Category: Mediji

The Canine Scandal is spiralling out of control and the shitstorm spread from agriculture minister Milan Pogačnik to engulf interior minister Katarina Kresal as well. Specificially, the immediate reason for shit being dumped at doorstep is her partner and one of Slovenia’s stellar lawyers Miro Senica, who, it turns out, represented the late Saša Baričevič, M.D. , who two weeks ago was mauled to death by his own dogs. The thing is that Barivečič’s bull mastifs had a history of violence and were ordered to be put down after a nearly-fatal attack on a bystander way back in 2006. Baričevič, himself apparently a relatively influential individual, disputed the order to have the dogs put down and hired Senica to represent him in front of the Administrative Court. Senica won the case for him and the dogs were returned to Baričevič under certain conditions. To deadly effect, as it turned out. However, the plot thickens.

Several questions, some more relevant than others are overlapping in this case and the noise level is so high that only the loudest and the easiest of answers are being heard. The media are in a frenzy, the nation in a state of mass hysteria, various institutions are playing their own angles each, coalition politicians all but went underground, opposition is beating the drum and the list of people whom the vox populi connects to the scandal is becoming ever longer and more distinguished. It seems like everyone is acting like a pack of rabid dogs.

Regardless of everything, the most important question right now is whether pressure was brought to bear to secure return of the dogs to Baričevič. Did Baričevič, besides hiring Senica employ other, unlawful, methods to achieve the desired result and if so, who was in on it? On the outside and judging from the documents released by the ministry of agriculture things appear to be legal. But since everything went so badly wrong it is only right that this legal path be re-examined. But the legal aspect of the story interconnects with another, altogether more gruesome aspect.

Namely, at the moment authorities strongly suspect that dogs were (sexually) abused, possibly repeatedly so. I put “sexually” in brackets because sexual abuse (sodomy) is only inferred by the type of damage found on which were (finally) put down after the attack. The sexual aspect of the story puts the question of “who was in on it” in an entirely different context. No longer are the media and the public concerned with whether the pressure was brought to bear, but why was it brought to bear. All of a sudden pressure being brought to bear was taken for granted, speculation became fact and it all hell broke loose. Literally.

Initially mainstream media left the more sensationalist aspects of the story to Slovenian version of a particular song by Don Henley and focusing on the role of agriculture minister Pogačnik who apparently employed a PR agency to handle the fall-out but the latter fucked up immediately, giving ample material for media to go after the minister. But the moment the sexual abuse angle was taken, things followed started happening with lightning speed, and the rule of the day was “everything goes”. Unconfirmed reports, rumours, partial investigation results, sources close to the police, all of it “information acquired by [insert media]”, all of it identical, all of it probably from the same source.

It must be said at this point that most of the unofficial and off-the-record information that was circulated in Slovene media has so far been at least partially confirmed. But that don’t make it OK to act like a vampire. People inferred the most impossible things from media reports and media in turn acted upon those comments, fuelling the story even further. Late last week the difference between the media and comments on forums and blogs was gone. Some prime examples were left over at Drugi Dom and had.si, but the real gems were posted at all major news sites, with people re-posting comments from one site to another, claiming censorship and the aforementioned web-tabloid the hero of the day. Why? Because “it had the balls to print what we knew all along”. And it was probably at this point that mainstream media lost compass. Trying desperately not to come across as “in bed with the elite” they started howling with the wolves and joined the hysterical party.

Until then, Slovenian politics as a whole was fascinatingly quiet on the issue. Slovene People’s Party did file an interpelation against minsiter Pogačnik, but that was probably as much a self-defence move as anything else. Agriculture was traditionally SLS’ turf and at the moment it seems that Sonja Bukovec Pogačnik’s second in command (an SLS member) is involved as well. But other than that things were quiet, with most coalition politicians trying to put a daylight between themselves and the whole business. Some naively ran to the rescue, only see shit hit them as well (like Borut Sajovic, an LDS MP), but mostly ministers Pogačnik and Kresal and – by extention – PM Borut Pahor were left hanging dry.

But. When SDS president Janez Janša finally commented on the matter and focused on Miro Senica as “a power centre which controls executive, judicial and legislative branch”, this was interpreted as a green light for an all-out offensive. This has only just begun and yet it is already clear that no punches will be pulled and no holds barred. To illustrate, SDS chief whip Jože Tanko only day later made the connection between the canine scandal and the new Family Code, saying that Katarina Kresal’s LDS aims to radically change the society in order to satisfy wishes of the the elites and introduce unnatural possibilities to certain privileged groups . Or, as one comment somewhere put slightly less bluntly, “now sodomites are trying to tell us what family is“.

The problem this country is faced with right now is three-fold. First, unlike the original pack of bull mastiffs this particular pack of rabid dogs needs to be broken up. Instead the media, the masses and the politicians were tripping over one another in in making ever more juicy and scandalous statements, comparisons and assessments. Opposition is suppose to keep the coalition in check, media are suppose to keep in check both, while the people should at least keep tabs on all of the above. Call it a societal version of checks and balances, something at which all of the above failed miserably.

If you don’t get the following, don’t bother. It’s not worth your time.

Danny de Vito as Sid Hudgens, master of sin-uendo in L.A. Confidential

Pengovsky was freezing his ass off at the scene of the attack for several hours. At the end did I not only not feel my toes, but was also missing my fingers, nose, ears, lover lip and arse-cheeks. And I was three hours late for the macabre party. Some people were there even longer than me. But the point I’m trying to make that for hours after the attack there was nothing but the eerie feeling of something very bad and intensive happening. The four crews that were there (altogether some seven people, yours truly included) were acting like vultures in a very real sense, as we were hovering at the outskirts of the “do not cross” police tape, waiting for the dead body and carcasses to be transported out. It was us, the vets, cops and people from the morgue. And no one else. Not to sound dramatic, but I imagine that minutes immediately after the apocalypse will feel like that. You know that something bad happened, but you’ve no idea what exactly and just how bad it was.

But if until then passers-by and neighbours were giving the scene a wide berth, they started lurking around late in the evening. Ever threw a ball at a bunch of cats? You know how they instinctively run and hide and come looking what actually happened only after a while? Well, it’s the same with people. After “the coast was clear” so to speak, neighbours started hovering. One of them, a kid, told the TV stations that he filmed the whole attack on the mobile phone and if they’d buy it. No dice. He can share it, but they’re not paying for it. But it’s really awesome. OK, can we have a look at it. Sure, he’ll just go get it. After a while he does appear with a home-made CD, but already he’s saying that the quality is really bad and that he didn’t film the actual attack, but everything after it. OK, so you got the shots, right? Well, no, I only realized something was wrong after shots were fired. Ah. But OK, we’ll take it anyway.

While this was going on another neighbour appeared. No, he will not say anything for the camera. Yes, he knew the deceased. He told him something like this was going to happen. Yes, he’s the one who witnessed the attack four years ago and called the cops. And then another neighbour starts hovering. No, he will not say anything for the camera. Yes, he knew the deceased. He told him something like this was going to happen. Yes, he’s the one who witnessed the attack four years ago and called the cops. And then another neighbour appeared… You can see the pattern, no?

But this was only the tip of the iceberg. The sleazy part of Slovene media (the one which holds The Sun as their role model. You know, we just report what the world really looks like) runs a bomb-shell story about a strap-on, a condom and a pack of abused bull mastiffs which it combined with stories of sex change, political high rollers and perversion (sic!) of justice. Sex, lies, perverts and politicians. It was simply too good not to be true. That “facts” came from “unofficial” sources who spoke on “condition of anonymity” and “off the record”, that certain things were “general knowledge” and that other things were “obvious”, that the truth will “naturally” be suppressed, that pressure is being brought to bear as the story is being written and that your reporter will not be deterred at reporting things that are “hush hush”.

And if the national media first concentrated on the role of politicians (specifically, minister of agriculture), at least one television soon picked up the sleazy n’ sizzlin’ story and – not surprisingly – quoted the same unverifiable sources as the original story. And our sleazy Slovenian on-line version of the Sun takes this as the ultimate recognition, saying that the story was now confirmed by the said television which proves that our fearless rumour-monger-come-reporter was right all along. The circle is complete and unsubstantiated rumours start feeding each other. Forums start filling with hate-speech, links to any version of the story start filling mailboxes, witnesses start appearing, and their testimonies are becoming more and more alike, even further “confirming” the original story from “unofficial sources” and the number of people who know somebody who knew the deceased starts multiplying and suddenly…. Everybody. Just. Knows. Inconsistencies in the story don’t bother anyone.

The good doctor posted on whether media should be freely available on the internet or whether it should be paid for. The subject probably deserves far more thoght an analysis than just a couple of blog posts (via Jure Gostiša) but since this subject is close to the itch I still have to scratch regarding Slovenian media, I might as well chip in my two eurocents.

Implications of web media content being universaily charged exceed mere economic aspects of the issue. The social consequences of effectively limiting acces to content would be enormous. Information is namely much more than just a product one pays for because it has no end quantity. To put it blunty: once you eat a loaf of bread, it is gone. Once you read/hear/see a piece of information, it is still there for others to do the same.

At first sight the dilemma is simple. Someone (a journalist working for a media company) got hold of a piece of information, has edited it, put it into context and published it, thus making it relevant to his readers/listeners/viewers (“users”). And in case of a newspaper, you pay for that by buying a copy. But since no newspaper can survive just on income from sales of its editions, it features advertisments as well. So if you pay for that piece of information by buying paper (hardcopy) version, why should you get the e-version for free?

Things get a little more complicated in case of electronic media. Most of these around the world are free of charge and finance themselves mostly through advertising. No matter if you switch on CNN, Fox News or POP TV and Radio KAOS here in Slovenia (to pick four examples completely at random), you get them free of charge. Not entirely for free, of course, because you “pay” for viewing them by being bombaredd by tons and tons of advertising, but so it goes.

To add to the confusion, there are public media, which are financed by some ingenious solution to get a hold of taxpayer’s money. In case of Slovenia this means a compulsory payment of a fixed sum by every household which has an electric power suppy. Which means every household. Period.

And to muddle the picture completely, there is the so-called “citizen journalism” (bloggerati, twitterati and similar), which brings a whole new set of problems to an area which already suffers from a severe case of identity crisis.

But in all fairnes it seems that two questions are being mixed up in this debate. The actual question is whether access to infomation should be charged. But this question often gets confused with whether information as such should be free. However, the confusion is legitimate (at least to an extent) as answer to the latter question directly influences the answer to the former question.

Must information be free?

To put it bluntly: yes. Please keep in mind that in our case “information” either means the abstract concept of information or (in real life) media content for more or less general consumption. Information is the fourth production factor (in addition to work, land and capital – Marxism 101). Indeed (to quote what little I remember from reading Tehranian), if Karl Marx was alive today, he would have probably entitled his seminal work Die Information rather than Das Kapital. Contrary to the other three, information is not gone when “consumed”. It remains to be “consumed” by another user (listener/viewer/reader). Therefore, information theoretically does not have a finite quantity and is thus not infuenced by the usual supply/demand logic.

To translate this in real life: once media content is available, it will not diminish, wear, dilute or become more scarce in any way, shape or form, no matter how many people have accessed it. Furthermore, media perform (should perform) several social roles, profitability being only one of them. The other, equally important, is the role of protecting the public interest. Not public’s interest, but public interest. The latter can be defined as longterm interests of the society as a whole (citizens, instututions, various elites, the state, common values, etc…) To achieve that, information provided within media content must be as complete and as succint as possible. The third important role of the media is that of a social corrective. Those members of a society who have little or no access to the original three production factors (work, land, capital) can only compete with the rest of the society if they have unimpeded access to the forth factor, which (as we have seen) does not have a finite quantity. And in order to compete, access to information cannot be based on possession of work, land or capital. Therefore, information must be free.

However, does this mean that media content must be free as well? Not necesarily.

Someone has to pay

In addition to information it provides, media content does have an added value. Ideally, having been edited, stripped of nonsense and presented in an understandable manner (did you know that most of you follow media on the level of an intelligent twelve-year-old?), content delivered is very much different from the unabrigged, “raw” reality. Pengovsky usually says that media create reality rather than simply report it, but we’ll deal with that some other time. To put is simply, creating media content costs money.

Which is certainly not news (pun very much intended). We’ve been paying for newspapers since the dawn of time. Until twenty years ago, most countries in the world had their citizens pay a fee if they owned a TV (and in some cases a radio) receiver. Some still do. This was both a nice way to keep tabs on the citizens as well as a welcome source of income for maintaining the terrestrial transciever network. But the bottom line is that regardless of whether the newspaper, radio or television were state- or private-owned, they had to be paid for and – most importantly – people creating content had to be paid (for).

Please enter your username and password and have your credit card ready

Enter the internet as we know it today. Suprising as it may seem, the concept of media has changed extremely little. Despite occasional dabbling in media convergence, most media still do on-line what they do off-line. Newspapers deliver articles, TV stations deliver videos, radio station delier streams and podcasts. Most of them only publish online what they’ve already published off-line. And that was already paid for.

I’m not kidding. Tthe article you’ve read on your favourite newspaper’s website was already paid for either by subscriers or advertisers. Otherwise it would not exist. Media companies have developed a nasty habit of treating journalists simply as “cost of labour” and if the cost of labour is not covered by income generated, well so much worse for labour. There is so little web-only content generated by media that it’s hardly worth a pair of fetid dingo’s kindeys. From this point of view it becomes obvious that any further charges to access media content on-line are meant only to boost profits of a media company. That is, of course, an entirely legitimate goal if done on a individual basis. But as an argument to have all media charge access to their content, it is hardly persuasive.

Copyleft, copyright, copy/paste

Then there’s the whole web 2.0 shebang. At this time the internet is a vehicle for delivering media content functions along exactly the same lines as most other electronic (non-print) media. Media companies compete for reach and relevance and try to cover costs incured, by advertising. The fact that most of them apparenty don’t cover the costs of web-presence, tells us one of three things: 1) that they suck at marketing, 2) that their reach and cerdibility leave a lot to be desired or 3) that they have a problem understanding the web. Since 1 and 2 hardly seem viable options (they would have been swept off the market had that been the case), the only other option left is that they don’t get the web.

I don’t think a lot of people do mind you. And even those who do, are probably bluffing, so it’s really nothing to be ashamed of.

But the advent of blogging and “citizen journalism” caught media companies completely unprepared and consequently they are running scared shitless. All of a sudden anyone can post a story on anything and since tools of the trade are becoming increasingly more accessible, the end product of citizen journalism is becoming more and more professional-looking.

Or does it?

They say about blogging that never in the history of mankind have so many had so little to say to so few. Sure, there are stories on blogs. But – forgive me for saying so – 95% of those would have hardy make the cut even in the most sleazy and will-publish-anything media in Slovenia. Yes, you can break a story on a blog. Yes it can be used to publish stories that are in the public interest but don’t appear in established media for one reason or another. But blogging and citizen journalism cannot replace established media. Although there is much to be said about the frightfully-fast-declining quality of the established media, they still have both the infrastrutructure as well as the manpower, knowledge and even legal protection to follow a story. Sure, most of the media are not all that they could be, but give them half a chance and you’ll see what relentless media pressure can do.

On the other hand, what do bloggers do? They tweet, errr… microblog. And take pictures. And do Facebook. If a citizen journalist were to learn the trade for real, he/she would become “just” journalist, which is not simply a past-time activity, but a way of life. You may be disinclined to agree, but it is very much true. Just because you have a camera and a blog, you’re not yet a journalist. Just as not every asshole with a microphone does not automatically become a good journalists, but that’s another matter.

Back to the basics

The question therefore is not whether ot not access to media content should be charged for, but what kind of content do we get on the web. Fact of the matter is that most news content is delivered by the few global news agencies in business. Not BBC, CNN of any of the news companies which operate on te 24/7 news cycle, but rather by the old-school news agencies like Reuters, AP, DPA and AFP (to pick a couple examples at random). And most of those charge for access to their content. Just as Slovene Press Agency (STA) does. So if established media would start charging for their content, what’s to stop users to circumvent them entirely and go to press agencies directly? Especially if a lot of what we get is simply copy/pasted from news agencies as it is?

Content. Good, informative, engaging, provocative and relevant content. That’s what media once were all about and that’s what it should be about. Some are, most aren’t. That is also the only aspect in which citizen journalism can pose any sort of a threat to its full-blooded counterpart. If journalists and media owners hadn’t become complacent and self-sufficient, the debate would be purely academic. As it is, media owners want to re-package and re-sell content which was not made for the web originally and are wondering why the hell are they bleeding users on one end and money on the other. Typically, they’re only concerned with money, whereas users enter the equation only as a source of income and not as sentient beings who want value for money. Journalists, on the other hand, instinctively know that things are taking a turn for the worse, but since they get paid poorly and will be cut loose as soon as profits take a dip, many of them are beyond caring.

Media companies should start making content that is trully worthy of the web and takes fulll advantage of it. Then and only then will they be justified in charging for it. But I’m willing to bet that once they reach that stage, charging for content will not be necessary as advertising money will be thrown at them by a shovel-full.

As you know, after posting yesterday’s post, Laško Brewery (under new management) issued a statement saying that it has received word from layers of Pierpaolo Cerani, owner of company Iniziative Generali 96 (to whom Boško Šrot reportedly sold Kolonel, a key company in the chain of ownership of Laško), that it had purchased a majority stake in Kolonel and is thus the new owner of entire Laško Brewery and its companies and assets. Pengovsky edited his post to reflect this. However, only minutes after that, POP TV website reported that Andrijana Starina Kosem, Boško Šrot’s right-hand and henchwoman, was replaced as CEO od Delo newspaper (owned by Laško). If you follow pengovsky on Twitter, you know that as well. But this where the plot thickens…

Boško Šrot (centre) and Andrijana Starina Kosem (right) on a handball match (source)

As I already wrote, Delo newspaper is an important factor this particular game of chess, but not only in terms of money it could fetch if sold. Ran by Andrijana Starina Kosem (nicknamed ASK) it served Boško Šrot’s interests directly, either by spinning information his way or attacking his enemies. That said, it should be understood, that Delo was not Laško’s company newspaper, but every time the going got tough, there was no mistaking who the owner is. So replacing ASK by Laško’s new management and citing differences in vision at first seemed like “cleaning out the barn”. You know – just to let everybody know there’s a new boss around. But…

Today’s Delo ran an exclusive interview with signore Cerani, where he said that he bought 30% stake in Kolonel, denying Laško’s PR release which quoted his lawyers as saying that he had bought a majority stake in Kolonel and thus owns Laško. Furthermore he refused to say how much he paid for 30 percent of Kolonel and said that he will not sell Laško’s assets and doesn’t think company’s debts are a huge problem.

This is where it gets interesting. The journalists asked Cerani “How much debt does Laško have?” and Cerani answerers “A lot, I’m sure. But that’s not the biggest problem, The biggest problem is that Infond Holding cannot exercise its ownership rights [due to a decision by the Competition Protection Office]. (…) We’re prepared to go to the European Court to insure that it can“. Later in the interview he said that he’d like to meet with the finance minister to present his rescue plan for Laško.

The above of course shows that Cerani doesn’t have the foggiest about what is really going on in Laško and is bluffing through and through. I mean – meeting with the finance minister? What the fuck? Going from not knowing how much debt the company you just bought has all the way to threatening with the European Court? Really. Seems like Cerani’s ego is writing checks his body can’t cash in. Adding to that contradictory statement by him and his lawyers about how much of Kolonel did he really buy shows that Cerani is quite probably Šrot’s stooge, likely being paid for stirring the shit on Šrot’s behalf. This is corroborated by yesterday’s swift removal of ASK by Laško’s new management. She was replaced late in the afternoon, quite probably after the interview with Cerani had been made and filed for publishing, which shows that the interview was done at Šrot’s behest rather than as a result of independent editorial decision. The fact that ASK-ran Delo was the only media able to “get to” Cerani only
reiterates the above notion.

The Delo angle of the story is a complication unto itself. According to pengovsky’s information, Laško (then still ran by Šrot) upon snatching Delo from under Janez Janša’s control in 2007 signed a management contract with ASK’s private company, so she was never actually employed by Delo, but was rather “outsourced”. Reputedly, that contract is a nasty piece of legal work so it is entirely possible that ASK will come back to haunt Delo and Laško’s new management. Not that a lot of people will miss her if she’s gone for good. Maybe the editor-in-chief will. But he’ll adapt. Apparently he’s very good at adapting.

Anyhow, he way things stand now pengovsky is willing to bet that Šrot never really sold Kolonel to Cerani, whose only purpose in to act as a straw-man and stir up some more shit. I mean, if you bought a company (even just temporarily, to park some shares for your friend), wouldn’t you like to know what is it you’re buying?