- Michael M.: Too much going on. Life in flux, etc..
- Sunshine: Wow, I was soooo happy to see a new post in my rss reader. I was hopping this is already the comeback! :(...
- gandalf: Did you only get caffeine through Dr.p or did you drink coffee as well? I’m interested, since...
- neeka: nine kilos… wow… :) happy holidays to you, michael, and to all your loved ones! veronica
- m: It was a bargain. No strings attached.
Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Maribor, Slovenia.
Portoroz, Slovenia.
• AlienMelon
• Burger.si
• Heck
• Izklop
• si.blogs
• Sloblogi
• Blogorola
• Natalija Verboten
One cannot retrieve any information about material that has entered a black hole. (source)
The Paris-based association Reporters Without Borders keeps track of press freedom around the world. One way it does this is with its annual Worldwide Press Freedom Index. In the 2005 edition, Slovenia finished astoundingly well: 9th in the world. (Ahead of pretty much everyone except the Scandinavian countries and some other smaller European nations.)
Unfortunately, it’s total bollocks. Slovenia has many great qualities, but an extraordinarily free press ain’t one of them. And what makes the ranking even more bizarre is that 2005 was by no means a great year for the media here. Not that Reporters Without Borders seems to be paying too much attention. If you go to their archive of country news, for example, you’ll notice something a little interesting: There’s nothing about Slovenia. In case you think I’m exaggerating, let me say this: there really is not a single paragraph, sentence or syllable about Slovenia in the years 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 or 2005. It’s complete and total silence.
And don’t think it’s because nothing has been going on here. There are always things happening. This year, for example, saw two major events:
1) A new law was passed about the public broadcaster, giving the government more control over editorial content.
2) The Petek Case was lost. (I don’t want to go too much into this, but here it is in a nutshell: Back in 2001, a journalist named Miro Petek published some articles about financial wrongdoings (tax evasion and what-not) going on in local companies. Not-so-coincidentally, some goons paid him a visit at home and gave him empty craters where before there had been stuff like his nose, his jaw and his cheekbones. They even cracked the poor guy’s skull. Worst of all, they didn’t even try to make it look like a robbery or anything. They just scrambled him like Sunday-morning eggs and then exited, stage right. There was no need to call in Sherlock Holmes for help on this one; it was a matter of connecting some dots, but the police and prosecutors didn’t manage to do it. Earlier this year, after languishing in limbo for years, and after one judge even admitted to being "frightened" of handling the case, it ended with acquittals and now it’s over.
And yet, despite this, Slovenia somehow improved its press-freedom rating between 2004 and 2005. Last year, it finished in 15th place and this year it made it inside the top ten. In the meantime, back in the United States, the New York Times reporter Judith Miller spent a few days in the big house because she refused to cooperate with an investigation about who had leaked the identity of a CIA agent. That event helped push America down 20 places to number 44.
Either someone is bad at math or they’re simply not paying attention. I’m guessing it’s the latter.
Comments
Comments for this post are closed.
At the risk of sounding right wing, which I don’t really think I am,
I am betting there’s some level of political correctness being applied
with those figures on both how the figures for Slovenia were decided by
this organization and for the figures related to the U.S.I take all such figures with a grain of salt, apothecary measurment sense of the word grain. Something
is vsery wrong with both sets of figures. It might be hard to get some
views into the main-stream in the U.S. but in general you are not going
to get runt rhrough a Cuisinart either or shot, or dry-gulched or run
off the road..Totally off Topic but I’m hosting Carnival of the
Balkans, and if you have nominations or feel you have something that
fits the theme, please submit or nominate. Micheal M. I personally
think your seris for the San Diego Reader fits the theme perfectly! I
probably will include it if you would like.
This was a poignant and brave piece. In its own way, it made a great start to my week.
Otherwise, I must stop praising you or people will suspect about the cash gifts you have been sending me…
"A new law was passed about the public broadcaster, giving the government more control over editorial content."I’ve got to disagree with you there, Michael.RTV Slovenija does a lot of good and even great work, but it is also – in the experience of many – oversaffed, inefficient and essentially unaccountable. Under the recently rejected system, the RTV Council was composed mostly of unelected officials representing certain "vital" interest groups, including trade unions and the Slovenian Olympic Comittee. Leaving aside the issue of why these randomly selected groups, but not others, somehow represent Slovenian civil society as a whole, the fact remains that this system perpetuated a persisent left-wing bias, while denying the public any true mechanism of accountability.The new system, in which the parliament (an elected body!) appoints most council members, is similar to systems in a number of EU countries. While some of the concerns about potential political abuse are justified, there is, in my view, little reason to believe that the situation will be worse than it already is. I know this isn’t a great defense of the new law, but at least someone will be accountable if things go bad — something that wasn’t previously the case. However, the new law, precisely because of this built-in mechanism of democratic accountability, could lead to a better managed, leaner public broadcasting organization that would give its customers more for their money. This is the best-case scenario, but we could realistically see it happen. The ball is now in the parliament’s court, and that’s not bad in a democratic society. And, whatever happens, I don’t see any direct editorial control being passed to the government as a result of this change.I have spoken.
Oh, and I absolutely agree that the US should be ranked much higher. Even if we ignore everything else, its free speech laws are less restrictive than in just about any other Western country.
You are partially right on the first case. But this "weak" law doens’t mean that it will be abused in practice. But you are totally wrong on the second one. It shows that our law system works and that evidence must be presented for a gulity conviction. "in dubio pro reo"
One thing that I’ve found very comforting about the new law is that many bright people (like AZ2SI, and quite a few of my friends) seem comfortable with it. Of course, many of them also admit that there is "potential for abuse," which is a bit disconcerting. I do agree that an overhaul is necessary and welcome.From what I understand, though, the most contentious bit is that the new supervisory board will have increased control over editorial content. (I’m not sure that this is the case in other EU countries; maybe in Italy?) But I can imagine that some journalists will not be enthusiastic about pursuing anti-government stories if members of the ruling political party are looming above them. I suppose we’ll see.As for the Petek case: I suppose there are two ways of looking at it. I see the lack of evidence as a clear failure of the criminal justice system. It was pretty clear from the beginning that some influential people were involved in putting the romper-stomper on Petek. And the fact that they got away with it sets a pretty chilling precedent. Either way, I’m pretty sure that groups like Reporters without Borders would be up-in-arms about the case… if they cared enough to pay attention.
The RWB thing is pretty crap, which really seems a shame. Somebody should be doing this right.If you go back and look at the US ratings, they dropped after 2001 — okay, I could see that — and then nosedived between 2002 and 2003. It’s hard to interpret this as anything but people being Very Upset about the Iraq war.Romania, BTW, has had quite a few Pretek-style cases… maybe a dozen in the last three years. Of course, Romania is about 10 times the size of Slovenia. Still. Most of them have not been solved. IMS the most recent one was late last year, but I could be wrong.I think this may be part of the broad general tendency to treat Slovenia as the Wonderful Exception. Doug M.
i don’t want to spark off a heated political debate (we’ve seen
quite a few in slovenia), but i feel compelled to add my two stotins
about the broadcasting law. i am somewhat baffled at the
imense trust people seem to feel towards politicians regarding this
law. don’t forget, politicians usually rank very low on the scale of
public trust here, but in this case, people seem completely willing to
trust them regardless. the old law saw fit to introduce certain
organisations as representatives of the "public" according to some
inner workings, yes. these inner workings might well have prefered a
certain political wing, too. this was unfair, and a free ticket for
certain people to positions of power, yes. but this still didn’t mean
that the board comprised entirely of yes-men for the political wing in
power, which is just what i fear will happen with this law, as the
board will be elected with a regular, not a two-third majority in
parliament. which in effect means the board will be submissive to
whoever is in charge at the moment. which translates into exactly what
michael said in the opening post. i may be an endangered
breed, but i tend not to blindly trust politicians, no matter how
eloquently they say just what i want to hear. i think "there is
potential for abuse in the law, but i trust politicians will not sink
that low" is just not a convincing argument. the old law seriously
needed a change for the better, but the new law just ain’t that.
Scott McLellan (White House Press Secretary) better watch his
back. Here’s a whole organization that’s putting out the same
quality of drivel as he is. The fact that there are so many
folks in this prganization make it a worthy substitute for McLellan; if
one talking head is slimed/disparaged, another one simply pokes his/her
head up.Michael, as is per your usual, a great little nugget
you’ve dug up here. Luckily, for us, your reporting is always free and
clear of government entanglements.
Whatever analysis RWB uses in its index is certainly a tad suspect. Nonetheless, the organization does do a terrific job in at least keeping in the news how dangerous the trade is and continues to be. Particularly when it monitors situations in countries that aren’t even in the headlines.As for the RTV law: I haven’t been in SLO that long, and admittedly, only know what little I do know about the referendum from colleagues who work for RTV. Reform was obviously needed. But setting up what amounts to political oversight does seem a bit baffling.As for Judith Miller: I like to think that Karma was at work here. A few days in jail after shilling for the Bush administration seemed apropos, don’t you think? She got a nice severance package from the NYT, so I’m sure she’s forgotten all about her temporary isolation.Great site, by the way!
Perhaps the US has such a low ranking because of the way the media was used to strengthen public support for the war in Iraq
YES! Thank you Michael!
I’m a media man myself and I agree with everything Michael said. I don’t know by which standard the assessment was made, but plurality of media isn’t one of them.
Once we had a public national TV and radio. Now we have state-controlled national TV and radio. The newspapers are going to hell, because they are owned by companies which do not have the foggiest about media, thus making the newspapers only cash-cows and a place for cheap advertisement. And there is a complete bloodbath in radio segment of the Slovene media market. Michael works for RSI and I’m sure he knows how difficult it was for RSI to maintain an FM frequency in Ljubljana. (BTW: RSI is IMHO one of the best radio stations in Slovenia). The contents of Slovene media is mostly crap (pardon my French) - with a few notable exceptions. Most media report only irellevant issues thus neglecting their primarly role - keeping people informed. When asked about it, the owners and editors usually say that they report what people want to hear (read, see). Which is bollocks. And on top of it I know from personal experience that most (more than 90%) of Slovene media just copy/paste what Slovene Press Agency (STA) reports. Thus bringing the plurality of Slovene media to near zero, because everybody quotes only one source - a state owned press agency.
I’m sorry if I went out of line here, but I strongly agree with Michael’s statement.
Oh, well..i saw italy was at the 42nd place…not a great result.
Actually we do deserve that.
We have 7 national tvs, of which:
-3 belongs directly to Silvio Berlusconi
-3 are strongly influenced by the government (which is lead by
Silvio Berlusconi)
-1 is indipendent.
You’d say…hey it’s not so bad! Actually the only indipendent tv
just makes 3% of audience.Therefore television is controlled for 97%
by the same man, who’s the prime minister either!As for newspapers,
Silvio Berlusconi controlls (directly or not) three of them even if
not the most sold.But counting on the fact that italians buy
newspapers only to make ship-hats when they paint their house, i can
say that we live in some kind of a media dictatorship.Just to make an
example, in 2003 Berlusconi got rid of 3 of the most famous and
important journalists and comedians by just saying "These
persons are not appreciated in public tv".One of them resorted
to the court and won his trial to come back working in our public
tv.And you blame about media freedom…come on! Be realistic! You
live in a sort of paradise compare to us!
As for USA placement…well..i think they are the first
observed…since they appear lower than italy, there’d be a reason, a
big reason.Never thought that USA is a free country, anyway.
I have to say that I see the new law as a step forward from the current law, but still not the ideal achievement. I think Aleks Štakul, the director of RTV, said what’s wrong about the previous and current law best. The RTV will remain a "javni zavod", while it needs to become a company, like most European public TVs are. It also needs a body that would process complaints about the quality of the programme (something that RTV lacks ATM).Cornelius, about the two-thirds majority. As much as that sounds fair and would be the right thing to do, do you really think it’s feasible? When was there really such a big consensus about an internal affair in Parliament?a) Independence (well, almost)b) EU membershipc) NATO membership (almost)Do you seriously think that even one RTV council member has a chance of being elected by Parliament in a mandate? I don’t think so. A gridlock would be much much more likely.
Some more:Heh, pengovsky, you know, about RSI, all the frequencies it uses (except for the Pohorje frequency) are actually illegal.I have to say that it’s a great radio nonetheless, altho it needs to be more advertised to tourists passing through Slovenia as it is much more useful to foreigners than the 3 main stations are.
Matt:Heh, there was an illegal frequency in Ljubljana - or to put it better, there was no public tender for the frequency RSI originally broadcasted on in Ljubljana. But that frequency was taken from RSI and given to a crappy radio which promised great many things but has so far failed to deliver on its promises. RSI however was forced to another (weaker) frequency. Forcing a radio station to another frequency in the same area (like Ljubljana) is similar to assisted suicide because a lot of people won’t follow the radio to a new frequency. Also every other frequency RSI broadcast on since January this year is perfectly legal and was won on a public tender.But I do agree that RSI needs to more on self-promotion. Not only to tourists, which was the original idea, but also to ever growing number of ex-pats living in Slovenia. But I’m not in a position to judge editorial and marketing decisions of RSI. The RSI team does great work as things stand now. Sure, there’s room for improvement, but it is - as always - easier said than done.
"9th in the world. (Ahead of pretty much everyone except the Scandinavian countries and some other smaller European nations.)"Sir, are you suggesting that Slovakia (a highly dubious 8th place) is smaller than Slovenia!? Pistols at dawn!!!
I think AZ2SI makes some wonderful comments, but they sound much better in the original German.
Thanks for the interesting comments in response to my post, everybody! I really enjoyed reading them.While you raise some valid concerns, I just want to clarify one thing: it’s not that I just trust the government not to abuse the new law. I feel that the mechanism of accountability that the law creates will discourage the parliamentary majority from exercising undue editorial influence. If RTV Slovenija becomes a mouthpiece for certain parties, the public will know exactly whom to blame, and there will be hell to pay in the next election. Previously, no-one was directly accountable when things went wrong — this will no longer be the case now. I therefore think that the self-preservation instinct of any parliamentary majority will prevent it from using RTV Slovenija for its own political needs. If cries about political interference are heard from RTV Slovenija, that will really hurt those responsible for it.And, BTW, the same general system is in place in several European countries, yet they are perfectly capable of maintaining independent public broadcasting institutions. I don’t see why Slovenia is necessarily any different.
My dear AZ2SI the self-preservation instinct will encourage and motivate them to use RTV Slovenija for its own political needs. You think they would hurt themselves?Sorry but I’m just sceptical about there ‘good intentions’
Did you consider the fact that press freedom might’ve gone down the drain in other countries also? ;)(I feel our word turning more and more paranoid and self-censoring).
Pengovsky:Well, I’m just writing what Delo wrote. Heh, blame my naiveness (is that even a word?).. Oh well..In general I agree with AZ2SI. If other European countries are capable of running such systems and remaining politically (relatively) unbiased (let’s forget Italy, Berlusconi serves 97% of the viewers there), what would make us any different?