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!
Government / Prime Minister
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.
Presenting mainly one side’s perspective while omitting other relevant viewpoints.
The article consists almost entirely of quotes from the Prime Minister: his assessment of price markups, suspicions of cartel agreements, and the idea of introducing antimonopoly legislation. There are no comments or reactions from distributors, retail chains, independent economists, competition-law experts, or investigative bodies that might be affected or implicated. Example passages: - „ფასნამატი, რაც წარმოიქმნება, საქართველოს საზღვრიდან დახლებამდე, არის ძალიან მაღალი. საშუალოდ, ეს ფასნამატი არის 86%. ეს ფასნამატი წარმოიქმნება სადისტრიბუციო კომპანიებში და შემდეგ უკვე ქსელურ მარკეტებში. ეს საკითხი შესწავლილი გვაქვს...“ - „არის გარკვეული ეჭვები იმასთან დაკავშირებით, რომ შეიძლება საქმე გვქონდეს კარტელურ გარიგებებთან...“ Only the government’s framing of the issue is presented; the potentially affected businesses are mentioned only as objects of suspicion, not as active voices.
Add responses or comments from representatives of distribution companies and retail chains about the alleged 86% markup and suspicions of cartel agreements.
Include an independent expert (e.g., economist or competition-law specialist) to contextualize whether an 86% markup is unusual in this market and what factors might explain it.
Mention whether there is any official investigation already underway or whether relevant agencies have commented on the Prime Minister’s statements.
Clarify that the article is reporting only the Prime Minister’s position and that other stakeholders either declined to comment or could not be reached, if that is the case.
Presenting claims or suspicions without providing evidence, data, or clear sourcing beyond a general assertion.
The article relays several claims that are not backed up with concrete evidence or detailed data in the text: 1) The 86% markup figure: - „საშუალოდ, ეს ფასნამატი არის 86%. ეს ფასნამატი წარმოიქმნება სადისტრიბუციო კომპანიებში და შემდეგ უკვე ქსელურ მარკეტებში. ეს საკითხი შესწავლილი გვაქვს, ზოგადი შეფასება გაკეთებული გვაქვს...“ The article does not explain how this 86% was calculated, for which products, over what time period, or by whom exactly it was “studied”. 2) Suspicions of cartel agreements and possible criminal elements: - „არის გარკვეული ეჭვები იმასთან დაკავშირებით, რომ შეიძლება საქმე გვქონდეს კარტელურ გარიგებებთან...“ - „ან შეიძლება თუნდაც საგამოძიებო ორგანოები დაინტერესდნენ, ხომ არ არის სადმე კონკრეტული სისხლის სამართლის დანაშაულის ნიშნებიც კი“ These are serious implications about private businesses, but the article does not mention any specific cases, evidence, or ongoing investigations; it only reports generalized suspicions.
Specify the source and methodology of the 86% markup figure: which products were analyzed, over what period, and by which institution or study.
Clarify that the 86% figure is the Prime Minister’s claim and indicate whether it has been independently verified or challenged.
When mentioning suspicions of cartel agreements, add that these are currently unproven allegations and note whether any formal investigation has been opened.
Avoid implying criminal behavior (“სისხლის სამართლის დანაშაულის ნიშნები”) without referencing concrete cases, legal proceedings, or official statements from investigative bodies.
Using emotionally charged references to gain support rather than relying solely on neutral facts and analysis.
The Prime Minister’s statements emphasize public suffering from high prices, which is a legitimate concern but also functions as an emotional appeal to justify potential policy or investigative actions: - „მაქსიმალურად შევეცდებით პროდუქტებზე ფასების შემცირებას, რამდენადაც ეს იქნება შესაძლებელი, ჩვენთვის ეს არის ერთ-ერთი უმთავრესი ამოცანა, იქიდან გამომდინარე, რომ მაღალი ფასები აწუხებს ჩვენს საზოგადოებას“ This frames the government as protector of a suffering public against implicitly exploitative businesses, without presenting detailed economic analysis or alternative explanations (e.g., import costs, taxes, logistics, global price trends).
Balance references to public hardship with concrete data on inflation, import prices, logistics costs, and other structural factors affecting prices.
Clarify that concern for consumers is one motivation, but also present a neutral explanation of how competition policy and antimonopoly laws typically work and what evidence is needed.
Include neutral background information on price dynamics in Georgia and comparable countries, so the reader can assess whether the situation is exceptional or part of broader trends.
Presenting information in a way that emphasizes one interpretation over others, influencing perception without changing the underlying facts.
The way the issue is framed suggests that high prices are primarily due to excessive markups and possible cartel behavior: - „ფასნამატი, რაც წარმოიქმნება, საქართველოს საზღვრიდან დახლებამდე, არის ძალიან მაღალი... ეს ფასნამატი წარმოიქმნება სადისტრიბუციო კომპანიებში და შემდეგ უკვე ქსელურ მარკეტებში.“ - „არის გარკვეული ეჭვები იმასთან დაკავშირებით, რომ შეიძლება საქმე გვქონდეს კარტელურ გარიგებებთან...“ Other possible explanations (e.g., small market size, currency fluctuations, transport costs, taxation, global commodity prices) are not mentioned, which nudges the reader toward seeing private sector behavior as the main or only cause.
Explicitly note that high prices can have multiple causes, including global and structural factors, not only potential collusion or excessive markups.
Add expert commentary or data that outline alternative explanations for price levels in Georgia.
Rephrase to make clear that cartel agreements are one hypothesis among several, not the only or default explanation.
- 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.