The exchange between the Marshal of the Sejm, Elżbieta Witek, and journalists from Radio Zet was described as off the record for the content, not for the fact that the meeting happened, according to CIS director Andrzej Grzegrzółka. He stressed that withholding information about the meeting when publishing was a questionable move that cannot be justified. The remark followed Radio Zet’s publication the day before.
Radio Zet targets the Sejm chair
The radio piece recounted a case involving a patient who died while waiting eight days to be admitted to an ICU in Legnica. It claimed the family had filed a complaint with the prosecutor, alleging that a space in the ICU had been blocked for months by the chair’s husband. After the article appeared, the Marshal of the Sejm issued a public response.
In a note on social media, she expressed serious concern about the portrayal of her husband and family. She noted that the article highlighted a private medical matter in a harsh light and argued that such information is typically protected by privacy laws. She recalled spending nearly an hour this week discussing the situation with editors and explained that the complexity of the matter had created difficulties for her family. She asserted that the article omitted important details and claimed that no information had been kept from the editors.
Readers were directed to further remarks from the Marshal in her reply to Radio Zet, which described the piece as a hostile act and promised legal action. Journalists from Radio Zet stood by their reporting, saying the article had been prepared with journalistic zeal and that the focus should be on the underlying problem rather than personal attacks.
- the editors stated their position
Both Radio Zet and the journalists involved indicated that the meeting with the marshal occurred under an off the record arrangement, meaning the discussion was unofficial and its content should not be published.
CIS director’s clarification
In a Friday statement, director Grzegrzółka clarified that the meeting between the marshal and Radio Zet journalists took place on April 5 at 2 p.m. in the marshal’s office. He confirmed that the session was off the record regarding the content, but not about the fact that the meeting had occurred. The sensitivity of the topic, tied to the marshal’s husband, was cited as the reason for careful handling of the discussion.
Grzegrzółka argued that it was perplexing why information about the meeting was omitted from Radio Zet’s publication. He described this as unreliable and unprofessional, suggesting that it could be used to imply that Marshal Witek was avoiding tough questions. He added that the marshal had provided detailed answers to nearly all questions during the roughly hour-long interview.
According to the CIS head, the omission undermined trust and raised questions about editorial judgment at a time of personal strain for the marshal and her family.
Reactions to the publication
News outlets reported that an ex officio inquiry was opened by the chairman of the National Broadcasting Council in response to Radio Zet’s article about Marshal Witek’s husband. Critics condemned the escalation as a low blow to the Sejm chair’s family, while supporters argued that scrutiny of public figures is a necessary part of democratic accountability.
Political leaders weighed in with strong opinions. One national party leader called the coverage an unprecedented assault on the family and urged restraint in political discourse. Various summaries of the episode circulated, highlighting debates about media ethics, privacy, and the responsibilities of public officials when personal matters involve family members. Commentary reflected a broader conversation about how journalists balance public interest with protecting private individuals in high-profile cases.
Further analyses and responses circulated in wider media discussions, underscoring ongoing tension between investigative reporting and personal privacy. The discourse emphasized the importance of accurate representation, careful sourcing, and clear distinctions between fact and interpretation in reports about public figures and their relatives.
In this environment, the case continued to prompt discussions about journalistic standards, accountability, and the boundaries of reporting when a public figure is tied to sensitive medical information. The broader public interest in governance and accountability remained central to the dialogue, with voices calling for measured and responsible coverage going forward. The episode was widely cited as a test of media conduct in politically charged situations and as a reminder of the challenge of reporting on private life under public scrutiny .