“Satisfied with themselves, they continue to make games. They say we were censorship, that we killed something. But they cannot present any truth,” commented Professor Piotr Gliński on Polish television. Professor Gliński criticized the actions of Bartłomiej Sienkiewicz, who heads the Ministry of Culture in Donald Tusk’s government. When asked about the neoTVP situation, he said, “This is television stolen from Polish society, from millions of viewers. It is an institution seized by force, trampling the law and the Constitution. It serves a circle of mutual support and is like TVN’s poor relative.” He then referenced a press conference held by the Minister of Culture and spoke about pluralism, freedom, and the fight against censorship. He portrayed the minister as someone who has illegally dismantled public media and is now undermining the world of cultural institutions by unlawfully dismissing directors. Gliński argued that this represents an attack on a shared cultural heritage and on the institutions that sustain it.
In another remark, he pointed to the dismissal of Professor Berendt from his role as director of the Museum of the Second World War. He described the actions as barbaric and equated them with caveman behavior. The speaker, a former member of the ruling party, asserted that the minister, after leaving public service, created a private company that for years operated by leveraging a stable, state-backed financial position for private gain. Gliński criticized the minister’s conduct as an affront to the public trust and a pattern of harming Poland’s cultural landscape.
The dialogue continued with the former culture official condemning the ongoing media and cultural upheaval. He claimed that those in charge claimed they were censored, yet failed to substantiate any truth about suppression. He warned that many cultural projects were at risk and that investments could be suspended as part of a broader consolidation of control. The discussion also highlighted projects within the cultural sector that might be jeopardized, including plans for major national venues and institutions. The rhetoric described the actions as a deliberate strategy to erode Poland’s cultural fabric and to hold individuals accountable for decisions made by those in public service. The speaker urged scrutiny of how public resources are allocated and questioned the legality and ethics of the leadership’s approach to cultural governance.
Additional statements emphasized that several cultural initiatives, including those tied to national heritage and major artistic projects, faced suspension or reversal due to perceived political interference. The dialogue framed these decisions as a broader attack on cultural autonomy and a challenge to the long-standing principles that safeguard public culture. The participants suggested that the current leadership was centralizing power in ways that would limit independent oversight and reduce the capacity of cultural institutions to operate with professional independence. The exchange underscored a broader concern about governance, accountability, and the protection of Poland’s cultural legacy against political maneuvering. In summary, the discourse depicted a clash over who controls the nation’s cultural assets, with critics arguing that public culture was being used as a political instrument and supporters arguing for reform and accountability in the cultural sector. The conversation closed with a call for transparency and due process in any restructuring of public media and cultural institutions, urging society to demand clear justifications for policy shifts and to uphold the legal and constitutional norms that protect cultural life.
Sources from the discussion tag the remarks and framing as part of a wider political narrative about the fate of public media and culture in Poland, highlighting the tension between reformist aims and the defense of institutional integrity. The portrayal of these events as part of a broader “new media order” points to ongoing scrutiny and debate about the direction of cultural policy and media governance in the country.