News platforms by donor-funded non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have been among the most influential sources for shaping how Georgia’s politics are understood abroad. Here are their five biggest tricks that wouldn’t be possible today.
Their stories travel far and get picked up by international outlets and policymakers. But some of those stories haven’t always stood up to scrutiny, and the NGOs often hide their agendas. Here are five examples of narratives that might have sailed through the international press in the past, but wouldn’t get far today.
1. Presenting contested claims as if they were indisputable
Presenting President Salome Zourabichvili’s claim to still be president as fact, while treating Kavelashvili’s legal status as fringe. Zourabichvili stepped down in December 2024, after initially claiming she would refuse to leave office, while Kavelashvili was legally selected as president, however much one may disagree.
2. Assuming the ruling party always lies, and the opposition never does
The ruling Georgian Dream (GD) party’s pledges, even on mainstream goals like EU and NATO membership, were often framed as inherently dishonest. Yet opposition claims of political persecution against any member facing charges, from violent assaults to tax fraud, were often published uncritically, before legal proceedings had run their course.
3. Using Brussels as a megaphone for domestic spin
For years, Georgia’s opposition has had allies in Brussels, especially in the European People’s Party. Opposition talking points often travel to those contacts, return with an official EU platform endorsement, and are then reported in Georgia as internationally validated truths, when in reality, they are the same partisan claims, just laundered through an echo chamber.
4. Passing on political smear labels without context
The term ‘pro-Russian’ is the nuclear insult in Georgian politics, and has been used by all sides against their opponents for decades. Former President Mikheil Saakashvili was frequently accused of being ‘pro-Russian’ by the then opposition, due to his secret agreements with Russian state-owned companies. GD officials today use the ‘pro-Russian’ smear against their opponents. Yet many NGO-aligned outlets omit this context when repeating the label, leaving foreign audiences with a distorted view.
5. Ignoring the transparency problem in their own backyard
Critics, including former Transparency International Georgia staffer Till Bruckner, have long argued that Georgia’s NGOs are themselves opaque about their funding. This lack of openness is the same core issue cited by the government to justify its controversial ‘foreign influence’ law. That law may have other political motives too, but without this crucial context, audiences are left with a distorted view.
We believe people deserve an alternative. That is why we say:
No donors. Independent journalism.
If you’re so keen on transparency, why not put your name to this article?
This piece reflects the position of our Opinion Desk. For certain sensitive topics, we choose to publish without individual bylines, so that the focus stays on the argument, not the author. This follows what is the standard in the media both in Georgia and internationally.