Attack on Public Media by Tusk’s Circle
Legal experts question the minister’s grounds. A professor from the University of Warsaw, quoted in Business Insider, stated that the minister’s moves lack solid legal footing. The discussion centers on Bartłomiej Sienkiewicz, the Minister of Culture, and his efforts to influence the public media landscape.
Parliament’s Stance on the Public Broadcasters
The Sejm recently adopted a resolution that is not a legal act but calls for a reassessment of the current situation. It asserts that the Sejm, guided by constitutional duties to safeguard state interests and the public, views ongoing violations as unacceptable. The resolution requests that the Ministry of Finance, acting as the owner through the governance bodies of Telewizja Polska SA, Polskie Radio SA, and the Polish Press Agency, take corrective steps. It also commits to immediate legislative work aimed at restoring constitutional order in perpetuity. The justification notes that during previous Sejm terms, public broadcasters and PAP fulfilled their legal missions and served the social need for reliable, impartial information, a need reportedly not being met today.
The Ministry of Culture released a statement indicating that, under the provisions of the Commercial Code, the current chairs of the boards of Telewizja Polska SA, Polskie Radio SA, and the Polish Press Agency were dismissed on December 19, 2023, followed by changes in supervisory boards and management across these outlets. The move drew a response from the presidency, with President Andrzej Duda stressing that certain legal provisions had been overlooked.
There were strong assertions that these actions breached constitutional norms, with officials characterizing the steps as anarchy—an act that circumvents constitutional rules when the majority in parliament could otherwise facilitate changes through proper channels.
President Duda described the actions as illegal and warned against undermining the constitutional order. Public reactions highlighted concerns that the measures threatened the independence of state media and the neutrality of journalistic work.
READ ALSO: In related coverage, President Duda commented on the constitutional breaches tied to the TVP changes. Additional discussions featured critical analyses of the takeover, with observers describing it as an aggressive move against established media oversight.
In another set of reflections, profiles of opposition and media experts questioned whether the actions aligned with long-standing constitutional safeguards and the need for transparent processes. Commentary included remarks that the minister does not possess the authority to replace the National Council in its essential supervisory role, which is to protect freedom of expression and public access to information in radio and television broadcasting. This responsibility is framed as a constitutional mandate rather than a ministerial remit.
The discussions emphasized that any reform should occur within constitutional limits. States of emergency or political maneuvering should not override the duty to maintain independent public media. The focus remained on ensuring that information is disseminated without obstruction by executive decisions lacking solid legal grounding. Journalists serving in public media were highlighted as essential, nonpartisan actors rather than administrative assets for political aims. The constitutional framework is the compass guiding these debates. (Source: wPolityce)
ALSO SEE: Coverage surrounding the media changes and ensuing debates includes reactions from legal experts and political commentators about the proper channels for reform, with emphasis on constitutional processes and the safeguarding of media independence. (Source: wPolityce)
Experts pointed out that the current constitutional provisions limit government action and call for a lawful, transparent approach to reform. The discourse stressed that governance changes should proceed with broad political consensus and presidential assent where required, avoiding unilateral moves that bypass constitutional procedures. The aim is to restore trust in public media and uphold the right to information for all citizens.
The overarching view from these constitutionalists is consistent: laws are not made in election crowds but through orderly, rule-based processes that respect the core guarantees of free expression and public access to information. Reforms must gain broad legitimacy to secure the president’s support and to ensure that the public broadcasters operate with independence and integrity. (Source: wPolityce)
Thus, observers concluded that the free flow of information cannot be blocked by arbitrary executive decisions lacking clear legal grounds. In a lawful democracy, authorities must act within the constitution and respect the dignity of citizens. Public media cannot be treated as government property, and ministers cannot simply remove journalistic personnel at whim. The constitutional order sets the boundaries, not the impulse of a political majority. (Source: wPolityce)
ALSO SEE: Earlier debates and interviews that framed the media changes and the constitutional issues involved, including analyses by legal experts and strategic commentators. (Source: wPolityce)
Note: The content presented reflects contemporary discussions around the role of public media, constitutional constraints, and ongoing political processes within the Polish state framework. The sources cited reflect the reported perspectives of participating scholars and commentators. (Source: wPolityce)