Local Media in Poland - Freedom of Speech

1. Freedom of Speech

Words spoken in a small town carry more weight. Local and regional media have an advantage over national ones, as they deal with issues and people that are close to most of their audience. A journalist who lives daily with the problems of the local community knows them very well. The editor of "Wiadomości Świebodzickich" will know more about the illegal practices of their mayor than a reporter from "Gazeta Wyborcza."

Equally important, local media reach the people they write about. Readers, viewers, or listeners are inclined to trust them unconditionally, especially if they know the author personally and trust them. A camera, microphone, and pen in the hands of a local journalist are powerful tools. The ability to shape public opinion, even in a small community, is a form of power that cannot be underestimated.

The problem arises when freedom of speech is abused or restricted. Although the Press Law and the Constitution guarantee this fundamental freedom to everyone, local media do not always know how to use it. The abuse of freedom of speech is as common as imposing muzzles on journalists:

"Everyone interested in local politics surely knows that members of the editorial staff of "Wiadomości Oławskich" have a hatred for Waldemar Wiązowski, which they demonstrate in every possible place and form (from jokes to galleries in the lens and columns, ending with so-called `serious publications`). However, very few people know that the editorial staff of "Wiadomości Oławskich" breaks the basic principles of press law and journalistic ethics!" [1] This information appeared on March 17, 2001, on the municipal website of Oława.

Mayor Waldemar Wiązowski deemed it the only way to defend against attacks from the newspaper:

"On this occasion, I would like to respond to all Oława residents as to why I am so often forced to place my comments on the municipal website. The reason remains the same. On the pages of the newspaper "Wiadomości Oławskie," the editorial team denies me the right to defend myself and a space to present positions and corrections regarding municipal activities."

The editorial team justifies its battle against the municipal authorities by referring to constitutional freedom of speech. However, the question arises: even when formulating the most justified accusations, should the attacked party not be given an opportunity to defend itself? "Wiadomości Oławskie" themselves benefit from the blessings of this freedom, but refuse it to others. The municipal website is not as widely accessible to the residents of Oława as a newspaper that can be purchased at every kiosk.

However, there are also reverse situations. Local media are often tied to important and influential people or institutions in the region. The weekly "Nowe Wiadomości Wałbrzyskie," funded by the Lower Silesian Thermal Energy Plant, did not dare to write a single critical word during the war over the Lower Silesian heating market. Almost all editorial teams thundered about behind-the-scenes and often unethical acts of companies vying for lucrative contracts. NWW also thundered – but deliberately omitted those involving DZT, one of the players in the game.

The most challenging task lies with journalists from local titles. One could hardly find examples of critical materials about local governments in these media. According to the principle that one does not bite the hand that feeds, local press will defend the corrupt patron to the bitter end, even at the cost of risking ridicule and losing the trust of the audience. Freedom of speech is often severely limited here. A journalist from the municipal "Kurier Świdnicki," attempting to publish a critical article regarding the city president or the chairman of the City Council, risks not only reprimand from the editor-in-chief but even losing their job. In this situation, they will think twice before deciding to fight for freedom of speech. In the end, they may conclude that it is better to put their ambitions away and not take risks.

Sometimes, institutions that are supposed to stand guard over freedom of speech and the public`s right to accurate information – Polish courts – turn against the media. The most well-known case of this type is undoubtedly the ruling of the Warsaw District Court in the case of Aleksander Kwaśniewski against the editorial board of "Życie." The judge decided to evaluate whether the journalists collected the material diligently or not. This triggered an incredible uproar in the media. There was a split opinion – from positions stating that the verdict would force journalists to better verify the information collected to alarming voices about muzzling the press and limiting its freedom.

Local press also plays a significant role in this field. Just as loud as the "Życie" case was the story of the Gdańsk "Dziennik Bałtycki" in 1998. Its journalist, Jan Kreft, described the business dealings of the Warsaw company "Banpol" with the Gdańsk branch of the Polish Post. [2]

As one might easily guess, they were very unfavorable for the state-owned company. After a multi-part publication revealing, piece by piece, the siphoning of funds from the Post, "Banpol" filed a lawsuit for protection of personal rights against Kreft and the editor-in-chief of "Dziennik Bałtycki." They demanded 3 million zlotys in compensation and filed a request for securing the lawsuit, which simply means a court ban on "Dziennik" publishing anything about the company. The Voivodeship Court in Gdańsk granted this request on November 24, 1998.

"Experts` comments on this matter are similar: such legal measures must be applied cautiously because their abuse can lead to the limitation of freedom of speech. According to a media scholar from the University of Gdańsk, Professor Wiktor Pepliński, the ban on disseminating information has become a legally sanctioned form of hidden censorship in Poland." [3] Almost all media stood in defense of "Dziennik Bałtycki" at that time. Both national and regional titles:

"The ban on publication cannot (...) apply to texts that do not exist and are unknown to the court. (...) The decision made against "Dziennik Bałtycki" is yet another instance where the court takes on the role of preventive censorship, prohibited by Art. 54, paragraph 2 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland. We consider this practice illegal and, moreover, a drastic threat to press freedom in Poland." [4] – thundered Andrzej Goszczyński and Professor Andrzej Rzepliński from the Center for Monitoring and Freedom of the Press. "Polish courts have serious problems distinguishing between protecting reputation and infringing freedom of speech. Court decisions demonstrate that they prioritize the interests of companies over freedom of expression," reported Maciej Atowski in "The Warsaw Voice." [5] "This is a particularly drastic case of restricting press freedom: any future articles from "Dziennik Bałtycki" about "Banpol" are automatically crossed out with a red pencil by the judge from Gdańsk!" – protested Wojciech Sadurski from "Rzeczpospolita." [6]

However, the court did not acknowledge the protests, and "Banpol" became so emboldened that it sued "Rzeczpospolita," which followed the trail of "Dziennik Bałtycki" and also extensively covered the topic. The trial against "Dziennik Bałtycki" ended only in March 2001. The court ruled that the newspaper did not violate the image of "Banpol" and did not have to pay three million zlotys in compensation.

This case is unfortunately not isolated. At the end of 1999, a court prohibited "Nowy Kurier Szczeciński" not only from writing but even from gathering information about three councilors suspected of abusing their positions to transfer city land to the housing cooperative "Bryza." All were equally active in the cooperative and in the city hall, and the fact that one of the councilors is simultaneously the president of "Bryza" added flavor to the case. The newspaper discovered that the land acquired from the city was sold by the cooperative at a huge profit for the construction of a supermarket. However, the Szczecin District Court, at the request of the councilors, decided to silence the journalists.

"This ruling stands in contradiction to the law in force in Poland. (...) It is especially shocking that the verdict was issued against a newsroom attempting to illuminate a significant issue for the citizens of Szczecin (...)" – defended "Nowy Kurier" on behalf of the Center for Monitoring and Freedom of the Press its director Andrzej Goszczyński. [7] "The civil division of the Szczecin District Court took care of the councilors` interests," echoed the journalists of "Gazeta Wyborcza" in solidarity. [8] In their newspaper, they promised that they would continue to inform about the interests of Szczecin councilors and "Bryza."

With such a wave of protests, sobriety was only shown by the Szczecin Court of Appeal, which overturned the first-instance court ruling. The case resonated widely, not only in Poland. The trial against "Nowy Kurier Szczeciński" was noted in 1999 by the US State Department in its annual report on the observance of human rights worldwide. [9]

An example from the other side of the barricade: the Kraśnik prosecutor`s office accused Kraśnik mayor Piotr Czubiński of hindering press criticism, i.e., violating the Press Law. The notification of the commission of a crime was submitted by Mirosław Sznajder, publisher and editor-in-chief of "Nowiny Kraśnickie." However, on April 24, 2001, the Lublin District Court decided to discontinue the proceedings. It found no evidence of the alleged actions against the mayor.

Attacks on press freedom do not always end with nationwide resonance and do not always concern prohibitions. There are also reverse situations when journalists are forced to publish specific content. An example here can be the case from Pruszków. The mayor there ordered the local cable television to broadcast the entire sessions of the City Council. The reports could not contain a single word of journalistic commentary. The editorial team of the television news reported the problem to the Center for Monitoring and Freedom of the Press. Only after the CMWP`s intervention did the mayor abandon his risky idea.

Marcin Barnowski, a journalist from "Głos Pomorza," points out another aspect that undoubtedly affects the freedom of speech of the media: "Business increasingly influences publications in the media." Andrzej Goszczyński, head of the Center for Monitoring and Freedom of the Press, stated directly at the end of 1999: "This is the dark side of Polish media. Business much more effectively silences journalists than politicians." Signals of attempts to bribe journalists reach the Center. Andrzej Goszczyński: "Entrepreneurs pay for digging into competitors or for neglecting an unfavorable topic. Some companies try to influence newspapers by ordering, for example, a series of advertisements. Then the editorial team seriously considers before writing that an advertiser is, for example, polluting the environment." [10]

Evidence of this thesis is provided by Jacek Łęski, editor-in-chief of "Gazeta Radomszczańska": "We were threatened with withdrawal of advertising because we wrote critically about the company. We never bowed." [11] The open question remains how many have bowed. And still bend.
Polish media, twelve years after democracy, still have problems with freedom of speech. This problem was already signaled in 1997 by Ewa Nowińska and Andrzej Goszczyński in the pages of "Polityka": The restructuring of the media market after 1989 resulted in journalists becoming one of those social groups in Poland that, in a sense, twisted the noose around their own necks. The systemic change was accompanied by ideals of freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and definitive abolition of censorship. The ownership transformations of the press market were also meant to serve freedom and democracy. If, therefore, after eight years, we ask who really governs the media, it means that the style of this governance increasingly concerns us. [11]

2. Providing Information

"It does not pay for local authorities to fight an independent newspaper. Especially one that has existed for several years and is rooted in the community. Local authorities can win a battle, but they often lose the final war. The authorities will change, but the newspaper will remain." [12]

This thesis proposed by Kamila Mróz from "Tygodnik Tucholski" should be placed on a large board in every municipal council`s meeting room. The battle between politicians and journalists is ongoing, and in small communities, its consequences can be dire.

The conflict between offices and editorial teams often arises from the fact that both institutions have a completely different view of what is important for media audiences. The City Council in Susz even went so far as to instruct the journalists of "Nowy Kurier Iławski" on what they should cover in their columns. [13] No one likes to be controlled, and it is precisely the media`s exercise of this control function that is most difficult for local governments to reconcile. Therefore, the most frequently broken law by politicians at all levels of government, directors, and heads of all kinds of public and private institutions is the right to information, which is most often exercised by journalists on behalf of society.

Such fate befell, among others, the journalists of Tygodnik Tucholski, as they did not fail to write in their pages:
"Hospital director Izabela Bartkowiak and deputy director Jarosław Katulski have decided not to provide `Tygodnik Tucholski` with information about events in the ambulance service. The reason is undoubtedly an article that appeared last week, which concerned, among other things, the deputy director`s abandonment of the New Year`s Eve shift, during which he was having fun at a party." [14]

A similar problem confronted journalists from "Głos Pomorza":

"The day before yesterday, in Tuesday`s edition of `GP,` we informed that the authorities of the Baltic Higher Humanistic School were supposed to meet with students to inform them about the current situation of the school in light of publicly known facts: including the ZUS`s application for the school`s bankruptcy and the temporary (until the end of June) permission for educational activities.

The meeting took place, but we still officially do not know what the students heard (not everyone was at the meeting, after all). The vice-rector of BWSH, Dr. hab. Andrzej Ostrokólski, a professor at BWSH, retired colonel in the Polish Army, opposed the presence of journalists at the meeting. To the questions we posed him on this matter, the rector agreed to answer only after they were presented in writing. In the interest of concerned students at BWSH, we made an exception. An official letter with questions reached the vice-rector`s office the same day, around 2 PM (although not without difficulties, as the fax failed four times, and ultimately, the letter was delivered to the vice-rector`s office personally by the editorial driver). (...) We requested an answer already on Tuesday so that we could immediately inform the many students eagerly interested in developments. However, we did not receive it on Tuesday. The vice-rector did not inform us that there would be no response either. Yesterday, after several reminders, we heard from the secretary: `The answer is being prepared. "GP" will receive it according to press law." [15]

The information blockade is often a vengeful response from offended local authorities for unfavorable articles about them. Emotions and inability to respond sensibly to criticism take precedence over competence.

"Gazeta Tczewska" was barred from information from the Gniew Commune Office after it published a photograph capturing a scuffle between one of the village heads and the deputy mayor of the city on its front page. The scuffle occurred during a heated debate about the state of education in the commune. The local authorities deemed that the newspaper had no right to publish such a photo and imposed an information blockade on it. [16] A somewhat different, yet similarly impactful method was employed against journalists by the mayor of Cekcyn in the Tuchola county. He personally censored materials from council sessions. He explained to journalists that he was conveying to them what was most important from the session. The editorial teams circumvented this procedure in an unusual way – they officially purchased the protocols from the chairman of the Commune Council.

In Ostróda, local councilors came up with the idea of prohibiting filming sessions at the end of 1996. They even claimed that with the consent of the majority of councilors in the room, they could expel all journalists. A few weeks later, councilors from Przemyśl agreed to a similar solution. Both cases met with immediate protests from local editorial teams. National titles – "Rzeczpospolita" and "Gazeta Wyborcza" – uniformly supported them. The Center for Monitoring and Freedom of the Press took a stance on the matter of these and all previous cases of municipal sessions being closed. It simultaneously appealed to all municipalities to abandon this practice and to MPs for the quickest legal regulation. [17]
The effect – as one can easily guess – was rather negligible. In March 1999, other local authorities decided to silence the press. The City Council in Ostróda ordered the media to authorize literally quoted statements made by councilors during sessions. Ironically, the chairman of the Council, Tadeusz Łukasiewicz, justified this decision... with the provisions of the Press Law. [18]

In December 1999, the local authorities from Wałbrzych set barriers for journalists. The City Council adopted a resolution to appoint an officer for the protection of classified information within the office. One of the officer`s duties sounded especially unserious: "to protect information that could damage the prestige of the office." [19] Heads of all departments of the City Hall were to prepare a list of documents that should be classified. However, the decision on which documents should end up on that list was left not to the provisions of the law, but to individual officials. It was also worrying and very suspicious that it was decided from the top to classify all international agreements signed by the Wałbrzych City Hall. Protests from opposition councilors and Wałbrzych journalists were immediate. The office only retreated from its ideas after a year.

In the regulations of the City and Commune Council of Żychlin, a provision was included in 2000 stating: "at the request of at least 1/4 of the number of councilors present at the session, the Council may decide that due to important social interests of the commune or individual citizens, the entire session or discussions on specific items on the agenda will take place behind closed doors." The Center for Monitoring and Freedom of the Press, alerted by journalists from "Nowy Łowiczanin," sent a letter to the Lodz Voivode requesting the annulment of the above provision as contrary to the Constitution and the Press Law. On July 13, 2000, the voivode ruled that the above regulation was unlawful.

Efforts by journalists from "Gazeta Goleniowska," who in February 2001 attempted to unblock access to information from the Goleniów City Office, were in vain. The problem was very serious – officials at various levels, as well as their superiors, did not want to provide information without the mayor`s consent. The mayor, in turn, avoided normal contact with journalists by all means. An open letter to councilors, in which journalists asked for their help, did not even help. [20] Representatives of the residents did not find it appropriate to deal with this matter.

Secret sessions are a practice not only used in municipalities. In April 2001, the West Pomeranian Regional Health Fund did not allow journalists from "Gazeta na Pomorzu," a local supplement of "Gazeta Wyborcza," to attend its meeting. The RZKCh Council was discussing the controversial purchase of a new headquarters and the allocation of funds from insurance contributions. Its management justified the decision... with the Press Law.

A violation of the obligation to provide information is conveying information only to selected titles. Unfortunately, this practice is used far too often.

In June 2001, individuals accompanying Zygmunt Nissenbaum, the president of the Nissenbaum Family Foundation, were allowed onto the fenced area of exhumation works in Jedwabne. These were the only individuals permitted to film the exhumation site. The photos were immediately sold to a commercial television station and broadcasted that same evening by TVN. However, no journalists present in Jedwabne were allowed to the exhumation site.
"We protest against the discrimination against us, journalists, and the division into those deserving and unworthy access to information. We demand an explanation for this unfortunate incident" - this is the content of a letter addressed to Professor Leon Kieres, the president of the Institute of National Remembrance, by journalists from Polskie Radio Białystok SA, "Gazeta Współczesna," "Kurier Poranny," Telewizja Polska SA in Białystok, and "Gazeta Wyborcza - Gazeta in Białystok."

A clinical example of selective treatment of the media was the recent situation in Zakopane. "The division between privileged media and those under censorship deepened when Zakopane was bidding to host the Winter Olympics. Editorial teams that did not approve of the city`s efforts faced restricted access to not only municipal information but also Olympic information," [21] journalist Maciej Krupa points out. The local "Tygodnik Podhalanski," due to a series of critical articles about the mayor, not only faced restricted access to information but also lost a column funded by the municipality.

The most common case of violating the right to information is the concealment of official documents. Starting from contracts made by officials with external investors to protocols from municipal commission meetings. Local governments often cloak the amounts of their salaries in strict secrecy, although these come directly from taxes, i.e., from the money of all citizens. Officials – like, for example, the authorities of Radomsko – hide behind the claim that the amount of remuneration is protected by the Act on the Protection of Personal Rights. They often believe this themselves, although they are, of course, mistaken. [22] Already in 1993, the Supreme Administrative Court ruled that "the remuneration of local government employees does not constitute state or official secrecy, nor can it be included in data concerning private life, as referred to in Article 14, paragraph 6 of the Press Law."

Refusing to provide information to the press also contradicts the law in force in Poland. In the regulation of the Council of Ministers of November 7, 1995, regarding the procedure for providing information to the press and the organization and tasks of press spokespersons in local government offices, the matter seems to be clearly regulated. The regulation imposes specific obligations on local governments: to provide complete, reliable, and up-to-date information, to respond to journalists` inquiries within 24 hours at the latest, to show initiative in establishing contact with the press, and in case of refusal, to present rational reasons (e.g., state secrecy), to prevent hindering press criticism, and finally, the obligation to respond to press criticism.

Despite such clear provisions, local governments often trivialize them.

The Center for Monitoring and Freedom of the Press prepared special information in early 1997 for all journalists of local and regional media facing similar problems. The CMWP provides a detailed list of all legal acts that a journalist can invoke when demanding answers to the above questions. [24]

Journalists can refer, for example, to the aforementioned ruling of the Supreme Administrative Court from February 8, 1993. The court ruled that the remuneration of local government employees – including the mayor, deputy mayor, and treasurer – does not constitute state or official secrecy under the law. Even such arguments did not resonate with all local governments.

The provisions of Article 4 of the Press Law are frequently abused here. Dr. hab. Ewa Nowińska from the Institute of Invention and Protection of Intellectual Property at Jagiellonian University argues that institutions of all types interpret the provision imposing the obligation to provide information to the media arbitrarily. [25] An example may be the introduction of accreditation for meetings of municipal bodies that are public by nature. Of course, one can demand respect for the provisions of the Press Law in court, but not in every case, which may raise doubts.

Ewa Nowińska: "One cannot avail oneself of the judicial review route when the refusal comes from the authorities of the state or the judiciary. There may be doubts about the validity of this provision, especially concerning the authorities. It seems that there is no reason for the court not to review the legitimacy of their negative stance towards journalists` requests. Experience indicates that one cannot fully trust the correctness of the actions of representatives of state authorities. This provision is a sign of the times in which this law was created."

These last issues have been the subject of several lawsuits before the Supreme Administrative Court. The pioneering case involved the weekly "Słowo Podlasia," which filed a case against local authorities from the Łosice municipality that refused to provide the protocol from a meeting of the auditing committee of the local City and Commune Council. [26] The meeting`s subject was an assessment of the previous city management. Initially, the NSA maintained that the media could not demand the protocol from meetings that had been excluded from public disclosure. The court also stated that the granting of a confidentiality clause is not subject to any procedure, and thus cannot be contested as a decision, order, or any act subject to NSA control. If a local government body designates certain information, e.g., the protocol from a session, as "confidential" or "restricted" – the NSA concluded – only it or the superior authority may (but is not obliged to) provide them.

Such a ruling immediately met with full outrage from the journalistic community: "This adverse ruling may significantly threaten the realization – fundamental in a democratic country – of the media`s control function, performed in the public interest," alarmed the Association of Journalists of the Republic of Poland. [27] The Center for Monitoring and Freedom of the Press argued that the court was posed the wrong questions – they were not asked whether it is permissible to conceal such meetings, but whether documents from a secret meeting are also confidential.


Since the NSA ruling, the NSA president filed an extraordinary appeal to the Supreme Court. He accused the ruling of violating Article 2 and Article 4, paragraphs 1 to 4 of the Press Law in relation to the provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, i.e., Article 14 (freedom of the press and other means of social communication); Article 61 (the citizen`s right to obtain information about the activities of public authorities and individuals holding public functions); Article 184 (NSA control over the activities of public administration). The Supreme Court, composed of three judges, agreed with the NSA president`s position and accepted the extraordinary appeal. Unfortunately, cases of refusal to provide information to the media have not ceased. However, most local media do not want to initiate legal battles in this matter. It seems that the fear of losing a source of information is stronger than the pursuit of truth. Mariusz Piotrowski, editor-in-chief of "Gazeta Giżycka": "For some time now, I have been making the mayor of Giżycko aware that if the commune does not provide us with reliable information, we will write unreliably." Stanisław Sierko, editor-in-chief of "Gazeta Kociewska": "It is absurd that after ten years of self-governance, we, journalists, have such problems."

Fortunately, there is no shortage of evidence that journalists win legal battles for access to information. After the first "failure," the Supreme Administrative Court scrutinizes each case directed to it more closely. Therefore, editorial teams are increasingly able to rub the noses of obstinate officials and business representatives unwilling to reveal the behind-the-scenes of their work. In January 2001, "Płońszczak Press," a county weekly from Płońsk, won a case against the mayor of the city before the NSA. The politician did not want to answer questions posed to him in writing by the editorial team, arguing that all the information the journalists obtained was during the city council meetings. However, the Supreme Administrative Court did not agree with him and ordered him to answer the questions posed by the journalists.

The village head of Lutomiersk also achieved nothing when he refused to disclose the protocols of the Village Council meetings to either journalists or residents. The Supreme Administrative Court ruled in this matter that "normal relationships in a local government body should be characterized by transparency."

Perhaps the absurd plebiscite "Iron Padlock," announced in 2001 by the editorial team of the weekly "Wprost" and the Center for Monitoring and Freedom of the Press, will influence the improvement of the situation in this regard. Its outcome should be the creation of a list of the most closed and unfriendly offices of state administration, local government bodies, courts, and other public institutions for journalists and the public. The creation of this list will be part of a campaign to collect signatures for a civic project of the Law on the Right to Information.

3. Truthfulness of the Message

"In a democracy, a newspaper publishes what it considers to be the truth. It is verified by readers and advertisers," [28] believes Mariusz Ziomecki from Axel Springer Publishing. According to his thesis, a newspaper that makes mistakes too often does not adhere to standards, bores its audience, or shows too great a bias toward any political side will eventually lose credibility. The market will assess whether there is room for such a title.

In a similar tone, during a parliamentary debate on the amendment of the Press Law, MP Andrzej Osnowski stated on October 20, 1999: "The best verifier of journalistic skills is the readers who either reach for a given title or not. If the newspaper lies, if it is made uninterestingly, it will simply fail. This is solely the publisher`s problem. It is his money, his concern." [29]

However, the Press Law imposes on journalists the duty to verify and convey facts accurately. How, however, to assess whether the information obtained by a journalist is true or not? A good example of how slippery the line can be is the case in which Gdańsk`s president, Paweł Adamowicz, sued "Gazeta Morska," a regional supplement of "Gazeta Wyborcza," in 1999. Waldemar Kuchanny, a journalist from "Gazeta," accused the president of having taken 20,000 zlotys in unwarranted allowances. The text was based on an anonymous tip circulating among Gdańsk councilors. The author did not give the president a chance to defend himself. According to Paweł Adamowicz, this violated the fundamental principle of objectivity and hearing the other side`s argument. The Gdańsk District Court upheld the president`s claims, but the journalist got off lightly. He was acquitted because the judges ruled that public figures "must reckon with heightened media interest."

Accusations of publishing falsehoods directed at the media by public figures are not rare. Szczecin`s vice-mayor, Dariusz Wieczorek, at a press conference on May 21, 2001, accused all Szczecin media of providing false information regarding two establishments: Szmaragd and Grota, over which the city was in dispute with the Private Tourism Company "Pomerania." The vice-mayor had serious arguments to support his claims, to which the media eventually had to concede.

The case of publishing false information by the Ząbkowice County Weekly ended in court in the summer of 2001. Ryszard Bierut, a local politician from the Democratic Left Alliance, accused the editor-in-chief and a journalist of violating personal rights. The weekly wrote that the politician was running unclear and suspicious business dealings. The fact that the article was published shortly before the parliamentary elections in which Ryszard Bierut was running for a seat added flavor to the case. In court, it was revealed that the editorial team had no evidence to confirm its information. The journalist obtained it from a conversation with the politician`s neighbor but did not take the trouble to verify it. The court upheld Ryszard Bierut`s claims. However, it treated the journalists rather leniently – it ordered them to apologize to the politician in the pages of their newspaper.

The "Misja Czatimii" Institute of Knowledge from Lublin accused the chairperson of the Movement for Family and Individual Defense and the media that published her words, claiming that the Institute is a sect that kidnaps children, of violating personal rights by providing false information. In June 1999, the Lublin District Court upheld the position of IWoT and ordered the apologies to be issued.

In June 2001, the Gdańsk District Court proved the journalist from "Głos Wybrzeża," Tomasz Gawiński, was unreliable. In a series of publications in the autumn of 1996, the journalist accused police chief Mieczysław Prokop of covering up police officers who committed offenses or crimes. According to the court, the journalist could not prove that the information he provided was true. The court ordered Gawiński to apologize to the police chief and pay an 8,000 zloty fine.

False information most often arises from the fact that journalists do not even try – which is already reprehensible in itself – to check the obtained information and possibly juxtapose it with conflicting opinions. An example of such thinking is "Ziemia Kaliska," which published in April 2000 a list of accusations made by a competing television station, Kaliska Cable Television. The journalists did not present the other side`s argument. Following a firm protest from its head, Michał Lange, "Ziemia Kaliska" had to retract all the false information that appeared in its pages.

A similar case occurred in Skarbimierz in Opole province. Local media raised an uproar when rumors emerged that a waste incinerator was to be built at the edge of a sports airport. Although the mayor of Brzeg initially denied the reports, and the information eventually turned out to be unverified, the media fueled the situation. Information about direct threats sells best. In this case, no one faced any consequences. The only question remains whether the dissemination of such disturbing but unverified information deserves moral condemnation.

The truthfulness of the message can also be debated in the case of an interview conducted by journalists from the Łódź branch of Polish Television with Grzegorz Piotrowski, the murderer of Father Jerzy Popiełuszko. The fifteen-minute interview aired on March 9, 2000, caused a stir in Łódź television. The murderer answered questions arrogantly – he insulted judges and stated that Father Popiełuszko died by accident while "trying to free himself from bonds." [30]

The interview concluded with an advertisement for the Łódź weekly "Fakty i Mity," which engaged Piotrowski as a regular columnist. The message was not accompanied by any commentary. This could give the impression that the television endorsed the lies – for there is no other way to name it – put forward by the former Security Service officer. The reaction of politicians, the National Broadcasting Council, and many other editorial teams led to the dismissal of the journalists who conducted the interview – Marek Machwitz and Dariusz Drewnicz. TVP president Robert Kwiatkowski dismissed the head of information and public relations of the Łódź branch, Waldemar Wiśniewski, and the editor of the "Wiadomości Dnia" edition, Wojciech Jańczyk. The head of the Łódź branch of TVP, Witold Skomorowski, resigned. The dismissed journalists defended themselves by stating that the decision to air the interview was made at the highest level of the branch. Regardless of who made this reckless decision, the Łódź branch of Polish Television lost credibility. Subsequent surveys by Pentor conducted on Polish television viewers showed that this affected the assessment of the credibility of the entire public television.

A significant violation of the truthfulness of the message is also the creation of reality – unfortunately practiced by all media. Journalists explain that often it is impossible to cut a story without slightly directing the situation. But is it really? Piotr Kobalczyk described several downright absurd situations in the "Press" magazine in April 2000: "A local newspaper editor, the day before the World Cup begins, only has a photo of an empty stadium, while the information about the opening of the championships is supposed to go on the front page. He grabs a marker and draws in a hundred thousand viewers. The photo goes out, and the readers have no objections. The viewers look real because the quality of the newspaper`s print leaves much to be desired. (...) The crew of one of the regional TVP branches is late for a high-profile trial. The accused is no longer in court. Armed policemen in masks took him out. But the television showed the policemen escorting the detainee. Friendly police officers donned masks once more and reenacted the entire scene before the cameras." [31]

The so-called "cranking the topic" usually has no negative consequences. Sometimes it is otherwise. When, in early 2000, one of the Greater Poland dailies reported that children from a rural school were being transported there in a barred prison van, it caused a nationwide uproar. Politicians attacked the Minister of Education, and all influential titles thundered at the authors of this idea. Meanwhile, it turned out that the "prison van" was simply a regular passenger van. However, the journalist unequivocally associated it with a police car. The matter was quickly clarified, but the bad taste remained.

The Szczecin branch of Polish Television also created a sensational topic at the beginning of 2000. Journalists showed the action of retrieving bodies from a lake near the city. The report had a sensational tone. The footage circulated in all national editions of "Wiadomości" and "Panorama." Meanwhile, as quickly established by press journalists, it was a site visit conducted a year after the entire event. They accused the television reporters of creating reality. The management of TV Szczecin defended their reporter, claiming that the other journalists were simply envious of good relations with the police.

Media creation of reality can only be explained by one thing – sensational topics are easier to sell and undoubtedly provide significantly better profits. The only problem is that journalism in this case becomes an art in itself, and the recipient pays the price. Leszek Fabiańczyk, a journalist from the Koszalin branch of TV Szczecin, summarizes this situation unequivocally: "It should be like this: truth, sense, and speed. Instead, it is: speed, speed, speed."

Fortunately, the truthfulness of the message in local media is easy to monitor. The recipients of these media – readers, radio listeners, or television viewers – personally do this. They are often the heroes of the described events and situations. Readers will point out any error, whether serious or minor. This is best illustrated by an anecdote circulating in the editorial office of "Kurek Mazurski." A report about a fire in a village was published in the newspaper. The journalist – Monika Hausman-Pniewska – wrote that people were carrying televisions, furniture, and bedding out in front of their homes. On the day of publication, an outraged reader called the editorial office. She firmly stated that there were no bedding items in her house or any of her neighbors. Everyone has duvets.

Residents of Szczecin could also easily unmask the manipulation of journalists from "Gazeta na Pomorzu," a local supplement to "Gazeta Wyborcza." In a photo of the pier in Międzyzdroje from July 1, 2000, the banner of the competing newspaper "Głos Szczeciński" was digitally removed. [32] While one might understand that the editorial team of "Gazeta na Pomorzu" did not want to promote a competing title, removing a fragment of the photograph can only be regarded as creating reality. Although in this case, it would be better to speak – and this is a much better description – of its concealment.

The last example is a lawsuit filed against the Lower Silesian newspaper "Wieczór Wrocławia" by Janusz Korwin Mikke, who was running for a Senate seat in Wrocław. The newspaper clearly distorted the politician`s words. The journalist, covering the election meeting of the leader of the Real Politics Union, wrote that the UPR politician stated during the rally that "it was better under Hitler." This is how he titled the text dedicated to the UPR campaign. Korwin Mikke accused the newspaper of twisting his statement and sued it in the election court.

The Wrocław District Court ruled in favor of the politician and stated that he did not say the words "It was better under Hitler." During the rally, according to the court, the politician spoke only about taxes, which were lower under Hitler.

The ruling was upheld by the Wrocław Court of Appeal. Evidence included recordings broadcast on Polish Radio Wrocław, which unequivocally proved that Janusz Korwin Mikke did not utter the attributed words, and the journalist aimed to "enhance" the report. The editorial office was fined 10,000 zlotys in favor of a children`s home in Oświęcim.

*****

• [1] The website of the City and Municipality of Oława, www.olawa.pl
• [2] Jan Kreft, Behind the Scenes of a Certain Contract, "Dziennik Bałtycki," May 12, 1998
• [3] Marek Trzebiatowski, You Won`t Write, "Press" No. 12/1998
• [4] Statement of the Center for Monitoring and Freedom of the Press, Warsaw, December 3, 1998
• [5] Maciej Atowski, Freedoms of the Press, "The Warsaw Voice," May 29, 1999
• [6] Wojciech Sadurski, Judge with a Red Pencil, "Rzeczpospolita," August 31, 1999
• [7] Statement of the Center for Monitoring Freedom of the Press regarding the ban on publication for "Nowy Kurier" dated August 24, 1999
• [8] Adam Zadworny, Paula Koterwa, Press Gag, "Gazeta Wyborcza," August 25, 1999
• [9] US State Department Report on Human Rights Practices Worldwide in 1999
• [10] Marcin Barnowski, Pre-litigation States, "Press" No. 12/1999
• [11] Ewa Nowińska, Andrzej Goszczyński, Problems with Freedom, "Polityka" No. 40/1977
• [12] Kamila Mróz, Local Professionalism, "Press" No. 5/2000
• [13] Statement of the City Council in Susz
• [14] Kamila Mróz, Information Blockade for "Tygodnik," "Tygodnik Tucholski" No. 5/2000 (attachment No. 4)
• [15] Piotr Kobalczyk, Forward Escape, "Głos Pomorza," May 11, 2000
• [16] Kamila Mróz, Rafał Wodziczko, Arbitrary Actions, "Press" No. 10/2000
• [17] Position of the Center for Monitoring Freedom of the Press regarding the secrecy of municipal meetings dated October 2, 1996
• [18] Andrzej Goszczyński, How the Mayor Deals with Journalists, "Rzeczpospolita," May 25, 1999
• [19] Magdalena Sośnicka, Rafał P. Palacz, Return of Censorship?, "Gazeta Wrocławska," December 13, 1999
• [20] Open letter to the Chairman and Councilors of the City Council in Goleniów, February 6, 2001
• [21] Maciej Krupa, Zakopane Media, "Press" No. 7/1999
• [22] Ewa Nowińska, Andrzej Goszczyński, Freedom in the Pen, "Rzeczpospolita" January 31, 1997
• [23] Ruling of the Supreme Administrative Court (Case No. I S.A. 1254/92 from February 8, 1993)
• [24] Information for Journalists from the Center for Monitoring Freedom of the Press dated January 13, 1997
• [25] Dr. hab. Ewa Nowińska, The Secret of Secrets, "Press" No. 11/1999
• [26] Anig, Small Weekly, Big Case, "Press" No. 4/2000
• [27] Statement of the Center for Monitoring Freedom of the Press regarding the ruling of the NSA in the case of "Słowo Podlasia" dated March 24, 2000
• [28] Mariusz Ziomecki, From Judge to Editor, "Press" No. 6/2000
• [29] Transcript from the Proceedings of the Sejm, 3rd term, 61st session, day 1 (October 20, 1999), item 8 of the agenda - first reading of the parliamentary draft of the Press Law (print 443)
• [30] Anna Głowacka, They Made Us Film, "Press" No. 4/2000
• [31] Piotr Kobalczyk, News Creation, "Press" No. 4/2000
• [32] Anig, Missing Detail, or Manipulators, "Press" No. 8/2000

Read all articles in the series Local Media in Poland.