On the level: According to a survey by ČT, money could be saved, for example, on public transport without tickets. Petr Pavel should not be surprised by the lack of sense.
The governing coalition has been targeting Czech public media for some time, and not just them. Through continuous verbal attacks, they also attempt to damage private media. This is not the first attempt to tame Czech Television, which does not serve the interests of the governing establishment. History is repeating itself, albeit in a new setting.
An absurd drama unfolded at a press conference where government officials presented the intention to abolish license fees that finance Czech public media.
The absurdity of the entire intention certainly does not lie in the aim of saving money, which was repeatedly mentioned in the justification for the change mentioned, nor in the principle of shifting the budgeting of public media to the state budget. Both can be done through entirely logical steps. However, if we look at the entire action in a broader context, it's hard to avoid the outline of a scenario from an absurd drama.
Petr Pavel Does Not Understand the Beauty of Absence of Meaning
"It doesn't make sense to change what works," said the president regarding the abolishment of television and radio fees. He's certainly right. However, in this case, the purpose of the change is for it to stop working..."
explained commentator Petr Honzejk on the X network. In other words: nonsense becomes the purpose.
However, the president might not have to be surprised. He aligns himself with the legacy of the first president of independent Czech Republic, Václav Havel, who made his mark in the history of world literature precisely with his absurd dramas.
State media under the control of politicians can come in handy for the government. Similarly, various municipal news media often operate, which are funded from public budgets and in practice function as mouthpieces for political representations on this or that town hall.
The beauty of absurdity lay in the argument of trying to save money. Broad inspiration could be taken for other aspects of public life as well. Savings could be made, for example, on Prague's public transport by making it free. People would stop buying tickets, and this would not only save money but could also slightly ease Prague's traffic.
To make it not completely free, the C metro line would be canceled, similar to how public media will have 1.5 billion crowns cut. Why travel on the C-line when I can take the A or B line?
Why pay for public transport when we can save by traveling for free?
Why do we actually pay for public transport? Why do we pay for visiting public pools? Why not save by not charging admission fees? Probably everyone who attended elementary school knows that even the state (i.e., the community of its citizens) operates on real money. If citizens do not send fees directly to television, they send them through taxes, or more accurately, through loans that the state takes for this extraordinary expense.
Interest is paid on the loan and here our absurd drama around the television rushes to its ultimate nonsensical point. The necessity to pay interest on the loan for running the television doesn't actually save anything, but instead makes it more expensive.
It's not just on the loan level that it becomes more expensive. A smaller budget will lead to a reduction in the television's own productions and also sports broadcasts. Whoever then wants to watch StarDance or the Olympics will simply have to pay private channels, which will gladly take over this premium content at the expense of public broadcasters. Whether the viewer pays a monthly fee or pays by watching advertisements is just a secondary matter of how the principle of absurd saving works.
Sources: original text, commentary, X, ČTK
