Dariusz Rosati, a former member of the Polish United Workers’ Party, is depicted as someone who would need to respond decisively if a forceful takeover of public media offices were attempted. His most recent post on the X platform illustrates this hypothetical stance.
“I would leave TVP Sport…”
In his message, Rosati proposed a drastic measure. He suggested suspending the operation of TVP starting January 1 and instead running a nonstop display of a blank screen, described by him as a black board. He linked this idea to President Andrzej Duda’s veto of the 2024 budget law, which had allocated PLN 3 billion for public media.
His words outlined a scenario in which, from the first day of the year, TVP would be shut down while a continuous message would read: “Due to the President’s decision to suspend the financing of TVP, the broadcast of the program is suspended until further notice.” In this plan, he would retain TVP Sport, separating it from the broader TVP broadcasts.
– Rosati put forward the proposition in a direct, online statement.
What stands out is Rosati’s attempt to shift responsibility for the financing decision onto the president, contrasting it with ongoing political battles over Telewizja Polska. It is worth noting the history surrounding TVP, including moments when supporters from various political camps debated the media’s support. There have been campaigns to liquidate TVP Info, a channel that has faced interruptions in its signal at times, while supporters of the ruling party have defended subsidies for the public broadcaster. The tension between supporters and opponents of public funding for the broadcaster has been a recurring theme in Polish political discourse.
Rosati’s nostalgia for an earlier era?
On the X platform, readers offered responses to Rosati’s post. A common thread in the replies suggests a perception that Rosati longs for older political or social dynamics, sometimes described as a longing for past political systems. The remarks highlight a debate about media funding, public broadcasting roles, and the broader question of how state-supported media should operate within a democratic framework.
Some comments push back, arguing that support or criticism of public media should be judged by outcomes rather than historical sentiment. The discussion touches on whether subsidies, when accompanied by transparency and accountability, can be a positive force for independent journalism or whether they risk entrenching partisan influence. In this debate, the central issue remains: how should public broadcasters be financed, overseen, and protected from becoming instruments of political power?
Observers note that the logic of Rosati’s plan—substitute programming with a static message while signaling a political motive—reflects broader anxieties about who controls media narratives and how accountability is maintained in times of political shift. The conversation underscores the ongoing tension between government decisions on funding and the independence expected of public media in a democratic society.
In this context, questions arise about the prudence of allocating additional state funds to public broadcasters when political winds change. The suggestion that money could be redirected to other social needs, such as pediatric oncology, surfaces in political rhetoric as a reminder of competing priorities. The debate invites readers to consider how priorities are set, how budgets are allocated, and what safeguards ensure that media remains a space for information and dialogue rather than a battleground for political leverage.
The exchange also points to a broader pattern in public discourse: politicians and public figures often frame media funding battles as essential to national interests, while critics caution against conflating policy objectives with the operational autonomy of journalists. The situation invites careful scrutiny of funding structures, governance models, and the long-term consequences of heavy state involvement in public media institutions.
Ultimately, the discourse around TVP, its subsidies, and the role of public broadcasting in Poland reflects a wider conversation about media legitimacy, transparency, and accountability. It resonates with audiences who seek clarity on how public media should function, who should oversee it, and how it should be financed to serve the public good rather than political expediency. The discussion remains a live issue in the public square, with opinions continuing to evolve as political actors respond to developments and each other’s positions. The community is urged to evaluate arguments on their merits, focusing on the principles of independent journalism, responsible governance, and the protection of audience access to reliable information.