A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (perjorative, perjorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (perjorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
Glad to see Tusk cleaning house instead of tiptoeing around the shit left from the previous administration, unlike some other prominent countries.
Counter-point to PiS talking about high earning of prior TVP stars:
*TVP did not generate losses during that time. The people mentioned above turned a profit from advertising. During the PiS era, TVP generated only losses, despite increased subsidies.
*These are not earnings, but total production costs of programs in which the hosts were mentioned.
Why would people want a public utility to generate profit?
It says that the service received subsidies as well, so I figure it just means that their books are balanced, and that they're not spending more money than they take in via subsidies and advertising revenue?
It's not important, but it shows PiS to be at best bad at managing, and at worst benefactors of graft, and trying to throw that back at the new government is silly
I mean, if they decided to make some channels ad-free and increased subsidies that would be acceptable IMHO. Probably not what happened here, but it's a model used for public broadcasters elsewhere (and ad-free channels are definitely a good thing).
If it’s a public utility it should be run to benefit the public, not make a profit off of them.
Anyone upset by that part is an idiot or a conservative, not that there’s a difference.
It also shouldn't generate excessive waste in spending. It's not a binary of profit vs. public good.
You’re the first one here to mention excessive waste?
That’s a seperate issue to turning a profit. There needs to be a cost/benefit analysis, but there never needs to be a profit driven motive.
It's implicit in your comment above. Arguing otherwise is in bad faith.
No, you’re very clearly introducing it into the discussion to try and deflect from criticism of profit seeking behaviour in public services.