Here's a way that the government could be even less involved: don't DO that. Let people who want to show programs to a large audience find their own way to fund the production and dissemination of that material. Say, by selling ads or attracting sponsors, etc.
And being under heavy influence by advertisers is better than being at arms length from government influence how exactly?
But it works both ways, so instead of paying for foreign shows as they do now, they now get those for free.
BBC doesn't get them for free. The British public does due to lack of geoblocking.
Personally I think that programming that is commercially viable on the international market shouldn't be paid for by taxes (or other practically unavoidable licensing fees) anyway. It puts commercial broadcasters at a competitive disadvantage and takes funding away from arts/documentaries and community programming that needs public broadcasters to be viable.
The real question is why ANYONE would want to work with people who did not like them.
The real question is how any large company can find anyone willing to work for them. Beyond a certain size, it is virtually guaranteed that someone at your workplace will not like you.
However the issue we had with older people was that they were so much harder to train.
If you hire young people on the other hand, you don't need to train them, because they still know it all.