In this context, the concept of a "public media" outlet is essential. While fending off politicians, colleagues correctly remind us that "public" does not mean "state-owned", yet they evidently do not wish to admit that our "society" is extremely diverse. Like it or not. And precisely for this reason, if there is a part of society that is very critical of migration, their views also have the right to be heard in the public media. However, within the scope of this short text, I see no point in developing this topic further, because, as I mentioned, my thesis is as follows: the situation is solvable; there is no inevitable deadlock here.
Latest articles
Poll
In recent weeks, both in the Saeima and the Cabinet of Ministers, the thesis has been heard once again: “We must act this way, otherwise there will be penalties, infringement procedures, etc.” Often, such a pseudo-argument completely excludes reasonable disputes, discussions, or alternatives, forcing those responsible to make decisions hastily and not always in the interests of Latvia. Why is that?
Old habits are hardening - someone somewhere knows better, let us rely on them
Lack of sufficient capacity or laziness to defend a different point of view
A generation of cabinet officials has been created who are accustomed to accepting rather than delving into matters
This is a serious problem for Latvia for which no solution is being sought. It will probably be all right somehow...
Conflicts sometimes considered inevitable are actually not
