Progros employees are alleged to have demanded €41,000 from MEP Mijic

VečerIndependent🔒ProgressiveFactual 99Objective 609 days ago

The article reports that members of the Slovenian political party Levica have condemned MP Boris Mijič for lying about his educational background. The university in Ljubljana confirmed that Mijič is not a graduate of the Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geodesy, despite claiming otherwise in public appearances. Levica members argue that this is another instance of Mijič misleading the public and suggest that he should resign from his position as a member of the National Assembly. They also criticize the leadership of the National Assembly, particularly its president Zoran Stevanović, for failing to uphold parliamentary standards and for supporting Mijič despite repeated scandals. The article notes that Stevanović’s office has declined to comment, and neither the party nor the assembly has responded to requests for comment.

Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the issue as a violation of public trust by Mijič, emphasizing his dishonesty and the need for accountability. It criticizes the political establishment for enabling such behavior and portrays the opposition (Levica) as upholding democratic values against corruption. The tone is谴责

Why factuality (99): The article accurately reports the allegations against Mijič and directly references the primary source document. It correctly states that Mijič is not listed as a graduate at FGG and that former employees raised concerns about his qualifications.

Why objectivity (60): The article has a clear bias against Mijič, using strong language such as 'another deception' and 'cannot perform the function of a member of parliament.' It presents the situation as a scandal without offering a balanced perspective.

Slovenske noviceIndependentProgressiveFactual 98Objective 709 days ago

The Slovenian parliament member Boris Mijić from the Resni.ca party has been accused of falsifying his educational credentials. Despite claiming to be a graduate engineer in civil engineering, he is not listed as a graduate at the Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geodesy at the University of Ljubljana. The portal Necenzurirano verified this by contacting the faculty directly, which confirmed that Mijić is not registered as a graduate and his thesis cannot be found in the publicly accessible COBISS system. Doubts about his qualifications arose during his time working at the construction company Progros, where former employees claimed he lacked basic knowledge in civil engineering and required assistance from colleagues. The Left political party has responded by calling this another instance of misleading the public and argues that Mijić is unfit to hold the position of a parliamentary representative. They demand his removal from office and expect a parliamentary committee meeting to address the issue.

Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the issue as a deliberate misrepresentation by Mijić, emphasizing the implications for public trust and institutional integrity. It highlights the Left's concern over the credibility of elected representatives and calls for accountability, aligning with left-leaning values of anti

Why factuality (98): The article closely follows the primary source document, accurately reporting that Mijič is not listed as a graduate at FGG and that former employees questioned his qualifications. All facts align with the primary source.

Why objectivity (70): The article leans toward the opposition party's perspective, using phrases like 'new deception' and 'cannot perform the function of a member of parliament.' It presents the situation as a scandal without providing balanced viewpoints.

ReporterIndependentProgressiveFactual 96Objective 653 days ago

The article reports on financial difficulties faced by the company Progros, which owes money to former employees, the Slovenian state, and local businesses. Former employees claim they are owed a total of €41,285, including unpaid wages, reimbursements, and other benefits from their employment relationship, some dating back to spring 2025. The company has no remaining assets to settle debts, and its bank account was frozen last week. The Financial Administration of Slovenia (Furs) has initiated enforcement proceedings against the company, which owes over €30,000. Additionally, Progros has outstanding debts to a local restaurant, which cannot recover payments due to blocked accounts. The article mentions that Mijič, a member of parliament representing the party Resnica, lied about his education and faces demands to resign. He claims he will pay all debts by year-end and promises cooperation in legislative changes to prevent similar situations.

Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the situation around Mijič’s alleged dishonesty and potential resignation, emphasizing ethical concerns and legal accountability. It highlights the political implications of his actions, particularly regarding transparency and integrity in parliamentary representation. While the报道

Why factuality (96): The article accurately reports the allegations against Mijič and references the primary source document. It correctly states that Mijič is not listed as a graduate at FGG and that former employees had concerns about his qualifications.

Why objectivity (65): The article has a biased tone, focusing on the ethical implications of Mijič's actions while not providing a balanced view of the situation. It criticizes the lack of consequences for Mijič compared to others.

MladinaIndependentCenterFactual 95Objective 907 days ago

The article discusses the constitutional court's review of the validity of this year's parliamentary elections in Slovenia, focusing on allegations of foreign interference linked to the 'Black Cube' affair. The author questions what actions the constitutional judges might take regarding the alleged undue influence on the electoral process. The piece highlights concerns over the lack of mechanisms allowing voters to challenge the fairness of elections, pointing out that Slovenia's constitution and electoral laws have historically provided insufficient avenues for such challenges. The article notes that the constitutional court has previously criticized the limited scope of who can file complaints against elections, emphasizing the need for broader access to legal recourse for citizens.

Bias read (Center): The article presents a balanced discussion of the constitutional court's potential actions regarding the validity of elections, highlighting both the concerns raised by critics and the historical shortcomings in Slovenia's electoral framework. It does not exhibit overtly biased language or one-sided

Why factuality (95): The article accurately reports that the Constitutional Court has begun reviewing challenges to the validity of this year's parliamentary elections, citing foreign interference and the Black Cube affair as main concerns. It does not make unsupported claims and aligns closely with the cross-source con

Why objectivity (90): The article presents the situation in a largely neutral manner, posing questions rather than making overtly biased statements. However, it includes a brief statement about Slovenia’s self-perception as a democratic example, which slightly introduces a subjective perspective.

Žurnal24IndependentCenterFactual 95Objective 758 days ago

Robert Golob, leader of the Freedom Party in Slovenia, had a constructive conversation with President Nataša Pirc Musar, discussing potential cooperation on issues such as energy, demographics, electoral systems, and regionalization. During their discussion, Golob criticized the president for what he described as a continuous violation of constitutional order in the National Assembly (DZ). He pointed out that the governing coalition failed to confirm the agenda for a session that would establish opposition investigative committees into Black Cube and party financing. Golob emphasized that he cannot accept the idea of the president being the sole interpreter of constitutional order in Slovenia, stating that she is neither educated nor qualified for this role. The president has been engaging with leaders of all parliamentary parties, including those in opposition, aiming to foster dialogue and collaboration.

Bias read (Center): The article presents a balanced account of the exchange between Golob and Pirc Musar, highlighting both Golob's criticisms regarding constitutional violations and the president's efforts to engage in dialogue with all parliamentary groups. There is no evident bias toward either side, and the framing

Why factuality (95): The article accurately reports the conversation between Robert Golob and President Nataša Pirc Musar, including Golob's criticism of the president regarding constitutional order violations. It aligns with the cross-source consensus that the parliamentary majority failed to approve the agenda for the

Why objectivity (75): The article has a clear political bias favoring Golob's perspective, using phrases like 'prepričan' (convinced) and presenting his views as definitive. The tone is somewhat confrontational rather than neutral.

NecenzuriranoIndependentCenterFactual 90Objective 80

The article discusses legal and financial issues involving the company Progros, owned by Slovenian politician Boris Mijič. Thirteen former employees of Progros have filed claims totaling over €41,285 for unpaid wages, refunds, and other payments they are owed. The workers approached the labor advisory organization Delavska svetovalnica, which has hired a detective to assist in recovering the money. However, efforts to locate Mijič’s family members have been unsuccessful, and the situation remains unresolved. Additionally, Progros no longer has any active bank accounts, making it unclear whether the company can fulfill its obligations. The article highlights the prolonged struggle of these workers, some of whom have already passed away, and notes that the total debt includes both net amounts and additional contributions and taxes that the employer would be responsible for.

Bias read (Center): The article presents factual information about a legal dispute involving a politician's company and its former employees. It does not exhibit overtly biased language, one-sided sourcing, or editorializing. The content focuses on documented claims and ongoing legal challenges without apparent slant.

Why factuality (90): The article covers the main points from the primary source, including the verification of Mijič’s educational claims and the lack of response from him. It also touches on the financial issues at Progros, which are mentioned in the primary source. However, it briefly mentions the Delavska svetovalnic

Why objectivity (80): The tone leans toward concern for the workers and the company, which could be seen as slightly sympathetic to the employees rather than remaining strictly neutral. This introduces a minor bias.

DnevnikIndependent🔒ProgressiveFactual 90Objective 707 days ago

The article discusses parliamentary proceedings where opposition members accused the ruling coalition of violating constitutional provisions by preventing the establishment of investigative committees. The coalition, with assistance from Resnic, has twice blocked the formation of such committees related to the Black Cube affair and party financing. The constitutional requirement mandates the establishment of these committees upon request by 30 MPs, but the coalition has repeatedly refused to include them on the agenda of extraordinary sessions, effectively ending the process within minutes. Luka Mesec, head of the parliamentary committee on procedures, stated that this practice violates two fundamental rights of MPs: the right to demand an investigative committee and the right to call an extraordinary session. He emphasized that the coalition’s actions undermine democratic oversight and prevent accountability. Seven constitutional lawyers were invited to the session, all of whom concluded that the actions constitute a violation of constitutional provisions. However, the Speaker of the National Assembly, Stevanović, and all coalition MPs did not attend the session.

Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the coalition's actions as a deliberate violation of constitutional principles, using strong language like 'zloraba ustavnih določil' (abuse of constitutional provisions) and emphasizes the erosion of democratic oversight. It highlights the opposition's claims of being denied due,

Why factuality (90): This article provides a clear account of the constitutional lawyers’ statements and the coalition’s actions. It accurately describes the legal framework and the coalition’s repeated rejection of the agenda items. The facts align closely with the cross-source consensus and include direct quotes from

Why objectivity (70): While the article is factually sound, it frames the situation primarily through the lens of the opposition, focusing on the coalition’s alleged violations without presenting counterarguments or the coalition’s rationale for their actions. This creates a slight imbalance in perspective.

Info360IndependentCenterFactual 88Objective 682 days ago

A group of former members of Slovenia’s Human Rights Committee has collected over 44,600 signatures to call for a referendum on a recently passed amendment to the law on parliamentary investigations. The proposed referendum aims to challenge whether Slovenia will continue to operate under a system where political power is legally constrained by judicial oversight or if it will shift toward a model where political actors have unchecked control over investigative mechanisms. Critics argue that the amendment removes individuals’ ability to appeal against decisions made by parliamentary investigation committees at the Constitutional Court, effectively enabling a form of 'political police.' The amendment would allow politicians to access personal data—including banking records, private communications, audio and video recordings—without requiring court approval. The Constitutional Court is expected to decide soon on the legality of this referendum.

Bias read (Center): The article presents both perspectives—those supporting the referendum and those opposing it—and does not favor one side through loaded language, one-sided sourcing, or omission of context. It provides balanced quotes from proponents and critics of the law, allowing readers to draw their own结论.

Why factuality (88): This article provides accurate details about the referendum campaign, including the number of signatures collected (44,619) and the involvement of specific individuals. It references the primary source document’s information about the legal framework and the concerns raised by critics. Minor discrep

Why objectivity (68): The article maintains a somewhat balanced tone but still uses emotionally charged language, particularly around the term 'politična policija'. While it presents both sides of the argument, the emphasis on the threat posed by the law leans slightly toward the opposition perspective.

ReporterIndependentProgressiveFactual 85Objective 752 days ago

The article discusses the upcoming referendum on a proposed amendment to the law regarding parliamentary investigations in Slovenia. The Freedom and Democracy Party has announced their active involvement in the campaign, while members of the Left and Green parties were already involved in collecting signatures for the referendum. Poslanka Lucija Tacer Perlin from Freedom expressed concerns that the new law would introduce a form of 'political police' and expand political influence into the judiciary. She emphasized that the Freedom movement opposes any attempts to interfere with independent institutions. Poslanka Tina Brecelj from the Left and Green parties noted that the collected signatures clearly indicate public opposition to weakening protections against abuse of power. She explained that under the proposed amendment, parliamentary investigations could be initiated against anyone without the possibility of legal challenge. Additionally, she criticized the ruling coalition for blocking the establishment of investigative committees into political matters such as Black Cube and surrounding financing of parties, while simultaneously drafting a law that would allow investigations,

Bias read (Progressive): The article presents perspectives from left-leaning parties (Left and Green) who oppose the proposed law, emphasizing concerns over potential abuse of power and interference with judicial independence. Right-leaning parties like Freedom and Democracy are also mentioned but in the context of opposing

Why factuality (85): The article provides specific details about political parties' involvement in the referendum campaign, including statements from representatives of 'Svoboda in Demokrati', 'Levica', and 'Vesna'. These claims appear consistent with the cross-source consensus, as similar information would likely be re

Why objectivity (75): The article presents the perspectives of different political groups but uses some emotionally charged language such as 'preprečimo zlorabo parlamentarnih preiskav' (prevent abuse of parliamentary inquiries) and 'slabljenja varovalk proti zlorabi oblasti' (weakening protections against abuse of power

N1 SlovenijaIndependentProgressiveFactual 85Objective 757 days ago

Four prominent constitutional lawyers unanimously stated during a session of the Parliament's Rules Committee that the ruling coalition is violating the constitution and parliamentary rules by refusing to hold extraordinary sessions and blocking opposition-led investigations. The coalition has repeatedly rejected the agenda of parliamentary sessions where opposition requested investigations into Black Cube and party financing. Constitutional lawyers emphasized that both the constitution and parliamentary rules clearly require the parliament to establish investigative committees upon request by a third of members. They criticized the coalition’s actions as short-sighted and unjustified limitations on opposition rights, noting that while the opposition could seek a legal opinion from the Constitutional Court, any changes to the parliamentary rules would require approval by the parliament with a two-thirds majority. The lawyers argued that the parliamentary rules are an internal autonomous general legal act and that the Constitutional Court would not review them unless they violate the constitution itself.

Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the coalition's actions as a violation of constitutional principles and democratic norms, using strong language such as 'short-sighted' and 'unjustified limitations on opposition rights.' It highlights the opposition's legal arguments and portrays the coalition as obstructing the宪

Why factuality (85): The article accurately reports that four constitutional lawyers unanimously stated the coalition violated the constitution and parliamentary rules by rejecting the agenda of extraordinary sessions. It cites specific names of the lawyers and details their arguments regarding the violation of constitu

Why objectivity (75): The article presents the views of the constitutional lawyers but leans slightly toward the opposition’s perspective by emphasizing the coalition’s actions as violations of constitutional rights. The tone is somewhat critical of the coalition without providing equal space for the coalition’s justific

Siol.netState / PublicCenterFactual 85Objective 70yesterday

The Slovenian Parliament's Committee on Justice has approved a proposal to hold a constitutional referendum on a law amendment regarding parliamentary investigations. The referendum, scheduled for October 11, would determine whether to implement changes to the parliamentary investigation law (ZPPre-B) passed by the National Council on May 26, 2026. The initiative was launched by former members of the Human Rights Protection Committee, who collected over 44,619 signatures with support from civil society organizations and opposition parties. The proposed law aims to limit the ability of individuals under investigation to challenge the decision to initiate an inquiry before the Constitutional Court. Opposition members raised concerns during parliamentary debate, highlighting potential restrictions on legal recourse and the ambiguity of provisions allowing complainants to file lawsuits after the final report of the investigative commission is issued. They accused the ruling coalition of double standards, noting that while the law limits judicial protection against parliamentary inquiries, the coalition is not supporting the investigative commission in the Black Cube case. Coalition MPs

Bias read (Center): The article presents a balanced discussion of the referendum proposal, including both the supporters' arguments and the criticisms from opposition members. It reports on the procedural aspects of the referendum, the legal framework, and the differing perspectives within parliament. There is no clear

Why factuality (85): This article aligns with the primary source by mentioning the 44,600 signatures and the parliamentary inquiry law. It provides additional details about the proposed referendum date and the legal framework, which is consistent with the primary source. However, it does not explicitly reference the int

Why objectivity (70): The tone is slightly more formal but still leans toward supporting the referendum movement. It presents the legal arguments but does not offer a balanced view of opposing positions, showing some bias.

ReporterIndependentProgressiveFactual 85Objective 702 days ago

An article reports that 44,600 signatures have been collected in support of a referendum on parliamentary investigation. The initiative was launched by former members of the Human Rights Protection Committee, including Franco Juri, Pavel Gantar, and others. They argue that the proposed law undermines democratic principles by limiting the ability of individuals under investigation to challenge the legality of the inquiry before the Constitutional Court. The group claims the referendum would represent a broader fight against political authoritarianism and the erosion of democratic standards. They emphasize that the issue goes beyond legal content and relates to the preservation of fundamental rights and freedoms.

Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the referendum as a defense of democracy against authoritarian tendencies, using strong language such as 'war between democracy and anti-democracy' and 'authoritarian and repressive state.' It emphasizes the role of civil society and opposition groups, portraying the legislation's

Why factuality (85): The article reports on a referendum petition with 44,600 signatures, aligning with the primary source document's mention of 47,223 signatures. It accurately describes the context of the referendum against a parliamentary inquiry law, but there is some confusion between different laws (parliamentary

Why objectivity (70): The tone is somewhat emotionally charged, using phrases like 'vojna med demokracijo in antidemokracijo' and strong political rhetoric. While it presents both sides of the debate, it leans towards the opposition's perspective, showing bias in favor of the referendum initiative.

DomovinaIndependentProgressiveFactual 85Objective 702 days ago

The article reports that over 44,619 verified signatures were submitted to the Slovenian Parliament (Državni zbor) for a referendum on a legislative amendment regarding parliamentary investigations. This exceeds the legal threshold of 40,000 signatures required to trigger a constitutional referendum. The petitioners argue that the amendment removes a key safeguard against political abuse of parliamentary investigations, allowing greater powers to establish investigative committees. They warn that the amendment could enable unchecked access to personal data, communications, and financial records of individuals and their families, potentially infringing on privacy rights. Petitioners frame the referendum as a democratic safeguard against authoritarian overreach, with some calling the proposed law a step toward fascism. The referendum is expected to take place in late autumn, after the proposal is reviewed by a parliamentary committee.

Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the referendum as a defense against political abuse and authoritarianism, using strong language such as 'fašizem' (fascism) and emphasizing threats to democracy and individual rights. It highlights concerns about increased state power and potential violations of privacy, which are

Why factuality (85): This article closely mirrors the first, reporting on the same 44,600 signatures and referencing similar concerns about the parliamentary inquiry law. It includes details from the primary source, such as the names of the initiators and the legal arguments against the law. However, it lacks clarity on

Why objectivity (70): Similar to the first article, this piece uses emotive language and frames the issue as a battle between democracy and anti-democracy. It shows clear support for the referendum movement and less balance in presenting opposing views.

DeloIndependent🔒ProgressiveFactual 85Objective 702 days ago

The article reports that approximately 44,619 signatures were collected in support of a constitutional referendum on parliamentary investigation reforms, which has now been submitted to the Slovenian Parliament (DZ). The initiative was led by former members of the Human Rights Committee, established 38 years ago, including Franco Juri, Pavel Gantar, Spomenka Hribar, Gregor Tomc, Rastko Močnik, Igor Vidmar, and Vlado Miheljak. They argue that the proposed law would limit the ability of individuals under investigation to challenge the decision to initiate an inquiry before the Constitutional Court, effectively removing their right to seek a judicial review. The organizers claim the referendum goes beyond legal content and represents a broader fight against political authoritarianism, drawing parallels to the situation in Hungary under Viktor Orbán. They emphasize that the reform aims to suppress civil society, non-governmental organizations, and opposition voices, and they hope to mobilize citizens to vote against the law.

Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the referendum as a struggle against political authoritarianism and democratic erosion, using strong language such as 'war between democracy and anti-democracy' and 'falling into an authoritarian and repressive state.' It emphasizes the threat posed by the proposed law to civil-sy

Why factuality (85): The article again references the 44,600 signatures and the same legal concerns as the others. It provides consistent information about the initiators and the reasons for the referendum, matching the primary source. However, it does not clarify the distinction between the parliamentary inquiry law an

Why objectivity (70): The tone remains emotionally charged, emphasizing the conflict between democracy and anti-democracy. It supports the referendum movement and presents limited counterarguments, showing a biased stance.

Nova24TVParty-alignedProgressiveFactual 85Objective 706 days ago

The Slovenian government has passed a law aimed at more effectively combating corruption, organized crime, and white-collar crimes through enhanced institutional cooperation and partial restructuring. The law has sparked opposition from various institutions and civil society groups who argue that it was rushed and lacked consultation with experts and the public. Critics label this group as 'deep state' actors, suggesting they operate outside democratic processes and could undermine elected authorities. The law's proponents include prominent legal figures like Dr. Matej Avbelj, while opponents include well-known civil rights advocates and officials from oversight bodies such as the Human Rights Defender, the Court of Accounts, and the Anti-Corruption Commission.

Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the opposition to the law as coming from a 'deep state' aligned with leftist values, emphasizing their role in protecting democratic norms against perceived authoritarian overreach. It criticizes the ruling party (Democats) for bypassing proper consultation and highlights the lack

Why factuality (85): This article repeats the criticism from multiple institutions about the rushed legislative process. It accurately summarizes their concerns and aligns with other sources. The factual claims are well-supported by the cited institutions.

Why objectivity (70): The tone is critical but remains focused on institutional concerns rather than personal attacks. There is some emotive language around 'systemic failure,' but overall, the tone stays relatively neutral.

VečerIndependent🔒ProgressiveFactual 85Objective 707 days ago

The Slovenian parliament's lower house (DZ) is facing controversy over its refusal to hold an extraordinary session to establish a parliamentary inquiry into allegations against Black Cube and party financing. President of the DZ committee for business affairs, Luka Mesec (Levica in Vesna), has called for an emergency session after the DZ twice rejected the agenda proposing such an inquiry. Mesec argues this action violates two fundamental rights of MPs: the right to request an investigative commission and the right to call an extraordinary session. Four constitutional lawyers—Ciril Ribičič, Albin Igličar, Miro Cerar, and Matej Avbelj—agree that the constitutional and procedural provisions requiring the DZ to establish such an inquiry upon a third of MPs' request are clear. They criticize the coalition's actions as a violation of these principles, calling it short-sighted and an attempt to delay and limit opposition's rights. The lawyers emphasize that while the opposition could seek a ruling from the Constitutional Court, changing the DZ's rules would require a majority vote. Some argue that the current situation could lead to legal challenges at the Constitutional Court if the DZ

Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the issue as a violation of constitutional rights by the governing coalition, emphasizing the importance of parliamentary oversight and the need for accountability. The language used highlights the legitimacy of the opposition's demands and criticizes the coalition's actions as '短

Why factuality (85): This article closely follows the primary source, discussing the parliamentary inquiry law and the 44,600 signatures. It includes legal arguments and quotes from officials, which match the primary source. However, it does not directly reference the intervention law, focusing instead on constitutional

Why objectivity (70): The tone is politically charged, emphasizing the conflict between the ruling coalition and the opposition. It supports the opposition's position while downplaying the coalition's arguments, indicating a slight bias.

RTV Slovenija (MMC)State / PublicProgressiveFactual 85Objective 707 days ago

The Slovenian parliament (DZ) has been involved in a dispute over the establishment of a parliamentary inquiry into allegations against the ruling coalition, specifically regarding the Black Cube affair and funding of parties. The session was suspended by the chairman of the committee, Luka Mesec, after the DZ twice rejected the agenda proposing the inquiry. Mesec claims this action violates two fundamental rights of MPs: the right to request an inquiry and the right to call an extraordinary session. Ustavni pravniki (constitutional lawyers) have stated that both the constitution and the rules of the DZ clearly require the establishment of such an inquiry if requested by a third of the members. They argue that the current coalition is violating these provisions, though there is no legal sanction for such violations, only a political path forward. The opposition plans to discuss further actions if the inquiry is not established during parliamentary holidays.

Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the coalition's actions as politically motivated obstructionism, emphasizing the violation of constitutional rights and the lack of legal recourse. It highlights the opposition's stance as legitimate and the coalition's actions as short-sighted and unjustified. The focus on the 'd

Why factuality (85): This article aligns with the primary source, discussing the parliamentary inquiry law and the 44,600 signatures. It includes legal arguments and quotes from officials, which match the primary source. However, it does not directly reference the intervention law, focusing instead on constitutional and

Why objectivity (70): The tone is politically charged, emphasizing the conflict between the ruling coalition and the opposition. It supports the opposition's position while downplaying the coalition's arguments, indicating a slight bias.

24ur (POP TV)IndependentCenterFactual 85Objective 65yesterday

A group of former members of Slovenia’s Human Rights Protection Committee, including Franco Juri, Pavel Gantar, and others, has initiated a referendum to challenge proposed changes to the law on parliamentary investigation. They collected over 44,619 signatures from voters and eligible citizens to submit the request to the National Assembly. The proposed amendment would limit individuals under investigation from requesting a constitutional review of the legality of the inquiry before the Constitutional Court. The referendum, if approved, would ask voters whether they support the implementation of this new law. The National Assembly is expected to decide on the referendum date by Thursday, with the vote itself scheduled for October 11. The deadline for organizing the referendum would be set at September 1.

Bias read (Center): The article presents the situation objectively, outlining both the initiative behind the referendum and the content of the proposed legal changes without overtly favoring either side. It includes direct quotes from Juri and references the formal process within the National Assembly, providing a fact

Why factuality (85): The article reports on a referendum initiative related to a parliamentary inquiry law, but it incorrectly identifies the subject as the 'intervention law' mentioned in the primary source. It mentions 44,619 signatures, while the primary source states 47,223. The article also discusses a different le

Why objectivity (65): The tone is somewhat emotionally charged, particularly when referring to the law as 'politically arbitrary' and using phrases like 'referendum against political arbitrariness.' This suggests a clear ideological stance rather than a neutral reporting of facts.

VečerIndependent🔒ProgressiveFactual 85Objective 658 days ago

Stevanović, a member of the Resnica party, announced plans to propose the strictest disciplinary measures against MP Mijič after learning of discrepancies regarding his educational background. He emphasized that if Mijič misled the public, he also misled the party, which is committed to truthfulness as its core value. Stevanović expressed disappointment that such issues exist in Slovenian politics and suggested there might be similar cases among other MPs. He argued that having only secondary education does not disqualify someone from being an MP and questioned why Mijič would lie about his qualifications. Meanwhile, Asta Vrečko of the Left party criticized Mijič, calling him one of the most dishonest MPs in Slovenia’s 35-year parliamentary history, citing multiple instances of misconduct including misleading employees, owing money to the state, and failing to pay a photographer.

Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the situation through the lens of the Resnica party's commitment to truth and their proposed disciplinary actions against Mijič, while the Left party criticizes Mijič extensively, highlighting his alleged dishonesty. The emphasis on accountability and criticism of Mijič aligns the

Why factuality (85): The article accurately reports Stevanović's statement about Mijič's alleged falsification of education but does not provide specific details from the primary source about Mijič's actual educational background. It references the broader issue but lacks direct sourcing from the original document.

Why objectivity (65): The tone is biased towards condemning Mijič and showing support for Stevanović's stance. The article uses emotionally charged language like 'most corrupt MP' and frames the situation as a clear-cut case of dishonesty without presenting counterarguments.

DomovinaIndependentProgressiveFactual 85Objective 60yesterday

Former Health Minister Prof. Dr. Dušan Keber, currently a member of the 'Glas ljudstva' initiative and one of the most vocal critics of the new right-wing government led by Janez Janša, has expressed strong criticism on Facebook. His message reflects anger, intolerance, and fear, highlighting his belief that Slovenia has been taken over by a government that has lost legitimacy, political decency, and moral authority. He accuses the current administration of betraying democratic principles, equal treatment of citizens, and using laws and institutions as tools of oppression. Keber argues that politicians are not just incompetent but actively undermining democracy, manipulating language, eroding trust, and acting in self-interest. He warns that this political corruption poses a serious threat to the state apparatus, which could alter laws, appoint individuals, control resources, and manipulate public institutions. Keber contrasts this with former President Robert Golob, who he claims made promises but failed to deliver, particularly in healthcare, and appointed unqualified personnel during the pandemic crisis.

Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the critique of the current government as a clear attack on democratic values and institutional integrity, using strong negative language ('sovražnost', 'ravnati kot svinja z mehom') and accusing leaders of betrayal and manipulation. The tone aligns more with left-wing critiques,抨

Why factuality (85): The article presents the views of Dušan Keber, a former minister and critic of the current government, as expressed on Facebook. While there is no primary source document, the content aligns with known public statements by Keber regarding his criticism of the ruling party and the state of democracy

Why objectivity (60): The tone of the article is strongly critical of the current government and uses emotionally charged language such as 'sovražnost' and 'strah.' It frames the political situation in a negative light, focusing on accusations against the ruling party without presenting counterarguments or alternative pe