By: Dr Matevž Tomšič
It is becoming increasingly clear that the predictions about the so-called depoliticization, introduced by the new law on Radio-Television Slovenia and enabled by the scandalous decision of the Constitutional Court to lift the suspension of the law without addressing its potential unconstitutionality, have turned out to be entirely accurate.
This so-called depoliticization has led to the elimination of even the minimal internal plurality that previously existed within the institution. This was not paranoia on the part of the right-wing, as government apologists claimed, but rather a forecast based on an understanding of the real intentions of those who outwardly proclaimed that the new law would remove political influence from public broadcasting. In reality, their aim was to create conditions in which they could establish permanent control over it through their representatives. In practice, this will lead to uniformity of thought in terms of programme content and reporting on political and social events. Developments show that this has, in fact, already happened.
Recently, shocking news surfaced that the editor-in-chief of the news programme, Polona Fijavž, prevented journalist and host Jože Možina from conducting an interview with Urška Cankar Soares, the organiser of the Marches for Life, which had already been scheduled to air on the Sunday show Interview. This is a disgraceful and unacceptable attack on both journalistic freedom and the citizens’ right to information. The journalist in question was denied the ability to choose his interviewee in accordance with his independent judgment, and viewers were denied the opportunity to hear the views of a certain group, which enjoys no small amount of support among citizens.
The justification given by the editor-in-chief is scandalous in itself. The proposed guest was deemed unacceptable because she allegedly holds views and values that are contrary to the Slovenian Constitution. On what basis was this conclusion reached? Only the Constitutional Court has the authority to decide whether something aligns with the Constitution or not. Even if a viewpoint does not “align” with the Constitution, that should not be grounds for censorship. Criticising the Constitution or its individual articles is permissible. Following this absurd logic, no constitutional amendment would ever be possible.
We are witnessing typical political commissar-like tactics, where abuse of power is used to silence dissenters. This is not about the Constitution; it is about ideology. Urška Cankar Soares’s views are disturbing because they oppose the radically leftist mindset that dominates the national broadcaster. We may hold various opinions on the views expressed by the Marches for Life. We may agree with them, be reserved, or fully reject them. However, these events have always been peaceful and civilised. There have never been calls for a ban on abortion, as opponents claim. However, hostile messages have always been evident at “counter marches” organised by leftist activists.
Moreover, accusations of the unacceptability of the views held by the organisers of these marches are absurd in light of the fact that the national broadcaster regularly hosts leftists who are significantly more extreme. Not only are they invited guests, but they also work within this institution. These activists, disguised as journalists, promote views that express support for various authoritarian figures and extremists, from Putin and Maduro to Hamas and Iranian religious leaders. Their ideological rigidity is further reinforced by aggression and vulgarity, as demonstrated by one of these “journalists” who insulted her colleague with “colourful” Balkan curses (which are not appropriate to mention in respectable media) for allegedly pro-Israeli reporting.
The uniformity of thought being imposed by those who were placed in leadership positions at the public broadcaster in the name of “depoliticization” merely reflects the general state of mind in the current era of “freedom”. It is grounded in ideological exclusivism and aggression towards anyone who stands in the way of the current powers.
