Rok Ravnikar

Rok Ravnikar stated that labeling parliamentary investigations as "political police" is mockery of the victims of totalitarian regimes. Among the political police, he included the Gestapo, Securitate, Stasi, AVO, UDBA, KGB, Santebal, Mukhabarat, DINA, and DSA. He added that, in his opinion, those who loudly used this term while glorifying the slogans or leaders of these systems acted perversely. He called for the development of democratic awareness and culture so that people could correctly name phenomena and recognize and reject totalitarian attempts in various forms. #politika #demokracija #totalitarizem (translated)

Rok Ravnikar accused RTV Slovenia of not fulfilling its mission of balanced reporting and presenting different views. He wrote that more than which side it supports, he is concerned about the loss of space for the exchange of opinions and confrontation in a democratic republic. He compared two television debates. Last November, during the referendum on euthanasia, he participated in a debate where, according to him, the time was evenly divided between supporters and opponents. There were supposed to be considerably more opponents, so each was given about 45 seconds, while supporters had two minutes each. In a debate about one of the four current referendums, they announced that each participant would get 40 seconds. Ravnikar asked why RTV Slovenia changed the criteria for time distribution, as the same time for each side and the same time for each speaker with a different number of participants would mean a different ratio between the sides. He added that as an active citizen, he expects a response from the journalistic, media, and legal professions. In this context, he cited the stance of Levitsky and Ziblatt from the book *How Democracies Die?*, that changing the rules to one's own benefit and to the detriment of opponents is characteristic of authoritarian regimes. #mediji #demokracija #poročašnje (translated)

More than 2000 words blame how the public @rtvslo does not fulfill its mission of balanced reporting and presenting different views. You cannot make a bigger anti-ad. And it is the least important which side I support - what worries and saddens me the most is that as a democratic republic we are losing the space for exchange and confrontation. Why do you think of the "others" as so stupid? When did the attitude towards the "others" change so much? Yes, I ask you, who prepare the program. I understand, you have your own agenda and your own views, but in a democratic community mutual respect is a fundamental value. Twenty years ago, I worked as a PR person in politics. Even then, we knew who belonged where and which uncle from the background had more influence. But I felt that those of us on the ground, who were in direct contact – journalists, editors, and PR people – respected each other on a professional level. When I participated in a debate last November about the referendum on euthanasia, the time was evenly divided between the "FOR" side and the "AGAINST" side. There were significantly more opponents at that time, so each of us got, if I remember correctly, 45 seconds. Most barely managed to present one thought. On the other side, the supporters had two minutes. There were also some pretty bizarre embarrassments, as some could not come up with enough arguments for a two-minute speech. Last night, I heard an introductory announcement at a debate about one of the four current referendums that each speaker would get 40 seconds. Seriously? So back then equal time for both sides, now equal time for each speaker. These are different criteria, which with a different number of participants also mean a different distribution of time between both sides. Why did you change the criterion? I am just an active citizen, I expect that the journalistic, media, and legal professions will provide their criticism and assessment. "Changing the rules to your advantage and adjusting the conditions to the detriment of opponents is one of the basic characteristics of authoritarian powers." (Levitsky & Ziblatt: How democracies die?) #demokracija #mediji #poročanje (translated)

Da pa prisiliš tega politika, da v svojo obrambo potegne tole fotografijo, je pa res že čisto next lvl! Za najbolj zagrizene pristaše tega skrajnega dela spektra je to verjetno celo huje, kot pa njegovi posnetki iz razvpite galerije za drugo stran. 🫣🫣🤭🤭 #trolamovsi https://t.co/e2IRKd2H6X #politika #smešno #žurnalizem

Ostajam brez besed, ko berem o vsotah, ki se delijo po preštevilnih razpisih za ne vem kaj vse. Po desetine tisočev evrov. Kar predstavljam si te prijave in poročila, tako pogosto obogatena z opisi referenc prijaviteljev v slogu LinkedIna ter z AI-generiranimi poročili o naduspešnih projektih. Medtem ko nam v zdravstvu, ki dejansko delamo z bolniki, štejejo dobesedno vsako tableto, plenico ali telefonski klic preveč. Da si bomo lažje predstavljali: predlagam, da na vse vsote, razdeljene po razpisih, pogledamo skozi preprosto enoto. Eno ambulanto družinske medicine z vsem kadrom, stroški in storitvami ZZZS plača 240.000 EUR na leto. Tako je 12 milijonov evrov za nevladne organizacije v zdravstvu (pa prosim, ne mi spet manipulirati s humanitarnimi organizacijami ali gasilci) v naravi enako 50 ambulantam družinske medicine za celo leto. Te bi v tem času oskrbele 100.000 (sto tisoč!) pacientov. #zdravstvo #financiranje #javneoblasti