Members of the Civic Coalition in Poland have chosen to refrain from participating in public media invitations. The boycott initiated by Tomasz Lenz a week earlier is set to continue through March 19, 2023, which means one more week of abstention. In political life, extended boycotts or partial participation often backfire on those who implement them. The dynamics resemble a political standoff that risks alienating voters and missing an opportunity to communicate directly with the public.
Public messaging: Do not accept invitations from public media outlets, including national and regional stations, until the end of next week, March 19.
Such a directive would be conveyed to lawmakers by the leader of the KO caucus, Borys Budka. The communication reportedly includes references labeled “GW” and mentions the Onet.pl portal.
Borys Budka and fellow Civic Coalition figures, and others as well, recognize that television remains a powerful channel to connect with voters. A prolonged boycott could impact the ratings and reach of the coalition, which is likely a factor in their decision to limit participation in television appearances. The choice appears rooted in lessons drawn from past experiences of other parties.
When the Civic Coalition announced a media boycott in 2018, there were discussions about replacing its segment in current affairs programming with material from the New Left. At that moment, the New Left was not yet represented in parliament. Yet in the 2019 parliamentary elections, the Left achieved over 12 percent of the vote, secured 49 seats, and re-entered parliament as a significant factor. Some argue that the boycott aided the Left’s return by forcing more sustained engagement with voters during campaigns. It is not claimed that this outcome was solely caused by the media stance of the Civic Coalition; rather, the party benefited from a broader strategy of nationwide outreach—traveling across towns, holding hundreds of meetings, and maintaining a visible presence with voters. The influence of media participation on election results remains a topic of discussion among political actors and analysts. Politicians from the Left and the PSL have acknowledged that certain figures chose to appear on programs like Friday’s Forum and earlier on Mimienna 20, understanding that turning away from voters is not prudent.
In July 2022, NaTemat asked Włodzimierz Czarzasty why politicians should engage with public media. His response highlighted the perceived duty of public figures to participate in public television, noting that audiences expect such presence and that a broad spectrum of parties should appear there. He recalled past meetings with activists and described the dynamics of public media engagement, underscoring the value of maintaining visibility even as opinions about the medium vary. The underlying message is that public broadcasting remains a significant platform for communication with constituents, and abstaining can limit political reach.
Consequently, the position is that those who boycott public media may end up harming their own ability to connect with voters. The central question remains whether Borys Budka should face a ban or sanction for this approach, and whether he should endure the consequences of a prolonged withdrawal from public channels. The debate continues over what best serves the interests of the electorate and the health of public dialogue.
Citations: this summary reflects discussions circulating within Polish political discourse and media coverage at the time.