Letošnje poročilo State Departmenta o stanju svobode govora in medijev v Sloveniji
Lansko poročilo State Departmenta za Slovenijo (2006) je bilo deležno zanimive recepcije. Za primerjavo svež zapis na portalu Dela. Zdaj je izšlo letošnje za leto 2007. Ob stalnicah o vplivu vlade na medije, o privilegiranosti RKC pri razdeljevanju medijskega sklada ipd. v oči bode že večkrat poudarjen podatek, da se vlada ni odzvala na zahteve IPI, RSF in EFJ po ustanovitvi neodvisne medijske preiskave. Odlomek:
Freedom of Speech and Press
The constitution and law provide for freedom of speech and of the press, and the government generally respected these rights in practice; however, there were reports of indirect government influence on the media.
The penal code criminalizes the promotion of “national, race, or religious discord or intolerance or the promotion of superiority of one race over others.” There were no reports that criminal charges were brought against individuals or publications under this provision during the year.
Individuals could criticize the government publicly or privately without reprisal, and the government did not attempt to impede criticism.
The independent media were active and expressed a variety of views, and international media operated freely. The major print media were supported through private investment and advertising; however, the government owned substantial stock in many companies that were shareholders in the major media houses. There were reports that indirect political and economic pressures and partial government ownership of media companies influenced journalists and the media, and that self-censorship was practiced in some media outlets.
On August 31, the International Press Institute (IPI) issued a statement expressing concern that the government used business relationships and share holdings as leverage to induce independent media organizations to publish favorable news reports. Managers reportedly protected their own interests and the interests of those in government with whom they were affiliated.
In late September, hundreds of Slovenian journalists signed a petition that was distributed to international organizations, embassies, and international media houses. The petition accused the government of restricting media freedom through direct and indirect political and economic pressures and partial government ownership of media companies. On October 1, several editors and journalists published a letter that contradicted the petition. The letter asserted that the level of government influence in the media had not changed in recent years, but rather that journalists no longer found themselves in political agreement with the governing coalition. On October 12, the government issued a statement denying any undue influence over the media. The government stated that it does not have a significant ownership share in media institutions and has no means to leverage editorial decisions. On November 22, the European Federation of Journalists, Journalists Without Borders, and the IPI called on the government to establish an independent commission to investigate charges of government influence on the media. As of year’s end, the government had not established a commission.
The 2006 Act on Media created a “media pluralization” fund to ensure that media reflected a greater diversity of viewpoints. Some media watchdog groups reported that a disproportionate level of pluralization funds have gone to Catholic Church media and media outlets favorably disposed towards the government.
In July 2006 several journalists covering a demonstration reported that police used excessive force against them, including pushing and shoving. In October 2006 a government investigatory panel found the subsequent complaint filed by the journalists to be justified but did not conclude that the journalists had been prevented from carrying out their work. The government did not reprimand the officers involved or take other corrective action.
The law provides criminal penalties for defamation that harms a person’s honor or name, and one person was given a three-month prison sentence during the year. In 2006 the International Helsinki Federation called on the country to abolish “criminal defamation laws establishing prison sentences for those who have harmed a person’s honor or name.” The Constitutional Court ruled in 1999 that the law is consistent with the constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights.
