This article touches on a very basic topic. What should the limits of the freedom of the press be in a democratic society? How can the press encourage a healthy democracy and how can it hinder it? I know this is a rather technical article, but take a look at some of the actual provisions of the code. What, for instance, do you think of the idea that in choosing to become a public figure, you give up some of the rights that you have as a private citizen? What do you think of the fact that the new code no longer requires newspapers to print their ownership structure for readers? Finally, how would you characterize the state of the press in Slovakia today? Are a variety of viewpoints represented? Is the coverage adequate, accurate, detailed and/or critical? Will the new law help or hurt?
The first and probably the most important question is: Why is this problem being solved? Everything began two years before, when the revision to the Press Code passed the Slovak Parliament. The question of media influence was important and substantial reform was awaited. As the revision passed in 2008 it evoked shower of criticism from media experts, publishers and international bodies even though Múdry said that “ the Ministry of Culture consulted on the changes with media organisations and publishers at a professional level.“
ReplyDeleteSo what did this revision bring? The Press Code grants the right to a correction and the right to reply to anyone who feels that their honour and dignity were harmed. Also the publishers and newswires are not responsible for the content and veracity of information provided by the public bodies. There is also the right to reply even when the publisher information is not correct or if the information is not libellous. Another new thing is that the public officials are not able to reply to stories about them as a private persons (for their purposes) but they still could reply as private individuals (what in general changes only the theoretical stance, but not the fact of correction of their political responses).
There are some new fines for: corrections, additional statements and offering of better definitions. When privacy, individuals or the name or good reputation of a legal entity is damaged, that is also fined. Publishers risk a fine up to €4,980 if they refuse to print a reply.
It is also said that every politician can freely decides whether to enter politics or public life and by accepting this role he should be aware that rights are diminished to those of regular citizens. But at the other hand the draft will not eliminate public officials' ability to insist on their right to reply as private individuals – what is in my opinion the biggest problem and in general, it means that this law will not eliminate the problems from the past.
Deputy Chairman of the parliamentary committee named the revision: “a purposive advertisement” – because of non massive uptake of the right to reply. There s is guess-work, if the proposal of new law meets the criteria of modern European media law, for example Kubínyi said that “The proposal lacks any form of international review.”
“The fact that the new government is not undertaking any massive revision proves that this law was good and that criticism of it was only a means to make trouble for the previous ruling coalition.” Múdry said. But not everyone is satisfied. “The public should not go from extreme to extreme.” was the quotation of one of the politics.
That is what I am familiar with. This new law, however good it is, will probably change nothing. The ordinary readers still could reply, but their reply has to be accepted. The politicians could not coordinate what will be released in the news as politicians, but they still could correct the articles as public person. This change was only about small things and it does not have big importance in my point of view.
I think that the current version of the press code is not alright and it definitely needs a revision. The current version of the press code provides a right of reply for anybody who thinks that their honor and dignity were harmed by any particular article. Publishers are obliged to print out the reply within 30 days or otherwise will be fined €4,980. The reply must be printed out even if the information given in the article were true and are not presented in a way that harms other people. I think this legislation discriminate the publishers as they are obliged to print out content that otherwise wouldn’t be in the papers. The legislation gives a room for people, for example politicians, for denying allegations that might be truthful and supported by evidence. These people might improve their reputation by constantly publishing their replies which would deny any allegations and improve their overall image. This strategy of self-promotion is unfair towards the publisher as they are forced to print out the replies.
ReplyDeleteBut there are two sides to every coin. Some newspapers, usually tabloids publish information which are not truthful and might be created in order to increase the demand for their papers. That is why I think the new revision should contain the right to reply only if the information presented are wrong and indeed hurt one’s dignity. But frankly, it is difficult to determine if the information is truthful or not. That is why I think some kind of commission should be created that would determine if the reply is meaningful and does not serve as a form of self-promotion.
I think there are not many people that use their right to reply and the revision might only alter some controversial points of the legislation. But I think it is important for us to change the wording of the legislation so nobody has an advantage over anybody. The freedom of the press is one of the cornerstones of a free, modern world and it should be preserved and protected.
Both commentators are of a slightly different opinion towards the new legislation of the press code in Slovakia. Miso states that the „ new law will change nothing“ since the right to reply hasn’t been used very often so far. On the other hand, Mai is in favor of the revision of the current press law, „nobody is to have advantage over anybody“. Both of these opinions are adequate and truthful. I share Mais opinion, that there is no reason to print the replies for articles that are proven to be true. Therefore this law was disadvantageous for the authors of the articles, as the replies directly negated their work. Fortunately, according to my research, the editorships of newspapers weren’t flooded with the replies from companies, individuals and politicians. What this means, as Miso thinks, that the change of the legislation will only remain a change within the legislation, it will have no effect on the content of newspapers, since the right to reply isn’t even used today.
ReplyDeleteConsequently, why is the newly elected government changing a law that worked without any problems since 2008 ? I am of the opinion that it is to be due to 3 political reasons, that haven’t been mentioned in this article. First of all , each of the current coalition parties promised to change the press law if they will be a part of the coalition , before the elections that were held this year in June. Having a majority and creating a government, they were all in favor of the change to the law as stated in their pre-vote promises. Press law was also the theme of the September’s referendum. In it, 747,983 Slovaks expressed the view that Parliament should repeal the law in response to politicians and civil servants. Against were 134,163 people. However, the referendum was invalid because it did not appear to be a majority of voters participating. At last but not least, the key for each successful politician or a political party is a good relationship with the media that have huge influence on people. Change of the press code is a direct appeal of the current coalition for a good relationship the media. Media have violently protested against the press law in 2008, several newspapers had blank front pages. Today’s Coalition acknowledges this fact and wants meet halfway with the media and their claims.
To summarize, I wanted to highlight that it was the will of people and politicians to change the press code. There is no clear answer whether the change to the press code is required. However nothing is done without a reason and therefore some people are to benefit from this change of the press code