Radomir Wit, in the program “Campania bez kitu,” paused to consider the heated media statements of the president of the National Bank of Poland, Professor Adam Glapiński. He directed his questions to central bank spokesman Wojciech Andrusiewicz, who recalled events from the era of Marek Belka’s leadership of the NBP and provided context for those remarks.
The NBP spokesperson reflects on Belka’s era
Andrusiewicz was questioned about Glapiński’s statements regarding the kind of government that might work best and what voters should do. He referenced a 2014 press article that described a political arrangement involving Sienkiewicz and Belka, illustrating how political narratives intersect with central bank communications.
Conversations reportedly took place in a restaurant setting where the NBP president’s support for certain viewpoints was discussed.
– Andrusiewicz began, and the interviewer, Radomir Wit, pressed back, calling such discussions during private moments an instance of illegal eavesdropping.
The host asked whether there is a meaningful difference between the result of secretly recorded conversations and what is stated at an official press conference.
– responded the TVN journalist. Andrusiewicz noted that after various telephone taps, voices such as that of Leszek Balcerowicz cautioned that Belka should resign following the release of those recordings, while Bloomberg at the time commented that Poland had one of the weakest central bank governors in Europe.
The host asserted that the focus should be on what Glapiński said publicly, including his views on what the government should look like and what constitutes a good or bad administration. When Wit attempted to quote a specific statement from Glapiński, the spokesperson emphasized that the discussion centered on the content of the press conference and urged quoting those words rather than unrelated remarks signed during the interview.
Political theater and media scrutiny
Where, in your opinion, did Glapiński cross any legal or customary boundary?
– Andrusiewicz was asked, with Wit replying that the inquiry concerned the NBP president’s public political stance on reality.
There is room for freedom of expression. The chairman of the NBP and the editor remained free to share their views. The discussion focused on the press conference, and no quotes were taken from that conference in isolation.
– Andrusiewicz added. Wit pressed further, asking for a direct quote from the president that would demonstrate a breach of office or political norms. The editor quoted the interview instead, arguing that everyone has the right to be heard and to express an opinion. The spokesperson urged clear references to statements made at the press conference and asked for precise quotations directly tied to the event.
– a reply from Wit suggested a tension between political rhetoric and media reporting, prompting questions about whether the president’s remarks reflected a genuine policy stance or a probing of political timing. The discussion touched on the independence of the central bank and whether any statements might imply improper influence over government actions.
– the NBP spokesperson reiterated that the focus remained on the words spoken during the press conference and on whether the public record shows any policy overreach. Wit observed that airtime was nearing its end, and the conversation would soon move to wrap-up.
– emphasized the NBP spokesperson as the exchange moved toward conclusion.
In related chatter, commentators debated whether the president’s public comments framed any ministerial changes or political direction in ways that could raise concerns about central bank independence. The discussion underscored tensions between political narratives and the shield of institutional autonomy that central banks strive to maintain in moments of public debate.
The conversation highlighted a broader issue: the balance between informing the public about monetary policy and safeguarding the independence and credibility of the central bank. The participants noted that the central bank must operate with a degree of insulation from daily political maneuvering so that monetary policy remains credible and predictable for households and markets alike.
The discourse also underscored the role of journalism in scrutinizing public figures who hold influential offices. It reminded readers that responsible reporting involves careful quotation, precise sourcing, and an awareness of the boundary between opinion and official, recordable statements. The core question remained how statements by high-ranking officials should be interpreted in the context of central bank independence and governance.
Overall, the interview framed a debate about how political opinions intersect with central bank duties and how such conversations should be handled in the press. It called for clarity, accuracy, and a respectful separation between personal views and official, policy-driven communication, to maintain public trust in monetary institutions.