Engaged Media: Agenda in Their Hands?

The Abkhazian Telegram channel OKNO has criticised outlets such as Sputnik Abkhazia and Sputnik Near Abroad for disseminating narratives about "destructive" NGOs and alleged foreign interference in Abkhazia’s electoral process.

According to OKNO, these publications were a reaction to criticism directed at so-called pseudo-sociologists, with the channel labelling the accusations as disinformation. The narratives in question included claims of Western-funded NGOs instigating protests, opposition leaders with alleged Turkish connections, and the ҲараҲПицунда (Khara Khpitsunda - Our Pitsunda) movement being a hub for youth-driven dissent.

The channel also noted that Sputnik Abkhazia recently disabled comments on its content, potentially to avoid public backlash. Furthermore, it characterised the materials targeting Abkhaz civil and political figures as grounds for criminal investigation, though such measures under the previous administration would have been unlikely.

OKNO argued that certain external media outlets mimic local platforms to claim dominance in the information space, exploiting the state’s unpreparedness to counter these tactics.

The full translation of the article is as follows:

Engaged Media: Agenda in Their Hands? 

Dominance over the information agenda is the primary goal of politically engaged media, anonymous and official channels working to promote a specific narrative. Illustrations of this principle are not hard to find. Recently, one marginal anonymous channel, as usual overstating its importance, announced that after conducting a brief analysis of the Abkhaz segment on Telegram, it had determined that their channel ranks first in terms of views and citations among all Abkhaz Telegram channels.

Such outlets are often referred to as partisan press, a term describing media whose approach to journalism is marked by explicit or implicit bias in reporting, prioritising the promotion of a particular group’s interests over objectivity. The dominance of such media represents a significant problem, given their funding and the sheer volume of information they disseminate (the same marginal channel, for instance, publishes several dozen posts daily).

The entrenched engaged media in our region primarily operate as tools for discrediting and distorting concepts. The NGO sector, independent journalists, and the opposition, when targeted by these media, are consistently portrayed in a negative light, often as enemies. Misrepresentation is especially prevalent against those advocating for national interests, who are frequently labelled by these outlets as pro-Western, pro-Turkish, or anti-Russian.

Recently, several Abkhaz information outlets reported on an unauthorised phone survey [See also AW Weekly Brief No: 4] regarding presidential elections that had swept across Abkhazia. The survey sought to gauge voters’ preferences for specific candidates. Apart from our channel, the situation was covered by Nuzhnaya Gazeta. Additionally, Abaza TV aired a report on the questionable poll, during which the Chair of the State Committee on Statistics, Kama Gogia, stated: “The law clearly stipulates that without the approval of methodologies for such sociological or other surveys by the State Committee on Statistics, [such polls] cannot be conducted.”

+ The Sputnik Sham: How Propaganda Undermines Abkhazian NGOs

+ 'Sputnik Abkhazia' Again Targets Abkhazian NGOs 

+ Said Gezerdaa: "State Security as a Tool for Blackmail and Compromise"

Clearly, this struck a nerve in Abkhaz media. Outlets like Sputnik Near Abroad and Sputnik Abkhazia published articles reiterating the “destructive” role of NGOs and alleged foreign interference in the electoral process. It is rather surprising to see such comments coming from foreign media. The mirroring nature of these accusations leaves little doubt—they emerged in response to criticism of pseudo-sociologists.

The publication by Sputnik Abkhazia rehashed familiar narratives:

• Western funding of NGOs as a tool for perpetual government criticism and protest;
• ҲараҲПицунда as the nucleus and instigator of youth-driven protest movements;
• A “Turkish footprint” in the activities of opposition leaders.

All of this is misinformation, generated in the depths of anonymous channels and endlessly circulated by engaged media. Some of it is fabrication, such as claims made a year ago on state television (AGTRK) by the Deputy Chair of the State Security Service, Zaal Khvartskiya. This is a case where holding a government position does not guarantee truthful information.

In response to widespread criticism, Sputnik Abkhazia ceased engaging with readers and recently removed the option to comment on or react to its publications entirely. Articles about Abkhaz civil and political figures periodically published by the local Sputnik are grounds for criminal proceedings. However, under the Bzhania administration, such actions would likely be futile.

Regrettably, our state has been unprepared for certain information resources to masquerade as local. This deception allows them to claim, or assert, leadership positions in our information landscape.