Resisting Perceived Interference in Journalistic Autonomy : The Study of Public Service Media in Slovakia

Autonomy is of paramount importance for journalism, but there is little empirically based knowledge of how journalists cope when it is threatened. Using a case study approach, this contribution examines a newsroom conflict that took place in the public service Radio and Television of Slovakia. It started when the new director general, a person believed to have ties to one of the coalition political parties, was elected by the parliament in 2017, and it culminated in layoffs and resignations of more than 30 reporters and editors in 2018. The case study is based on semi-structured interviews (N = 16) with the journalists who decided to quit in protest of what they called “creeping political pressure,” those whose contracts were not prolonged, those who decided to stay at their jobs, and the members of the previous and the new management. Building on the interviews and document analysis, the article inductively develops a classification scheme for resistance practices the journalists used to cope with the perceived interference with their professional autonomy that came from within their media organisation. These practices include having internal discussions, voicing concerns during newsroom meetings, writing an internal letter to the management, meeting with the management, establishing a trade union, requesting mediation, writing an open letter to the viewers and listeners, publicly criticising the management in the media, voluntarily asking to be re-assigned to another topic area or position in order to avoid interference, staying at one’s job in open opposition to the management, and resigning in protest

Trust and Distrust in Public Service Media: A Case Study From the Czech Republic

Although public service media is a trusted island in the media landscape of many countries, trust in public service media is not absolute and universal. This study adopts a qualitative approach to explore what trust and distrust entail for the public, a perspective rarely applied in trust research. Also, it explores the extent to which the sources of trust and distrust are the same and whether the concepts of trust and distrust are identical (only inverse), or linked but separate. It focuses on the Czech Republic, where the level of trust in the news is among the lowest in the world, yet public service media is the most trusted news source (Newman et al., 2022). Based on four focus group discussions with the general public (N = 24), this study analyzes the reasons for the audience's trust and distrust in Czech public service media. There are three main categories: trust in the message (i.e., people trust public service media if, in their view, it provides objective, truthful, reliable, relevant, and fast information without sensationalism and anti-system views); trust in the source (i.e., people trust public service media if they perceive the public service media journalists as professional); and trust in the public service media organizations (i.e., people trust public service media if they perceive the regulatory framework as effective in ensuring independence from politics and oversight boards as a guarantee for quality). As the reasons leading to trust were not identical (only inverse) to the reasons leading to distrust, our findings suggest that trust and distrust in public service media are not two sides of the same coin

Journalists as liars, servants, and sell-outs? On the declining trust in the media in the Czech Republic and Slovakia

Trust, a key ingredient for the functioning and survival of the media, has been gradually eroding in the Czech Republic and Slovakia. This essay argues that while some sources of that decline stem from broader social and cultural factors, others can be found in the media and journalists themselves. In both countries, the key reasons seem to be similar: commercialization and oligarchization have given rise to a sceptical attitude towards the media and journalists and it has generated suspicion that they act in the interests of economic and political actors rather than in the interest of the public. In addition, the rise of “alternative” media that spreads disinformation, hoaxes, and propaganda, together with attacks against journalists by top political representatives, further stimulate and strengthen the public perception that journalists are biased and corrupt, and that the media cannot be trusted. The more pronounced decline in trust observed in Slovakia can be explained by lower institutional trust at the societal level, the suspected greater inclination of Slovak journalists towards activism, weaker public service media and its less stable position, and a smaller market that may make it more difficult for various social groups to find a media outlet to represent them

The Family Friendliness That Wasn’t: Access, but Not Progress, for Women in the Czech Judiciary

Despite the fact that three-fifths of Czech judges are women, it would be a mistake to consider the Czech judiciary “feminized”: it is characterized by vertical gender segregation and a slow “defeminization” in positions of power and influence. The key to understanding both women’s presence overall and absence at the top is the gendered division of labor, especially in the home. The same reason why many women enter the judiciary—better reconciliation of private and professional lives than in other legal professions—is the reason why women do not progress—their “second shift” at home prevents them from ascending the career ladder

Failed Expectations: Does the Establishment of Judicial Councils Enhance Confidence in Courts?

Judicial councils are often presented as a panacea for many disorders of judicial systems, including low public confidence in the judiciary. Nevertheless, the assessment of their impact has so far been neglected. The article offers a unique view on the relationship between judicial councils and the level of public confidence in courts. It draws a novel conceptual map of factors influencing public confidence in the judiciary, stressing its complex and multifaceted character. Situating the judicial councils on the map, it explores how they can help to potentially increase the level of public confidence in the judiciary, and assesses to what extent this has been true in the countries that have adopted them. The results reveal a considerable gap between the promises, expectations, and practice, and raise doubts about the ability of judicial councils to enhance confidence in courts. Judicial councils rarely manage to substantially improve institutional performance: they can enhance the quality of judicial systems which have already functioned quite well, but they do not tend to bring about change in the judicial systems that have been previously significantly flawed. The analysis of the longitudinal Eurobarometer data showed that, on average, the EU countries without judicial councils are better off in terms of public confidence. Although the existence of judicial councils does not make a difference regarding public confidence in the judiciary in the new EU member states, in the old EU member states, judicial systems with judicial councils enjoy lower levels of public confidence than the ones without them

Judicial Self-Government in Czechia: Europe’s Black Sheep?

This paper maps judicial self-government in Czechia and argues that although Czechia is sometimes perceived as a black sheep of Europe for not introducing any form of judicial council into its judicial system, there is in fact a substantial amount of judicial selfgovernment exercised by several bodies, the most important being the court presidents, and it is therefore a mistake to conflate judicial self-government with judicial councils. The most notable changes to judicial self-government are then introduced and their impact on values crucial for the functioning of the judiciary assessed. And, as the judicial selfgovernment in Czechia is primarily exercised by court presidents, the narrative of changes to judicial self-government and their impact is presented as a narrative of changes affecting court presidents and of their effects on the wider legal, social and political fields. The dominance of court presidents, built in part on informal powers, is a mixed blessing however, as it can have both positive and negative impact on the crucial values and may prove rather fragile in the future.This paper maps judicial self-government in Czechia and argues that although Czechia is sometimes perceived as a black sheep of Europe for not introducing any form of judicial council into its judicial system, there is in fact a substantial amount of judicial selfgovernment exercised by several bodies, the most important being the court presidents, and it is therefore a mistake to conflate judicial self-government with judicial councils. The most notable changes to judicial self-government are then introduced and their impact on values crucial for the functioning of the judiciary assessed. And, as the judicial selfgovernment in Czechia is primarily exercised by court presidents, the narrative of changes to judicial self-government and their impact is presented as a narrative of changes affecting court presidents and of their effects on the wider legal, social and political fields. The dominance of court presidents, built in part on informal powers, is a mixed blessing however, as it can have both positive and negative impact on the crucial values and may prove rather fragile in the future

Nekonečný příběh Nejvyšší rady soudnictví: Kdo ji chce a proč ji pořád nemáme?

I přesto, že diskuse o Nejvyšší radě soudnictví (NRS) trvá už několik dekád, komplexní analýza toho, jaké postoje ke zřízení NRS zastávají klíčoví aktéři, kterých se samospráva soudnictví týká – soudci, politici a praktikující právníci – doposud chybí. Cílem tohoto textu je tuto mezeru vyplnit a na základě rozhovorů se zástupci českých právnických, soudcovských a politických elit zmapovat argumenty, které rozdělují zastánce a odpůrce NRS. V článku si klademe tři hlavní otázky: 1) Jak se zástupci právnických, soudcovských a politických elit staví ke zřízení NRS a jakými argumenty svou pozici zdůvodňují? 2) Jakou by měla mít správa soudnictví podle nich ideální podobu? 3) Co tyto tři skupiny od vzniku NRS očekávají? Hlavní zjištění jsou následující. Soudci, politici a právníci identifikovali stejné dva klíčové problémy stávajícího systému: ministerstvo nemá kapacitu ani vizi, jak soudnictví spravovat, a mnohé kompetence proto deleguje na předsedy soudů. Příliš silné postavení předsedů soudů však vede k fragmentaci správy soudnictví a ohrožuje vnitřní nezávislost řadových soudců. Elity se nicméně liší v tom, zda zřízení NRS tyto problémy vyřeší. Většina soudců vznik NRS podporuje a očekává od ní sjednocení správy soudnictví a odbřemenění předsedů soudů. Část politiků by souhlasila s ustanovením slabého modelu NRS, pokud by kontury systému pořád nastavovalo ministerstvo spravedlnosti. Zároveň však tvrdí, že fragmentovaná správa je lepší zárukou proti ovládnutí soudnictví jednou skupinou. Právníci pak vidí v zřízení NRS více rizik než pozitiv a obávají se zapouzdření soudní moci. Klíč k řešení problémů vidí spíše v otázce právnického vzdělávání a zvýšení kvality soudního rozhodování. Současné debaty o správě soudnictví ani poslední novely zákona o soudech a soudcích však bohužel na tyto klíčové problémy identifikované respondenty dosud nereagovaly

The Neverending Story of the Council for the Judiciary: Who Wants It and Why We Do Not Have It?

I přesto, že diskuse o Nejvyšší radě soudnictví (NRS) trvá už několik dekád, komplexní analýza toho, jaké postoje ke zřízení NRS zastávají klíčoví aktéři, kterých se samospráva soudnictví týká – soudci, politici a praktikující právníci – doposud chybí. Cílem tohoto textu je tuto mezeru vyplnit a na základě rozhovorů se zástupci českých právnických, soudcovských a politických elit zmapovat argumenty, které rozdělují zastánce a odpůrce NRS. V článku si klademe tři hlavní otázky: 1) Jak se zástupci právnických, soudcovských a politických elit staví ke zřízení NRS a jakými argumenty svou pozici zdůvodňují? 2) Jakou by měla mít správa soudnictví podle nich ideální podobu? 3) Co tyto tři skupiny od vzniku NRS očekávají?Hlavní zjištění jsou následující. Soudci, politici a právníci identifikovali stejné dva klíčové problémy stávajícího systému: ministerstvo nemá kapacitu ani vizi, jak soudnictví spravovat, a mnohé kompetence proto deleguje na předsedy soudů. Příliš silné postavení předsedů soudů však vede k fragmentaci správy soudnictví a ohrožuje vnitřní nezávislost řadových soudců. Elity se nicméně liší v tom, zda zřízení NRS tyto problémy vyřeší. Většina soudců vznik NRS podporuje a očekává od ní sjednocení správy soudnictví a odbřemenění předsedů soudů. Část politiků by souhlasila s ustanovením slabého modelu NRS, pokud by kontury systému pořád nastavovalo ministerstvo spravedlnosti. Zároveň však tvrdí, že fragmentovaná správa je lepší zárukou proti ovládnutí soudnictví jednou skupinou. Právníci pak vidí v zřízení NRS více rizik než pozitiv a obávají se zapouzdření soudní moci. Klíč k řešení problémů vidí spíše v otázce právnického vzdělávání a zvýšení kvality soudního rozhodování. Současné debaty o správě soudnictví ani poslední novely zákona o soudech a soudcích však bohužel na tyto klíčové problémy identifikované respondenty dosud nereagovaly.Establishment of the judicial council has been debated for decades in Czechia. However, we still miss a comprehensive understanding of the positions and arguments of key actors involved in judicial governance: judges, politicians and lawyers. This article fills this gap and maps the existing arguments in favour and against a judicial council. It poses three research questions: (1) Do elites support the establishment of a judicial council and how do they justify their position? (2) What form of judicial governance do they perceive as ideal? (3) What are their expectations from the judicial council?Judges, politicians and lawyers identify the same two core challenges of the current system: The ministry of justice lacks the vision and capacity to govern the courts, and thus it informally delegates majority of its competences on court presidents. Too strong court presidents in turn make the system fragmented and endanger internal independence of rank-and-file judges. Elites however disagree whether the establishment of a judicial council can solve these issues. Majority of judges support the judicial council and hope for the unification of judicial governance across the country. Some politicians are willing to accept a weak model of judicial council if the ministry of justice can still determine the contours of judicial governance. At the same time, politicians consider the current fragmented system of judicial governance as more resistant against the capture of the judiciary. Lawyers see judicial council as a risky model which might encapsulate the judiciary. The key solution of the current problems, according to lawyers, rests in the reform of legal education and enhancing the quality of the judicial decision-making. Unfortunately, the  neither recent policy debates nor the pending bills on the Law on Courts and Judges have addressed the key challenges raised by our interviewees

Capturing the Judiciary from Inside: The Story of Judicial Self-Governance in Slovakia

The article discusses the development in the administration of the Slovak judiciary since the separation of Czechoslovakia and the impact of the empowerment of the judicial self-governance on the functioning of the judicial system. After independence, the administration of the judiciary initially rested in the hands of the executive. In 2002, Slovakia created its Judicial Council and transferred a considerable amount of powers on it, especially related to judicial careers. It was expected that this would de-politicize the judicial system. However, a high level of autonomy of the judiciary chiefly led to the empowerment of judicial elites. This reduced the democratic accountability of the judiciary, encapsulating it from society and enabling it to promote its own interests. Selection processes have often been used to fill judicial ranks with judges with close ties to the system. Accountability mechanisms such as promotions, disciplinary procedures or remuneration schemes were used to reward allies of those on the top of the hierarchy and to punish their critics. Still, adherence to EU-backed standards on the administration of the judiciary may have increased the legitimacy of the judiciary, while concentrating decision-making in one body enhanced transparency, which was furthered due to low public confidence resulting in unprecedented levels of information available about the Slovak judicial system. All in all, the Slovak example displays the dangers of establishing judicial self-governance in countries where an internal ethical culture and a strong sense of judicial duty are still lacking

In the spiral of mistrust: On the decline of public trust in Czech journalists

 This paper analyses the change of public trust in journalists in the Czech Republic and investigates the main characteristics of mistrusting audiences. Comparative analysis based on two representative surveys of the Czech population reveals that public trust in journalists declined by a third between 2004 and 2016. Mistrust is on the rise especially among: a socio-economically de­prived media consumers b with leftist political orientation c belonging to the youngest cohort. The analysis also indicates a split of the ideal-typical image of a journalist as a highly-educated advocate of socially vulnerable groups, and suggests the return of a perception of journalists as establishment representatives which prevailed during the previous “real socialist” regime. This paper analyses the change of public trust in journalists in the Czech Republic and investigates the main characteristics of mistrusting audiences. Comparative analysis based on two representative surveys of the Czech population reveals that public trust in journalists declined by a third between 2004 and 2016. Mistrust is on the rise especially among: a socio-economically de­prived media consumers b with leftist political orientation c belonging to the youngest cohort. The analysis also indicates a split of the ideal-typical image of a journalist as a highly-educated advocate of socially vulnerable groups, and suggests the return of a perception of journalists as establishment representatives which prevailed during the previous “real socialist” regime