მცხეთაში, მდინარე არაგვის მარჯვენა სანაპიროზე, მრავალფუნქციური პარკის პროექტირება იწყება. 

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Omission of key information

Leaving out relevant contextual information that could affect how the reader evaluates the project.

The article describes the project’s scope and technical aspects (park functions, bridge rehabilitation, security systems, etc.) and mentions coordination with UNESCO-related bodies, but omits potentially relevant information such as: project budget and funding source; any environmental impact assessment; whether there was public consultation or local opposition/support; possible negative impacts (e.g., construction disturbance, maintenance costs, impact on natural landscape). This creates a one-dimensional, purely positive, technical picture of the project.

4 suggestions

Add information about the project budget, funding sources, and expected maintenance costs, if available.

Mention whether environmental or cultural heritage impact assessments have been conducted and summarize their main conclusions.

Indicate whether there has been public consultation or feedback from local residents and stakeholders, including any concerns or criticisms, not only support.

Clarify any potential risks or challenges (e.g., construction impact on the riverbank, traffic, noise) alongside the listed benefits.

Unbalanced reporting

Presenting only one perspective or only positive aspects of a project without acknowledging possible drawbacks or alternative views.

The text lists only positive or neutral elements: park functions, rehabilitation, safety systems, coordination with heritage bodies. There is no mention of any critical viewpoints, debates, or trade-offs (e.g., whether some heritage experts or residents might worry about overdevelopment, commercialization, or environmental impact). Even if no controversy exists, the article does not explicitly state that there has been no significant opposition, leaving the impression that only the implementing institutions’ perspective matters.

3 suggestions

If there is known criticism or concern from experts, NGOs, or residents, briefly summarize it and indicate how the authorities plan to address it.

If there has been no notable opposition, explicitly state that no significant objections have been publicly reported so far.

Include at least one independent or expert perspective (e.g., from a heritage specialist or urban planner) that is not directly part of the implementing body, even if it is broadly supportive, to show that the project has been externally evaluated.

Selective use of sources

Relying primarily on information from one interested party without independent or diverse sourcing.

The article is based entirely on information from the Municipal Development Fund’s Facebook post. There are no additional sources, such as comments from local authorities independent of the Fund, heritage experts, local residents, or NGOs. This can subtly favor the implementing institution’s framing, even though the language itself is neutral.

3 suggestions

Cite at least one additional, independent source (e.g., a statement from the municipality, a heritage expert, or an urban planning specialist) to corroborate or contextualize the information.

Clarify that the information comes from the Municipal Development Fund and indicate whether the outlet has attempted to obtain further comment or verification.

If possible, include a brief reaction from local residents or civil society organizations, even if only to confirm general support or lack of controversy.