საქართველოს ტექნიკური უნივერსიტეტი ტელეკომპანიებს - „რუსთავი 2“ და „იმედი“ -  ბოდიშის მოხდას სთხოვს. 

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Biased language

Use of loaded, emotionally charged wording that frames one side as clearly bad‑faith or malicious without neutral phrasing.

Phrases such as: - "კატეგორიულად უარყოფს გავრცელებულ ინფორმაციას" (categorically rejects the disseminated information) – strong but acceptable as a legal/official formula, yet sets a confrontational tone. - "ფაქტობრივ შეცდომებს, დამახინჯებულ შეფასებებს და მკაფიო დეზინფორმაციას" (factual errors, distorted assessments and clear disinformation) – labels the reports as disinformation without presenting detailed evidence in the text. - "სიმართლე მათ ხელს არ აძლევდათ და ... იმიჯის შელახვა ... სცადეს" (the truth did not suit them and they tried to damage the university’s image) – directly attributes malicious intent. - "მიზანმიმართულ დისკრედიტაციას და საზოგადოებრივი აზრის მანიპულაციის მცდელობას" (deliberate discreditation and an attempt to manipulate public opinion). These formulations go beyond neutral description of alleged inaccuracies and frame the TV companies as intentionally deceptive and manipulative.

3 suggestions

Replace intent‑attributing phrases with neutral descriptions of the content. For example, instead of "სიმართლე მათ ხელს არ აძლევდათ", use: "ჩვენი შეფასებით, სიუჟეტებში არ იყო სრულად ასახული არსებული მდგომარეობა" (in our assessment, the reports did not fully reflect the actual situation).

Change "მკაფიო დეზინფორმაცია" to a more precise, evidence‑linked wording such as: "არსებული ფაქტობრივი შეცდომები და არასრული ინფორმაცია" (existing factual errors and incomplete information), and then list specific inaccuracies.

Replace "მიზანმიმართულ დისკრედიტაციას" with: "სიუჟეტებმა შეიძლება გამოიწვიოს უნივერსიტეტის რეპუტაციის დაზიანება" (the reports may harm the university’s reputation), unless concrete evidence of intent is provided.

Unsubstantiated claims

Assertions presented as fact without providing sufficient evidence or sourcing in the text.

Key examples: - "არ ეფუძნება რეალურ ფაქტებს და არ არის გამყარებული ობიექტური მტკიცებულებებით" (are not based on real facts and are not supported by objective evidence) – the article does not show what checks were done or provide comparative data. - "ვიზუალური „დადასტურების“ მიზნით გამოყენებულია ვიდეოკადრები ... და არ ასახავს არც აუდიტორიებს და არც სველი წერტილებს" – the claim that the footage does not show the facilities in question is plausible but not documented with, for example, floor plans, timestamps, or independent verification. - "სიმართლე მათ ხელს არ აძლევდათ" – a strong claim about the journalists’ motives with no evidence. - "მიზანმიმართულ დისკრედიტაციას და საზოგადოებრივი აზრის მანიპულაციის მცდელობას" – again, motive is asserted but not substantiated. The article provides some factual counters (e.g., that building No. 2 is not used for teaching, that 600,000 GEL has been spent on reinforcement), but the strongest accusations about intent and disinformation are not backed by concrete proof in the text.

3 suggestions

When stating that claims "არ ეფუძნება რეალურ ფაქტებს", add specific, verifiable data: dates of building closure, official orders, inspection reports, or photos of current conditions.

Instead of asserting motives (e.g., "სიმართლე მათ ხელს არ აძლევდათ"), rephrase to focus on observable actions: "სიუჟეტებში არ იყო გამოყენებული ის კადრები, რომლებიც ასახავდა განახლებულ ლაბორატორიებს" (the reports did not use footage showing the renovated laboratories).

If alleging "მიზანმიმართული დისკრედიტაცია", either provide concrete evidence (e.g., internal communications, repeated patterns) or soften to a non‑intentional formulation: "სიუჟეტებმა შეიძლება შექმნას მცდარი შთაბეჭდილება" (the reports may create a misleading impression).

Appeal to emotion

Using emotionally charged framing to provoke indignation or sympathy rather than relying solely on factual argument.

The text repeatedly uses language that aims to trigger outrage and solidarity with the university: - "იმიჯის შელახვა მაყურებლის შეცდომაში შეყვანის ხარჯზე სცადეს, რაც კარგად გამოუვიდათ" (they tried to damage the university’s image by misleading viewers, which they did successfully) – invites indignation and a sense of injustice. - "მიზანმიმართულ დისკრედიტაციას და საზოგადოებრივი აზრის მანიპულაციის მცდელობას" – strong moral condemnation. - The detailed listing of square meters and expensive laboratories, followed by "სამწუხაროდ ... არცერთი ეს კადრი არ გამოიყენეს" – structured to create a sense of unfairness and victimization. These elements are not purely informational; they are designed to emotionally position the reader against the TV companies.

3 suggestions

Retain the factual content (e.g., list of laboratories, square meters, sums spent) but remove evaluative phrases like "სამწუხაროდ" and "იმიჯის შელახვა"; instead, state: "სიუჟეტებში არ იყო ნაჩვენები შემდეგი ობიექტები...".

Replace "რაც კარგად გამოუვიდათ" with a neutral description: "რის შედეგადაც მაყურებელმა შეიძლება შეიქმნას არასრული წარმოდგენა" (as a result, viewers may form an incomplete impression).

Focus on the requested remedies (correction, right of reply, legal mechanisms) and legal references, which are inherently more objective, and minimize emotionally loaded commentary.

Oversimplification

Presenting a complex situation as if it had a single, clear cause or interpretation, ignoring possible nuances.

The article implies a simple narrative: the TV companies intentionally misrepresented conditions to damage GTU’s image, and the reality is that conditions are adequate and the problematic areas are unused or under repair. Examples: - "აღნიშნული სიუჟეტები მოიცავს ... მკაფიო დეზინფორმაციას" – suggests the reports are purely disinformation, without acknowledging that some footage might reflect real, albeit partial, problems. - "ყურადღება გაამახვილეს მხოლოდ იმ ინფრასტრუქტურაზე, რომელიც ... საერთოდ არ გამოიყენება" – implies that focusing on these areas is inherently illegitimate, without considering that showing problematic or under‑repair infrastructure can be newsworthy. - The link to the merger discussion: "განსაკუთრებით იმ ფონზე, როდესაც ... ვრცელდებოდა ინფორმაცია ... შესაძლო გაერთიანების შესახებ" – hints at a broader political/media context but presents it as a straightforward backdrop for intentional discreditation, without exploring alternative explanations.

3 suggestions

Acknowledge possible partial validity of the TV reports, if any, e.g.: "მიუხედავად იმისა, რომ მეორე კორპუსში მართლაც მიმდინარეობს სარემონტო სამუშაოები, სასწავლო პროცესი იქ არ ტარდება" (although renovation is indeed ongoing in the second building, no teaching takes place there).

Clarify that the issue is not that problematic areas were shown, but that, in GTU’s view, the overall picture was incomplete: "ჩვენი შეფასებით, სიუჟეტებმა არ ასახა უნივერსიტეტის ინფრასტრუქტურის სრული სურათი".

Regarding the merger context, rephrase to avoid implying a single motive: "აღნიშნული სიუჟეტები გადაიცა იმ პერიოდში, როდესაც მედიაში განიხილებოდა ... შესაძლო გაერთიანება, რაც ამ თემას დამატებით სენსიტიურობას ანიჭებს" (this makes the topic more sensitive) rather than suggesting a direct causal link.

Confirmation bias / Selective use of sources

Highlighting only information that supports one’s position and ignoring or downplaying contrary evidence or perspectives.

The article: - Extensively lists positive aspects: modern laboratories (HUAWEI lab, renewable energy lab, solar power plant, etc.), large total area, significant investment (about 600,000 GEL) in reinforcement and reconstruction. - Emphasizes that the problematic infrastructure is "სასწავლო ან კვლევითი პროცესებისთვის საერთოდ არ გამოიყენება" and is under repair. - Does not provide any detail about the specific criticisms made in the TV reports (e.g., exact conditions shown, any student testimonies, or independent assessments) beyond labeling them as false or misleading. - Does not include or summarize any response from Rustavi 2 or Imedi, nor any third‑party evaluation. This creates a picture where only GTU’s favorable evidence is visible, and all contrary information is dismissed as disinformation without examination.

3 suggestions

Summarize the main concrete claims made in the TV reports (e.g., specific examples of alleged unsanitary conditions) and respond to each with data or explanations, rather than only labeling them as false.

Acknowledge any real issues that may exist (e.g., areas under renovation) and explain timelines and plans for improvement, instead of presenting only positive infrastructure elements.

Note whether the university has invited independent inspections or third‑party experts to verify conditions; including such external references would reduce the impression of one‑sidedness.

Unbalanced reporting / One-sided presentation

Presenting only one side’s narrative in a conflict or controversy, without giving space to the other side’s arguments or context.

The entire article is GTU’s statement. Rustavi 2 and Imedi are only described through GTU’s characterizations (e.g., "დეზინფორმაცია", "მიზანმიმართული დისკრედიტაცია"). The TV companies’ specific arguments, evidence, or possible responses are not included or even briefly summarized. The legal references (to the broadcasting law) are all used to support GTU’s position, with no mention of how the TV companies might interpret their obligations or defend their reporting.

3 suggestions

Include at least a brief, neutral summary of what Rustavi 2 and Imedi reported (e.g., key claims about conditions, quotes from their journalists) before presenting GTU’s rebuttal.

If available, add any response or comment from the TV companies, or note that they were contacted for comment but did not respond.

Use more neutral attributions such as "GTU-ის განცხადებით" (according to GTU) or "უნივერსიტეტის შეფასებით" (in the university’s assessment) before evaluative claims, to signal that this is one side’s perspective.

Appeal to authority

Using references to laws or formal authority to bolster a claim, sometimes in place of substantive evidence.

The article cites multiple articles of the Georgian Law on Broadcasting (52(g), 54, 56, 59) and states that the TV reports "პირდაპირ ეწინააღმდეგება" these provisions. While legal references are relevant, they are used to strengthen the accusation without a detailed legal analysis or explanation of how each article was violated in practice. This can function as an appeal to authority: the implication is that because the law is cited, the TV companies must be in the wrong.

3 suggestions

For each cited legal article, briefly explain how the specific behavior allegedly violated it (e.g., which facts were not checked, where facts and comments were not clearly separated).

Clarify that this is GTU’s legal interpretation, e.g.: "ჩვენი შეფასებით, სიუჟეტები ეწინააღმდეგება ..." rather than stating it as an uncontested fact.

Complement legal references with concrete, verifiable examples from the broadcasts, so that the reader can see the factual basis for the legal claims.

Narrative fallacy

Constructing a coherent story that links events into a simple narrative, possibly overstating causal connections.

The article suggests a narrative in which: 1) There are media discussions about a possible merger between GTU and Tbilisi State University. 2) Around the same time, Rustavi 2 and Imedi air critical reports about GTU’s conditions. 3) Therefore, these reports are framed as "მიზანმიმართული დისკრედიტაცია" and "საზოგადოებრივი აზრის მანიპულაციის მცდელობა". The temporal coincidence and political sensitivity are used to support a story of intentional discreditation, but no direct evidence is provided that the merger discussions caused or motivated the TV reports.

3 suggestions

Present the timing as context without implying causation: e.g., "აღნიშნული სიუჟეტები გადაიცა იმ პერიოდში, როდესაც ...", without concluding that this proves intent to manipulate public opinion.

Avoid linking the merger discussion and the TV reports as cause and effect unless there is concrete evidence (e.g., leaked communications, explicit statements).

Frame GTU’s interpretation explicitly as a hypothesis: "უნივერსიტეტის შეფასებით, სიუჟეტები შეიძლება იყოს დაკავშირებული ..." rather than as an established fact.