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.