In a series of remarks, Law and Justice MEP Joachim Brudziński addressed a recent episode reported by the tabloid Fakt, which he characterized as alarmist. The focus of his comments was a gesture known in popular culture as the “fig with poppy seeds,” directed at Prime Minister Donald Tusk during a parliamentary meeting. Brudziński underscored that Fakt’s portrayal framed the gesture in a way that suggested a level of offense beyond the ordinary, implying a charged emotional context for readers while seemingly soft-pedaling harsher criticisms aimed at PiS politicians and their voters from the new parliamentary majority and the current government.
According to Brudziński, the tabloid appears to have no difficulty accusing politicians linked to Jarosław Kaczyński’s party of insults on a daily basis, yet treats the innocent poppy-seed figure gesture as if it bordered on hate speech. The contrast, he argued, reveals a double standard in media coverage that he believes tilts public perception and stirs controversy where none is warranted. He suggested that the level of sensitivity shown toward Prime Minister Tusk by the German press is strikingly disproportionate when compared with the ongoing, sometimes abrasive insinuations directed at his opponents within Poland.
Brudziński’s message, disseminated on the X platform, highlighted what he described as a remarkable inconsistency in media reporting. He called attention to the way the tabloid’s editorial stance appears to lean toward defending one side while condemning gestures from the other, even when those gestures are relatively benign. His commentary invited readers to consider whether everyday political discourse is being measured by different yardsticks depending on political affiliation, and he positioned the matter as part of a broader debate about media fairness and accountability in a polarized political environment.
The episode prompted readers to reflect on the language used by media outlets and the impact it has on public opinion. Brudziński maintained that while heated rhetoric and sharp critique are common in political debates, it is essential to avoid amplifying symbols or gestures in ways that could inflame tensions or misinform the public about the seriousness of such actions. He urged a more balanced approach to reporting that acknowledges the context of parliamentary disagreement without inflating the significance of cursory or symbolic acts.
In recalling the incident, Brudziński implied that other sides in the political spectrum benefit from a different media treatment, where negative portrayals and constant insinuations receive less scrutiny than a single, potentially provocative gesture. The discussion, he suggested, should center on the responsibilities of the press to provide accurate representation and avoid sensationalism that may distort the public’s understanding of political dynamics. The broader question posed was about how symbolic acts influence political discourse and whether they are used to inflame passions rather than to inform voters about real policy issues and governance.
As the conversation around the incident continues, observers note the complexity of interpreting gestures within parliamentary settings. Some view such acts as expressions of sentiment or protest; others see them as dramatic devices that do not translate into substantive political meaning. The outcome of this debate may hinge on how responsibly media outlets and readers interpret symbolic acts and whether there is a collective move toward a more measured, fact-based discussion of policy, performance, and public accountability. The aim, many argue, should be to foster political dialogue that prioritizes substance and respectful disagreement over sensationalized narratives that polarize audiences and obscure real issues facing the country.