Controversy has emerged in Poland after the salaries paid to key figures at state broadcaster TVP under the former Law and Justice (PiS) government, which left office earlier this month, were revealed by an MP from the new ruling coalition.

The revelations, including that two figures earned around 1.5 million zloty (€345,000) this year, have been condemned by the new administration, including Prime Minister Donald Tusk. They say that the pay was excessive and note that TVP was used by PiS as a propaganda mouthpiece.

But PiS has responded by pointing to what it says were similarly high earnings by TVP stars when Tusk was previously in power before 2015.

  • Avid Amoeba
    link
    fedilink
    English
    5211 months ago

    Glad to see Tusk cleaning house instead of tiptoeing around the shit left from the previous administration, unlike some other prominent countries.

  • @Stamau123OP
    link
    English
    2011 months ago

    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.

    • Quokka
      link
      fedilink
      English
      2011 months ago

      Why would people want a public utility to generate profit?

      • Justin
        link
        fedilink
        English
        5
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        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?

      • @Stamau123OP
        link
        English
        411 months ago

        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

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          8
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          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).

        • Quokka
          link
          fedilink
          English
          2
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          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.

          • @Telodzrum
            link
            English
            611 months ago

            It also shouldn’t generate excessive waste in spending. It’s not a binary of profit vs. public good.

            • Quokka
              link
              fedilink
              English
              111 months ago

              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.

              • @Telodzrum
                link
                English
                111 months ago

                It’s implicit in your comment above. Arguing otherwise is in bad faith.

                • Quokka
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  411 months ago

                  No, you’re very clearly introducing it into the discussion to try and deflect from criticism of profit seeking behaviour in public services.