გრანტებთან და პოლიტიკურ საქმიანობასთან დაკავშირებული საკანონმდებლო ცვლილებათა პაკეტი პარლამენტში ინიცირებულია და განსახილველად კომიტეტებს გადაეცა - ცვლილება შვიდ კანონში შედის. 

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Unbalanced reporting

Presenting only one side’s perspective or information while omitting other relevant viewpoints or reactions.

The article exclusively presents the content of the legislative package and explanations from the initiators (ფრაქცია „ქართული ოცნება“, ირაკლი კირცხალია) without any mention of: - Reactions from opposition parties - Opinions of NGOs, legal experts, business associations, media, or affected groups - Any critical assessment, potential risks, or controversies around the changes Examples: - „ცვლილება, რომლის ავტორი და ინიციატორი ფრაქცია „ქართული ოცნებაა“…“ – only the initiator is mentioned; no other political actors’ positions are described. - „როგორც ფრაქცია “ქართული ოცნება“ განმარტავს…“ – the explanation of how the law would work is given solely from the ruling party’s perspective. - The article details sanctions, definitions, and procedures, but does not indicate whether these changes are debated, contested, or supported by other stakeholders.

5 suggestions

Add reactions from opposition parties and independent MPs (e.g., whether they support or oppose the package and why).

Include comments from relevant NGOs, legal experts, and business associations on the potential impact on civil society, political pluralism, and business activity.

Mention if there have been public debates, protests, or international reactions (e.g., from EU, CoE, or other partners) regarding similar regulations or this specific package.

Clarify whether the bill has critics who see risks for rights such as freedom of association, political participation, or freedom of expression, and summarize their arguments in neutral language.

If available, include any official justifications or impact assessments beyond the initiators’ statements (e.g., government analytical documents, constitutional review, etc.).

Omission of key information

Leaving out important contextual or explanatory information that would help readers fully understand the significance, implications, or controversy of the issue.

The article describes the legal changes in detail but omits several key contextual elements: - No explanation of the broader political or legal context (e.g., why these changes are proposed now, what specific problems they are meant to address, whether there were concrete cases of abuse). - No mention of how this package compares to existing regulations (what exactly is new or stricter compared to current law). - No discussion of potential implications for NGOs, media, businesses, or individuals who receive foreign funding or engage in political activity. - No reference to whether similar laws exist in other countries and how they function. For example, the text states: - „ასეთი გრანტის მიღება პირს მხოლოდ საქართველოს მთავრობის წინასწარი ნებართვით შეეძლება.“ – but does not explain how this might affect the practical work of NGOs, think tanks, or experts. - „პირს, რომელიც შრომითი ხელშეკრულებით არის დასაქმებული იმ ორგანიზაციაში, რომლის წლის განმავლობაში მიღებული შემოსავლის 20%-ზე მეტი მიღებულია უცხოური ძალისგან, აეკრძალება პოლიტიკური პარტიის წევრობა 8 წლის განმავლობაში.“ – there is no analysis of how many people or what sectors this might realistically affect, or whether this raises constitutional or human rights concerns.

5 suggestions

Explain the stated motivation for the bill: what specific risks or abuses the initiators claim to address (e.g., examples of alleged foreign interference, existing enforcement gaps).

Clarify what is new compared to current law: which powers, definitions, or sanctions are being introduced or significantly expanded.

Add neutral analysis or expert commentary on potential consequences for NGOs, media, academic institutions, and businesses that receive foreign funding or provide expertise.

Mention whether there are concerns about compatibility with the Constitution, human rights standards, or international obligations, and summarize these concerns objectively if they exist.

Provide comparative context: note if similar regulations exist in other countries, and briefly describe how they are implemented and debated there.

Selective use of sources

Relying only on official or one-sided sources without indicating that other relevant sources or perspectives exist.

The article relies entirely on: - The text of the legislative initiative itself, and - Explanations from the ruling party / initiators (ფრაქცია „ქართული ოცნება“, ირაკლი კირცხალია). There are no references to: - Opposition politicians or parties - Civil society organizations - Independent legal experts or analysts - International organizations or observers This creates a situation where the reader only sees the official framing and technical description, without any independent or critical perspective.

5 suggestions

Cite at least one independent legal expert or constitutional lawyer to comment on the legal and practical implications of the changes.

Include statements from civil society organizations or professional associations that are likely to be affected (e.g., NGOs, media associations, business chambers).

If available, reference any reports or statements from international organizations (e.g., OSCE/ODIHR, Council of Europe bodies) on similar legislative trends.

Clearly distinguish between official justifications (from the initiators) and independent assessments, labeling each source and its role.

If no other sources are available at the time of writing, explicitly state that only the initiators’ information is currently available and that other reactions are pending.

Framing effect (mild)

Presenting information in a way that subtly shapes interpretation, even without overtly biased language, by focusing on certain aspects and not others.

The article’s structure and focus frame the legislative package primarily as a technical, legal clarification and tightening of rules, without framing it as controversial or potentially rights-affecting: - Emphasis is on definitions, sanctions, and procedures (e.g., „გრანტების განმარტება ზუსტდება“, „განისაზღვრება, რომ…“, „კანონპროექტით სისხლის სამართლებრივი პასუხისმგებლობა დაეკისრება…“). - There is no parallel framing that this could be seen as restricting political participation, association, or civil society space. While the language is not overtly evaluative, the exclusive focus on legal-technical detail can lead readers to perceive the changes as routine or purely technical, rather than potentially contentious.

4 suggestions

Add a short, neutral paragraph indicating that such regulations can be viewed differently: as protection against foreign interference by supporters, and as potential restriction of political and civic freedoms by critics.

Explicitly note that the package has (or may have) political and societal implications beyond technical legal adjustments.

Balance the technical description with a brief mention of possible impacts on democratic processes, civil society, and political competition, using neutral wording.

Clarify that the article is summarizing the legal content and that broader political debate exists or may emerge around these changes.