Freedom of Press in Slovenia I
Respect for freedom of press lies at the heart of every modern democratic society. In the last months discussion on freedom of press in Slovenia has been manipulated by former totalitarian political parties, oligarchic corporate groups, and their journalistic voices in the Slovenian media. In doing so, they have constructed media reality, which does not correspond to what is actually happening in the Slovenian society. Last example includes political take-over of the weekly magazine Mag, the only remaining independent political weekly in Slovenia. We will talk about situation in the Slovenian media more in the forthcoming months. For now, Globalawandpolitics publishes a public protest statement by journalist magazine Mag, which is worth reading:
Public statement by journalists of magazine Mag
"We, Mag journalists, protest against the deliberate political take-over of the weekly magazine at which we are employed. The magazine Mag, which has been published since 1995, was created as a response to media single-mindedness; in it were presented alternative points of view, which could not be expressed in other media. During the period of Slovenia's accession to Euro-Atlantic alliances, Mag decisively advocated membership of both the EU and NATO. The candidate for new responsible editor, Veso Stojanov, opposed NATO in his articles, in addition to which he comes from a different circle of thought than present Mag readers. Although the weekly Mag has changed owners or publishers three times since its founding, its editorial policy has not been changed. The newspaper house Salomon 2000, which bought Mag from the company Interdat, was even proud that it could publish a weekly with politically relevant contents and opinions. The then management of Delo, under the leadership of Tomaž Perovič, also had a similar position at the time of buying the magazine. It did not revoke Mag's right to autonomy and the expression of various political positions. Under the present owner, sales of Mag have increased by approximately half. The highest growth has been marked precisely in the period since Silvester Šurla took over the editorship. Sales of recent numbers have exceeded 14,000 copies, which in view of conditions on the market for political magazines, is an exceptional success. This clearly did not persuade the members of the Delo supervisory board to confirm as responsible editor of Mag an editor who had already proved to be successful.
In fact, they initially offered this position to him, but deferred the appointment when he submitted his programme. Meanwhile, the president of the supervisory board, Andrijana Starina Kosem, and vice-president, Stojan Zdolšek, exercised politically motivated pressure on him, commented on several contributions and interviews and demanded a different political content. In particular, they were upset by articles on dubious managerial buy-outs of companies, about about-turns in the SOVA affair, interviews with president of LDS Katarina Kresal and Koper mayor Boris Popovič, and questions a journalist posed to Izola mayor Tomislav Klokočovnik prior to the an interview and then demanded that the interview deal with them. Starina Kosem told Šurla that 'tycoons' are good for Slovenia and that in Mag they should blame the prime minister, Janez Janša, most for inflation and not the Mercator chain of shops. She even demanded that we write articles critical of the Janša government. Andrijana Starina Kosem and Stojan Zdolšek thus wanted to exploit the magazine Mag for their own political and business interests, as well as the interests of Pivovarna Laško, which wished to take over the largest shopping chain, Mercator. In September, in fact, they had asked Šurla to write an article in Mag on how Pivovarna Laško does not abuse its monopoly on the Slovene drinks market, although some distinguished economists believe otherwise. Šurla of course resisted all these pressures, since it was a matter of interference by the supervisory board in the editorial autonomy of Mag.
The last straw was an interview in Mag with Prime Minister Janez Janša, which had a wide public response, in which he apportioned most blame for the disputed sale of Mercator to the president of the supervisory board of Delo, Andrijana Starina Kosem, who at that time had been his state secretary and president of the supervisory board of KAD (Capital Investment Fund). On the very day that the aforementioned interview was published, the supervisory board held an extraordinary session and published a public call for applications for a new responsible editor of Mag. The call for applications was a farce, since it was known in advance that it was punishment of the editorial staff because it had resisted the pressures, and that a candidate would be chosen who would fulfil the wishes of the supervisory board. When Šurla drew public attention to the politically motivated pressures that Kosem and Zdolšek had exerted on him, he was told that he was already out of the running. It is also of interest that the selected candidate as new responsible editor of Mag, Veso Stojanov, is even himself a member of the supervisory board, since he represents the employees on it. There is therefore no doubt that he would know what kind of content the supervisors wish in the new Mag and what kind would no longer be allowed to appear in the magazine. Stojanov has already announced in some media a change in editorial policy, which is supposed to be harmonised with the owners, and similarly a strengthening of staff, about which the Delo publishing house had previously been unwilling to listen.
It is therefore clear that the editorial changes at Mag are above all a political take-over of the magazine or, in view of the already published opinions of the future responsible editor, even a revolutionary take-over. As journalists on Mag, we appeal to the Slovene public, representatives of the state and civil society to support us in the struggle against the political and capital destruction of the weekly magazine. The forced diametrically opposed editorial policy will destroy the most important part of what Mag has represented ever since its foundation: a different view of conditions in society from the prevailing one in the Slovene media. Journalists of Mag also have the right to free expression under the Law, Constitution and international conventions, and our faithful readers have the right to an independent weekly magazine."
Igor Kršinar, representative of the journalists of Mag,
Brigite Ferlič Žgajnar, Nenad Glücks, Biserka Karneža Cerjak, Silvester Šurla
Your attitude to the freedom of press issue is, to put it mildly, inconsistent. When 571 journalists signed the petition against censorship and political pressures on the media, you dismissed it as yet another leftist ploy to unseat the glorious government of Mr Janša. Now that five journalists of Mag protest against censorship and political pressures, making same complaints as above mentioned 571, you suddenly fear for the freedom of press. How come? Do you think that political pressures had been absent, before the latest events in Mag took place? Or is it just that 571 journalists accused the wrong man, Mr Janša, for their troubles, but Mag's journalist are making all the right noises that reinforce your paranoid delusions about a wast, insidious left-wing conspiracy?
Most journalists in Slovenia support Mag's journalist in their fight for editorial autonomy, despite the fact that Mag was a leader in virulent defamation of the journalists that signed the petition. The freedom of press depends on principled individuals that stand up to its defense when it is threatened. Sadly, your political bickering can only serve the aims of those that want to undermine it. Just curious, have you voted for Mr Janša?
Reply to this
Our editorial policy is that all comments are welcome as long as commentators introduce themselves with their full name. Hence, introduce yourself with your full name and surname and only, thereafter, we can have a discussion. It appears, alas, that you do not have do courage to put your words behind your name.
We will not put your name in public on your behalf. We look forward to your response.
Reply to this
If the answer to the last question of the first comment was yes, would it really matter? I think it would not. Let me explain why.
Let's make it clear to ourselves at least. Those who followed the 'Vroci Stol' TV show had the chance to see genuine reality, if not a full-blooded misery of Slovenian Journalism. These guys can write, as far as I am considered, as many petitions as they wish, but their true faces were revealed in that show. The masks are now down. The upper caste of the Slovenian journalists, even those whom I have admired as long as I could remember, turned up as personalities without any significant autonomy. They are entangled in daily political and economic life even more than we have ever had a chance to imagine.
Slovenia is in a terrible need of a genealogical research that would trace professional career tracks of our leading journalists. Then, I believe, we would be able to understand why our newspapers, TV and radio news are as they are.
Deep down, as the far up, the things are not about freedom of speech and glimmering constitutional principles, they are about connections, personal happy and tragic stories, nepotism and brown-nosiness. It is how sociology of public sphere and public power works. What we see and hear, is what has been achieved sometimes in small inadvertent almost fortuitous steps, sometimes, especially on the summits, well-calculated power moves.
In other words, the problem in Slovenia is not that we do not have constitutionally protected freedom of press and all the high-flying ideals. The real and far deeper, structural problem is that we do not have people, subjects, individuals who could avail themselves of these rights and ideals. To put it yet in another way, we have the super developed meta-normative level, but the social substratum through which it could be executed is clearly missing.
The reality is: 5 journalists of Mag against 500 and more journalists of the other media. This is Slovenian freedom of expression.
Last but not least, the dilemma is not whether we have voted Jansa in, which was anyhow a strange mistake in the system as it currently stands.
The Slovenian conundrum is: how to live a pluralist liberal democracy if the existing society lacks this pluralism in the first place?
Reply to this
"Deep down, as the far up, the things are not about freedom of speech and glimmering constitutional principles, they are about connections, personal happy and tragic stories, nepotism and brown-nosiness."
I can certainly agree with you on that one. When Delo was taken over by Mr Janša's henchmen such as Danilo Slivnik and Peter Jančič, numerous journalists of Mag happily left their newspaper to work for Delo. I do not blame them - after all, to graduate from a pamphlet writer to a real journalist in such a short time is really an achievement. Of course, Delo's journalist felt that this was politics interfering with their work - which, of course, was true. Now Mag's journalists complain of the same things - which, of course, are true. And a clear majority of Slovenian journalists support them in their fight. By framing the issue in a catchphrase such as "5 against 500" you conveniently overlook the fact that all journalists are fighting the same fight - for the autonomy and freedom from political interference. If that has dawned on Mag's journalists only recently that can be only because they thought they would be safe forever under Mr Janša's wing.
And yes, the answer to the question who you voted for is of extreme importance. It explains why you dismiss the petition of 500 and whine about the freedom of the press when it comes to the fabulous five. In your view, Mr Janša was just balancing the media and Mag is being destroyed by left-wing radicals. Wrapping Mr Janša's media practice in such euphemisms only shows that you are not out to defend the freedom of the press, but rather to pursue your own political agenda. So, who did you vote for?
Reply to this
I guess it is not forbidden, even in Slovenia, to vote for Jansa; and it is certainly not something anyone needs to be pushed to solemnly declare on blog. Freedom of speech encompasses the right to speak and to remain silent.
But I would appreciate very much if anyone could break the above intimated conundrum:
"How to live a pluralist liberal democracy if the existing society lacks this pluralism in the first place?"
To me this is a crux of the whole thing and something we should be very candid and thorough about. There is no doubt that Slovenia pro forma enjoys a high level of freedom of expression, but it matters beyond the form, beyond the pure normative, who is de facto able to speak and to whom. The social is a constraint on the legal - and let's face it. In Slovenia the score is: 500:5.
If in a constitutionally more or less impeccable system I am bound to take sides I do go for the underdogs who have, moreover, come out with facts and very tangible evidence of very real political and economic pressures. To my knowledge the Big Petition in that regard leaves us very much with empty hands.
Reply to this
The conundrum of media freedom in Slovenia cannot be reduced only to human factor. Slovenia has a lot of capable individuals who are pursuing professional careers independently and without reliance on any political backing. Even higher is the number of those who would perform its journalistic profession if given an appropriate chance. That said, it is clear that many political and corporate circles have exercised pressure on journalists since the end of the second world war. The big petition illustrates that clearly.
Reply to this
Having read the infamous petition, which has not been critically viewed by the media despite both obvious lies and insane exaggerations it includes, as well as the order of recepients it was addressed to. Even though the prime minister himself was the first to pinpoint a strange content match of the same petition with the Social Democrats' media evaluation, I deemed the fact worth of consideration and after comparing the two knew how things were standing. Which is what most of the public never does, even worse - nor do the journalists. Everything - or anything for that matter - published is viewed as solid truth by the majority of the public, resulting in true arguments holding no real weight as well as making the struggle of those who take time to back up their claims pointless.
Garmin, even though your commentary includes a logical thesis at first glance, it fails to cope with the everintriguing reality in Slovenia - is it possible that almost six hundred journalists sign a petition with a shortsighted goal of softening the government defenses a year ahead of the parliamentary elections (with a huge side effect of discrediting the country as a whole, especially since the situation is pretty much a diametral opposite of the described) in a time where the govt. has no other option but to commit to EU presidency? Sadly, the answer is yes.
As for Mr. Stjepić, do not even try to convince me that a journalist can be apolitical. I did not follow the path of Mr. Jančič closely, but judging by his appearances, articles as well as his associates at Delo, he has been more than objective for Slovene circumstances. Probably not a frontman by nature, but I see no reason to hold anything against him, therefore I find it absurd to see you calling him a henchmen. Mr. Slivnik on the other side has had a firmly shaped political profile throughout the years, making certain interesting contributions during his time. I do not particularly approve of him for various reasons, but his path at Delo outdates Janša's first position as a minister.
Also, I do not wish to favorize MAG beyond a reasonable degree, but fact remains that it was the only magazine able to step out of the usual one-sided frame and make quality contributions on the long term as well as write about the issues noone else wrote about (I wonder why?). Comparing MAG authors switching to Delo as pamphlet writers promoted to real journalism is an utter nonsense. Since I know a lot of the journalists at Delo, they've been there long before this government and are still around, I happen to know how their articles are made. Regardless of topic or a wider area of coverage, most of it are below any acceptable level of journalistic contributions. For many columns, be they political or general, one needs not to know the details to establish the author is heavily overpaid no matter what his monthly salary is.
Freedom of expression? Sure, based on proof. Saying something does not change the obvious. You are wrong.
Reply to this