By: Miro Petek
In the run-up to the referendum on the RTV licence fee, we once again heard the familiar clichés from the left-wing media and political establishment: an attack on the autonomy of the public broadcaster, a transformation from a public broadcaster into a state television station, the political subordination of RTV Slovenia, the dismantling of public broadcasting, cuts to public services, attacks on journalistic and editorial independence, and, of course, threats to democracy and the public’s right to information. This is what always happens whenever there is any discussion about how public broadcasting should be organised so that it can fulfil the mission for which it was established and which is prescribed by law.
This crowd has powerful megaphones and easily drowns out those who raise relevant questions in public. Is RTV Slovenia doing its job well? Is it sufficiently pluralistic? Does it scrutinise different political and ideological camps with equal rigor? Is its selection of commentators sufficiently diverse? Can it admit mistakes? And above all, can the editor or journalist of a major political programme at such an important media institution as RTV Slovenia be someone whose highest qualification is a secondary-school diploma and who, because of limited formal education, is vulnerable and beholden to those who put them in that position? We entrust our operations to specialist surgeons, we are judged by law graduates who have passed the bar examination, and we may drive on public roads only if we possess a driving licence. Yet public opinion at RTV Slovenia is shaped by individuals who do not meet the standards that should apply to journalists at a public broadcaster.
President Nataša Pirc Musar never misses an opportunity to criticise the current coalition: “If the changes go in the direction of having RTV Slovenia financed by the state rather than by the licence fee, then we will be talking about state television.” Her claim that a strong and independent public broadcaster cannot exist without a dedicated RTV licence fee is characteristic of her style: talkative but unsupported by evidence. Denmark abolished the traditional broadcast licence fee and now finances public media through tax revenues. The Netherlands funds public media largely through the state budget. France abolished the television licence fee in 2022 and finances public media through public funds. Finland replaced the traditional television licence fee with a special tax as early as 2013. Public broadcasters in these countries have not ceased to be public broadcasters, nor can they simply be labelled “state television” because of their funding model. Their experience demonstrates that independence is secured not by the bill itself, but by legal guarantees protecting stable funding, governance, and editorial autonomy.
Slovenia has developed another peculiarity in recent years. Criticism of a media outlet or journalist is quickly translated into the language of “attacks on independent journalism,” “pressure on the media,” “threats to autonomy,” and “undermining democracy.” As a result, the question of whether something was published fairly and professionally often goes unanswered. The discussion shifts away from the journalistic product itself and toward the alleged victimisation of its creator. The criticism of the work disappears from the conversation, while the critic becomes the focus of scrutiny.
Such stories often gain an international dimension. European journalistic associations and media-freedom organisations are informed, and their assessments later return to Slovenia as authoritative evaluations of the situation. The original criticism then acquires an international seal of approval, while questions of journalistic accountability remain untouched.
A public service broadcaster that citizens are required to fund should also be able to answer uncomfortable questions about its work. The right to criticise belongs equally to those who pay the licence fee every month. An obligation to pay does not imply an obligation to remain silent. If a public broadcaster sees an enemy in every critic, it avoids accountability and undermines public trust itself. It cannot demand money from citizens while simultaneously portraying their criticism as an attack on journalism. Those who are required to pay have the right to ask what they are paying for. And they deserve an answer.
