La protesta, la ingobernabilidad de la situación:

The views of news producers and reporters about the media democratization movement, activists’ agenda and motives, and the activism in general again diverged along

ideological lines. The reporter at pro-opposition Alia said the activism was “a universal tool” for people to demand that their long-held concerns be answered. She added she felt, while covering activists’ street action, that their protest was real, and that protesters were not forcing supporters to show up, as in some other, “mock protests” (T. O., personal interview, May 3, 2014). The reporter was happy that the civil society was stronger, and capable of dealing with society’s problems. “Our civil society is very strong, to the envy of all other countries. It has proven its worth during the attacks on the press”, she said (T.O., personal interview, May 3, 2014). The reporter in the independent newspaper enthused about the media democratization movement and the reforms it achieved, which, in her view, brought professionalization of the media and greater responsibility on the part of news media (R. M., personal interview, April 20, 2014). She said her enthusiasm was shared by the entire professional community:

I personally cannot recall a single journalist who would be against [proposed reforms.] Anyone knows for fact that if one group is trying to control [parts of media] today, someday they [other media] too will face

116

the same problem. Plus, it was in the interests of media that the public have access to information. Whether these attitudes were expressed openly or hidden is a different matter. Still, I do not remember any resistance. On the contrary, all my colleagues had positive emotions. (R. M., personal interview, April 20, 2014)

By contrast, the reporter in pro-government 24 Saati, while acknowledging problems in the media environment and generally positive outcomes of the media democratization movement’s latest activism, was skeptical about activists’ motives. He thought one of activists’ key demands -- the “must carry” regulation -- was politically motivated. His said the demand for mandatory distribution of broadcast signals by cable operators aimed at providing supporters of the political opposition with access to the oppositional stations based in Tbilisi. He lamented the public was not interested in an objective, unbiased journalism, or in supporting the freedom of the press. “The people just want to see activities of one [political] party, and the criticism of another party. They are not really concerned about the freedom in the media” (D. G., personal interview, April 21, 2014). On the brighter side, the reporter noted the “must carry” legislation “facilitated the reflection of political reality in the media,” and produced a positive psychological effect of greater freedom in the society.

In his coded, imprecise language, the producer at pro-government Rustavi 2 said those media that engaged in activism were serving their owners’ and managers’ political and business interests rather than the cause of media democratization.

Any head of a station can sign petitions and take part in processes [of activism], but if he abuses the privilege of access to the nation-wide audience [by steering his station to engage in activism] in favor of his own interests, it is another matter. (G. L., personal interview, May 5, 2014) The producer said his news staff, “generally neutral” while reporting on the media democratization movement, “had questions” in the case of Maestro TV’s satellite

117

antennas. He said journalists had asked questions about the origins of these antennas, which the station intended to distribute free of charge to thousands of viewers. The question was how the television, which was not profitable, bought this much technology. The antennas, according to the Georgian government, were bought for the Maestro TV by the billionaire opposition figure, Bidzina Ivanishvili, to increase Maestro’ reach around Georgia (Freedom House, 2013). The producer said his TV station served the public interest when asking these questions, but angered colleagues at the Maestro TV (G. L., personal interview, May 5, 2014).

However, the producer said he was fully behind activists’ other demands, such as the “must carry” rule and the media ownership transparency. He said he could never understand why the government was restricting broadcast media distribution or making ownership in the media non-transparent, which led to speculations and distrust of his station. He said the government should have allowed all TV stations to distribute signals nationwide and that his station was not afraid of competition. Indeed, the station

maintained its top ratings well after the competing stations reached nationwide audiences under the “must carry” rule. The market should have been allowed to regulate itself, he said (G. L., personal interview, May 5, 2014).

In general terms, the producer thought the recent media activism was “a very well planned and organized campaign and advocacy by very smart people,” but it was not a social movement. He doubted the real goal of the It Concerns You campaign was to increase the freedom of speech and the level of information available to people in the regions “who were well informed already.” Again, resorting to imprecise, convoluted

118

language, he expressed his doubts that the activists cared more about the political goals, such as helping the opposition win the elections, than the freedom of the press.

I do not know what their goal was. For me, the goal, at least in the short term, without doubt, was…I’ll put it straight, [the goal of improving the freedom of press, as stated by activists] was a fake one. Could the goal have been to [serve] the interest of some political force, which wanted to win the elections? However, if we look at [activists’ goals] in the long term, continued enforcement of the “must carry” principle after the elections positively affected the media environment. (G. L., personal interview, May 5, 2014)

The “must carry/must offer” rule, which discriminated private cable providers by regulating them to distribute the content that was commercially unattractive, benefited the media environment, concluded the producer. Greater competition in the broadcastsector forced his station to improve and innovate. Citizens had greater choice of information as a result.