Freedom of expression and freedom of the media

Participants explained that the position and working conditions of journalists had been deteriorating over the past years. They believed that pressure was constant inside and outside media outlets and that it stemmed from both media owners and politicians. Self-censorship existed as journalists felt that they were restricted as to what topics they could cover depending on who was the owner of their media outlet. It was explained that there was no longer a national collective agreement for journalists since 2017, the existing one being only valid for the public sector. Participants affirmed that private media concentration was increasing, and that a single owner possessed dozens of media outlets, ranging from newspapers to radio channels. Media plurality had been particularly affected under the previous government, marked by the political takeover of the main newspapers, pressure on radio and television services as well as press agencies, and strategic litigation cases against journalists. It was explained that media outlets were economically weak, and prone to be subject to economic pressure, through the threats of litigation and the loss of advertising revenues (which mostly stemmed from a few state-owned companies). In the COVID-19 context, the previous government had also cut funds to around thirty national and local media projects arguing that savings were needed. Participants believed that legal updates were needed to address the spread of misinformation, fake news and hate speech, and to better manage the development of social media. Participants explained how the criminalisation of defamation was being used by politicians to take strategic litigation against public participation (SLAPPs) cases against journalists. Individual investigative journalists, especially active in the area of corruption, told the delegation about dozens of SLAPPs taken against them. Some cases were based on accusations like tax evasion and money laundering. Lawsuits could be launched from both the public prosecutor and private individuals and aimed to hit journalists financially, since there was no limitation on the number of cases that could be opened. Some participants felt that the judiciary also had a poor understanding of the reality of the pressure exerted on journalists through SLAPPs. The Slovenian authorities expressed their full support for the Commission initiative to address SLAPPs presented in April 2022. Participants described how the Slovenian Press Agency (STA) had been the target of funding cuts by the previous government in 2020, allegedly because the government was not satisfied with the reporting from Brussels. They also explained how smear campaigns, intimidation and bullying 4/6 targeted journalists from the public service broadcaster RTV. RTV journalists had been on strike in 2022 to demand full editorial autonomy and an end to politically-motivated interference and censorship. Some TV hosts were removed from their posts at RTV in the context of the plan approved by the TV leadership to reduce news programmes. Journalists considered the difficult situation as the main cause of the very low level of trust towards the media in the general public. They added that two legal cases had been opened against the RTV head, including for lack of respect of the journalists' union rights. The Slovenian authorities considered the ongoing heated atmosphere as the outcome of many disagreements, especially on public media, over the last years. They expressed their hope that a return to previous management ways proposed in a November 2022 referendum would appease discussions around RTV and would prevent possible future interferences by governments. Two participants considered that there were no restrictions on media freedom but rather a lack of pluralism, due to what they called an imbalance of views in the media sector in favour of left-wing takes. They considered that actions under the previous government had not been motivated by the objective of pressuring the media.