Skoči do osrednje vsebine

Zahtevek za objavo popravka članka, objavljenega na spletni strani Süddeutsche Zeitung

V nadaljevanju objavljamo zahtevek za popravek članka, objavljenega na spletni strani Süddeutsche Zeitung dne 18. 2. 2021 z naslovom »Der selbstbewusste Marschall Twito«.
Članek vsebuje več neresničnosti, na katere opozarjamo. Zahtevek za objavo popravka navajamo najprej v angleškem, nato pa še v slovenskem jeziku.

Angleška različica

The Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Slovenia is issuing a request for a correction of your article published on the website of Süddeutsche Zeitung on 18. 2. 2021 originally titled »Der selbstbewusste Marschall Twito«.

The article contains several factual errors which we are pointing out.

"Two alternative cultural centers in Ljubljana were evacuated by security forces."

This is incorrect. There are two alternative cultural centers in Ljubljana: Rog and Metelkova. Both are under the jurisdiction of the Municipality of Ljubljana, not the Government. The land and infrastructure are also wholly owned by the Municipality of Ljubljana. Rog was indeed evacuated, yet this had nothing to do with the current Government – evacuation was ordered by the mayor of Ljubljana Zoran Janković (a former left-wing politician), since the cultural center is under the supervision of the municipality and the city of Ljubljana wants to turn the ramshackle old building into a modern cultural center. There have been no evacuations by security forces of the other cultural center (Metelkova). Again, we stipulate that the Government of Slovenia has no ties to these two cultural centers.

 "… the director of the well-known museum for modern art, Zdenka Badovinac, was replaced by a successor close to the government."

Zdenka Badovinac was not »replaced« as a director of Moderna galerija. Her term of office as the director (which she held ever since the formation of the institution) simply expired. In fact, new appointments of directors of public institutions such as museums, galleries etc, have only been selected after the previous directors completed their full term of office. The ministry was thoroughly committed to following due process and paid utmost attention to rules and regulations that govern appointments of the directors of public institutions. A public competition has been carried out for each appointment, with strict standards and rules governing who can apply for the position. After the Selection board of the Ministry of Culture has suggested the most appropriate candidates (based on competency) to the Minister, he has always diligently followed its proposal. The Minister steadfastly preferred the candidate which was objectively found to be the best on merit. Mrs Badovinac's successor Robert Simonišek has no ties to the SDS party, current government nor politics in general. He is a renowned expert, poet, writer and art historian. He holds a university degree in philosophy and a doctorate in art history. He has more than 11 years of work experience in the wider field of culture and museology. He speaks several world languages and has an extensive bibliography. Among his latest, particularly resounding projects is the internationally lauded exhibition Faces of Expressionism in collaboration with the Czech curator Adriana Primusova. Suggesting he is a political shill is slanderous.

"… Last year the STA press agency, vilified as a "national disgrace" by Janša, was temporarily canceled its public funding, ..."

Funding for STA was not cancelled. It was put on hold after the director of STA refused to provide documents of STA’s financial operations which the Government needs for its assessment on what the adequate funding should be.

The contract between the Government and STA has been signed by the previous government of Prime Minister Marjan Šarec. It clearly stipulates that STA is obligated to hand over all the documentation, which will allow the Government to assess the funds it will allocate to the project. This is only logical, since the Government is transferring 165,000 euros a month to the agency. There must be some sort of an accounting oversights in order to assess the appropriate amount to fund STA. Otherwise the Government would just hand the tax-payers money ad hoc, without any real assessment of what a rational monthly installment is. The contract signed by the previous government therefore also states funds can be halted and furthermore – the Government can legally demand a refund of funds already paid, if STA does not hand over documents of its financial operations which the Government needs for its assessment.

Funding of STA has since resumed, despite STA breaching contractual obligations, however a legal conundrum clearly exists, as many prominent Slovenian legal experts agree.   At this time ad hoc funds are being transferred to STA without having access to documentation which would allow the Government to access how much the agency really needs. This is a legal dilemma that will have to be resolved in a legal way. It has nothing to do with politics, even though the opposition as well as the director of STA transformed it into a political issue.

"… and the traditional university broadcaster Radio Študent no longer receives any grants."

This is factually wrong. Radio Študent received € 99,220.00 from the media public tender. It also had the right to seek emergency aid from the covid19 relief fund. In addition to this Radio Študent also received € 200,000.00 from the special income tax fund dedicated to NGOs. 

Radio Študent is a private radio station owned by the Radio Študent Ljubljana Institute, established by the Student Organization of the University of Ljubljana.

The Ministry of Culture has always supported the activities of Radio Študent in a media tender since 2003 (the only exception was in 2014 – during the Government of left-wing Prime Minister Miro Cerar –, when the broadcaster did not submit a request).

From 2003 the broadcaster of Radio Študent received a total of € 837,791.01, namely by individual years: € 6,042.73 (2003), € 10,432.32 (2004), € 30,320.58 (2005), € 21,289.86 (year 2006), € 15,697.29 (year 2007), € 20,000.00 (year 2008), € 65,035.73 (year 2009), € 36,860.06 (year 2010), € 25,125.80 year 2011), € 48,465.00 (year 2012), € 65,000.00 (year 2013), € 74,393.60 (year 2015), € 62,790.00 (year 2016), € 81,600.00 (year 2017), € 79,818.05 (year 2018), € 95,700.00 (year 2019) and € 99,220.00 (year 2020).

"…Janša attacked an author of the online magazine Politico, Lili Bayer, who had just submitted extensive research to the Janša’s government on the "war against the media"."

Prime minister did not »attack« the journalist. He posted a tweet as a private citizen, expressing his frustration, that the journalist decided to omit all aspects of the extensive response the Government communication office sent her, which would render points carried across in the article as highly suspect.

Janez Janša was not the only politician who criticized the media. The French Prime minister Emmanuel Macron, harshly scolded Le Figaro journalist Georges Malbrunot, after he wrote a politically biased article, however the European Commission did not issue any statements about the need to protect journalists in France nor did European publications write about “the French War on Media”. Politicians are just people and are often affected by misrepresentations of facts.

The article was based on anonymous sources and contained several factual errors. The Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Slovenia posted a public rebuttal.

The Government handed out €2.6 million in an open tender to (mostly left-wing) media, as well as tens of millions of euros in covid19 relief.

The topic of Hungarian investments in Slovenia is being widely covered (many times with gross exaggerations, hiding the fact that all the Hungarian-owned media don't even cover 5% of the media landscape). As such there is absolutely no evidence that any journalist self-censored articles with this topic – in fact quite the opposite. Articles like this as well as any articles with anti-government sentiments are extremely popular in Slovenia, which is something you would expect in a country, where a disturbing majority of media outlets are left leaning. These are not just lamentations of a Government under media scrutiny. There is empirical evidence that supports this.

A recent analysis on media plurality conducted by Ljubljana based Faculty of Media shows that mainstream media have a heavy left-wing, pro-opposition, anti-government editorial stance. This also goes against anonymous reports that reporters are being forced into self-censorship.

Slovenian private media is predominately owned by media tycoons close to leftist political parties and the person you spoke to works for one of these – Dnevnik, a publication that is overwhelmingly left-wing with journalists who actively support the opposition. Therefore, we are astounded a distinguished, internationally renowned publication like yours would allow itself to be thoroughly mislead by Slovenian political activists, without investigating both sides of the story. As we have shown in this response you have been fed factually erroneous information, which can be easily cross-checked and verified. Your Slovenian sources are clearly on a mission to use your media outlet as a tool of propaganda, for domestic (Slovenian) consumption by giving you a combination of half-truths, misleading information and blatant lies. We would appreciate a correction on the points we have identified as factually inaccurate.

Slovenska različica

Ministrstvo za kulturo vlaga zahtevek za popravek objavljenega prispevka, objavljenega v časopisu Süddeutsche Zeitung, dne 18. 2. 2021 z naslovom »Der selbstbewusste Marschall Twito«.

"Varnostne sile so evakuirale dva alternativna kulturna centra v Ljubljani."

Ne drži. V Ljubljani obstajata dva alternativna kulturna centra: Rog in Metelkova. Oba sta v pristojnosti Mestne občine Ljubljana, ne Vlade RS. Rog je bil resnično evakuiran, vendar to ni imelo nobene zveze s sedanjo Vlado RS, izselitev uporabnikov Roga je odredil ljubljanski župan Zoran Janković (nekdanji levičarski politik), saj so stavbe kulturnega centra v lastništvu Mestne občine Ljubljana, ki želi načeto stavbo spremeniti v sodobno kulturno središče. Na Metelkovi pa ni bilo nobenih evakuacij, pa tudi Mestna občina po naših informacijah nima načrtov, da bi tamkajšnje prebivalce izselila. Ponovno pa poudarjamo, da Vlada RS ni na noben način povezana s tema dvema kulturnima centroma. Oba sta v pristojnosti in lastništvu Mestne občine Ljubljana.

"... direktorico znanega muzeja moderne umetnosti Zdenko Badovinac je zamenjal naslednik, ki je blizu vladi …”

Zdenka Badovinac ni bila "zamenjana" kot direktorica Moderne galerije. Njen mandat (ki ga je opravljala že od ustanovitve zavoda) se je preprosto iztekel. Do imenovanj direktorjev javnih ustanov, kot so muzeji, galerije itd., je prišlo šele potem, ko se je prejšnjim direktorjem iztekel mandat – se pravi šlo je za redne menjave. Tudi v primeru gospe Badovinac, katere mandat se je iztekel decembra lani.

Vlada je povsem zavezana predpisanemu postopku in namenja veliko pozornosti pravilom in predpisom, ki urejajo imenovanje direktorjev javnih zavodov. Za vsako imenovanje je bil izveden javni natečaj s strogimi merili in pravili, ki določajo, kdo se lahko prijavi na to funkcijo. Potem ko je izbirna komisija Ministrstva za kulturo ministru predlagala najprimernejše kandidate (na podlagi strokovne usposobljenosti) je minister vedno upošteval njen predlog. Minister je vsakič dal prednost kandidatu, za katerega je bilo objektivno ugotovljeno, da je najbolj strokovno usposobljen. 

Naslednik gospe Badovinac dr. Robert Simonišek ni povezan s stranko SDS, sedanjo vlado, niti s politiko na sploh. Je mednarodno priznan strokovnjak, pesnik, pisatelj in umetnostni zgodovinar. Po izobrazbi je univerzitetni diplomirani filozof in umetnostni zgodovinar ter doktor znanosti s področja umetnostne zgodovine. Ima več kot enajst let delovnih izkušenj s širšega področja kulture in muzealstva. Govori več svetovnih jezikov in premore obsežno bibliografijo. Med zadnjimi, posebej odmevnimi projekti, izpostavljamo mednarodno razstavo Obrazi ekspresionizma v sodelovanju s češko kuratorico Adriano Primusovo. Namigovanja, da je politični izbranec so žaljiva. 

"… lani se je tiskovni agenciji STA, ki jo je Janša označil za "nacionalno sramoto", začasno ukinilo javno financiranje …"

Financiranje STA ni bilo začasno ukinjeno. Do zamude je prišlo, potem ko direktor STA ni hotel predložiti dokumentov o finančnem poslovanju STA, ki jih vlada potrebuje za oceno ustreznega financiranja. Pogodbo med Vlado RS in STA je podpisala prejšnja vlada premierja Marjana Šarca. Ta pogodba jasno določa, da je STA dolžna predati vso dokumentacijo, ki bo vladi omogočila oceno sredstev, ki jih STA potrebuje za izvajanje javne službe. Vlada namreč zdaj agenciji mesečno nakazuje 165.000 evrov. Za oceno ustreznega zneska za financiranje STA mora obstajati neka pravna in računovodska podlaga. V nasprotnem primeru bi Vlada RS denar nakazovala ad hoc in ne bi imela možnosti analize, kakšen naj bi bil ustrezen mesečni znesek financiranja. V pogodbi, ki jo je podpisala prejšnja vlada, je navedeno, da se sredstva lahko ustavijo, poleg tega pa lahko vlada zakonito zahteva povračilo že izplačanih sredstev, če STA ne predloži dokumentov o svojem finančnem poslovanju, ki jih potrebuje za oceno financiranja.

Vladno financiranje STA se je od takrat sicer nadaljevalo, kljub kršitvi pogodbenih obveznosti STA, a se številni ugledni slovenski pravni strokovnjaki strinjajo, da bo pravno zagato nekako vendarle treba rešiti. Trenutno se ad hoc sredstva prenašajo na STA, ne da bi Vlada RS imela dostop do dokumentacije, ki bi ji omogočila oceno, koliko agencija resnično potrebuje. To je pravna dilema, ki jo bo treba rešiti. Zadeva nima nič skupnega s politiko, čeprav jo opozicijski politiki in direktor STA prikazujejo kot politično vprašanje.

"… tradicionalni univerzitetni radio Radio Študent ne prejema več nobenih nepovratnih sredstev."

Ne drži. Radio Študent je iz javnega razpisa za medije prejel 99.220,00 EUR. Prav tako je imel možnost črpati dodatna sredstva iz interventnih ukrepov za lajšanje posledic koronavirusne bolezni, črpal je sredstva iz naslova dohodninskega sklada v višini 200.000,00 EUR, namenjenega NVO-jem.

Radio Študent je zasebna radijska postaja v lasti Zavoda Radio Študent Ljubljana, ki jo je ustanovila Študentska organizacija Univerze v Ljubljani (ŠOU). Ministrstvo za kulturo že od leta 2003 na medijskem razpisu podpira dejavnosti Radia Študent (izjema je bila le leta 2014, v času vlade premierja Mira Cerarja).

V letih od 2003 do 2020 je izdajatelj radia Študent skupaj prejel 837.791,01 EUR, in sicer po posameznih letih: 6.042,73 EUR (2003), 10.432,32 EUR (2004), 30.320,58 EUR (2005), 21.289,86 EUR (leto 2006), 15.697,29 € (leto 2007), 20.000,00 € (leto 2008), 65.035,73 € (leto 2009), 36.860,06 € (leto 2010), 25.125,80 € leto 2011), 48.465,00 € (leto 2012), 65.000,00 € (leto 2013), 74.393,60 € (leto 2015), 62.790,00 € (leto 2016), 81.600,00 € (leto 2017), 79.818 €, 05 (leto 2018), 95.700,00 € (leto 2019) in 99.220,00 € (leto 2020).

"... Janša je napadel avtorico spletne revije Politico Lili Bayer, ki je Janševi vladi ravno predložila obsežno raziskavo o" vojni proti medijem"."

Premier ni »napadel« novinarke. Kot zasebni državljan je napisal tvit in izrazil svoje razočaranje nad dejstvom, da je novinarka izpustila vsa dejstva iz obsežnega gradiva, ki ji ga je poslal vladni Urad za komuniciranje. Dejstva, ki bi povsem ovrgla postulate članka. Podobno kot Janez Janša je to storil Emmanuel Macron, ki je kritiziral novinarja časopisa Le Figaro Georgesa Malbrunota zaradi politično pristranskega članka, pa takrat niso v Evropski komisiji pisali nobenih izjav o tem, da je treba novinarje zaščititi. Tudi politiki so le ljudje in jih napačno prikazovanje dejstev kdaj prizadene.

Ministrstvo za kulturo je prav tako objavilo odziv, kjer je poudarilo, da celoten članek temelji na anonimnih virih, da je vlada z medijskih razpisom (večinoma levo usmerjenim medijem) razdelila 2,6 milijona evrov in na desetine milijonov evrov pomoči iz interventnih ukrepov za blaženje koronavirusne bolezni. Prav tako je poudarilo, da se o madžarskih medijskih in drugih naložbah v Sloveniji zelo veliko piše (velikokrat tudi s populistično retoriko, pri čemer se dobro skriva dejstvo, da vsi slovenski mediji v madžarski lasti ne pokrivajo niti 5% medijske krajine). Popolnoma nobenega dokaza tako ni, da bi se katerikoli novinar v Sloveniji samocenzuriral, kot poroča Politico, ravno nasprotno. Protivladni članki so v Sloveniji izjemno priljubljeni, kar bo spoznal vsak, ki bo gledal 5 minut večernih poročil ali prelistal glavne tiskane dnevnike. Kar je sicer v skladu s pričakovanji v državi, kjer je zaskrbljujoča večina medijev povsem podjarmljena levih političnim in kapitalskim interesom. To niso le objokovanja vlade, ki bi jo motila medijska pristranskost. Zato obstajajo empirični dokazi.

Kot kaže nedavna analiza pluralnosti medijev v Sloveniji, ki jo je opravila ljubljanska Fakulteta za medije, imajo večinski mediji, protivladno in opozicijsko uredniško držo, prevladujejo pa ideje iz levega političnega spektra. Take ugotovitve so v nasprotju z anonimnimi poročili, da so se novinarji prisiljeni samocenzurirati. Zasebni mediji v Sloveniji so v pretežni lasti medijskih tajkunov, ki so blizu levim političnim strankam. Oseba, s katero ste se pogovarjali, dela za enega od teh medijev, za Dnevnik, ki je izrazito levo usmerjen, v njem objavljeni članki aktivno podpirajo opozicijo. Zato nas preseneča, da ugledna, mednarodno priznana publikacija, kakršna je vaša, dovoli, da jo slovenski politični aktivisti povsem zavedejo, ne da bi raziskala obe plati zgodbe.

Kot smo argumentirano navedli v tem sporočilu, je očitno, da ste dobili napačne podatke, ki pa bi se jih dalo zlahka preveriti. Očitno si vaši slovenski viri prizadevajo, da vaš medij uporabijo kot orodje propagande za domačo (slovensko) konzumacijo, tako da vam pošiljajo kombinacijo polresnic, zavajajočih informacij in očitnih laži. Zaradi tovrstnega površnega novinarstva smo zelo razočarani in pričakujemo popravek v članku navedenih trditev, za katere smo pokazali, da so dejansko netočne.