First, it’s important to clarify what independent media actually are: by definition, they do not have to be right-wing, left-wing, or what is sometimes referred to as “centrist” or “symmetrically balanced.”
Independence means that media outlets represent the interests of public opinion, first and foremost, their audience, and that their ownership structure and sources of funding do not hinder them from doing so. In other words, an editorial team may lean left or right, but does so because it represents a specific group of viewers, listeners, or readers, and those in charge have consciously entered into an informal agreement with that audience. This does not change the fact that journalists, regardless of their views, must abide by the principles of journalistic ethics. The most fundamental of these principles is the diligent, professional pursuit and communication of truth, without succumbing to political pressure or any vested interests. Incorporating political correctness into news reporting is just as much an abuse as crafting it according to a politician’s script. Of course, commentary and opinion pieces are a different matter, where journalists have the right to express their own views, and editors may select commentators whose perspectives align with the editorial profile. Even then, to help readers understand the broader picture, a wide range of viewpoints should be taken into account.
The ownership structure alone does not necessarily preclude editorial independence, although, more often than not, those with financial power have little understanding of this principle. That’s why the structure should be as transparent as possible.
In every media outlet I’ve managed, I’ve aimed to maintain ownership control. If that wasn’t possible, I strictly adhered to the rule that I decide the editorial line. This is often explicitly written into the companies’ statutes. Contrary to the nonsense sometimes circulated in the public sphere, at TV Republika, I and my closest associates have full ownership control, and no political party or interest group has any say in our operations. Does that mean I personally monitor every piece of news, program, or commentary? That’s another misconception. An editor-in-chief, especially at a large company, should primarily define the editorial line and assemble a team capable of implementing it and defending the newsroom’s independence. They must also demand the same commitment from their colleagues.
After the fall of communism, Poland faced major challenges in establishing independent media. Financial resources remained in the hands of those involved in the old system or dependent on it. As a result, media outlets were often created by entities connected to former communists or the communist security services, or, worse, by individuals from the anti-communist opposition who had since aligned with the interests of the old regime.
This quickly led to oligarchic structures in media companies, and these pathologies worsened with the influx of foreign capital into the Polish market. Editorial decisions were driven not by the interests of the audience, but by the interests of owners aligned with post-communist networks.
Right-wing politicians attempted to counter this by establishing media outlets loyal to them or by taking over public broadcasters. We saw the real value of that strategy on December 19, 2023. It took the new government less than a week to shatter the illusion of right-wing public media and turn the institutions they seized into a cesspool of government propaganda.
A true alternative was finally built with TV Republika and the Free Speech Zone (Strefa Wolnego Słowa) media group. Why? Because we had spent years preparing for such a scenario. I harboured no illusions about the anti-democratic and censorial inclinations of Tusk’s team, nor about the so-called “solid safeguards” of the public media.
Trust and support from the state were essential to preserving freedom of speech in Poland. We received that support, and continue to do so, for which I am deeply grateful.
Today, the existence of independent media is not just a matter of open debate. It is increasingly clear that it is also a prerequisite for the survival of democracy, and perhaps even for Poland’s independence.
Independent media will never be a darling of any government. They are inconvenient for those they ideologically oppose and even for those closer to them politically. Yet without them, democracy becomes a caricature of itself. We represent the public, even when the institutions created for that purpose fail to do so.
In future elections, this issue must become one of the fundamental criteria for deciding whom to support. And from all forces that care about the good of Poland, especially the next president, I expect that this time, the issues of media independence and freedom will not be ignored.