Search

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)

Prvi koraki k samovozečim vozilom v Sloveniji! Odobritev Teslinega sistema avtonomne vožnje pod nadzorom je pomemben premik k sodobni mobilnosti, kar Slovenijo uvršča med tehnološko naprednejše države, ki stopajo v korak s časom. Za ta preboj je bila potrebna predvsem politična volja, ki potrjuje zavezo našega mandata. Država s svojo birokracijo ne sme biti ovira, ampak partner pri razvoju in uvajanju novih tehnologij. Ob tem, ko v naš prostor vnašamo zeleno politiko, ki temelji na znanju in inovacijah, ne na aktivizmu in manipulacijah. Izrekam dobrodošlico novosti in se zahvaljujem vsem sodelujočim pri tem projektu prihodnosti! #SamovozečaVozila #Tehnologija #Inovacije

najmanjših interakcij do pravnih vprašanj«. Na podlagi analize, ki vključuje 30.627 transspolnih oseb iz EU ter nekaterih drugih držav, poročilo TGEU razkriva, da kljub večji vidnosti transspolnih oseb ostaja njihova varnost vprašljiva, saj so izpostavljene nasilju, duševnim stiskam ter težavam z zaposlitvijo in stanovanjem, pri čemer skoraj 45 odstotkov sodelujočih pogosto doživlja občutke brezupa in skoraj četrtina razmišlja o samomoru. #LGBTIQ+ #TransspolneOsebe #Varnost