“Kamraci” on Channel Zero. Media experts criticize Stanowski after the material with pathostreamers
There was a spectacle that was harmful to the media discourse – this is how media expert Dr. Krzysztof Grzegorzewski commented on the conversation with “Kamraty” in Kanał Zero, who believed that its form was an example of “whitewashing”. When someone calls themselves an editor, they should know that by inviting such people, they are legitimizing them, he added.
On Sunday, Channel Zero published an interview with “Kamraty” – Wojciech Olszański (“Jaszczur”) and Marcin Osadowski (“Ludwiczek”) – two pathostreamers preaching extremely nationalistic, anti-Semitic and pro-Russian views, against whom the prosecutor's office has already brought many charges. Some commentators felt that the conversation may have promoted their views. However, it was not a live broadcast, and some of the statements of the “Kamrats” were confronted by journalists and experts from Channel Zero.
Prof. Monika Kaczmarek-Śliwińska, media expert from the University of Warsawrecalled in an interview with PAP that, according to press law, a journalist's task is to serve society and the state. The media should not ignore people or groups expressing extreme views, but their presentation should be in an appropriate form.
– We cannot pretend that such views do not exist, but we must present them to the public in an appropriate way. Therefore, it should not be an interview, but rather material that will present extreme views and explain why they are bad and socially harmful. You can also inform about the potential consequences of expressing such views, show examples from around the world or from history, says the expert.
The expert is also not convinced by Kanał Zero's explanation that this form of material was chosen because it was allegedly educational in nature.
– If this was to be a form of education, it should be done in a different way, without giving voice to people who present views for which they may be prosecuted. There are so many statements by these people in the public space that it was easy to create educational material explaining various issues. For example, the specific views of these people would be juxtaposed with the voice of an expert – notes Prof. Kaczmarek-Śliwińska.
In her opinion, the whole situation looks more like an attempt to save Channel Zero due to the threat of the “Companions” that if the medium does not play the conversation, they will do it themselves because they have the recording. – Channel Zero could have been afraid of this, so material was prepared that was supposed to be a compromise between the views of the program participants on the one hand and the views of potential critics on the other – says the expert.
Dr. Krzysztof Grzegorzewski from the University of Łódź believes that the case of the conversation with “Kamraty” in Channel Zero shows the complexity of the problems the media are struggling with today and is “firmly rooted in the realities of the so-called third media revolution.”
– A decade ago, I would have said that such an invitation by “Jaszczur” and “Ludwiczek” was simply a scandal. That this completely delegitimizes ethically the editorial office that would decide to do something like this. Today, however, these boundaries have been crossed in various ways and in many places, and the media world has changed because there has been a convergence of traditional media that adhere to the standards with media that have little in common with these standards, Grzegorzewski told PAP.
According to the expert, “today the concept of a professional editorial office as a certain entity bearing journalistic responsibility is blurring.”
– In what is called the “Tik-Tokization” of the media, when we can all be broadcasters to some extent, such “Ludwiczek” or “Jaszczur”, thanks to their vulgarity, spectacularity or ostentatious rudeness, can gain a certain position as a patoinfluencer. However, if someone calls themselves an editor or a publicist, they should know that by inviting these types of people to their channel, they are legitimizing them, he says.
In the opinion of a media expert, legitimization can take various forms. – A person who has earned a journalistic reputation and has a recognizable name should guarantee compliance with certain standards in a world of overstimulation, excess of information and mixing everything with everything else. Therefore, if “Lizard” and “Ludwiczek” were invited by a person with media authority, I would think that it was very, very bad. People who come to large media, to journalists with well-known names, are legitimized by the authority of these journalists. However, in the case of Stanowski, in a business project such as Kanał Zero, we are dealing with a situation in which “Ludwiczek” or “Jaszczur” are legitimized by the popularity of the channel itself – says Dr. Grzegorzewski.
According to the expert, the conversation with “Kamraty” in Channel Zero in the form in which it was conducted is a manifestation of “whitewashing”, i.e. viewer manipulation (means to exonerate something or someone by covering up facts, flaws or crimes). This is, among other things, because their views were apparently confronted with recorded opinions of experts.
– The fact that the obvious nonsense is corrected by General Rajmund Andrzejczak, Arleta Bojke or Igor Zalewski does not help anyone. This form has no effect on people at all, as can be seen from the comments below the conversation. “I'm watching an interview, and some old guy shows up and tells me what to think” – this is a typical comment. If you invite these two guys and popularize them, you should know what a simplified way social media affects the human psyche – explains the expert.
In his opinion, it would be different if the interview with “Kamraty” was conducted by such journalists as Robert Mazurek, Igor Zalewski or even Krzysztof Stanowski himself. Or the recorded experts were invited to the studio and in a direct conversation they confronted the views expressed by the “Companions”. – And so it turned out to be a show of poor quality, which generally meant that we did not gain what we expected from journalists as the fourth power – said Dr. Grzegorzewski.
The expert assessed that the host was too nice to his guests. – This conversation should have been conducted by someone who was their opponent and who would clearly maintain order in such a program. There was no decisiveness, authority, knowledge, experience – said Dr. Grzegorzewski. – These guys come, have a great time, praise Putin, and the fact that Arlet Bojke or Igor Zalewski say something in the recording does not have that kind of impact. If they were met with a decisive, substantive polemic in the studio, it would quickly turn out that they had nothing to say except gibberish, he added. (PAP)
pś/bst/mhr/
