats his or her counter-criticism, then their position becomes a ‘systemic pressure’ against the media. Well, in the first place, criticism of journalists must be accepted as part of normal debate within a democratic society. Overzealous foreign partners seem to be so anxious to ‘expose’ violations of press freedom that they take every criticism of the media, even if justified, as a ‘public discreditation’ of a particular journalist or a media outlet.

Georgia is a safe country for journalists but this should not mean they are free to spread disinformation. Every time they allow inaccuracies, they will be criticized. And this is normal. Organizations interested in press freedom should be, besides criticizing the government, inquisitive about the professionalism of their kin, so that not to discredit the profession. Allegiance to the truth is what distinguishes journalism from propaganda. We need more of the former and less of the latter,” the Speaker said.