1592 + 193 = 53.

I knew that the wording of the legislative act was in urgent need of improvement.

I knew that some people would want to weaken it. Destroy it. Tear it apart.

I knew that many people –including at the negotiating table; I’m sorry to say – did not have the interests of the media and, consequently, the public at heart.

So I knew that… someone simply had to do it. Had to make the first sentence of this article a reality to the biggest extent possible. And so I did.

Had anybody asked me what the final text of the European Media Freedom Act would look like in early June, when the parliamentary negotiations started, my reply would certainly have been very cautious, and probably anything but optimistic. The situation was indeed dire, time was not on our side. First of all, we lost precious weeks of negotiation as the committees squabbled over who should be responsible for what. When it was finally agreed that the lead committee would be our committee, the Committee on Culture and Education, the attempts to dilute and undermine the text began. What followed was a month of extremely difficult negotiations, and I actually didn’t think that we would succeed. At least not sufficiently.

But we did. “We” means first and foremost my team: my assistant Rok, and my policy assistant Joanna. And yes, me too. Now I can safely say that we are the ones who have made the text better. We made it more ambitious. All of our amendments have been incorporated in one way or another into the text that was approved in the committee this morning.

If I were to explain everything we have achieved, it would take you until tomorrow to read it all. If not longer. So I have decided to take you through the key details in a bite-sized format over the coming weeks, and today I will focus very briefly on “just” the one that I personally consider the most important – especially in my own work.

Transparency.

The situation in the media is not ideal, not even close. It has been proven that journalists are being spied on, the public media are being dismantled and subjugated, some sort of quasi-media (i.e. propaganda machine) are being set up with murky funding, and media companies are being bought by individuals. Again, with (occasionally) murky funding. For political or economic interests, obviously.

With the current text of the European Media Freedom Act, every euro allocated to the media will be publicly disclosed . How? The transparency requirement of government funding of the media was extended beyond advertising – to all services, including to online platforms. In addition, any acquisition of a media outlet will have to follow a clearly defined procedure, during which the (potential) impact on editorial freedom and pluralism will be evaluated.

Finally, we will have comprehensive legislation at EU level that establishes a legally binding framework for the operation and governance of the media.

Finally, we will be able to prevent harmful practices that have taken place thus far, both by the authorities and the private market.

Finally, we will be able to do more than say merely that “we are concerned”.

Democracy does not work without a free media. The European Media Freedom Act is not, and in all likelihood will never be perfect, but it is the most decisive step we can take at the moment to ensure exactly that. Freedom of the media.

In the meantime, there are still a few hurdles to surmount before the process is over. In less than a month, the act will need to be adopted by the plenary of the European Parliament, and then the main challenge awaits: the inter-institutional negotiations on a truly final text.

Today, a total of 1785 (1592+193) amendments would have to be voted on, had no compromises been reached. But they were. 53 of them.

And these compromise amendments incorporate the vast majority of the 193 amendments  tabled by us. By me and my team.

And that is why…
… 1592 plus 193 equals 53.

Greetings from Brussels!

– Irena

A social label attributed to someone for being different, usually unjustified: stigma.

A state of physical and mental well-being, non-impaired functioning of the body and mind: health.

Unfortunately, stigma also affects health. Especially mental health. Stigma discourages people from seeking help in time. It leads to social exclusion, which worsens an already alarming situation even further.

Due to stereotypes about mental health issues and disorders, mental health is kept hidden and isn’t talked about. However, as the definition states, health not only signifies physical, but also mental well-being. This is not something we are sufficiently aware of, and the fast-paced, crazy world of (too-) high expectations and filters is not doing us any favours in this respect either.

This is where (co)decision-makers have to step in too. As Vice-Chair of the Subcommittee on Public Health, I am advocating for two key issues:

– to ensure that all young people with mental distress or disorders receive accessible, free and timely help, which is a crucial first step in successfully tackling their difficulties;

– to ensure that both the authorities and all other stakeholders raise the level of awareness about mental health issues.

It is critical to talk about mental health and thus shatter the stigma that is still associated with it. Each of us has difficulties in our lives, we all experience and deal with them differently. What is important is that they are actively addressed.

– Irena

Political games are one thing, but to unjustly slander a country with baseless claims just to please an illiberal populist is truly unacceptable. I think it would be fair to the Slovenian people if you explained to us in what way and where you are “witnessing the collapse of the rule of law and the political takeover of the media in Slovenia”? That is the least you can do. Until such time, I ask you to refrain from slandering my country without a legitimate basis.

You have now read a paragraph of an email I sent to the leader of the largest political group in the European Parliament and to all its MEPs. Do you know who that is?

Someone who is blatantly ignoring the facts. Someone who is evidently, without any remorse, consolidating the populist right and serves as a mouthpiece for their absurd and manipulated theses. Someone to whom I also wrote: “I know you know very well who their ideological allies and mentors are.”

Let the political family that blindly takes on the distorted claims of the populist agitators at least present the arguments underpinning their assertions. And who is really behind them. This is the least we are owed, if they are ready to indiscriminately bad-mouth our country. It should by now be obvious to them who it is that they are backing in Slovenia. It would be preferable that they help elevate the political culture of the right wing in our country, given its current lamentable state. I know that it is not as dismal (yet) at the European level. But it is high time to reflect on whether everyone wishes to go down this road.

It doesn’t matter whether we are liberal, conservative, left, right, top, bottom or what have you, we can disagree on many things, but we should all, without exception, stand together when it comes to the most important thing: defending the rule of law, our liberal democracies, and – as far as I’m concerned, most vital of all – truthfulness. And, if truth be told, it is sad to see how the historic values of decency, respect and human dignity, which are supposed to be the fundamental values of this largest political family, are being trampled on by radical factions. Critical reflection is always in order. Double-checking the information you get from the aforementioned radical factions is even more in order.

I do not hesitate to express criticism when it is appropriate. I do not care for instructions, partisan interests, loyalty at any price. The only loyalty I care about is loyalty to the people. But, ladies and gentlemen, the European Commission’s 2023 Rule of Law Report for Slovenia simply cannot be criticised. Unless, of course, one is instructed to do so. Or is pursuing certain interests. Or there is a price attached.

Or because one is living in a parallel reality and, above all, in the past.

But… facts simply don’t lie. And this report is based purely on facts. It is the result of thorough analysis and verifiable information, which finally and rightly places Slovenia back in the company of stable democracies in Europe.

Let there be no doubt: the previous reports were also based solely on facts. The previous two, for example, expressed great concern about the accelerated attempts to dismantle the country’s fundamental institutions. Guess under whose government.

The most recent report, however, clearly highlights progress. Including in the field of media freedom, for the first time in two years. It explicitly mentions action taken to remedy the situation of the Slovenian Press Agency, and the importance of the amendments to the RTV Slovenija Act for ensuring the political independence of the public broadcasting service. It also notes progress in the areas of civil society and justice.

Of course, certain criticisms remain. Of course, unresolved issues remain. But they, too, are being resolved. And – what is more – they date further back than a year.

That’s the difference.

The difference when it comes to instructions. Interests. Loyalty. Between conservatives, radicals, liberals. Between the previous and the current government.

That. Is. The. Difference.

– Irena