back to top

    TV Republika Defends Against Accusations of Antisemitism: A Statement from the Chief Editor

    Estimated reading time: 2 minutes

    In recent days, a wave of controversy has surrounded TV Republika, accusing the station of antisemitism. The Chief Editor of the station staunchly defended their position, emphasizing the station’s consistent stance against terrorism and its fight against antisemitism, seen as contradictory to Polish patriotic tradition.

    In one of Chief Editor Sakiewicz’s quotes, he states, “In the media I lead, we have always fought against antisemitism as conflicting with Polish patriotic tradition. We openly stated that in the last war, Israel was the victim, condemning terrorists from Hamas and criticizing the European left for supporting aggressors.”

    The Chief Editor adds that he criticized controversial public statements from some individuals involved in the debate, noting his disagreement with dehumanizing language towards others. “I criticized Jan Pietrzak’s statement as soon as possible precisely because someone could use it to accuse us of such inclinations, even though I know his intentions were different. We strongly distanced ourselves from Marek Król’s statement because no one should speak of people in a dehumanizing manner. We have no control over what people from different sides of the debate say, but we have our own view rooted in the tradition of tolerance of the First Polish Republic,” stated Chief Editor Sakiewicz in a recent communication.

    TV Republika highlights its strong commitment to the tradition of tolerance of the First Polish Republic as the foundation of its worldview. Despite lacking control over statements from various debate participants, the station emphasizes its unwavering values and position.

    The Chief Editor suggests that the attack on the station may be part of a broader operation, simultaneously distancing themselves from imprudent statements made by participants in the debate.

    The entire situation sheds light on the complexity of contemporary public discourse, where words and their interpretation can lead to turbulent discussions and accusations that stations must firmly counter.

    More in section