Public media on strike? And what about the people on the street?

The long-standing tussle over whether public media should be financed frommandatory concessionaire feesor from public finances are coming to an end. The government of Andrej Babiš approved the second option and the amount that will be allocated to these media from the state budget was also published.out of taxpayers' pockets, I note.It is not little, we are talking about billions of crowns a year.

Subsequently, there was an outcry in the public media, which is probably supported by those who have profited from the previous funding. The employees of these media are threatening a strike, which is probably going on these days. I don't know, I can't judge because I don't follow public media for a long time. How pleased I was that I am not alone in my opinion, that I meet mostly, anonymously "on the street" (I don't mean the series...) with people who also do not know that the employees of the public media are to strike, because they also do not follow them for a long time. They say that apart from the employees of these media outlets and politicians, no one noticed the "ongoing strike", and would not have noticed even if it had lasted a year straight and had not been broadcast at all from these sources.

These are serious considerations that legislators should consider. Why should we finance these media from the state budget? Is it to maintain power? Why isn't it based on voluntariness, whoever wants to pay for their programs, let them do it, like for example with Netflix and a whole range of stations that are charged on a voluntary basis. It is true that today's modern technology will allow us to watch the channel we want and pay for those that are paid for. Why still publicly fund "public media"which are beyond the zenith of citizens' needs and interests.

I was amazed how the "people on the street" talked about how they would prefer that this media also became self-financing. First of all: from the voluntary fees of interested parties who want to watch the often falsehoods in the main news, strange censorship, or often completely stupid series, or films repeated a thousand times. Second: let them be funded by advertising. Here, too, we will soon find out how many companies will want to pay for advertising. We get to the beginning again. Advertisers will rate viewership and be interested in advertising accordingly. Maybe the outdated "public media" will be better off after all. That they will earn so much from advertising for their operation and investments that their channels will not have to be paid by viewers,they will be free.

Or will it be the other way around? There will be no followers, no ads,public media will disappear, which I consider to be relics of the past in the context of what is happening in the media field in modern times, including artificial intelligence.

Let's try this (after all, we've done countless with far-reaching negative effects like GD), so why not try this one. He would certainly do less damage, he probably wouldbenefit and led to savings in public finances.

We should probably stop hammering into people's heads what to think, what is good and what is bad, and how it is possible to get comprehensive "true" information from only one source, and rather ban the others or call them "disinformers". Let's give people the freedom to decide for themselves which TV or radio channel they want to watch. Which they are willing to pay monthly! And you might be surprised at how many there are in the end.

Ing. Alena Vitásková

Writer, columnist

On 6/21/2026