Łukasz Grzegorczyk: inactive not watching TVP? 5 years ago, you said there was no power.
Julius Braun*: Honestly, I don't watch much, but let's just say I follow.
The wicked say it's the same, only the wind blows the another way.
What we see on the screen has changed in favour and that is beyond doubt. We're out of violent propaganda. I erstwhile said "pagand", then I was dragged to court by tv under Jack Kurski, but yet I defended myself.
In presidential debates, candidates like to stick pins on TVP. Simon Holownia says that we inactive "have any transitional form". And that's not the kind of public tv he wanted.
The name itself "TVP in liquidation" indicates a transitional moment. I expected the formal liquidation model to be shorter, and the current ruling coalition would clearly tell what it would imagine in the future. Everything's stalling, and this situation looks unhealthy.
It'll be about a year and a half since the celebrated signal went off, and TVP's in liquidation. average viewers, erstwhile they hear about it, can think: how much longer?
The president would most likely not agree to any more extremist changes, but the concept of the mark model should be ready by now. There have been consultations on specified a document, which is even hard to consider as the assumptions for the bill. This took place and still, apart from mostly correct declarations, it is not known what would happen next. In the meantime, something happened that no 1 predicted.
What do you mean?
The only clear win of this abrupt marketplace change, the thought of liquidation, was tv Republika, which grew from a niche, barely noticeable station to the main, or 1 of the main news stations in Poland.
Did that show TVP's weakness?
Rather, the deficiency of imagination of decision makers erstwhile making decisions. I don't know if I could have predicted it, but that imagination was missing. You can't hide that tv Republic played it smart. They showed large efficiency. This is not an assessment of sympathy, due to the fact that this for tv Republic I do not have, but the efficiency of functioning on the marketplace and media and political.
But let us remember that the marketplace has completely changed. It's hard to relate straight to what was 8 or 10 years ago. Bartłomiej Sienkiewicz said that public tv should besides be a bit boring.
Should she?
She's a small boring now about the main news programs. It can't be a tabloid, attraction can't be the only criterion, but without viewers, all tv doesn't make sense. Saying that ratings don't count, that's not true.
These numbers cannot be dictators, they cannot be subject to this, but if we want the message to scope the widest possible audience, let us not say that the audience does not matter. I utilized to compare that what else is simply a full audience at a football stadium and what else is simply a theater? But all time an audience is important.
But the public media is inactive at stake in the debate. And the charge returns that TVP is at least someway subordinate to power.
It's hard to answer that argument if it's true. In short: since the company is in liquidation, the liquidator is straight subject to the decisions of the general meeting, the minister of culture. So she's formally subordinate to the government.
We truly don't have the tools to at least effort to unpoliticize this public television?
In different countries this looks different, although it is not entirely possible to do so, due to the fact that public media is 1 of the elements of a democratic state. But you gotta effort to keep public tv confident. A fewer years ago I watched various European studies and, for example, in the Czech Republic, public tv was considered credible by most of the population. So you can't just be in this legendary BBC.
After all, in Poland TVP utilized to hold leading positions in terms of trust. In Jack Kurski's time, this changed dramatically. This trust needs to be rebuilt and, in fact, to build public media again. If a debate had been held in the Sejm, a bill had been passed, which would even gotta wait for the president to accept it, would at least show what the fresh imagination of public media is.
What's she like?
Now we just don't know.
Is the celebrated "water" clear yet?
Of course, the water must be clean, but it must flow adequate if we are already playing specified comparisons. He's got to have a stream.
I don't want to be smart, looking from the side and not having full knowledge, but a situation where the main news programme of public tv is clearly losing to competition is simply a problem.
So what's the problem with TVP?
Even if we look at an unpolitical event, specified as the ceremony of the Pope. The ratings show that viewers choose those stations they trust.
And the most viewers were on TVP1, due to the fact that there was a message that was most responsive to the audience's demand, who treated it in terms of a spiritual event. But a large proportion of viewers chose to broadcast in the Republic, or on TVN24. Spectators want to watch the station with this stamp in the corner of the screen they trust. Even if it is simply a simple broadcast from the event, not political comments.
Maybe there's inactive a TVPiS patch in the viewer's consciousness and a combination of propaganda.
Not so much propaganda as caution that it could be a government broadcast. It doesn't look like a year and a half ago, but it's inactive being received in a akin way. This relates to a substance that we have already discussed: There is no discussion about how we are imagining fresh public television, due to the fact that just due to the fact that we thought something 30 years ago does not mean that it will work today. It's not like that thought was bad, but the planet is changing.
So far no 1 has sensibly arranged the sources of funding.
Today, no 1 is proposing a subscription, due to the fact that it is known that this cannot be done. But it would be worth considering a fresh expression for the full institution. There's no overall imagination to plan something from scratch. Put fundamental questions no 1 asks.
Like what?
Do we request 2 fundamentally same universal programs, namely TVP1 and TVP2? And even if it's not worth it after years of good and bad experience to walk distant from the model of a commercial law company.
So if it's a revolution, when, how not now?
But she needs to be out of television. The decision must be made in parliament, but the foundation should be broad but very substantive discussion. The management of the company must operate within the structure and model that provides for the law. It is not peculiarly the function of individual who calls himself a liquidator, presenting large projects of the fresh institution.
For now, we have a presidential election. All the debates that have been held so far were just an appetizer? On May 12, a key clash of candidates at TVP headquarters.
It is hard to say what public tv will do to keep the statutory work of impartiality on the 1 hand, and not bore viewers on the other. I don't think it's a large start or a turning point in the discussion.
The debates or alleged debates that we have already seen in this run were undoubtedly attractive. Especially the 1 "Super Express" organized. But as well as the public debate in a serious sense of that word served, 1 might wonder.
That's good of you to say about the alleged debates. This should not be the norm that candidates play freely with smartphones during the debate. Somewhere along the way, we lost the savoir-vivre.
Behavior culture is the least problem. Politics has become the exchange of tweets and the production of memes. This requires a completely fresh approach from journalists and managers, organizers, what is happening in the media. It is not actual that social media decide everything, but they give a certain tone. And if conventional media uncritically take the same tone, that's not good.
We have specified a wise word – fasting. We've gone to an era where it's not facts that matter, it's emotions. Those who better stimulate emotions are present. If individual does not inspire emotion, then the facts that present, even the most important, in the public opinion do not be at all. And that's the large problem.
Or it's actual that pre-election debates are a burnt-out formula.
If there are no debates, we will be sentenced to these brief entries and memes. We can't just be on advertising. And what the staff do to advance candidates is the same ad as a laundry powder commercial.
I remember something that would be hard to imagine today. 1 of the first things I managed to do on tv was a long conversation between Leszek Balcerowicz and Jack Rostowski. The discussion was substantive, extensive, had quite a few viewers. So possibly there's a pattern, possibly distant, but that's something public tv should do.
Only if the debate is boring, she won't have any spectators and she won't be needed either. Kind of a vicious circle. It won't hurt, but it won't aid anyone.
*Juliusz Braun, president of the National Broadcasting and tv Council from 1999 to 2003, president of the Polish tv Board from 2011 to 2015, associate of the National Media Council, associate of the Parliament of X, I, II and III.
