Tomašić: RTVS must stop calling for violence, or it will be co-responsible
In his show 'Kdo vam laže?', host Boris Tomašič criticized RTVS, Slovenia's public broadcaster, for allegedly inciting violence in a recent broadcast. He argued that such content could lead to unrest on Slovenian streets and held RTVS accountable for its role. The segment focused on RTVS's decision to continue collecting mandatory TV license fees, which Tomašič claimed would allow the broadcaster to manipulate viewers and spread misinformation. He played a clip where RTVS suggested that divided populations could unite against authority, followed by footage of violent protests across Europe. Tomašič warned that this was a direct call for the destruction of legal authority through protests and emphasized the need to connect these events with ongoing demonstrations in France and elsewhere. Additionally, he addressed the behavior of journalists during a recent parliamentary session, criticizing their deference to politicians from the Freedom Party.
The gap between opposing sides in the recent Slovenian referendum regarding the abolition of the mandatory public broadcasting fee widened following a refresh of the results, according to reports from Svet24. This development occurred amidst intense political debate over the role of the national broadcaster, Radio Television of Slovenia, known as RTVS. Critics have accused the institution of functioning as a mouthpiece for left-wing propaganda, while supporters argue that the majority voted to continue paying the fee to ensure independence from what they describe as common sense and truth. The controversy centers on allegations that RTVS failed to provide balanced coverage during the Sunday referendums. An analysis conducted by the website Stehtajmo.si examined content on the RTVS online portal, MMC. The findings indicated that the section arguing against the proposed changes received at least twice as many words as the section supporting them. This disparity led commentators to claim that fear replaced factual argumentation in the media space. Specifically, the parliamentary investigation was portrayed by some outlets as a political police force. Additionally, citizens were warned that politicians would read their text messages under the new law, a claim that proponents of the measure stated was legally impossible. Despite this, the allegation spread widely through the media landscape. Boris Tomasic, host of the television program Kdo vam laze?, addressed these issues directly. He criticized RTVS for going too far in its reporting, alleging that one contribution explicitly called for violence in the streets. Tomasic argued that the broadcaster would share responsibility for any violent incidents occurring in Slovenia. During his broadcast, he played a clip containing rhetoric about divided populations breaking chains of separation. He described this footage as a terrifying predictor of future events, linking it to violent protests currently taking place across Europe. Tomasic characterized the segment as a direct call to overthrow legitimate authority through violent protests, including arson. He urged RTVS to cease such calls and highlighted the organization’s potential liability. Tomasic further discussed the conduct of journalists toward members of the Freedom party. He cited an excerpt from a show called Tarca, where a host asked MP Borut Sajovic whether he had tried to persuade Ms. Kosir to join their side, despite claims otherwise. Tomasic noted that the journalist did not apologize for interrupting the right-wing politician. He argued that equal standards should apply to both left and right wings, stating that interruptions should be treated uniformly. He suggested that the lack of apology revealed a double standard in the media environment. In the same episode, Tomasic analyzed Sajovic’s response to the question. The MP initially insisted that no one from his group had contacted Ms. Kosir, before later strongly denying any contact from his parliamentary group or party. Tomasic used this exchange to illustrate what he viewed as ongoing deception by the media. He compared this tactic to previous lies about the political police and predicted similar misinformation regarding upcoming laws benefiting the wealthy. He claimed that opponents would minimize the impact of VAT reductions and lower energy prices, suggesting they would yield only a few euros per person. He asserted that only individuals from civil society who organize protests and prepare coups would be disadvantaged by these measures. Tomasic pointed to another incident involving Prime Minister Gregor Virant. He noted that Virant’s live broadcast was cut off, allegedly because his comments were deemed unacceptable. Virant had been discussing the decision made by the Democrats party. He stated that based on primary election results, they were forced to choose between Golob and Jansa. The interruption of his speech served, in Tomasic’s view, as proof that the television network had been captured by extreme leftist elements. Dominik Strakl wrote an opinion piece titled RTVS as a speaker of left propaganda. He acknowledged that the situation is serious but attributed the severity to different causes than left activists. He argued that it is serious that common sense is declared extreme, affecting at least half the citizens who think differently. Strakl contended that citizens cannot form political will based on pluralistic and objective information, a right guaranteed by the constitution but never truly realized in practice. He described the media space as predominantly leaning left, with RTVS serving as a refuge for journalists and editors who openly engage in political activism. Strakl emphasized that the cost of this imbalance is developmental as well as political. He stated that any change intended to ease work burdens, stimulate entrepreneurship, or open paths to housing for young people is first declared dangerous. Consequently, opportunities are missed permanently. He expressed a desire for a state where work is valued, laws apply to everyone, and citizens take pride in their language and local areas. He questioned how free will could function in December referendums if the publicly funded RTVS continued to flood the airwaves with propaganda and falsehoods from the left elite. He referenced the year 1991 as proof that Slovenians can decide for themselves, asserting that the current struggle is for the right to make decisions with open eyes. The debate highlights a deep division over media neutrality and the influence of public broadcasters on democratic processes. While some see RTVS as an independent entity, others view it as a tool for specific political agendas. The widening margin in the referendum results underscores the intensity of public sentiment on this issue. Political figures continue to accuse the media of bias, while defenders maintain that the goal is to preserve journalistic integrity. The outcome of the vote has intensified scrutiny on how information is presented to voters during critical civic moments.
The article criticizes the Slovenian public broadcaster RTVS for being biased toward leftist propaganda and failing to provide balanced information during recent referendums. The author argues that RTVS disproportionately covered the 'PROTI' side of the referendum compared to the 'ZA' side, contributing to misinformation among voters. It claims that RTVS has become a refuge for journalists who openly engage in political activism rather than maintaining neutrality. The piece highlights concerns over the lack of objective information affecting citizens' ability to make informed decisions, which undermines democratic processes. The author calls for a return to a free and open society where people can vote based on accurate information.
Bias read (Conservative): The article strongly criticizes the public broadcaster RTVS for promoting leftist propaganda and failing to provide balanced coverage. It frames the situation as a threat to democracy and individual freedom, using emotionally charged language such as 'propaganda,' 'misinformation,' and 'leftist elit
Why factuality (80): The article provides detailed examples of RTVS’s alleged bias during the referendum, including disproportionate coverage of the 'PROTI' versus 'ZA' sides and misleading information about the law. These claims align with similar criticisms found in other articles. However, it lacks direct evidence or
Why objectivity (55): The article has a clear ideological slant, referring to RTVS as a 'zatočišče novinarjev in urednikov, ki svojega političnega aktivizma ne skrivajo' ('sanctuary for journalists and editors who do not hide their political activism'). It also uses strong language like 'propaganda and lies of the left e
In his show 'Kdo vam laže?', host Boris Tomašič criticized RTVS, Slovenia's public broadcaster, for allegedly inciting violence in a recent broadcast. He argued that such content could lead to unrest on Slovenian streets and held RTVS accountable for its role. The segment focused on RTVS's decision to continue collecting mandatory TV license fees, which Tomašič claimed would allow the broadcaster to manipulate viewers and spread misinformation. He played a clip where RTVS suggested that divided populations could unite against authority, followed by footage of violent protests across Europe. Tomašič warned that this was a direct call for the destruction of legal authority through protests and emphasized the need to connect these events with ongoing demonstrations in France and elsewhere. Additionally, he addressed the behavior of journalists during a recent parliamentary session, criticizing their deference to politicians from the Freedom Party.
Bias read (Conservative): The article frames RTVS as inciting violence and criticizes its alleged manipulation of viewers, using strong language like 'direct call for the destruction of legal authority' and emphasizing the need for accountability. It presents a critical view of public broadcasting and aligns with a right-of-
Why factuality (70): This article repeats much of the content from item 0, including Tomašič’s accusations against RTVS for inciting violence. While it cites specific phrases from an RTVS contribution, it does not clarify whether those statements were taken out of context or if they actually advocated for violence. This
Why objectivity (50): The article exhibits strong bias by using emotive language such as 'direkten poziv na rušenje legalne in legitimne oblasti' ('direct call to destroy legal and legitimate authority') and references to 'Antife and other crazy leftists.' It presents Tomašič’s views as definitive facts without offering
The article criticizes RTVS, Slovenia's public broadcaster, for being biased toward leftist propaganda and failing to provide balanced information to the public. It argues that RTVS has become a refuge for journalists and editors who openly engage in political activism, favoring the 'against' side in referendum-related content over the 'for' side. The author claims that RTVS spread misinformation during recent referendums, such as falsely suggesting that the government could read citizens' SMS messages under the relevant law, despite this being legally impossible. The article highlights concerns about the lack of objective information affecting voters' ability to make informed decisions and warns that this undermines democratic processes. It calls for a return to open, informed decision-making by citizens.
Bias read (Conservative): The article strongly criticizes the public broadcaster RTVS for promoting leftist propaganda and spreading misinformation, which indicates a clear ideological stance against the current media landscape in Slovenia. The framing emphasizes the threat posed by left-leaning media to democratic processes
Why factuality (65): The article makes several factual claims about media bias and RTVS's role in the referendum, but these are not supported by specific data or evidence from the event itself. It references an analysis from stehtajmo.si but does not provide direct verification of the claim that the 'PROTI' page receive
Why objectivity (40): The article uses strong, emotionally charged language such as 'propaganda,' 'left elite,' and 'false information.' It frames the situation as a clear case of left-wing bias and presents this as the only valid interpretation, without acknowledging alternative perspectives or providing balanced report
Svet24IndependentCenterFactual: no official source document/info detectedObjective 80
The gap in support for the referendum on abolishing the television contribution fee has widened. The referendum aims to decide whether to eliminate the mandatory fee that funds public broadcasting. Recent data indicates growing divergence in public opinion, with more people opposing the abolition compared to those supporting it. This shift could influence the final outcome of the referendum, which remains a significant political issue in Slovenia.
Bias read (Center): The article presents factual information about the widening gap in public opinion regarding the referendum without overtly favoring either side. It does not include biased language, one-sided sourcing, or editorializing that would indicate a clear ideological lean.
Why factuality: no official source document/info detected
Why objectivity (80): The tone remains relatively neutral, focusing on reporting the outcome of the referendum without overtly favoring any political group. However, it does not provide enough context or analysis to fully assess the implications of the increased difference, which slightly reduces its objectivity.
Svet24IndependentCenterFactual: no official source document/info detectedObjective 75
The results of the referendum on the TV contribution fee show an increased difference between regions after the latest updates. The referendum asks voters whether they support maintaining the mandatory television license fee, which funds public broadcasting. Updated data indicates growing regional disparities in voter preferences, with some areas showing stronger support for the fee while others oppose it more strongly. This divergence could impact future decisions regarding the funding model for public broadcasters.
Bias read (Center): The article presents updated referendum results without overtly favoring any side. It focuses on the statistical differences across regions without using biased language or emphasizing one perspective over another. The framing remains neutral, simply reporting the evolving outcome of a national vote
Why factuality: no official source document/info detected
Why objectivity (75): The article uses somewhat emotionally charged language such as 'še večja razlika' ('even greater difference'), which may imply a judgment on the outcome rather than a neutral report. It lacks explicit neutrality in tone but still provides basic factual updates without overt bias.
DemokracijaParty-alignedProgressiveFactual: no official source document/info detectedObjective 35
Dr. Žiga Turk, a professor, writer, and commentator, criticizes RTVS, Slovenia's public broadcaster, for a significant loss of public trust. He points out that half of the voters who participated in a referendum expressed support for abolishing the mandatory TV license fee, which he views as a major issue for a public service broadcaster meant to be impartial and accessible to all citizens. This outcome reflects widespread dissatisfaction with RTVS, suggesting a lack of confidence in its role and neutrality.
Bias read (Progressive): The article presents criticism of RTVS from Dr. Žiga Turk, a known progressive figure in Slovenian media and academia. His comments frame the referendum result as a 'great betrayal' by RTVS, implying that the institution has failed in its duty to serve the public interest. The framing emphasizes the
Why factuality: no official source document/info detected
Why objectivity (35): The article has a clear ideological slant, promoting the idea that RTVS is untrustworthy and biased. It includes a call to action encouraging donations to 'Demokracija,' which introduces a promotional element and undermines neutrality. The tone is overtly critical of RTVS without presenting countera
How each side covered it
The same event, grouped by the political lean of the outlets covering it.
progressive
center
conservative
★
How each side covered it
Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and every other Supporter feature.
Slovenia
