“The National Council safeguards freedom of speech in radio and television (…) and ensures the open and pluralistic nature of radio and television”—this is stipulated in Article 6 of the Broadcasting Act. Therefore, Prof. Tadeusz Kowalski, a declared opponent of freedom of speech and pluralism—both during the communist era, when he proposed limiting guaranteed paper allocations to titles “prioritized by the political authority,” and today, when he seeks in an identical manner to eliminate broadcasting guarantees for Telewizja Republika—cannot be a member of the Council. A fox cannot guard the henhouse. Professor, it is time to resign from membership in the National Broadcasting Council (KRRiT), writes Piotr Lisiewicz for the Niezależna.pl portal.
My article, “The Shameful Past of a KRRiT Member: How Prof. Kowalski Supported the Jaruzelski Junta’s Fight Against Freedom of Speech,” unsettled many people and institutions. Let us recall that I quoted how, during the communist era, Prof. Tadeusz Kowalski cared about “the fullest possible implementation of the party’s propaganda program” and “sufficient influence of the PZPR” over RSW Prasa Książka Ruch. He advocated limiting guaranteed paper allocations to titles “prioritized by the political authority.” Two years before the Round Table, he “expressed the view” that the emergence of a publishing system “in the sense of disseminating ideologically diverse content” was “very distant in time.”
Dr. hab. Hanna Karp, Deputy Chair of the National Broadcasting Council, responded to the article by writing to Prof. Kowalski that the Gazeta Polska text “contains many troubling pieces of information related to your professional and academic work, previously entirely unknown.” She asked about the quotations and facts I disclosed, requesting confirmation or denial of their accuracy. Prof. Kowalski replied to her letter, but in a completely evasive manner that did not address what I revealed. We publish that reply below so that everyone can become familiar with the professor’s reasoning.
First, the professor writes that my article contained “disinformation elements,” which he “mercifully passes over in silence.” Where is the logic here, Professor? If there is disinformation in a text, it should not be passed over, but mercilessly exposed. That I should have to explain this to a media studies scholar… Silence—merciful or otherwise—is appropriate when there is no disinformation, and this is how one must understand your stance.
Second, we learn that Dr. Hanna Karp should not cite the weekly Gazeta Polska because Prof. Tadeusz Kowalski assesses its credibility as “very low.” Yet he still does not indicate a single untrue or even manipulated quotation in my text. Professor, it was not Gazeta Polska that authored those words—it was you, in Zeszyty Prasoznawcze! Are you assessing yourself as “very low”?
Third, we read that Prof. Kowalski’s doctoral dissertation, “RSW Prasa–Książka–Ruch under Conditions of Economic Reform in the Years 1981–1983,” “passed all verification procedures at one of Poland’s best universities, the University of Warsaw.” One can only remark sarcastically that it would have been hard for it not to pass, given that its reviewers included Associate Professor Wiesław Rydygier—the penultimate… president of RSW Prasa Książka Ruch—who, during the Stalinist period (1950–1951), worked in censorship, i.e., the Main Office for the Control of the Press, as a referent; and Prof. Antoni Rajkiewicz, who during martial law, in the era of ration cards and empty shelves, served as Minister of Labor, Wages and Social Affairs in the government of Wojciech Jaruzelski and as a member of the Social Policy Commission of the Central Committee of the PZPR. During the Stalinist period he was active in the PPR and the PZPR. The supervisor of Tadeusz Kowalski’s dissertation was Tadeusz Kupis, the author of a book setting standards for communist journalism, “The Profession of Journalist in People’s Poland.” For such reviewers and a supervisor, the dissertation was undoubtedly exemplary—brilliant, perhaps even brilliant to the point of genius!
Fourth, the professor deems my text “inadmissible, unauthorized pressure exerted on him as a public official.” What punishment should follow for that? Under communism, the professor would certainly have favored stripping Gazeta Polska of its paper allocation, because it was not “prioritized by the political authority.” And he would have acted to ensure that Gazeta Polska had “sufficient influence of the PZPR.” Today it is more complicated—but in the case of Telewizja Republika, not necessarily so: slash, bang, and the license is taken away, just like paper once was. And then the professor may triumphantly announce that the operation of television stations “in the sense of disseminating ideologically diverse content” is “very distant in time.”