Kazimierz Michał Ujazdowski comments on changes to public media and the role of the president
Kazimierz Michał Ujazdowski, a senator from PSL, spoke during Poranek Siódma9 about the pressure surrounding public media and the controversial actions taken by the government allied with Donald Tusk. He framed the debate around the legality and legitimacy of these moves, arguing that the final judgment about the chosen legal framework will hinge on how public media respond in the coming months and what shape they take in that period.
Ujazdowski emphasized that only after a period of observation could one determine whether the legal form for reform of public media was sound and reasonable. The ultimate conclusion, he noted, depends on the evolving portrayal of public media in the near future, shaping the overall assessment of the project and its radical nature.
He suggested that if TVP and Polskie Radio adhere to principles of pluralism and impartiality and avoid serving as instruments for discrediting the opposition, there will be a restoration of the core functions of the public media. This, in his view, would be crucial to evaluating the entire transformation process and its depth.
Despite the heated climate, Ujazdowski acknowledged that concerns about the actions of Donald Tusk’s coalition toward the public media have been voiced even by circles not aligned with PiS. He noted that these criticisms warrant attention as part of a broader public dialogue about media governance and accountability.
Jarosław Kaczyński was portrayed as ready to mount a strong, even disruptive, response to any reform of the public media. Ujazdowski warned that any form of transformation would provoke significant protest, but he also urged considering the viewpoints of non-governmental organizations, arguing that their reservations should be weighed in the debate about media reform and governance.
Ujazdowski later questioned why the coalition led by Donald Tusk did not pursue changes in the public media through normal, legal channels. He attributed responsibility to the president, suggesting a lack of reflection within the ruling camp regarding the state of public television and signaling there were no signs from the president’s office that an evolutionary, negotiated fix of the media was on the table.
He criticized the absence of serious attempts from the other side to curb the negativity of public propaganda and to propose a workable compromise. He indicated that the president’s position appears inconsistent with a move toward constructive change, implying that the current approach has not included meaningful engagement with opposing viewpoints.
According to Ujazdowski, the essential issue is not whether the minister’s current actions toward the public media meet legal standards, but rather what the media will look like going forward. He suggested that the president should engage in dialogue about potential reforms, rather than the other side dictating the terms of change. This framing reflects a belief that sustainable reform requires a presidential role in guiding a broad-based negotiation rather than unilateral shifts in control.
The remarks touched on a broader pattern in the political landscape, where questions of media governance intersect with power balances between the executive and the legislative branches. The discourse underscored how critical it is to ensure that public media retain independence, serve the public interest, and avoid political instrumentalization as the country navigates a period of significant political readjustment.
Observers noted that the debate extends beyond procedural questions about legal forms. The conversations encompass the credibility of public media, the integrity of journalistic reporting, and the ability of state broadcasters to provide balanced information in a polarized environment. The outcome of this policy discussion could have lasting implications for how media institutions operate and how they are overseen in the years ahead, with the potential to influence public trust and civic engagement.
Cited discussions emphasize that the ultimate evaluation rests on concrete changes that demonstrate true pluralism, transparency, and accountability within public broadcasting, rather than on rhetoric alone. The path forward remains a subject of intense debate among lawmakers, media professionals, and civic groups who are watching closely how leadership, political pressures, and institutional reforms interact in the public broadcaster ecosystem.
— Attribution: frequently cited statements and summaries reflect ongoing public discourse and media coverage across Polish outlets during the period of reform conversations. Notes and impressions quoted here are drawn from a synthesis of several reports and editorials as part of ongoing coverage of media policy in the country.