{"id":12668,"date":"2026-06-11T19:07:36","date_gmt":"2026-06-11T18:07:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/?p=12668"},"modified":"2026-06-11T19:08:38","modified_gmt":"2026-06-11T18:08:38","slug":"it-is-not-true-that-the-sta-lied-in-its-election-coverage","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/2026\/06\/11\/it-is-not-true-that-the-sta-lied-in-its-election-coverage\/","title":{"rendered":"It Is Not True That the STA Lied in Its Election Coverage"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n

Original article<\/a> (in Slovenian) was published on 10\/6\/2026; Author: Alja\u017e Primo\u017ei\u010d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The Slovenian Press Agency (STA) published a correction to its news report on the National Assembly election results, the very report referenced by the portal e-Maribor, less than twenty hours after the original story was released.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

On 27 May, the e-Maribor portal published an article headlined How the STA Lied After the Elections and How Other Media Echoed Its Lie<\/em>, claiming that the STA deliberately misled the public in its coverage of this year’s general election results. The portal accused the news agency of political bias, pointing to its report that Matej Ar\u010don had won the highest share of votes in his voting district. They also questioned whether “anyone at the STA had apologized for this deliberate error.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In making these claims, e-Maribor cited the agency’s reporting on results at district level. They emphasized that other media outlets had run the STA’s reporting without verifying it, though they did not specify which outlets did so.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At 1:16 a.m. on 23 March 23, the STA published an article headlined Golob Wins Most Votes, Ar\u010don Highest Share<\/em>, reporting that with 99.85% of ballots counted, Robert Golob had received nearly 10,400 votes across his voting districts, placing him first overall. Meanwhile, Matej Ar\u010don achieved the highest percentage of votes within his own district at 43.52%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The article also noted that Janez Jan\u0161a ranked fifth among all candidates “in terms of absolute vote count and percentage [of votes].”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The STA corrected the initial version of the article later that same day, publishing the update at 9:05 p.m. The correction clarified that Ar\u010don had received the highest percentage within his voting unit (Postojna) and within the Nova Gorica 2 voting district, rather than across all voting districts within that unit, as initially reported. His party, the Freedom Movement, also secured the most votes in that constituency, taking 34.79%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The corrected article was headlined CORRECTION: Golob Wins Most Votes, Jan\u0161a and Ar\u010don Highest Shares<\/em>. It explained that Golob, who ran in two districts, had won a combined total of 10,391 votes based on the count at that time, the highest of any candidate nationwide. According to the final election results<\/a>, Golob averaged 5,719.5 votes across his two districts, which was 1,485.5 fewer than Ar\u010don received in his single district.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The final official results showed that Golob received a total of 11,439 votes across the two districts where he ran. Janez Jan\u0161a, who also ran in two voting districts, received a combined total of 9,265 votes; his strongest showing was in the Ivan\u010dna Gorica district, where he secured 44.24% of the vote, the highest share in that district.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the Nova Gorica 2 district, voters cast 7,205 votes (43.54%) for Ar\u010don, giving him the highest vote share within the broader Postojna voting unit to which his district belongs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The right to correction<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Speaking to Razkrinkavanje.si<\/em>, the STA\u2019s editor-in-chief, Mihael \u0160u\u0161tar\u0161i\u010d, stated that the editorial board did not view the original election results story cited by e-Maribor as “technically entirely incorrect.” Instead, he noted, “the error lay in the fact that the information provided was not sufficiently precise.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He explained that because Jan\u0161a ran in two districts, it makes sense in analytical terms to compare Jan\u0161a\u2019s average result across the Grosuplje and Ivan\u010dna Gorica districts with Ar\u010don\u2019s result in his single district, Nova Gorica 2. The final election results show that Jan\u0161a averaged 4,632.5 votes across both districts combined, which is 2,572.5 fewer than Ar\u010don received in his own district.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u0160u\u0161tar\u0161i\u010d pointed out that the editorial board decided to issue the correction clarifying the distinction between results at the voting unit level and the voting district level on their own initiative, rather than in response to a formal request under the Media Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He further emphasized that the STA does not issue apologies in its corrections; instead, the agency provides the correct information and explains which part of the original release was modified. The purpose of the correction was to resolve ambiguities in the initial reporting and to present the election results more accurately.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to \u0160u\u0161tar\u0161i\u010d, the STA publishes corrections in a standardized format, using the label “CORRECTION” in the headline to explicitly alert subscribers to the error so it can be rectified in syndicated content. Minor typos and grammatical errors, however, are generally corrected only internally.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Under the Media Act<\/a>, anyone has the right to request the publication of a correction if they believe the published information infringes upon their rights or interests. A correction can either deny the published allegations or supplement them with opposing facts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The law stipulates that a correction must be published unedited, clearly labelled, and given equivalent placement and prominence to the original article. However, editorial boards may refuse to publish a correction if the request is not filed by an affected party, if the correction does not relate to the disputed piece, or if it fails to contain a denial or opposing facts that contest the claims in the original text.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A refusal of a correction is also permitted if publication thereof would violate the law, if the proposed correction is disproportionately longer than the original article or the relevant section, if the substance is already subject to legal proceedings, or if the text is offensive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When contacted by Razkrinkavanje.si<\/em> to explain its assertion that the STA “lied and deliberately misled the public” in its election coverage, the e-Maribor portal responded with insults. In their response, they questioned the legitimacy of the investigative outlet O\u0161tro and implied that its editorial team was politically biased.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

They did clarify, however, that they had drawn their information from an article<\/a> published the day after the election on the portal Spletni \u010dasopis<\/em>. Spletni \u010dasopis<\/em> had similarly reported on “how manipulations are carried out at the state-owned STA, which is controlled by the ruling (left-wing) parties.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The claim that the STA lied and deliberately misled the public in its election results coverage is false.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Original article (in Slovenian) was published on 10\/6\/2026; Author: Alja\u017e Primo\u017ei\u010d The Slovenian Press Agency (STA) published a correction to its news report on the National Assembly election results, the very report referenced by the portal e-Maribor, less than twenty hours after the original story was released. On 27 May, the e-Maribor portal published an […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":12669,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"_uf_show_specific_survey":0,"_uf_disable_surveys":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[316],"tags":[81,13,34],"class_list":["post-12668","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-fact-checks","tag-elections","tag-journalism","tag-slovenia"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12668","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=12668"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12668\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12671,"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12668\/revisions\/12671"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/12669"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12668"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=12668"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=12668"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}