Dream Media Act

I do not have professional dreams going beyond “get up to retirement”. I'm not reasoning about going back to the media in any role.

Inspired by Awal, however, I would like to advise the left if I were her media advisor. I don't want to be either.

First of all, the hypothetical overthrow of the Law and Justice will mean co-habitation with the written president by 2025. During this period, no "great reform" will succeed.

It seems more realistic to me to win specified a triumph as a written 1 – 2 100 and 30 tickets in the Sejm. So much depends on details specified as “who will take the Senate?” that it is besides early to prepare the large Projects. We'll be sentenced to improvise overnight.

The PiSu Excesses make the fresh power should not have any brakes of the kind "oh, but it does not fit". She should usage these 2 100 and 30 pairs of tickets for max, as PiS did in 2015 – without printing the private opinions of Mrs. Master P. at the head.

You can – and should! – make a large cleaning in public and Orlenian media. However, they cannot be reformed, due to the fact that the draft laws will be executed by the President.

By 2025, writing specified projects makes no sense. What we will compose today, in 2025 it will request to be corrected anyway, because, for example, there will be any EU regulations, or there will be a global "netflix" player (substack has specified aspirations).

Assuming that in 2025 the Law of My Dreams can be adopted, I will sketch its general direction. First of all, it should harmonise the regulations (so it should have the words "lost power of law > 1984, etc.).

At the moment, the media is subject to 3 major laws, each of which is tragically inadequate to our time. Our blog chats are held, for example, on the basis of the Act on the provision of electronic services (SUDE).

It is the youngest (2002), so it would seem that although it is adapted to our times. And the button. It was inactive written in an era where the net was a toy, and no 1 thought that we would get all the media transferred to it so quickly.

I am placed with you, dear compatriots, as a service supplier (free – it does not matter). A part of the bill is to exclude me from the work for your services. I'd gotta do something very unusual to carry her.

We are in the same situation with Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, etc. We have fewer rights against them (actually none), for which it gives them the chance to get distant with anything.

It is incorrect that specified a bill regulates the services we look into to find out what happened to Covid and who won the election. This deficiency of work is the origin of phenomena specified as hate, fake news or anti-watt.

I've written many times that it's different for me to be blogging, but it's different to be a journalist. This is due to the fact that it is regulated by another law – press law.

It's a bill from the times of the Polish People's Republic, full of dead regulations. Until recently, she had obliged journalists to respect the Constitution of the Polish People's Republic (sic).

There are inactive dead provisions specified as a ban on commenting on the trial before the judgement in First Instance (Article 13(1)). Most people don't really know that this prohibition applies!

There's a lot in this polygraph and colporteur bill. The legal basis for its usage online is the mention of ‘or another techniques’.

It is hard to adjust the reality of the work of the modern portal. The courts issue judgments not on the basis of the law, but comments and case law.

They are frequently incomprehensible to the public. For example, journalists themselves frequently confuse insult with defamation.

When Tusk ruled, he trusted advisers from the Digital Center who advised him to cyber-Corvinism – to release, open, the best regulation is the deficiency of regulation. Therefore, ‘blogs’ or ‘streaming services’ work on a weak basis, which is detrimental to Jan Kowalski but beneficial to Google, which can make its own rules through lex EULA.

Chaos deepens the 3rd bill – about radio and tv from 1992. It is the most regulatory, provides for the anticipation of imposing severe penalties, receiving concessions, imposes "Christian values" (Article 18(2)). She's the 1 who's trying to modify the PiS to destruct TVN.

Her fever is that it concerns the media of decreasing importance. The media moving to the Internet, they run distant from this bill. It does not regulate streaming, vlogs or podcasts.

Meanwhile, the media converts. The division into “press” and “audiovisual” journalism makes no sense today.

"Election" hired Dobrosz-Oracz to make (also excellent) "televisional" materials for the "press" electoral service.pl. TVN hired Justyna Suchecka to make “press” material (also brilliant!) for the “television” service tvn24.pl.

These services will be like. There is no justification for subjecting them to the rigors of 2 Different Sets.

At the minute a paradoxical situation is possible in which the same journalistic material (coming to users with the same cable, as the same zeros and ones!) is subject to 3 laws depending on how editing these zeros and ones mark. It will depend on whether you can say "ass" or "God doesn't have" or lie unpunishedly (there are no corrections in UŚWDE, so the blogger can lie about vaccines for example).

In addition, we have another laws, referring to "mass-communication measures" – above all, the penal code and its Articles 212 and 216, pursuing libel and insult. Both have a peculiar exacerbation if the perpetrator has done so by these measures.

This utilized to make sense – “Mr. X is simply a part of shit” has another pronunciation in the restaurant, another 1 on the front page of the newspaper. Today, however, we insult and defame each another mostly on the Internet, so mediocre Kowalski is amazed by the conviction for calling Malinowski a Twitter dick.

I'm not in favour of eliminating those rules. People who easy wave their hand that "a civilian code is enough" in practice want to make people undefeated vulnerable.

Meanwhile, a threat specified as in “The Lost Worship of Catherine Blum” that the media will harass an innocent individual – it is only getting worse. We request stronger safeguards, not dismantling existing ones.

When the process takes place, the media defends itself by referring to concepts specified as ‘public interest’ or ‘due integrity’. Again, due to weak statutory definitions, the processes take place on the basis of comments and case law.

That's due to the fact that a writer is not a profession of public trust. Many people seem to be – due to the fact that they should be. But there is no specified law (and it is about the profession of notary).

The Dream Act should change that. The profession has this position erstwhile there are any mandatory ethical principles – present they are not in journalism.

Sometimes on specified a dictum that there is no media ethics, any moose puts triumphantly the code of ethics which he hastily Googled. 1 OF MANY. You guys know what I mean?

Who would draw up specified a common code, which applies to all media? another professions of trust have easier due to the fact that it's easier to specify who a notary or a vet is. Defining a writer will lead us astray.

I don't want journalism to do that. They're politicized, their main business is the War of the Pis with the Antiscript. erstwhile I worked in this industry, I did not feel the request for them to be (little 1 of the authentic “newsroom people” goes to these meetings).

The establishment of the association is simpler than the establishment of a university or even a trade union (it is interesting, will this yellow union in Agora get the KRS number?). Allowing associations would so be threatened by a script specified as "we set up 10 organizations to take over the media".

My proposal: by law, to establish a ten-person Media Council, concluded with university delegates having the right to give a diploma with a speciality in "journalism and social communication". It would be a pluralist body – there would be individual from Rydzyk and individual from SWPS (maybe Bodnar? let the colleges choose the delegates).

I don't know who would have most of them. That's why my proposal is fair, due to the fact that I'm accompanied by the Rawls veil of ignorance.

Maybe individual has a better 1 – I would love to hear it. But attention, the basic criterion is media independency from the political pendulum. So that winning the Pisu or Antipisu no longer means cleaning on Polish Radio.

Of course, I would pass on to this board the powers of existing bodies, like KRRiTV. This would require a change of constitution (but I'm talking about the perfect scenario).

This council should besides set up an arbitration committee to settle disputes over the violation of media ethics. To mention the case to arbitration would mean giving up the exercise of rights by another means.

"Unconcessioned" media could exist, but they would be whistled for in case of trial. The option of arbitration would only be available to those who accept the Code of Ethics developed by this council (this is more or little how it works in Sweden).

The law should specify “blogs”, “subcasts”, “streamings” – all that is now collective “or another techniques”. It should besides specify the terms "public interest", "journal mystery", "due integrity" – due to the fact that the public does not realize them.

After Rywin's affair, I had on my blog a commion accusing Michnik that he was applying the journalistic secret “chosenly”. I don't remember who it was anymore, but he evidently didn't realize the concept.

The law should specify ‘head editor’ and ‘Editorial team’. And make the anticipation of taking the post of editor dependent on the vote of assurance of the editorial team.

This would defend us from specified phenomena as “cleansing in the Polish Press” and “inba in Agora”. And most likely now even the most bitter liberals admit that the media cannot act on the rule of "owner does what he wants".

It would be a bill replacing 3 another laws and introducing insignificant amendments to respective others – including the Constitution and the Criminal Code. quite a few work.

Before 2025, nothing can be done, and after 2025, many topics may lose their status. I regret that I have wasted so many letters on this subject, excuse me, this is the Chateau d’Awal (Awala's fault!).