Media Manipulation and Bias Detection
Auto-Improving with AI and User Feedback
- Objectivity Score
- Objectivity Score
- Objectivity Score
- Objectivity Score
- Objectivity Score
- Objectivity Score
Media Manipulation and Bias Detection
Auto-Improving with AI and User Feedback
HonestyMeter - AI powered bias detection
CLICK ANY SECTION TO GIVE FEEDBACK, IMPROVE THE REPORT, SHAPE A FAIRER WORLD!
Defense / Giorgi Gakharia and his lawyer
Caution! Due to inherent human biases, it may seem that reports on articles aligning with our views are crafted by opponents. Conversely, reports about articles that contradict our beliefs might seem to be authored by allies. However, such perceptions are likely to be incorrect. These impressions can be caused by the fact that in both scenarios, articles are subjected to critical evaluation. This report is the product of an AI model that is significantly less biased than human analyses and has been explicitly instructed to strictly maintain 100% neutrality.
Nevertheless, HonestyMeter is in the experimental stage and is continuously improving through user feedback. If the report seems inaccurate, we encourage you to submit feedback , helping us enhance the accuracy and reliability of HonestyMeter and contributing to media transparency.
Use of loaded, value-laden wording that frames one side positively and the other negatively.
Phrases such as: - "დევნა, ფორმალური თუ არაფორმალური გიორგი გახარიას მიმართ თვეებია მიმდინარეობს. ეს არის ივანიშვილის პოლიტიკური ვენდეტა." (Persecution, formal or informal, against Giorgi Gakharia has been going on for months. This is Ivanishvili’s political vendetta.) - "ივანიშვილის მსახურის პროკურატურა" (Ivanishvili’s servant prosecution.) - "ვინმე ნანა კაკაბაძე, ვინმე ვახტანგ შაქარაშვილი" (some Nana Kakabadze, some Vakhtang Shakarashvili) – the word "ვინმე" here is dismissive and derogatory. - "ეს საქმე იქნება პრეცედენტული საქმე, რომლისგანაც ვერ გამოძვრება 'ოცნების' ვერც ერთი წევრი" (This case will be a precedent from which no member of 'Dream' will be able to escape.) These are not neutral descriptions but evaluative, hostile characterizations.
Replace emotionally charged labels with neutral institutional descriptions, e.g. change "ეს არის ივანიშვილის პოლიტიკური ვენდეტა" to "ადვოკატის თქმით, საქმე პოლიტიკურად მოტივირებულია" and clearly attribute it as an opinion.
Change "ივანიშვილის მსახურის პროკურატურა" to a neutral term like "პროკურატურა, რომელსაც ადვოკატი ივანიშვილთან ასოცირებს" and mark it as the lawyer’s characterization, not fact.
Remove or rephrase "ვინმე" before witness names; simply list them neutrally: "ამ საქმეში ბრალდების მოწმეები არიან ნანა კაკაბაძე, ვახტანგ შაქარაშვილი..."
Add editorial distance markers such as "როგორც ის ამტკიცებს", "მისი შეფასებით" to make clear these are subjective assessments.
Using emotionally charged framing to provoke sympathy or anger instead of presenting evidence.
Examples include: - "დევნა, ფორმალური თუ არაფორმალური გიორგი გახარიას მიმართ" (Persecution, formal or informal, against Giorgi Gakharia.) - "ეს არის ივანიშვილის პოლიტიკური ვენდეტა" (This is Ivanishvili’s political vendetta.) - "მას ედავებიან ქართული მიწის დაცვას" (He is being accused for defending Georgian land.) These formulations are designed to elicit indignation and sympathy rather than neutrally describe legal charges.
Clarify that these are rhetorical claims by the lawyer, e.g. "ადვოკატის თქმით, საქმე წარმოადგენს პოლიტიკურ დევნას" instead of stating it as a fact.
Balance emotional claims with factual description of the charges: specify the exact Criminal Code articles and legal arguments from the prosecution side.
Add context from independent legal experts or official documents to reduce reliance on emotional framing alone.
Attacking individuals or institutions instead of addressing their arguments or actions.
The lawyer’s quotes include: - "ეს არის ივანიშვილის პოლიტიკური ვენდეტა" – directly attacking Bidzina Ivanishvili’s motives. - "ივანიშვილის მსახურის პროკურატურა" – labeling the prosecution as a "servant" of Ivanishvili. - The dismissive "ვინმე" before witness names undermines them personally rather than addressing their testimony. These are personal and institutional insults rather than substantive legal critique.
Rephrase or clearly attribute ad hominem statements as opinions and counterbalance them with the other side’s response, e.g. include a comment or prior statement from the Prosecutor’s Office or Georgian Dream representatives.
Focus on critiquing specific legal actions or procedural issues (e.g. timing of charges, evidence quality) instead of motives or character.
If such quotes are kept for news value, add editorial framing like "კრიტიკულად აფასებს" and immediately follow with the targeted side’s position or a note that they have been contacted for comment.
Presenting serious allegations without evidence or corroboration.
Key examples: - "დევნა, ფორმალური თუ არაფორმალური გიორგი გახარიას მიმართ თვეებია მიმდინარეობს" – claims ongoing persecution without specifying concrete actions or evidence. - "ეს არის ივანიშვილის პოლიტიკური ვენდეტა" – alleges a personal vendetta by Ivanishvili without supporting facts. - "ორი უწყება, რომელიც გახარიას უყენებს პრეტენზიას, ეს არის ცხინვალის საოკუპაციო რეჟიმი და ივანიშვილის მსახურის პროკურატურა" – equates the prosecution with the "occupation regime" and implies coordination, again without evidence. - "ეს საქმე იქნება პრეცედენტული საქმე, რომლისგანაც ვერ გამოძვრება 'ოცნების' ვერც ერთი წევრი" – sweeping prediction presented as certainty. The article does not provide documents, data, or opposing comments to substantiate or challenge these claims.
Explicitly mark these as allegations or opinions: use formulations like "ადვოკატი ამტკიცებს, რომ..." or "მისი შეფასებით" and avoid presenting them as established facts.
Add references to any available evidence (court filings, official statements, timelines) that either support or contradict these claims.
Include a response or prior public position from Ivanishvili, the Prosecutor’s Office, or Georgian Dream, or clearly state that they were contacted and did not respond.
Avoid absolute predictions like "ვერ გამოძვრება ვერც ერთი წევრი"; instead, phrase as "მისი თქმით, შესაძლოა ჰქონდეს გავლენა 'ოცნების' წევრებზე" if it is speculative.
Presenting predominantly one side’s narrative without adequate representation of the other side.
The article extensively quotes only the defense lawyer, who frames the case as political persecution and a vendetta. There is no direct quote or paraphrased position from: - The Prosecutor’s Office, - Georgian Dream representatives, - The mentioned witnesses (Nana Kakabadze, Vakhtang Shakarashvili, Vakhtang Gomelauri, Kakhi Kakhishvili), - Independent legal experts. The only neutral part is a brief factual paragraph about the charges and potential sentence. This structure heavily favors the defense narrative.
Add the official position of the Prosecutor’s Office on the charges, including their legal reasoning and response to the accusation of political motivation.
Include comments or previously published statements from Georgian Dream representatives or Bidzina Ivanishvili, if available.
Seek or reference independent legal analysis of the charges (e.g. from non-partisan legal NGOs or experts) to provide context.
Clearly separate factual background (what charges exist, what episodes, what maximum sentence) from each side’s interpretations and ensure both sides’ interpretations are presented with similar prominence.
Reducing a complex legal and political situation to a simple, emotionally appealing story.
Statements like: - "მას ედავებიან ქართული მიწის დაცვას" (He is being accused for defending Georgian land.) - "თითქოს ჩორჩანაში საგუშაგოს ჩადგმით, ეროვნული ინტერესები შეილახა" (As if by placing an outpost in Chorchana, national interests were harmed.) These frame the entire legal case as a straightforward punishment for patriotism, ignoring the specific legal issues, procedures, and possible alternative interpretations of the events (e.g. use of force on Gavrilov’s night, legal competence, chain of command, etc.).
Clarify that "მას ედავებიან ქართული მიწის დაცვას" is the defense’s interpretation, not the legal formulation of the charges.
Provide the exact legal wording of the charges and explain, even briefly, what specific actions are alleged to be criminal.
Mention that there are differing interpretations of the Chorchana outpost and Gavrilov’s night events, and, if possible, summarize them.
Avoid reducing the case to a single moral narrative (patriot vs. persecutors); instead, present it as a complex legal and political dispute with multiple perspectives.
Presenting only information that supports one political narrative, reinforcing existing beliefs of a particular audience.
The article amplifies a common opposition narrative: that prosecutions are politically motivated and directed personally by Ivanishvili. It does so by: - Quoting only the defense lawyer’s accusations and emotional framing. - Not including any counter-arguments, legal justifications, or neutral expert commentary. This can reinforce readers’ pre-existing beliefs without challenging them with alternative information.
Include perspectives from multiple political and institutional actors, not just the defense side.
Add context about previous similar cases and how courts have ruled, to allow readers to compare patterns rather than rely on a single narrative.
Explicitly distinguish between fact, allegation, and opinion, so readers can better evaluate which parts align with their beliefs and why.
Where possible, link or refer to primary documents (indictments, court decisions) so readers can verify claims independently.
Headline emphasizes one aspect (witness list) without reflecting the strong partisan framing that dominates the article.
Headline: "გახარიას წინააღმდეგ აღძრულ საქმეში მოწმეები არიან ნანა კაკაბაძე, ვახტანგ შაქარაშვილი, ვახტანგ გომელაური, კახი კახიშვილი და სხვები" – focuses on the presence of well-known figures as witnesses. However, the bulk of the text is not an in-depth exploration of witnesses or their role, but a political and emotional statement by the lawyer about persecution and vendetta.
Adjust the headline to better reflect the content, e.g. "გახარიას ადვოკატი საქმეს პოლიტიკურ ვენდეტად აფასებს – მოწმეებად დასახელდნენ ნანა კაკაბაძე, ვახტანგ შაქარაშვილი და სხვები".
Alternatively, expand the article to actually analyze the role and significance of the witnesses, if the current headline is kept.
Ensure future headlines signal when an article is primarily about one side’s reaction or opinion, not just about procedural facts.
- This is an EXPERIMENTAL DEMO version that is not intended to be used for any other purpose than to showcase the technology's potential. We are in the process of developing more sophisticated algorithms to significantly enhance the reliability and consistency of evaluations. Nevertheless, even in its current state, HonestyMeter frequently offers valuable insights that are challenging for humans to detect.