Tomašič: RTVS naj preneha pozivati k nasilju, sicer bo soodgovorna
V svoji oddaji 'Kdo vam laže?' je voditelj Boris Tomašič kritiziral RTVS, slovenski javni radiotelevizijski kanal, ker naj bi v nedavni oddaji spodbujal nasilje. Trdil je, da bi taka vsebina lahko povzročila nemire na slovenskih ulicah in RTVS obtožil za svojo vlogo. Segment se je osredotočil na odločitev RTVS, da bo še naprej pobirala obvezne pristojbine za televizijske licence, za katere je Tomašič trdil, da bi radiodifuzniku omogočila manipulacijo gledalcev in širjenje dezinformacij. Predvajal je posnetek, v katerem je RTVS predlagal, da bi se lahko razdeljena prebivalstva združila proti avtoriteti, ki mu sledijo posnetki nasilnih protestov po vsej Evropi. Tomašič je opozoril, da gre za neposredni poziv k uničenju pravne avtoritete s protesti in poudaril potrebo po povezavi teh dogodkov z aktualnimi demonstracijami v Franciji in drugod. Poleg tega je obravnaval vedenje novinarjev med nedavnim parlamentarnim zasedanjem in kritiziral njihovo spoštovanje politikom iz Stranke svobode.
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.
Članek kritizira slovenski javni radiotelevizijski kanal RTVS, ker je pristranski do levičarske propagande in ni zagotovil uravnoteženih informacij med nedavnimi referendumi. Avtor trdi, da je RTVS nesorazmerno pokrival stran referenduma "PROTI" v primerjavi s stranjo "ZA", kar je prispevalo k dezinformacijam med volivci. Trdi, da je RTVS postal zatočišče za novinarje, ki se odkrito ukvarjajo s političnim aktivizmom, namesto da bi ohranili nevtralnost. Članek poudarja zaskrbljenost zaradi pomanjkanja objektivnih informacij, ki vplivajo na sposobnost državljanov, da sprejemajo informirane odločitve, kar spodkopava demokratične procese. Avtor poziva k vrnitvi v svobodno in odprto družbo, kjer lahko ljudje glasujejo na podlagi točnih informacij.
Ocena pristranskosti (Konservativno): Članek močno kritizira javni radiotelevizijski kanal RTVS zaradi spodbujanja levičarske propagande in pomanjkanja uravnotežene pokritosti. To situacijo prikazuje kot grožnjo demokraciji in svobodi posameznika, z uporabo čustveno napolnjenega jezika, kot so "propaganda", "dezinformacije" in "levičarska elita"
Zakaj dejstva (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
Zakaj objektivnost (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
V svoji oddaji 'Kdo vam laže?' je voditelj Boris Tomašič kritiziral RTVS, slovenski javni radiotelevizijski kanal, ker naj bi v nedavni oddaji spodbujal nasilje. Trdil je, da bi taka vsebina lahko povzročila nemire na slovenskih ulicah in RTVS obtožil za svojo vlogo. Segment se je osredotočil na odločitev RTVS, da bo še naprej pobirala obvezne pristojbine za televizijske licence, za katere je Tomašič trdil, da bi radiodifuzniku omogočila manipulacijo gledalcev in širjenje dezinformacij. Predvajal je posnetek, v katerem je RTVS predlagal, da bi se lahko razdeljena prebivalstva združila proti avtoriteti, ki mu sledijo posnetki nasilnih protestov po vsej Evropi. Tomašič je opozoril, da gre za neposredni poziv k uničenju pravne avtoritete s protesti in poudaril potrebo po povezavi teh dogodkov z aktualnimi demonstracijami v Franciji in drugod. Poleg tega je obravnaval vedenje novinarjev med nedavnim parlamentarnim zasedanjem in kritiziral njihovo spoštovanje politikom iz Stranke svobode.
Ocena pristranskosti (Konservativno): V članku so RTVS označili za spodbujalca nasilja in kritizirali njegovo domnevno manipulacijo gledalcev, z uporabo močnega jezika, kot je "neposredni poziv k uničenju pravne avtoritete" in poudarjanje potrebe po odgovornosti. Predstavlja kritični pogled na javno oddajanje in je usklajen s pravico do
Zakaj dejstva (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
Zakaj objektivnost (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
Članek kritizira RTVS, slovenski javni radiotelevizijski kanal, ker je pristranski do levičarske propagande in ne zagotavlja uravnoteženih informacij javnosti. Trdi, da je RTVS postal zatočišče za novinarje in urednike, ki se odkrito ukvarjajo s političnim aktivizmom in v vsebini, povezanem z referendumom, dajejo prednost "proti" stranki pred "za". Avtor trdi, da je RTVS med nedavnimi referendumi širil dezinformacije, na primer lažno trdil, da lahko vlada prebere SMS sporočila državljanov v skladu z ustreznim zakonom, čeprav je to pravno nemogoče. Članek poudarja zaskrbljenost zaradi pomanjkanja objektivnih informacij, ki vplivajo na sposobnost volivcev, da sprejemajo informirane odločitve, in opozarja, da to spodkopava demokratične procese. Zahteva vrnitev k odprtemu in informiranemu sprejemanju odločitev s strani državljanov.
Ocena pristranskosti (Konservativno): Članek močno kritizira javni radiotelevizijski kanal RTVS zaradi spodbujanja levičarske propagande in širjenja napačnih informacij, kar kaže na jasno ideološko stališče proti sedanji medijski pokrajini v Sloveniji. Okvir poudarja grožnjo, ki jo levičarski mediji predstavljajo demokratičnim procesom.
Zakaj dejstva (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
Zakaj objektivnost (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
Svet24NeodvisenSredinaDejstva: uradni vir/dokument ni zaznanObjektivnost 80
Razlika v podpori za referendum o odpravi pristojbine za televizijske prispevke se je povečala. Cilj referenduma je odločiti, ali naj se odpravi obvezna pristojbina, ki financira javno oddajanje. Nedavni podatki kažejo na vse večje razhajanje javnega mnenja, saj je več ljudi proti ukinitvi kot jih podpira. Ta premik bi lahko vplival na končni izid referenduma, ki ostaja pomembno politično vprašanje v Sloveniji.
Ocena pristranskosti (Sredina): V članku so predstavljene dejanske informacije o vse večjem razkoraku v javnem mnenju glede referenduma, ne da bi se odkrito zavzemala za katero koli stran. Ne vključuje pristranskega jezika, enostranskega pridobivanja virov ali uredništva, ki bi kazalo na jasno ideološko nagnjenost.
Zakaj dejstva: uradni vir/dokument ni zaznan
Zakaj objektivnost (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.
Svet24NeodvisenSredinaDejstva: uradni vir/dokument ni zaznanObjektivnost 75
Rezultati referenduma o pristojbini za TV prispevke kažejo na povečano razliko med regijami po zadnjih posodobitvah. Referendum vpraša volivce, ali podpirajo ohranitev obvezne pristojbine za televizijsko licenco, ki financira javno oddajanje. Posodobljeni podatki kažejo na vse večje regionalne razlike v preferencah volivcev, pri čemer nekatere regije močno podpirajo pristojbino, druge pa se ji močno upirajo. To razhajanje bi lahko vplivalo na prihodnje odločitve glede modela financiranja javnih izdajateljev televizijskih programov.
Ocena pristranskosti (Sredina): V članku so predstavljeni posodobljeni rezultati referenduma, ne da bi očitno naklonjeni bili kateri koli strani. Osredotoča se na statistične razlike med regijami, ne da bi uporabljal pristranski jezik ali poudarjal eno perspektivo nad drugo. Okvir ostaja nevtralen in preprosto poroča o spreminjajočem se izidu nacionalnega glasovanja.
Zakaj dejstva: uradni vir/dokument ni zaznan
Zakaj objektivnost (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.
DemokracijaStrankarsko povezanProgresivnoDejstva: uradni vir/dokument ni zaznanObjektivnost 35
Dr. Žiga Turk, profesor, pisatelj in komentator, kritizira RTVS, slovensko javno televizijsko postajo, ker je močno izgubila zaupanje javnosti. Opozarja, da je polovica volivcev, ki so sodelovali na referendumu, izrazila podporo za odpravo obvezne TV pristojbine, kar je po njegovem mnenju pomembno vprašanje za javni radiodifuzni servis, ki naj bi bil nepristranski in dostopen vsem državljanom. Ta izid odraža široko razširjeno nezadovoljstvo z RTVS, kar kaže na pomanjkanje zaupanja v njegovo vlogo in nevtralnost.
Ocena pristranskosti (Progresivno): V članku je kritiziral RTVS dr. Žiga Turk, znana napredna osebnost v slovenskih medijih in akademskih krogih. Njegovi komentarji so rezultat referenduma označili kot "veliko izdajo" RTVS-a, kar pomeni, da institucija ni izpolnila dolžnosti, da služi javnemu interesu. Okvir poudarja
Zakaj dejstva: uradni vir/dokument ni zaznan
Zakaj objektivnost (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
Kako je poročala vsaka stran
Isti dogodek, razvrščen po političnem nagibu medijev, ki so o njem poročali.
progresivno
sredina
konservativno
★
Kako je poročala vsaka stran
Podprite neodvisne novice z zavedanjem pristranskosti in odklenite družbeni utrip, glasovanje skupnosti in vse druge funkcije za podpornike.
Slovenia
