Public service media.

A frequently used phrase that, at this time, alternately gains and then loses its meaning and clear contours, particularly in connection with the proposed and declared amendment to the law. Public service media, regarded as the fourth pillar of democracy, have a tradition dating back more than a century, and their existence has clearly proven its worth. Especially in turbulent times of struggle and conflict over the seizure and retention of political power, independent, functioning media with a high-quality staff play a crucial role. Were they to cease to exist, we would be reliant on private information providers, who could easily abuse their dominant position to benefit obscure interest groups. However, this is not merely about news reporting and journalism—their character, balance, and approach. It is also about the public interest in the form of entertainment and education distributed to the broadest segments of society. This is likewise an irreplaceable mission of public service media. For the successful and fully functional operation of the entire system, it is essential to identify and defend a funding model that is as independent as possible from the decisions of individuals or groups for whom the existence of independent media hinders the achievement of their goals. These groups tend to be political parties with a directive leadership style and structure, and these individuals are either lobbyists or ambitious figures from among right-wing or left-wing activists. Finding a suitable method of financing is not simple, and a solution that would be acceptable to everyone likely does not exist, although the current one is generally regarded as reasonable and appropriate. In light of the current social climate, it can be said that the proposals by Ota Klempíř and Patrik Nacher to amend the existing rules do not appear to be heading in the right direction. Their main content is, in fact, a significant reduction in the revenues of both major media institutions and, along with that, an increase in dependence on political decisions. If the proposal were to pass through the legislative process without changes, it would likely result not only in a visible reduction in television and radio production activities, but also in a decline in the quality of the services provided and greater organic interdependence with the ruling political establishment, whether current or future. None of this is in the public interest. The government’s arguments, based on necessary spending cuts, do not hold up in the context of the presented budgetary irregularities and ad hoc interventions. There is a lack of broader expert debate and a perspective unburdened by personal animosities and inflated egos. We need public service media to be in good shape.