Traps of a Small Market
Slovenia:By Igor Mekina (AIM Slovenia)
The sphere of the media in Slovenia has changed quickly in the past several years; new solutions are accompanied by new problems which affect the work of the journalists and quality of public information. As concerning the most important ones, the electronic media, private capital is increasingly present in them. There are three major private television stations in Slovenia which cover about 95 per cent of the state territory with their signals (POP TV, Kanal A, TV 3); they (especially the commercial POP TV) are a serious competition to public television. Public television station - TV Slovenija - broadcasts on two channels and operates in accordance with the principles of similar television stations in the world. In its Board which decides on nomination of editors and managers, majority are representatives of the "civil society" and not political parties.
Via cable operators who cover majority of urban settlements, it is possible to choose among fifty odd foreign television channels. Besides, there are nine non-commercial TV channels, 78 radio channels (8 of which are channels of public RTV Slovenia), 47 commercial radio channels which are privately owned and 21 local, non-commercial radio channels. In other words, private capital is especially present in radio stations.
The process of privatisation of media has partly contributed to progress of the media situation. Majority of state (in the former self-management system "social") media were privatised according to the model of the transfer of shares to state funds. In these media the state owns 10 per cent of the capital and 10 per cent of the indemnity capital, while Development Agency owns 20 per cent of the capital. Internal and institutional owners control about 60 per cent of the capital. Three leading dailies (Delo, Dnevnik, Vecer) were privatised through internal purchase and internal distribution of shares.
That the general media scene in Slovenia is more than modest, or rather - poor (as concerning the quantity of the media, at least) is illustrated by the fact that in the past few years several media projects have failed, among other the attempt to start three dailies (Slovenec, Republika and Jutranjik which was published for hardly a month). Narrowing down of the media space has not brought about the rise of quality, on the contrary. Degradation of quality in all media is connected to the increase of xenophobia and nationalism immediately after Slovenia had become independent. All that is visible on the example of hysteria in the media because of the increase of the number of immigrants and refugees - as AIM has regularly reported. What has remained of the press is largely privatised. Two political weeklies (Mag and Mladina) are privately owned, along with a certain number of local newspapers.
The profit made by the media that have survived competition is quite high, though. Last year, the pure profit of Delo Corporation, for example, was 7.9 million German marks (DEM), that of Dnevnik about 1.09 million DEM and that of Vecer one million DEM. Despite that, there are anomalies in operation of the media which are the consequence of the small market and deficient legislature. The small market enables a small number of owners to control the sphere of the media by means of very subtle and selected means. That is how a small number of local owners, with the help of interconnected enterprises, took over control of a large part of the media market. That is how Salomon media group which made three million of DEM of profit last year, extended its empire. Consequently, because of the small market, only the biggest media survive (to make it even more cynical, due to proclaimed "pluralisation" of the media, there are no state subsidies since 1992). However, they have not resisted the cultural level of the average of the public, and are paying the price of survival by dubious quality because they are largely financed by selling tabloids.
Independent and non-commercial media (the few remaining ones), that is, the media which, unlike the commercial ones, lay stress on general cultural values, tolerance and open society - are hardly surviving on the margins of the society. The weeklies are also barely surviving, with a low circulation (about 15 thousand printed copies), and returns from agents that is highly variable.
There is also the threat of the still large percentage of state owned package of shares in media, due to which at the time of political tensions (more precisely - at the time of changes at the wheel of the country which were quite frequent in the past ten years) there is the danger of the state's meddling in so-called "independent" informing of the public. Everything listed shows that pressure is still exerted on the media, but more subtly, concealed by its new form - financial pressure. A specific examples what it is like in practice is the last year's struggle (of the then Bajuk's) government for a package of shares in Delo. Bajuk's administration took advantage of the opportunity at the time to exert pressure on Gorenje company to give up its part of the shares in Delo in exchange for government aid after the catastrophic fire in the factory.
Despite the proclaimed objectives, concentration of capital in the hands of a small group of owners still has not been interrupted. The state and the institutions which should control ownership relations have neither the mechanisms nor the interest to establish order in the sphere. Some media (e.g. Kanal A and POP TV) regularly violate the law because they do not meet the condition on compulsory percentage of the broadcast programme produced locally. Some transmitters of Kanal A have already been turned off, while POP TV is hiding behind political influence and still does not act pursuant the law. One of the "problems" which is readily stressed by foreign investors who wish to invest capital in purchasing of Slovenian media, is the legally determined (anti-monopolistic) limit of 33 per cent of participation in the ownership which refers to both physical and legal persons. Nobody abides by this provision in Slovenia, and there is no punishment for it. The best illustration what that is like in practice is Finance, the newspaper which was until recently published twice a week carrying the most significant news from the world of the economy and market of capital; a few weeks ago Finance changed its editorial policy and is now published as a daily after a new partner joined the project with 72.5 per cent of the capital. In a similar way POP TV was registered as a "publishing company" of three firms, although it actually works as a television station.
Some of the described problems should be regulated by the new Law on Media the preparation of which is taking a very long time. Even some of the European institutions, such as the IPI administration in Vienna, complained against the first versions of this document because of inconsistency. Journalists in Slovenia have not the explicitly recognised right to protect their sources of information, which makes the situation difficult, since the legislature concerning "betrayal of military and state secret" has practically remained the same as in the former regime.
The additional problem for freedom of the press in Slovenia are court proceedings against journalists and media. These proceedings are not just the inevitable logical consequence of the use of freedom of public expression or defence of personal dignity. In cases when known politicians and state officials sue media, increasing fines the media are sentenced to pay the plaintiffs impoverish the media and cause the effect of fear and self-censorship. Such trials even when the state prosecutor loses the case (which often happens), due to the time needed for preparation of defence, expenses, temporary loss of credibility and other problems which the accused media (or journalist) faces have the chilling effect on the freedom of criticism. A few trials (some of which still continue) in Slovenia initiated by politicians (insulted by criticism) have clearly shown how important it is in the states in transition to bring the judiciary closer to the standards of freedom of criticism of public figures existing in developed states of the EU.
Nevertheless it should be stressed that Slovenia has achieved certain success in transition of legislature concerning media. Slovenia has a quite good Law on Copyright and Law on Protection of Personal Data, and journalists enjoy special protection when accused of slander; in the meantime the courts have also summoned up courage and often refer to the practice of the European Court for Human Rights in Strasbourg. The politicians have, therefore, as a rule lost cases in court. State administration and civil servants use this as evidence of faultless media scene in Slovenia - this is true only if we take into account the most flagrant, and not the more subtle forms of threatened freedom of the media.
The latest debates on the position of public television in Slovenia also speak about it. After Slovenia had become independent, Slovenian Radio-Television (RTV) got the status of a public institution. In the beginning of the nineties sharp discussions took place about who should have the key role in decision-making concerning personnel and other questions: the state or some other agency. Finally, under the influence of the liberal part of the political scene, the opinion prevailed that the control should be carried out by agencies of the "civil society". The Council of RTV, as the main decision-making agency is pluralist - it has 25 members mostly >from various societies which are not directly influenced by politics. The founder of RTV is the parliament, and not the government. It is financed from the compulsory and guaranteed "TV contribution" (paid by all those who possess an electric power meter on the territory of Slovenia), and partly from income made from advertisements. This system operated well until last year when problems appeared. First, regulations were changed and deprived the employed journalists of the right to give consent to nomination of editors. Some editors of rightist political orientation were removed from small screens, and after that RTV got the mentioned law on compulsory subscription from the parliament. Other media marked this document as a serious assault on the freedom of media. Then another blow followed - journalists revolted against director general accusing him of embezzlement. A paradoxical situation occurred - by secret vote the committee of representatives of "civil society" nominated the same controversial director who was rejected by the parliament in the end. Some commentators believed that this was proof that the parliament had taken over the place of "civil society" and that the Council of RTV Slovenia failed the test of objectivity since its members are persons who have business connections with TV management. Nowadays they are reflecting on new rules in order to restore impeccable operation of the mechanism that has lost momentum. In the meantime this public enterprise suffered another blow - certain percentage of the sum collected from the compulsory subscription should in the future be paid to a special account which could be used by media not financed from the state budget.
In the end let us go back once more to the biggest problem that concerns this branch - the question of the right of the journalists to protect their sources of information. Journalists in Slovenia have not the explicit right to protect their sources of information, and the legislature remained rigid when betrayal of military and state secret is concerned, in fact it is completely the same as in the former regime. The sources of information are mentioned only in Article 24 of the Law, but not in the sense of protection. "The source of information is responsible for truthfulness and correctness of information offered to the public. The journalist who gets an information from a person in charge (from the second paragraph of this Article) shall not answer if the content of the information in a means of public information is correctly published" (paragraph five and six). The intention of the quoted paragraph is to provide publicity of work and access to public information, and as the sources of information only state agencies are mentioned, including the administration of local communities, individuals who are discharging public duties, public institutions and other persons who are in public service.
By passing new legislature on media this too will change, although many experts are warning that much more than a paragraph is needed for efficient protection of the journalist's source. In majority of European countries there is the political will - with some limitations and exceptions - not to touch the sources of information. Although legal provisions on protection of sources differ from state to state, we can see that the court practice is quite liberal in these states and court decisions are similar. There is no such court practice in Slovenia yet. And since Slovenian legislature does not protect journalists and their sources, all they have is protection offered by the European Convention on Human Rights at the European Court for Human Rights in Strasbourg - even that only after all legal remedies in Slovenia have been used.
All the listed, unclarified and accumulated problems in Slovenian media space from the standpoint of many organisations - do not exist. Slovenia has succeeded in concealing all these negative trends by mimicry, so that even in the latest report of the OSCE prepared for it by the International Institute for Media (IPI), Slovenia appears as the only among twelve state s in the world which has not violated freedom of the press. That has put it in the company of states which (allegedly?) have not violated the freedom of the press either: Andorra, Denmark, the Vatican, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Malta, Monaco, Norway, Portugal, San Marino and Switzerland.