One of the key topics before the European Parliament this week is the new media law, or the European Media Freedom Act, which will be equally binding for all European Union countries and will allow for Union-wide implementation. The Act brings greater protection for both media pluralism and greater independence, which means that European Commissioner Věra Jourová chose the right time to visit the Constitutional Court in Slovenia and allegedly interfere in the adoption of the Radio-Television Slovenia Act. The new Act also provides for the withdrawal of EU supervision.
The European Parliament’s new media act aims to bind Member States to ensure media pluralism and to protect media independence from government, political, economic or private interference. In this context, Věra Jourová‘s visit at the time when the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia was ruling on the constitutionality of the then-proposed Radio-Television Slovenia Act seems anything but coincidental. A visit for which the public still does not know the real purpose behind it. Well, at least not officially, but unofficially, it is crystal clear to the public that Jourová defended the autonomous decision-making of the media before the European Parliament, but then, in Slovenia, she herself broke this rule.
During the adoption of the European Media Freedom Act, which is being debated in the EU Parliament this week, the European Commission’s Vice-President and Commissioner for Values and Transparency Věra Jourová stressed the importance of the autonomy of journalists, and in particular that “the public media should not be used as a propaganda tool.” Really? Why, then, has the public still not received a clear answer or a memo about Jourová’s meeting at the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia, at the very time when the Constitutional Court was deciding on the constitutionality of the new Radio-Television Slovenia Act, which came into force after her visit?
The EU’s independent media body
Under the new Regulation, the European Parliament would set up an independent EU body, the European Board for Media Services, established by the Media Freedom Act – legally and functionally independent of the Commission and able to act independently of it. This would take control out of the hands of the EU Commission, which would only be positive in the context of the lifting of the hold and implementation of the new Radio-Television Slovenia Act. MEPs are also calling for an independent “expert group” representing the media sector and civil society to advise the new Board. It would be made up of representatives from all Member States, ensuring diversity and width.
As political analyst Mitja Iršič, who witnessed Jourová’s feigning ignorance about the media landscape during the Janez Janša government, has already said, it is clear even to a Slovenian leftist that “the real power to destroy someone’s career in Slovenia lies exclusively with the left” and that “not everything is ignorance. Sometimes, it is pure political manipulation, where European politicians help their Slovenian ideological allies. A textbook example of this is the Vice-President of the European Commission, Věra Jourová,” he wrote in his column, where he shared his experience of her feigning ignorance.
After Jourová’s visit, not only did the RTV Act come into force on paper, but it later also led to a personnel purge, first of RTV management and then of other journalists who “do not think the same way” as the majority of the employees of the public service media, which, by the way, we all pay for. It should be stressed here that no concrete explanation has been given for these brutal purges, and that the journalists have done their job correctly. What is more, television presenter Valentina Plaskan, who had to be taken from her workplace in an ambulance because of mobbing, later publicly told a horrifying story of verbal violence that took place inside the national media outlet. The name Helena Milinković did not come as a surprise, as she is a well-known participant in the left-wing propaganda machine that we call the state-owned television.
MEP Romana Tomc announced on her X profile that the debate in the European Parliament on the new media legislation also touched on what is happening at RTV Slovenia, because, as she said, “the new media legislation has the potential to normalise the Slovenian media space.” According to the latter, it can be concluded that if the legislation had been adopted earlier, the brutal purges might not have happened today.
“What the ruling coalition is doing with RTV is the most illustrative example of what should not happen under the #MediaFreedomAct. Political interference, shortening of mandates, removal of editors and mobbing of journalists are in total contradiction with the new European media regulation. Forbidden! Hiding ownership is also forbidden. As is spying on and harassment of journalists. And many other things that will affect the media space in Slovenia. The Regulation is not ideal, just as no regulation is ever ideal where many compromises are made. But there is hope for Slovenia to clean up the media space, to find the real owners, to prevent political manipulation and to protect journalists,” wrote MEP Tomc, who also accused Jourová of “listening with only one ear. In this case, you are not protecting the public media, nor independent editorial policy and journalists, but you are protecting those who are destroying it.”
The European Media Freedom Act will make it easier for public and private media to operate across borders in the EU internal market without undue pressure and taking into account the digital transformation of the media landscape. Here are some of its key points:
– Protecting editorial independence: the Regulation will require Member States to respect the effective editorial freedom of media service providers and better protect journalists’ sources.
– Preventing the use of spyware against the media: the Media Freedom Act includes strong safeguards against the use of spyware against the media, journalists and their families.
– Independent public media: where public media exist, their funding should be adequate and stable to allow editorial independence.
– Media plurality tests: the Media Freedom Act requires Member States to assess the impact of media market concentrations on media plurality and editorial independence.
– Transparent state advertising: the Media Freedom Act introduces new requirements for the transparent and non-discriminatory allocation of state advertising funds to the media.
– Protection of online media content: the Media Freedom Act builds on the Digital Services Act and contains safeguards against the unjustified removal of media content produced in accordance with professional standards. In cases that do not involve systemic risks such as disinformation, very large online platforms that intend to take down legitimate media content that they consider to be contrary to their policies will have to inform media service providers of the reasons for doing so before taking such action. They will be required to prioritise any complaints made by media content providers.
– New user right to customise media offerings: The Media Freedom Act will introduce a right to customise media offerings on devices and interfaces such as connected TVs, allowing users to change default settings to their liking.
Soros’ attempt to interfere in the sovereignty of Member States
Many insiders consider the European Media Freedom Act to be another serious attempt to encroach on the sovereignty of Member States. Namely, it was Hungary, in particular, that expressed dissatisfaction with the proposal, as it said that it is committed to adequately addressing the issues raised, but at the same time also believes that it is the right and responsibility of the Member States to regulate them. However, Fidesz EU delegate Andrea Bocskor believes that the real purpose of the current draft EU legislation is clear: “The Soros network wants to control European publics through the Brussels bureaucracy.” She said that the aim of the draft, which was adopted in the first round, is “to ensure that only the voice of Brussels is heard in the public sphere in the Member States: pro-war and pro-migrant news, gender equality propaganda and no other voice to oppose it,” writes Telex.
The only conclusion to be drawn from all this is that this is a well-oiled machine of the left, so do not be fooled into thinking that all European politicians are naive victims of Slovenian left-wing propaganda. They are not – they are fighting, together with the Slovenian left and the left-wing media tycoons, against real freedom of speech, against pluralisation, against Slovenian journalists and against the truth.
Tanja Brkić
