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)

Stevanovič in @resnica desetkrat premislite, preden boste enkrat dvignili roke. Bojim se, da boste nasedli medijskemu levemu stampedu, ki bi najprej odnesel Mijiča, zdaj se že loteva Stevanovića in @KokotKatja in tako po vrsti. Ne nasedajte. Pravi kriminalci sedijo na drugi strani parlamenta med člani in ministri bivše koalicije Objektivno presodite, kako je gradbena stroka podvržena mesečnim gibanjem in padcem in kaj je v tem subjektivnega. Medijski stampedo okrog gradbenih poslov je tako kriminalizirala Danila Slivnika, da je v obupu storil samomor. Resnica bo na organih stranke odločala o usodi spornega poslanca Mijiča https://t.co/B9eeFB4ugA #resnica #mediji #kriminal

Ukinitev je povsem na mestu. "Akademija" ni nobena akademija, ampak društvo podpisnikov odprtih pisem "uglednih intelektualcev", ki se na približno dva meseeca v javnosti oglašajo v podporo Levici in levici. Nobene potrebe ni, da jih financiramo davkoplačevalci. Če pragmatični finančni interes nekaterim sicer cenjenim kolegom še lahko odpustim, pa jim je skrivanje za globalno segrevanje, nevarnosti umetne inteligence in skorajšnjo apokalipso v sramoto. Tudi zaradi takega oportunizma zdrava kmečka pamet ne verjame vsemu, kar o spreminjanju podnebja komunicira stroka. @delo, tole prosim objavite v Pismih bralcev. https://t.co/3kae655Aka #podnebje #javnofinanciranje #opinion

Spoštovani g. BorisF9, pravite vsa ekonomska stroka. Menim, da ste uporabili preširok pojem. Prosim, če lahko navedete imena. Vem za najmanj dva ekonomista, ki tega nista rekla in to dr. Matej Lahovnik in dr. Igor Masten. Poleg tega nisem sodeloval pri pisanju tega zakona. #ekonomija #zakonodaja #strokovnjaki

Končno konec uslug Jankoviću? Pod Janševo ministrico Polono Rifelj je ministrstvo zahtevalo presojo vplivov na okolje za kanal C0, ki bi sicer lahko zastrupil pitno vodo pol milijona Ljubljančanov. Stroka je zmagala nad politiko – in sporni projekt se sesuva v prah! 👉https://t.co/ftmXagzQqg #okolje #Ljubljana #politika

Ta stroka, o kateri govori Bergantova, je tako kompromitirana in kontaminirana, da k zakonu o SKOKU ne more nič učinkovitega prispevati. Vsi so neposredni pravni dediči Bavcona. Del te stroke, ki je kompetenten, doslej ni bil prepuščen k reševanju vprašanj pravne države, zato bo zdaj moral imeti absolutno besedo. Vrhovno sodišče glede Skoka poziva k ponovnemu razmisleku https://t.co/oOq0UJsdUZ #pravnaDržava #SKOK #Bergantova

Ne vem, kje so bili ti pobudniki, ko se je sprejemal t.i. Šutarjev zakon in je bila takorekoč celotna pravna stroka proti. In se je res grobo poseglo v nekatere najbolj temeljne človekove pravice in svoboščine, npr. pravico do nedotakljivosti stanovanja… https://t.co/JFadzrGO8a #pravnezaščite #človekovepravice #svoboda

Vi stroke v resnici ne spoštujete. Ko ste na oblasti, je za vas v Levici “stroka” orodje, s katerim legitimirate svoje ideološke fantazme. Ko ste v opoziciji, pa postane “stroka” pesek, ki ga sipate v kolesje. Trenutno ste v opoziciji. Aktualni vladi pa slovenska država ni zgolj sredstvo za uresničevanje ideoloških projektov, temveč vrednota sama po sebi. Ki si zasluži muzej. #Slovenija #Politika #Ideologija