By: Mitja Iršič
Two years ago, as advisors to the Minister of Culture, my colleague Miro Petek and I met with representatives of the European Commission, who were at that time preparing the now infamous report on the rule of law in Slovenia. We discussed media issues, of course. One of the Commission representatives was also a Slovenian, but we spoke in English. The European Commission was extremely concerned at that time about the concentration of media ownership in Slovenia and was also troubled by the poor transparency of ownership.
We explained to them a plan on how the new media law, prepared by Janša’s government, would effectively address the issue of prohibited media ownership concentration. The Ministry of Culture, which currently has the main say in assessing what qualifies as prohibited media ownership concentration, lacks any tools to determine how various media tycoons are connected in their efforts to deceive regulators. To address such issues, concrete financial forensics is required, which the officials at the Ministry are neither capable nor competent to handle, and such expectations from them should not be held. Therefore, the proposed media law at that time suggested that the only state authority competent in determining concealed ownership concentration in the economy should be in charge of dealing with media concentration. I noticed that despite all the noise about the former Prime Minister’s tweets, accusations of hate speech, and lies spread by Slovenian activists that poisoned the Slovenian scene at the leftist European Parliament, the professional representatives of the European Commission, with whom we spoke, were well aware that media concentration and collusion of left-wing politicians with media tycoons were the biggest problem in the Slovenian media landscape. They also found the solution proposed within the new media law, prepared by the Ministry of Culture, to be well-conceived.
Two years later, Golob’s coalition rode the wave of media and street support to achieve a Putin-like victory in the elections. The media law proposed by the Janša’s government was put aside and no new proposals on how to address media concentration and lack of transparency in ownership were made. This is not surprising considering that representatives of the government are eager to advertise in publications owned by media tycoons. These same tycoons, through their media, did everything to demonise the previous law, which aimed to permanently address the problem of media landscape being controlled by tycoons. Now, they all form a big happy left-wing family. During the annual media funding competition, tycoons, who have friendly relations with the current government through various economic entities (although not officially), receive millions of taxpayers’ money.
According to this year’s Rule of Law Report, the European Commission has found that the situation regarding media in Slovenia is improving. While some issues still need to be addressed regarding media concentration, overall, the situation is as it should be, with RTV Slovenia finally being recognised as “free”. Journalists no longer feel as threatened and are no longer afraid to leave their apartments, as some of them are now employed as spokespersons for the current government. In terms of media freedom, progress is being made, according to the European Commission’s assessment.
What does this tell us? Not only that the European Commission selectively chooses data to believe certain sources, such as the Peace Institute, the Slovenian Association of Journalists, and Marko Milosavljević, but also that it disregards others, such as the Association of Journalists and Publicists, Matevž Tomšič, Miro Haček, and Borut Rončević. Based on a meeting with Petek and the Commission’s “experts” in 2021, it appears that the Commission is well aware of the situation in Slovenia but deliberately ignores or actively supports one side that has stronger personal connections in European politics, rooted in Yugoslav communists and naïve European liberals.
In a more global sense, this means that European institutions have not learned anything from their arrogance and hubris displayed before, during, and after Brexit. They are convinced that the carrot of the four freedoms is enticing enough to make member states masochistically willing to endure endless beatings with the stick. However, they are mistaken. The periphery will not always tolerate the collusion between local tycoons, left-wing politics, and European liberals that undermines the sovereignty of new member states. This is not the EU. This is a path towards Russian and Belarusian-style “democracy”.
