»A diverse media landscape will not be created by throwing millions at three business entities — three Slovenian media multimillionaires and their dozens of media outlets and three newspapers. Even if each of them employed a thousand journalists, as various credible and competent discussants rightly emphasize, we’re still only talking about three voices in the media landscape — and frankly, they’re not even that different from each other! Nor will diversity be brought about — or at least it will be incredibly difficult to ensure — by five hybrid, semi-journalistic, semi-agenda-driven, quasi-‘polit-commissar’ digital platforms that attack their colleagues and claim the sole salvific right to determine what is true and what is not, based on the ultra-agenda they represent and promote. They arrogate to themselves the exclusive right to ’empower’ and ‘educate’ the Slovenian public with a single, absolute truth — something that is not only incompatible with the credibility of the journalistic profession and ethics, but, in my view — with all due respect to the hardworking colleagues who may be driven by good intentions — also somewhat patronizing, condescending, and borderline insulting to the people and the Slovenian public in 2025. This public is, without question, literate and well-informed, often even more educated than those trying to brainwash and towel-dry their minds in the supposed spirit of Fanči from Filipčič and Derganec’s Butnskala (legendary Slovene film parody on totalitarism from mid 1980s, translator’s comment)! Moreover, the only thing that ever truly empowers and, if one insists on the term, ‘educates’ the public is genuine, credible information — presented through well-crafted, complex, in-depth, clearly structured, and linguistically refined storytelling! And as many such diverse stories as possible! Of course, as already said, the diversity of the Slovenian media landscape has been fragile for a long time. On the one hand, there has been a severe erosion of journalistic sovereignty; on the other, we’ve long seen the planting and flourishing of invasive media ‘species.’ And yes — the uprooting and extermination of rare, wild-growing flowers as well!«

📸 Photo: Vlado Jehart

Written by: Ana Ašič
Photos: Vlado Jehart, Marjan Artnak, Ana Ašič
Cover photo: Vlado Jehart

Editor-In-Chief Ana Ašič

Editor’s notice: Due to the exceptionally high and growing interest from the international public in the story about the controversial media politics and coming new Media Act in Slovenia which we originally published in Slovene language on our website portal Ana Ašič Sic! Journalism in Focus on April 5th, 2025, https://anaasicsic.com/2025/04/06/slovensko-novinarstvo-v-vrtincu-ultra-in-ekstra-pretiravanj-norosti-grenkobe-in-bolecine-kolaborantstva-aranzerstva-hlapcevstva-in-pogoltnosti-ter-sindroma-civave-pa-tudi-nezamenljiv/ , now almost five months ago, we are publishing here the authorized English translation of the investigative story by the experienced Slovenian author, journalist, publicist, and editor Ana Ašič.

August 29, 2025 // Originally published in Slovene language April 5, 2025

These days, I’ve been watching and listening to my journalism colleagues — a bit breathless with obvious agitation over events in the Styrian capital and the flagship of its journalism scene — ladies from public television, colleagues from that newspaper, and a union representative from what was once a central Slovenian daily, where, more than forty years ago, I took my first small and large steps into serious national journalism. It was there, on Saturdays, that my first major and widely discussed investigative stories on spatial planning, architecture, and urbanism were published — and, of course, on many other topics too.

I also watch and listen to today’s great Slovenian media theorists — those who, by the time I graduated, were just starting to »emerge« at the Faculty of Social Sciences as teaching assistants in seminars, some perhaps already as junior lecturers.

»Well then, good morning!«

I watch, I listen, and I marvel. All bright, educated, informed — one might say »up-to-date« — people. Respected and experienced colleagues, and PhDs in journalism and communication sciences, living fully in the here and now, in the heart of Ljubljana, Maribor, and Koper. Mostly totally »chilled,« sociable, well-networked, articulate, and certainly well-»embedded« in the system.

And look! Now, in March 2025, they’ve suddenly »seen the light« and started talking about Slovenia’s »devastated media landscape«! Well then — good morning! And quite literally, »at eight o’clock sharp!« Clearly, there’s no point asking whether you slept well — you clearly slept like a log! Otherwise, surely this devastation would have been noticed earlier. Or… did something else perhaps come in between to make it all »invisible«? In any case — thank goodness someone finally noticed the collapse, because otherwise it still wouldn’t exist. True to the long-time motto of what used to be Slovenia’s leading daily: »If we didn’t report it, it didn’t happen.«

To be fair, there has been, is, and surely will be a great deal of good — even excellent — work in our Slovenian journalism. I truly want to believe that! But it’s also true that alongside the many great, exceptional stories — past and present — and the brilliant colleagues who still today, each and every day, work passionately and with honor for our profession; alongside all those who once made us, and still make us, proud to be part of this field — who taught us, inspired us, and encouraged us to persist in writing truthful, authentic journalistic stories in our native Slovenian language, in this tiny linguistic environment and media space that has fewer people than half the population of Munich —
yes, even here, in Slovenian journalism, over the years, a great deal of bitterness and pain has accumulated.

Averting eyes and ears from »unpleasant truths« — and turning eagerly toward the spectacle of »deceptive lies«

How many journalists, over the past years and decades, have been fired like a bolt from the blue, »removed«, cast into disfavor, »cut off« without explanation, discredited, demoted, silenced? And how many more have »voluntarily« walked away from this ultra and extra Slovenian media monoculture — from its hysteria, its excesses, and its political-economic entanglements, from its sycophancy, pettiness, malice, envy, and madness?

How much anxiety, injustice, painful silence, suppression, humiliation? How much so-called »collegial goodwill,« which — under a million masks and excuses — plunged the sharpest knives into the backs of those who, on the ultra or extra side, stood firm in truth, in journalistic integrity and professionalism? How often did it strip them of dignity, health, and livelihood — isolating them, branding them with shame, muting their voices, erasing their very existence?

And how much of all that still ravages the Slovenian media and the real social landscape — right here, in plain sight for all to see — while eyes and ears, once and still and always, turn away from the »unpleasant truth« and instead rush, with near-erotic fascination, toward the glittering performance of sweet »deceptive lies«?

And if, in the end, all this results in a knockout blow to a principled, intelligent, talented, and »too truth-loving« colleague — well then: »all the more reason to beat them down!« When she or he is on their knees, surrounded on all sides, let’s, just for sport, hit them again with »self-regulatory mechanisms« and legal abuse — let’s crush, erase, and exterminate that annoying voice »crying in the wilderness.«
Clearly. Effectively. So that not just her, but no one, anywhere, ever again even thinks of speaking out »about that« — with their unordained, unwelcome »mouth«.

The malignant milieu of systemic Slovenian corruption — hand in hand with the »ordained« from within the profession!?

This is how it is today. Here and now. Brutal. Real. Deeply lived. In recent months, I have experienced it in the most vicious and insidious version imaginable — firsthand — at the hands of contaminated actors: plunderers of public funds, destroyers of Slovenia’s nature, environment, and public space, and a malignant network of systemic corruption, working hand in hand with highly positioned, »ordained« collaborators from within the journalistic profession. (How paradoxical — and of course, logically necessary! Especially now, in times when, clearly, the last millions remain to be grabbed — to appropriate hard-earned taxpayer money under the guise of grand »agendas«!) These collaborators, within the context of the proposed new Media Act, are not merely seeking a superior status within the journalistic guild. No — they’re after public mandates that, in a truly democratic society, should only be entrusted to a professional chamber — the only body (however unpopular or uncomfortable it may be) that, with its internal structure, can meaningfully ensure self-regulation of the profession, using mechanisms and organs that at least minimally protect individuals from abuse.

Instead, what we have is so-called »self-regulation« turned into a tool and weapon of private interest — as professional associations inherently are — and wielded by those who, amid the silent resignation of a membership that keeps its head down and suffers, just for the sake of a domestic or international press card, run things arbitrarily. And, of course, also by those who ideologically or financially steer those »leaders,« using them to target and eliminate anyone deemed inconvenient.

📸 Photo: Vlado Jehart

Of course, a proper professional chamber demands a high level of maturity, responsibility, knowledge, and autonomy, and, consequently, integrity and honesty within the profession itself — not to mention a truly resilient mindset that won’t fall prey to the manipulative neuro-linguistic programming of those who try to inoculate journalists with fear and aversion toward such an institution, simply because a disoriented and fractured profession suits their political or corporate goals.

If no such institution exists — if there is no such professional backbone and honesty — or if these virtues are »flexibly adjusted« depending on who’s involved, or who whispers, or who orders, or who »makes a deal« with whom — then what we are left with are these so-called »ordained« individuals, perversely misusing the concept of journalistic self-regulation through the professional association. In the purest style of SLAPP tactics, they assist politics, capital, and special agendas in silencing and brutalizing the voice — and the messenger — of truth.

And that messenger, based on their current logic, apparently shouldn’t care about the public, or nature, or the environment, or public space, or taxpayers (who ultimately foot the bill for all this abuse) — but should instead carefully watch his or her tone toward the almighty local and national players behind these public-private exploitations. Because in a society as pathologically systemically rotten as ours, the harmed — and those who dare to stand up for them — are punished a hundred times, openly and covertly. While the abusers are protected a hundred times, openly and covertly.

And so, over the last few months, a horrific, real-life story has emerged — one that is absolutely relevant to the current debate, though its specifics reach well beyond this moment and space.

Still, this octopus-like conspiratorial abuse, now so widespread and aggressively normalized by all sides hostile to critical journalism — in the year 2025 — has truly gone far enough. After all, isn’t that why we stood on Kongresni trg in May 1989 and listened to Tone Pavček? Or… maybe not? Sadly, judging by what’s unfolding, 35 years later, we may now be entering a completely different kind of »celebration« here in Slovenia.

Taking the breath and voice from anyone who dares even mention them — let alone speak critically!

As I reflect on all of this, I admit: Me, too, feel somewhat breathless. And not just because of an ongoing recovery from a serious, months-long illness and a severe, long-neglected case of Lyme disease. But because everything that’s happening is becoming so overwhelming, it’s literally taking not just the voice, but even the breath away from anyone remotely sane — which, of course, is exactly the intention and ultimate goal of those behind it all.

If five years ago, in 2020, I was still able to respond to various pressures and threats against critical journalism with a degree of poetic generosity (see here); and even in 2022, as pressures against me and our critical online portal escalated, I still had the patience and analytical belief that the other side might show a »chivalrous stance« — and to some extent, it did (see here) — and though I must emphasize those were mainly highly positioned, at-the-time almighty hunters of influence, who in hindsight seem like true gentlemen compared to what we’re facing now…

In contrast, in the domains of state, local, and private energy sectors, in the context of the »green transition,« renewable resources, and the destruction of nature, environment, and space — and the brutally greedy looting this has triggered — a systemically corrupt foundation has emerged, where official »green« subsidies are used to bribe local communities and investors with taxpayer money. And the violence of the actors involved — their cronies, legal representatives, and the aforementioned collaborators from within the journalistic profession itself — has, in 2024 and 2025, crossed every imaginable boundary of what’s bearable and acceptable. (Read the case)

That story shows clearly what happened to a journalist from a local radio station and her husband. About a month after publication, similar pressure began to mount on me — and it still hasn’t stopped. Some of the individuals involved are even directly or indirectly connected to the drafting of the current proposal for the new Media Act. Charming, isn’t it?

Will powerful political, interest-driven, and financial »downpours« wash away the last scraps of journalistic sovereignty?

But it is not just adorable — it is more than incredible, really — and although we’ve become rather apathetically accustomed to it on this scorched Slovenian media battlefield, it’s still deeply alarming: this mounting assault on critical journalism and the systemic effort to silence every voice that doesn’t serve dominant paradigms and ideological agendas.

What’s worse, those agendas — now »in fashion« — are being eagerly embraced not only by political, economic, and financial actors, but even by part of the journalistic profession itself. Using »hybrid« mechanisms, they are now trying to embed these tools of control directly into the new Media Act.

And if they succeed — in the full splendor of what’s currently proposed — then we are all lost. Not just critical journalists, but every critical member of the public. And in the end, even those enthusiastically pushing this law — because they should remember that a stick always has two ends. Sooner or later, things always come back around and hit with full force — when you least expect it.

📸 Photo: Vlado Jehart

At this critical juncture, both the authors of the new Media Act and the legislators must recognize this with full seriousness, awareness, political maturity, and statesmanship.

The long erosion of Slovenia’s public communication and media environment is now, with this law proposal, entering a kind of final, dangerous phase — one that could, for our fragile and linguistically small media landscape, result in the loss of the last scraps of independent journalistic ground, and with them, the last rare »flowers« still daring to grow there.

After many years of what can only be described as a systematic extermination of autonomous, independent journalistic spirit, it will be nearly impossible — against the backdrop of today’s one-dimensional agendas and growing general hostility toward journalism — to recreate the conditions for authentic biodiversity and a diverse media landscape anytime soon.

Even if the proposed Media Act weren’t as bad as it is, the damage would already be immense. But because it is the way it is — the danger is all the greater.

Only a true, clearly structured, and linguistically refined story can genuinely empower—and yes, if someone insists on the term, »make literate«—the public in a meaningful way!

A diverse media landscape will certainly not be created by throwing taxpayers’ millions at three commercial enterprises or three Slovenian media multimillionaires, their dozens of media outlets, and their three newspapers—even if each had a thousand journalists. As various credible and competent commentators rightly emphasize, we are still talking about just three voices in the media landscape, which, to be honest, are not even that different!

Nor will a diverse media landscape be created—or it will be extremely difficult to ensure it—by five hybrid, half-journalistic, half-agenda-driven »politkommissar«-style digital publications, which constantly jab at other colleagues and claim the sole salvific right to determine what is true and what is not, according to the ultra-agenda they promote and are part of. In this spirit, they assume the exclusive right to »empower« and »educate« the Slovenian public with the »one and only« truth, which is not only incompatible with journalistic credibility and ethics but—despite due respect for the diligent colleagues who may be driven by good intentions—feels rather patronizing, condescending, and borderline insulting to the Slovenian public, which is certainly literate and informed, and often more educated than those attempting to »scrub and rinse« their brains, like Fanči from Filipčič and Derganec’s Butnskala (legendary Slovene film parody on totalitarism from mid 1980s, translator’s comment)!

What alone and always truly empowers and—if we must use the word—»educates« the public is nothing other than real and credible information, presented in a good, complex, in-depth, clearly structured, and linguistically polished story. And the more such diverse stories, the better!

Of course, as already mentioned, the diversity of Slovenia’s media landscape has long been a delicate issue. Alongside the severe erosion of journalistic sovereignty, we have also long witnessed the planting and flourishing of invasive media »species«—as well as the uprooting and extermination of rare, self-seeded »flowers«.

And with all that, the position of the »only chosen and anointed« in Slovenian journalism was established, crowned, and apparently made eternal decades ago. In the 1980s, at least, this remained within the bounds of basic civility and professional collegiality. But now, at least in recent years, it seems to have completely degenerated into radical dogmatism, breaking free from even the minimal respect for any truth beyond the one and only »sacred« narrative.

The fatal »brand of fire« and modus operandi of: »You’re either with us or against us.«

It’s not that I don’t care about all my colleagues now being tossed about in the current media storms—on the contrary, I care deeply! Much more, in fact, than most of them ever cared about me or any of us »freelancers« and »independents,« who have been facing this reality since forever.

I cared over thirty years ago. And in the mid-90s, when it was already clear—without any special prophetic talent—that Slovenian journalism, amid global technological trends, challenges, and a stampede of capital, would be doomed unless it broke free of the swaddling cloths in which it was being kept »warm« and ideologically »safe« by those who benefited from its indolence; unless it stopped sucking on the bottles so sweetly and seductively prepared by those same benefactors; unless it finally stood on its own feet and, like a child who has just learned to walk, ran off and created distance from anyone trying to steer its steps.

Unless it grew up, matured professionally, united its ranks and stubbornness, straightened its spine, strengthened its muscles and mind, freed itself from the claws of the past and present, renounced the deceptively protective cloaks of newly offered masters, and responsibly organized itself into a credible professional institution—not based on political and ideological leanings or left-right divisions, which, as it appears, still echo »sustainably« in Slovenia with a certain fatal Kumrovec resonance, not just in a »watermark« but a real brand of fire. Because that dominant modus operandi—still too often echoing the recognizable slogan »You’re either with us or against us«—must be left behind. Journalism must become a respected, dignified, and at least fundamentally resilient institution, as so fervently advocated in the 1990s and early 2000s by the late, esteemed professor and doctor of literary theory and journalism genres. Sadly, when she continued to speak out just as boldly against the Bologna system and education programs that produce not strong journalistic authorities but »arrangers« of political, corporate, agenda-driven PR under the guise of student dissatisfaction—though likely more due to external agitation—she paid for it with forced retirement at the age of just 57.
https://anaasicsic.com/2024/05/03/oprosti-manca-a-tudi-v-tem-svetem-trenutku-tvojega-prehoda-v-luc-ne-morem-drugace-kot-da-izrecem-kar-cutim-da-moram-povedati-svoboda-medijev-in-novinarstva-na-slovenskem-bo-ko-bodo-ti-med/

📸 Photo: Vlado Jehart

Bursting the Rainbow Bubbles of Slovenian Establishment Journalism

And so it pulsed then, and still pulses now — yes, this journalism — in a strange harmony with politics, vested interests, and capital; every now and then, as these days, perhaps with a few arrhythmic »skips,« but largely united when it comes to the »main« topics. Most often, only the »fringe,« the »fringe media,« the »fringe online portals,« as was recently commented on public television, and total »outsiders« — who, in their view, aren’t even worth mentioning unless they’re needed for some »Target« piece — offer a different voice. Then, of course, the story from some »fringe« source gets used after all. (Examples: link 1 and link 2)

Because »fringe« voices don’t have owners, unlike those that do, they’re deemed irrelevant — basically nothing, even less than nothing.

Yet real life has far more imagination than any human being — let alone poor artificial intelligence — and it always brings experiences we least wish for, as Alberto Moravia says. Experiences that broaden our understanding beyond the comfort zones of our assumptions and desires.

That’s exactly what’s now happening — and has been for a while — to Slovenian journalism. But since it still has strong and powerful patrons and protectors, from ultra to extra and everything in between, it’s taken a long time before the relentless reality of devastation and decline — which, as already stated, has been sweeping through Slovenia’s media landscape for years, even decades — finally broke through the rainbow walls of the safe and comfortable bubble of Slovenian establishment journalism, and apparently, even the »only true« Slovenian journalistic theory.

Servant Jernej and His Right in Slovenia’s Media »La Dolce Vita«

Sadly, in all this journalistic and media »La Dolce Vita,« and in the broader »cheerful« social climate in Slovenia — with its rush to please everyone on all sides — even the most prolific and celebrated journalistic colleagues have apparently run out of time and will to ever again, after leaving school benches, pick up or even recall Cankar’s Hlapec Jernej (Servant Jernej) and his quest for justice. Yes, my dear ones, once the »servant« has served his time, he searches for justice in vain — especially from masters who did not build what they own through hard work but had it »fall« into their laps from the »proper« heavens above. This is a telling and enduring Slovenian tradition, both literary and »revolutionary.« And so, the wailing and gnashing of teeth now echo across all corners of the media landscape.

How much of this wailing there was — and still is — because the »servant« has been more »papal than the Pope« in serving his master, while ruthlessly trampling and neglecting the truth and the rights of the powerless across this unfortunate country… Well, that’s something few among the loudest today are willing to hear, let alone speak about.

»Not just anyone can do this job!«

As mentioned, many of us persistently raised these issues already in the mid-1990s, some even going so far as to enthusiastically (and naively) establish the Independent Journalists’ Section within the then Association of Journalists of Slovenia. There were only a handful of us colleagues — whom I won’t name here, as I don’t know if they’d appreciate being mentioned in this context, or if they even remember being actively involved.

To be honest, me myself had completely forgotten about it — for two decades I didn’t think of it once — until 2019, a few months after our specialized online platform launched »into the ether,« when several long-time readers, who had followed us faithfully since the very first story, sent me this link: Roundtable on Independent Journalists – 24ur.com
…and asked, »Is it possible that you are the Ana Ašič, the initiator of the Independent Journalists’ Section?«

It was a STA (Slovenian Press Agency) article about a roundtable on independent journalists organized by the Journalists’ Union of Slovenia in June 1998, published on 24ur.com. Among other things, it stated that:

»Independent journalist Ana Ašič, who is also the initiator of the Independent Journalists’ Section, highlighted social-level problems and the fundamental issue that journalism is not an activity like any other, as journalists produce and sell a product with unique characteristics and qualities that not everyone can create, since it requires creativity and intellectual effort. Therefore, journalism must be restored to the status of a profession — one that not just anyone can perform.«

This is what our readers in the year 2019 found still relevant — even 21 years after the article was published.

It’s important to stress that my point above — which I still firmly stand by — refers exclusively to the professional practice of journalism, and not to public communication, expressing opinions, or sharing information in general! In a democratic society, of course, everyone has the right to do that — and with social media, digital tools, and platforms, we now also have the very real ability to do so.

But professional journalism still requires knowledge — often highly specialized knowledge — mastery of certain professional skills and tools, and at least a basic understanding of the structural, »static,« and »constructive« principles of journalism genres, norms, standards, and ethical codes. These ensure that professional journalists and all those who contribute to media production speak, at least roughly and »technically« the same professional »language,« operate from similar assumptions, and understand what they can expect from one another. That shared understanding is essential — especially given the proverbial haste in which media content is produced — for the functioning of journalism and the fulfillment of its mission.

At the same time, such professionalism provides at least a minimal level of certainty and clarity about what both the subjects of journalistic stories and the public — readers, viewers, and listeners — can expect from the media, from journalism, and from each other in this public communicative relationship.

📸 Photo: Vlado Jehart

The Irreplaceable and Unconquerable True Journalistic Story

These days — and in fact for several years now — various journalism theorists and practitioners seem to be competing in their gloomy predictions, all sharing a common belief that the »end of journalism« is rapidly approaching. I must say, such views don’t trouble me in the slightest. Perhaps it’s because, unlike them, I truly stand every day in the middle of this relentlessly surging river of journalistic and media reality. I’m out in the field, in direct and constant contact with the people I write about and those I write for — our readers and the audience of our critical, specialized online platform. Through this, I receive continuous confirmation that, although often critical and demanding, both the subjects and the audience still place great trust and value in journalistic work and the profession.

Because of all this, I don’t feel — not even for a moment — that this supposed »end of journalism« is something likely to occur in the near or even distant future. That is, of course, in places where this creative work is embedded within an environment supported by a wise, informed, and culturally conscious media policy — something that is an absolute imperative, especially in small linguistic and media ecosystems.

The human yearning for a story — one told by someone who lived it, who truly witnessed it, who saw and heard and felt every detail with their own eyes, ears, and skin — a story they understand and can tell in such a way that others can understand, relive, and emotionally connect with — that yearning is as old as the world itself and hasn’t fundamentally changed since ancient times.

Only the tools and methods of presenting such authentic stories to an audience have evolved. The storyteller has always been important. Even in journalism, it has always mattered — and will continue to matter — who tells the story, who writes it. If the public trusts the storyteller, they will listen and read. If not, they won’t!

In today’s climate — split between fascination on one side and fear on the other regarding artificial intelligence allegedly displacing journalism — we should remember that any current enthusiasm for AI-generated »features« is more a reaction to novelty and curiosity (how it looks and works) than a genuine desire to consume such content long-term. Sooner or later, people will resist — either vocally or silently — by turning away from machine-generated content. We must not forget, even for a moment, that the finger on the button of even the most advanced device still belongs to a human. And in every media environment around the world, the key question remains: Who said this? Who wrote this? In the end, the answer »artificial intelligence« will not outweight or replace genuine journalistic authority and the authentic human voice.

Journalism must be aware of this. It must regain confidence in itself and return to its core: the most authentic version of itself. To the true story from which journalism was born, grew, and became — not only irreplaceable — but, at least for now, still unconquerable.

»Nuclear Fission« of Social Media Realities

Naturally, much has changed in the media and journalistic landscape in recent times—especially over the past few years. The explanations of media forms and formats, along with their associated discourses, genres, and narratives, are—like everything else in nature and society—in a constant state of flux and transformation. They are subject to the collapse of existing frameworks and the subsequent homeostatic re-establishment of a new, transformed reality, which in turn gives rise to adapted approaches to the construction of media and other forms of perceived reality. In this context, it is quite illusory to think that social media completely liberate people from »constructed media realities,« that with the rise of social networks, such constructions are now obsolete or in the process of being »abolished.« In my view, we are still far from that point! Social networks primarily liberate the frameworks of »professional calling« toward constructing public communication reality, but not the actual media constructions themselves, which very much continue to coexist within that public communicative reality.

Put simply, today everyone who participates via their chosen social platform now »co-creates« the public discourse and thus »co-constructs« a kind of public »neo-media« reality. There is, of course, nothing inherently wrong with this. On the contrary, this actually fulfills what has until now largely existed as a constitutional declaration—written into most of the world’s constitutions—of the freedom of speech and the right of every citizen to publicly and freely express their opinions and beliefs. Up until recently, this right was, due to the technological limits of public communication, mostly just a decorative ideal. But with new technologies, this is now truly possible and realizable! And despite the many pitfalls and dark sides of this socially networked and »webbed« reality, that is, in itself, fascinating!

📸 Photo: Vlado Jehart

In the vocabulary of energetics, one might say that social networks have, in a sense, triggered a true »nuclear fission« of informational and communicative potential—sending millions of megawatts of informational and informative energy into communication networks on a daily basis. A kind of »info-energy«! The recent upheaval surrounding the proposal for a new Slovenian Media Act—unfolding precisely in the domain of social media—is a unique confirmation of this informational »atomic energy« and the shockwave of an »explosion« that occurs when such a social media »reactor« is overheated or someone attempts to »choke« it.

The Unyielding Drive for Expression and the Volatile Explosiveness of »Hate Speech«

The human spirit — the inherent need to speak, to think freely, to express oneself — has long since escaped the suffocating bottle of control. It cannot, and will not, be forced back inside without simultaneously destroying the very foundations of Western civilizational and democratic norms — norms to which political actors and decision-makers, at least in theory, still vocally and proudly adhere.

This simple truth may be somewhat overlooked by the drafters of the current proposed Media Act in Slovenia, as well as their potential advisers and prompters. According to Slovenia’s Parliamentary Legal Service, their premature and arguably unconstitutional leap into the volatile and flammable terminology of »hate speech« — and all the consequences that come with it — seems unnecessary. This is especially problematic within a socio-political environment that is, as previously stated, prone to abuse, vulnerable to arbitrary interpretation, and riddled with malignant corruption — an environment that also defines, to a large extent, the Slovenian public communication space.

The Media Act should protect and elevate the standards of freedom of speech and expression. Its legal foundation and structure should ensure, encourage, and foster a public communication space that is explicitly open to communicative divergence, diversity of opinion, and media pluralism. It should cultivate creativity and resistance to abuse, pressure, and attempts to silence critical voices — especially since such attempts are already too often wrapped in seemingly legitimate excuses used to discipline or intimidate those who dare to speak out and present truths that differ from those favored by the abusers.

With this new law — regardless of the drafters’ reassurances and perhaps even their genuine good intentions — all of this will become even easier and more convenient to suppress. And it will be left to the whims and arbitrariness of evaluators and their potential backstage prompters. That is unacceptable!

Most importantly — as has been said, repeated, and emphasized countless times during the current debates — hate speech and all that it entails is already regulated by other areas of legislation.

Of course, no violence can or should be tolerated. And no one is claiming that hate speech doesn’t exist — far from it! It very much does. And it’s growing. Which is precisely why it must be addressed with both temporal and spatial legal precision — not in vague or performative ways. Silencing and suppressing it »by force,« as several commentators have warned, will only lead to repression and the illusion of peace — a retreat into darkness, where hate can fester and grow in unpredictable ways, until it eventually bursts back into the open with even greater destructive force.

What Are We Really Trying to Achieve with the New Media Act?

In many areas, the proposed new Media Act seems controversial and delicate, confusing, contradictory — and at times not only terminologically inconsistent but also fundamentally unclear. It urgently requires rethinking.

Beyond regulating the »industry« — the media and journalism profession — and punishing delicate »speech,« what are we really trying to achieve with this law? Do we genuinely want a diverse Slovenian media landscape? Or is something else at play?

If diversity is truly the goal, the proposal fails to show enough awareness of the fact that it addresses and governs a two-million-person language community, within which the actual media landscape is even smaller.

This awareness — and explicit articulation — of a key Slovenian reality is sorely lacking. That reality fundamentally shapes the operation, survival, and sustainability of media and journalism in a small linguistic community. And in such a community, the media and journalism are not only essential for public discourse but are also key guardians and transmitters of the Slovenian language itself.

In such a small linguistic entity, every media outlet, every writer, and truly every story written in the language is invaluable — as long as it’s not just a garbled digital translation or an impoverished product of artificial intelligence.

📸 Photo: Vlado Jehart

It seems that both the drafters of the law and their critics are insufficiently aware of this reality — and rarely point it out. There is too much looking toward Europe and the world, and too much uncritical copying. It strongly appears that even the drafters themselves lacked the will, strength, or energy to truly look inward and deeply consider what the real situation is in the Slovenian linguistic and media environment — its specific features, details, and nuances. Moreover, perhaps they should have calmly focused on what has already existed here in the past and what has demonstrably worked. Slovenian media and journalism have always operated under the critical condition that readers, viewers, and listeners — now online visitors — are few in number. Even media outlets heavily »greased« with state and private advertising money struggle to survive, let alone those that are not — yet are just as necessary for the linguistic community and the public, especially if one genuinely wishes to present and revive the media landscape as diverse. These outlets are, in fact, needed — and even actively sought after and valued in certain audiences.

The »Chihuahua Syndrome«

What seems to have prevailed again — especially in Slovenian society and politics — is a growingly »viral« and visible phenomenon, which I privately call the »chihuahua syndrome«.

As some dog experts and owners of these small but bold animals say, this tiny Aztec dog has quite a fearless nature. According to experts, this stems from the fact that it doesn’t see itself as small — but as large as the being it’s currently dealing with. So, if it finds itself face-to-face with a Great Dane, the chihuahua doesn’t see that as an issue; it perceives itself as equally big. This is, admittedly, magnificent! But it also has a dark side.

Due to this flawed self-assessment, even a playful interaction can become fatal. A fragile chihuahua — which, according to kennel standards, should be no taller than 23 centimeters and no heavier than three kilograms — cannot easily survive, without serious consequences, if a Great Dane, even in the friendliest of games, accidentally rolls over it.

This image repeatedly comes to mind these days when I watch, listen to, and follow Slovenian politics and bureaucracy operating in European and international contexts. It’s incredible! The same fascinating scene everywhere: A Slovenian politician or bureaucrat goes to Brussels, Berlin, Paris, or anywhere else — and, naturally, meets with their colleagues from other countries, especially the so-called »Big Five,« meaning (now that the UK is no longer in the EU): Germany, France, Italy, Spain, and the Netherlands.

These five, as we know, more or less dictate — or even command — whatever comes to mind, and most of all, they serve their own interests unapologetically and ruthlessly. That is a fact.

So here is the Slovenian politician or bureaucrat speaking with a German representing nearly 85 million people, a Frenchman representing at least 70 million, an Italian with 60 million, a Spaniard with 50 million, and a Dutch official representing nearly 20 million — not to mention their respective economic and financial »millions.« These are all Great Danes, Rottweilers, and Dobermans.

And now, in front of them, is our little »chihuahua« — Slovenia. Cute and fearless, yes, but — just like her canine namesakes — she seems to forget her actual size, limitations, and the challenges those limitations entail. Loud as ever, she pays no attention to who she really is, darting around, wagging her tail, agreeing to everything, joining in with great enthusiasm, and »playing« with the big dogs — without a moment’s pause to consider how bruised and broken she’ll be when she’s done with this »game«!

»A cowardly boy never sleeps with a fine girl!«

In a way, we Slovenians — including the author of these lines with her small online portal — are all some kind little »chihuahuas,« which might actually explain why we achieve such extreme results in so many fields for such a small nation: from engineering and science to art and sports. Clearly, we’re not easily scared or discouraged, no matter how big the challenge may be!

So it’s no surprise that old Slovenian sayings like »A cowardly boy never sleeps with a fine girl,« or »A choirboy who doesn’t dream of becoming pope isn’t even fit to be a sexton,« originated right here in our cultural environment. But it’s also true that behind every major success of a small player lies strong self-discipline — a clear awareness of one’s own limitations — and, even more importantly, the clever and creative transformation of those limits into strengths and advantages.

This kind of awareness and strategy is exactly what I’d hope to see in efforts to promote the diversity of Slovenia’s media landscape — and especially now, as we develop and draft the legal foundations for it.

More originality and attention to the specifics of our small language environment is essential

And that, it seems, is precisely the biggest problem with the proposed new Media Act. Yes, the introduction mentions that the drafters studied examples from Iceland (with a population of about 400,000) and Estonia (with 1.5 million), as well as larger countries like Ireland (5 million), Denmark (6 million), and Austria (a bit over 9 million — but with a German-speaking hinterland of nearly 100 million across several countries), the Netherlands (20 million), and of course the ever-popular role model, Germany (85 million). But population numbers are only one dimension.

We haven’t even touched on the specifics of political and social cultures in those countries, let alone their economic strength and financial ecosystems!

Of course, it’s good to look around and compare. And naturally, EU directives must be reflected in national legislation. But for a small nation like Slovenia — especially when it comes to the existential issues of our language, identity, and cultural survival — the cultural sector requires more independence, more dedication, a little rebellion and persistence, and, above all, an original approach grounded in deep, detailed, and critical analysis of the domestic situation — of the fine points and nuances, where all the complications lie. And, of course, where all the real solutions for our own media environment and landscape are also hidden.

📸 Photo: Vlado Jehart

One can’t help but feel that it would have been far better if the drafters of the new Media Act had spent a little more time — or at least part of the time they used for European case studies — reflecting on the authentic Slovenian media reality, and considering effective and original solutions for the dilemmas we’re facing.

A clear media registry as an objective and transparent basis for awarding support

One of the first things that stands out in this proposed law — apart from the already mentioned lack of awareness that it addresses a media environment for a population of only two million — is the rather problematic confusion surrounding the media registry.

As it appears, the registry will continue to include not only every »classic« media outlet — meaning any public or private communication channel offering content of public interest — but also everything else that simply appears in the public communication space.

If we look through the current registry, which collects some data but is neither deeply structured nor classified, we find all sorts of entries. This doesn’t mean that such content doesn’t belong there — but it certainly should be clearly placed in its proper category. The registry should be far more transparent and orderly.

In this sense, the media registry should be clearly and logically structured. Media outlets and publications should be properly classified, so that the registry itself can serve as a credible foundation and trustworthy tool for awarding financial and other types of support to media entities.

Critical Articles on Financial Incentives for Digital Media and »Public Interest Status in the Field of Media« as a Potential Hotbed of Covert Censorship

It is precisely the allocation of financial incentives that is not only a vast arena of various conflicting interests — a battlefield over taxpayer media money — but also the greatest potential breeding ground for covert media censorship and arbitrary restriction of freedom of expression. This happens when »financial incentives« become a tool in the hands of politics and ideological agendas, used to »reward« the loyal while restricting and silencing the critical.

If we can consciously agree — and let’s truly hope that both government and opposition, as well as everyone who cares about the Slovenian media landscape, language, and identity, can recognize and accept this — that our linguistic space of two million people is small and therefore highly unfavorable for any kind of media »industry,« public or private, commercial or otherwise. From this perspective, it’s all the more reasonable to expect a sympathetic stance toward the fact that small media outlets and web portals — especially nonprofit, non-commercial, critical, and specialized ones that offer essential but underrepresented public-interest content — are in an even more precarious position, particularly due to their niche and certainly non-mass audiences.

Reading the proposed new Media Act, I am especially concerned about the articles in Chapter III, which deals with financial incentives for digital media and online portals — particularly Articles 12 through 17 — with Articles 12 and 14 being especially crucial«

A Strange Tree That Bears Both »Apples« and »Pears«

Article 12 defines what constitutes the »public interest in the field of media.« In the first paragraph, it lists everything this supposedly encompasses. The first bullet point outlines, at great length, who in the Republic of Slovenia has the right to »public information and comprehensive awareness.« The second point adapts this right for persons with disabilities; the third focuses on local communities.

Then comes a list of assorted concepts: »media pluralism and content diversity« in the fourth point; »media literacy« in the fifth — which is unclear in terms of whether it’s a right, a duty, a feature, a policy? It lands like a »ripe pear« among »apples,« which themselves are of uncertain status — are they still green, half-ripe, or already a bit »rotten«? Yet they’re all supposedly hanging from the same tree — though they are quite different »varieties.«

The sixth bullet includes »independent, ethical, and credible journalism and the promotion of media self-regulation,« the seventh »investigative journalism,« the eighth »cultural and artistic creativity in media,« and the ninth »editorial and journalistic autonomy and independence.«

This chaotic blend continues in Articles 13 and 14, where good ideas are lumped together with confusing, unsystematic, and poorly defined ones — lacking any real structure or conceptual coherence. It gives the impression that the drafters themselves weren’t entirely sure what they were doing — trying to appease every interest group that suggested one more thing to »add in.«

A Ridiculous »Bloom« Also Found in Annual Calls for Media Funding

A particularly bizarre feature — one that regularly appears in annual media funding calls — is found in the criteria listed in the ninth bullet of paragraph 3 of Article 14: »the inclusion of fact-checking prior to publication as part of the editorial process.« Thankfully, the Legislative and Legal Service has already commented on this, so I won’t go into detail. But fact-checking has always been inherent to the journalistic profession — at least it used to be. The old rule was: »Check ten times, write once.« The editor, of course, would read everything again — because that is their job.

Now, apparently, someone thinks there must be a special editorial process for fact-checking?! What does that remind us of? Maybe nothing for younger colleagues — but those of us who were already practicing journalism in the »communist« 1980s or even earlier feel a rather associative chill from that kind of wording.

Serious, Critical Journalism on Nature, Environment, and Spatial Issues in Slovenia Cannot Obtain »Public Interest Status in the Field of Media«!

Even more problematic is the so-called »public interest status in the field of media,« which appears — albeit in slightly different contexts — across multiple articles in Chapter 3 of the proposed new Media Act.

It is inherent to journalism to »inform the public about matters of public interest.« For serious, critical, investigative journalism — regardless of the field of human activity, and particularly in matters of nature, the environment, and spatial planning — this public interest is even more inherent and explicit. It is obvious that nature, the environment, and public space are common goods that concern and affect everyone in a community in one way or another.

📸 Photo: Vlado Jehart

Despite this, such journalism — even when non-profit, non-commercial, critical, investigative, analytical, and of high professional quality — still cannot obtain the »public interest status in the field of media« from the Ministry of Culture in Slovenia. This includes even those critical digital media platforms that are entirely journalistic self-made projects, long-running and editorially independent web portals.

Gaining this status would allow these platforms to receive partial financial support through tax-deductible donations from readers and supporters, which could at least slightly ease their existential struggles.

On April 12, 2024, a new regulation was published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia (link to regulation), which regulates the criteria for granting public interest status to NGOs in the field of culture. Article 4 lays out the criteria for »significant achievements in the media sector.« These criteria are so narrowly defined that in effect, they permanently block anyone outside the existing circle of five or six organizations — all of which already hold the status — from obtaining it. This is especially true for serious, critical online platforms that genuinely practice journalism and report on topics they professionally cover.

Reserved for Those Who Talk About Lace, Not Those Who Make It

The criteria for »public interest in the field of media« are written in such a way — and all 11 criteria are essentially set up — that only those who talk about the media and enforce a single, narrow agenda of what constitutes »real journalism« can be considered acting in the public interest. Meanwhile, journalism and media outlets that actually inform the public about issues of public importance are excluded from this definition. Unbelievable but true.

In figurative terms: the public interest in Slovenia now includes those who talk about Idrija lace, but not those who actually make it.

Furthermore, the new draft Media Act subtly embeds references to NGOs and »media organizations« with this status within Chapter 3, thus enabling these hybrid, agenda-driven media NGOs to be publicly funded — all under the guise of public interest.

To be clear: it’s not the problem if there’s a broad political and social consensus that such media NGOs, which do little or no journalism, should receive public funding.

What is shocking, unacceptable, discriminatory, and an obvious form of censorship, however, is that serious, critical, non-profit journalism that informs the public about issues of public interest cannot obtain that same status.

Genuine, Non-Profit, Non-Commercial Critical Journalism Portals Will Remain Without Any Possibility of Support – While Slovenia’s Ultra-Wealthy Portals Get Funded with Public Money!

In light of everything stated above, Article 17, Paragraph 2, Point 8 of the proposed new Media Act deals a final blow to small, self-made, non-profit, non-commercial, critical online journalism portals, by making financial support for digital media conditional upon the requirement that »they employ at least as many staff that their combined working time equals three full-time employees.«

But who among these small, independent, journalist-founded slovenian critical online portals — which survive exclusively on donations from their readers, and who are, as described above, systematically prevented from even allowing readers to donate 1% of their income tax — who among them could possibly afford to employ three full-time staff under such conditions?

Yes, of course — those who have been aligned with the »correct« agenda for years, and who have repeatedly received arbitrarily distributed public funding, they can afford it. It’s even expected that they would now have three full-time employees — after all, they’ve been generously funded for years.

But of course, we, our critical independent portal, also would gladly employ at least three journalists! We have so much work and stories to write that we can’t keep up — and we could easily employ many more than three journalists right now if we only had the financial resources to do so.

That’s why these »three full-time employees« in Point 8 should be an incentive, not a condition! In other words, the law should state: small, independent, self-made, genuine online journalism portals are eligible for annual financial support up to the equivalent of three full-time positions.

That would be transparent and easy to monitor in terms of public spending! That would truly be support for online journalism and the public interest. Only then could the state genuinely claim to care about media diversity, quality journalism, and critical public-interest content, as well as those who truly need support to survive.

Unfortunately, if Article 17, Paragraph 2, Point 8 remains unchanged — and as of now, no amendments have been proposed from any side — then genuine, non-profit, non-commercial, critical online journalism portals will be left with zero possibility of obtaining public funding.

Meanwhile, the supposedly »independent« online platforms of Slovenia’s ultra-wealthy elite will receive public money — because they can easily afford three or more employees and will effortlessly meet all the criteria for public financing.

Thus, hard-earned taxpayer money, with the blessing of the Ministry of Culture, will flow from the many who have little or nothing into the hands of those who already have everything and more.

And those of us who care most deeply about these people — about Slovenian nature, the environment, and public space — those of us who have, in recent years, been the only real voice and safe haven for the many affected by this corrupt and malignant system, we who, with enormous journalistic and human sacrifice, have been bringing explicit public-interest content to light — without a single euro of public funding — and have done so in full accordance with the highest journalistic standards, we will now be pushed even further to the brink, systematically prevented from ever emerging from existential crisis, and thus robbed of our right to exist — along with everything we represent and contribute to Slovenia’s public sphere and media landscape.

📸 Photo: Vlado Jehart

Behind Every News Story, There’s a Deeper Story. And Behind That — There’s Us.

NATURE. ENVIRONMENT & SPACE. ARCHITECTURE. TECHNICAL & ENGINEERING CULTURE. MEDIA. SCIENCE & ART

From Nature — to Art.
STORIES ABOUT NATURE AND SOCIETY

ANA AŠIČ SIC! JOURNALISM IN FOCUS
🌐 https://anaasicsic.com
📍 Gornji trg 42A, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia, EU
📧 anaasicsic.journalism.in.focus@gmail.com
📧 asicanasic@gmail.com

Editor-in-Chief

Ana Ašič

A Small Portal. For Great Stories.

📸 Photo: Marjan Artnak

Dear readers,
A great deal of selfless effort, time, and cost goes into researching, writing, editing, and publishing the stories in front of you. Because you understand this — and because you support our commitment to engaged, critical, authentic, professional, ethical, and truly independent journalism — we thank you deeply of our hearts, in advance.
THANK YOU!

DONATION SIC!

Ana Ašič Sic! Journalism in Focus
Publisher
Hiša Zvezd – Institute of Art and Creative Visions
Gornji trg 42A, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia, EU
📧 zavod.za.umetnost.hisa.zvezd@gmail.com

Bank details
IBAN: SI56 0400 0027 6714 363
Bank: OTP BANKA d.d.
Purpose of payment: DONATION SIC!
Purpose code: CHAR

📸 Photo: Ana Ašič

»Up in this air you breathed easily, drawing in a vital assurance and lightness of heart. In the highlands you woke up in the morning and thought: Here I am, where I ought to be.«

 Karen Blixen, Out of Africa

Hiša Zvezd, Ana Ašič Sic! Journalism in Focus©2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025 All rights reserved