An exchange around a public figure sparked intense discussion after a journalist from Innpoland.pl published claims about a luxury watch supposedly owned by Law and Justice MP Paweł Jabłoński. The report alleged the MP kept an expensive Omega watch valued at PLN 45,000 in his asset disclosure, a claim Jabłoński denied, stating the information was false and that his personal rights had been wrongfully damaged by the article. The MP contended that the publication misrepresented the facts and announced plans to pursue remedies for the alleged libel via civil action and other legal channels to address the harm to his reputation.
The MP responded publicly to the accusations and asserted that the reported details did not align with reality. He described the assertions as a serious misrepresentation of factual circumstances and emphasized that no such watch existed in his possession or in his asset declaration.
“Very serious slander”
The exchange began with a direct message to the journalist, asserting that the claim about omitting a PLN 45,000 Omega watch from the asset declaration was unfounded and defamatory. The MP characterized the allegations as a crime that could lead to imprisonment, and he rejected the portrayal of wrongdoing, underscoring that the alleged facts were false and misleading. The assertion that the MP owned or valued such a timepiece was labeled a lie intended to damage his reputation.
He later clarified the correction, noting that the watch in question was not Omega but a different brand, Orient, from Japan. The timepiece was reportedly acquired years earlier for a modest sum and not for any amount approaching PLN 45,000. The MP stressed that the misinformation came from a serious mistake and challenged the journalist to acknowledge the error.
Subsequent responses highlighted how widely the misinformation had spread across social media platforms and the online presence of Innpoland.pl. The MP acknowledged the intense public reaction and the ongoing barrage of comments, many of which reflected hostility arising from the misrepresented facts. He also described the situation as highly serious and consequential for his public image.
The MP stressed that the misinformation could be read as criminal defamation and a violation of personal rights, with potential consequences for his public standing. He pointed out gaps in journalistic standards and the lack of direct outreach to verify the story before publication. He warned that in the absence of corrective action, legal steps might be pursued to defend his reputation and mitigate damages caused by the false narrative.
An amicable proposal
The politician proposed a somewhat unconventional settlement idea to the journalist: since the watch had allegedly been valued at PLN 45,000, he suggested selling a similar item for that amount and receiving a formal apology as a way to close the matter. He even offered a generous discount and suggested allocating a portion of the proceeds to a charitable cause, inviting the journalist to provide payment details to facilitate the proposed arrangement. This offer was presented in a lighthearted tone, aiming to resolve the dispute without protracted legal steps.
The discussion extended to social media, where the MP used a post to reference the situation with a photograph of what he described as the “corpus delicti” on his forearm. The post underscored the discrepancy between the public perception and the actual facts surrounding the watch and its value, serving as a visual retort to the initial allegations.
The public exchange drew attention to the broader issue of information accuracy and accountability in political reporting, with observers noting the potential impact of false claims on trust and discourse in the parliamentary environment. The MP’s message highlighted a demand for accuracy in reporting and a preference for verifiable information over sensational narratives. The unfolding events were described as a reminder of the responsibilities that accompany public communications by media outlets.
In summarizing the consequences, the discussion included reflections on how such stories circulate online and influence public sentiment, particularly when a misrepresented detail gains rapid traction. The MP’s team and supporters urged for caution in sharing unverified information and called for corrective action from the publication to restore accuracy and protect reputational interests. The evolving situation continued to attract commentary from across social channels and the political spectrum, illustrating the lasting tension between investigative reporting and the protection of personal rights in public life.
Source attribution: wPolityce