{}

The Civic Platform has long shared satirical lists on its social feeds. This time, drawing from posts by PO on the X platform, the public can see how TVP looked during the PiS years and how it appears today. The claim is simple and striking: the ruling coalition declares that the prison has closed. The question for readers is clear: is this claim true?

Though Civic Platform is no longer the largest opposition faction, it remains the central group within the ruling coalition’s broader front. It seems to take cues from controversial profiles such as SokZBurak, periodically publishing lists meant to depict how the Polish state operated under PiS and to suggest that the current government has improved matters in key ministries. These comparisons are crafted to cast United Right ministers in a more favorable light and to contrast their successors with past leadership.

“New government, new standards”

The discourse shifts as Donald Tusk’s party examines public media more closely.

We have closed the waiting room.

— Tusk’s party asserts, aiming to underline a change in tone and operation.

NEW GOVERNMENT = NEW STANDARDS

— a caption attached to an entry inviting readers to compare.

At the top, a photo shows the current head of the Ministry of Culture and National Heritage with a caption promoting objective and open public media.

At the bottom, a former minister, Piotr Gliński, appears with a contrasting message about propaganda and hatred in public media.

PO has rolled out similar lists before, using the format to argue that party resources should no longer be used for political purposes.

The message becomes explicit: now is the moment for professionals at the Ministry of Agriculture.

Well, perhaps not as it first seems.

“Well, not really.”

The latest TVP summary, especially when viewed alongside analyses from the Demagog platform, sparked a broad range of reactions. Critics often responded with skepticism, while some found humor in the contrasts presented.

From the Demagogue Report comes commentary about the media landscape and how public broadcasting is perceived. The notes suggest that the current broadcasting output resembles a cable channel with less independence than before, prompting debate about editorial direction and governance.

On the other hand, supporters or commentators frame the developments as a success, highlighting shifts in policy and practice within public media.

The exchange also touched on social media engagement, with questions about who generates these posts and how much influence individual accounts have on public perception.

A public conversation exists about whether the media are organizing substantive debates on ongoing projects and how government and parliamentary representatives engage with citizens on topics such as water quality and public services.

The central theme remains that the public map should stay current and visible, with ongoing coverage of issues like the availability of clean water and the role of media in presenting government plans.

Readers are directed toward additional coverage and commentary on public media and its governance, including discussions of accountability and transparency.

There is a sense of disappointment that political messaging might overlook the intelligence of supporters and potential voters, while others see these exchanges as a form of political theatre that keeps public attention focused on media narratives.

Any discussion about these topics notes the existence of a wider media ecosystem and the ways in which political actors seek to influence public opinion through online and broadcast channels.

All in all, the conversation underscores the importance of media literacy and the need for citizens to assess claims, compare sources, and seek direct information from official channels when possible.

This ongoing discourse mirrors the broader public interest in how institutions operate, how information is presented, and how accountability is maintained in a rapidly evolving media environment.

In the end, the debate centers on the balance between media independence, political messaging, and the public’s right to clear, factual information.

Students and commentators alike stay engaged, asking questions about transparency and the practical impact of media policies on everyday life.

Overall, the public conversation reflects a desire for clarity, accountability, and open debate as core elements of a healthy democratic process.