The network featured the Declaration of 47 editors and editors of the biggest Polish media in defence of the independency of the press, radio, tv and the internet. From “Gazeta Wyborcza”, “Politics”, “Newsweek”, via Onet, Virtual Poland, TVN24, Radio Zet, RMF FM, to “Sport Review” and “Tygodnik Siedle”.
What can you say? but that it is simply a declaration of pathological liars and manipulators, destroyers of freedom of speech and advocates of censorship, and supporters of punishment for views against LGBT/ecological/multiculti agendas, directed against their mirror reflection from the PiS, or another pathological liars and manipulators, destroyers of freedom of speech and advocates of censorship, and supporters of punishment for views considered arbitraryly pro-Russian. Both of them combine blind hatred for Russia, equally blind worship for Ukraine, an anti-thesis of Russia, signaled not only by word, but besides by omnipresent symbols and Ukrainian slogans, and by desire, but besides by the practice of censoring and limiting freedom of speech and belief.
If we say "1984" by Orwell becomes a reality today, the best proof of that is the statements from this declaration:
"As editors and editors of the biggest Polish media, we stand up for their independency and declare our irrefutable attachment to journalistic values, specified as objectivity, integrity and journalistic integrity.
We are convinced that our primary work is to look at the hands of those who exercise authority and to supply reliable information based on proven sources, taking care of the diversity of perspectives. Our goal is always to guarantee a full, balanced presentation of facts."
They utilized to say in these situations – are you joking or asking for directions? In view of the complete unilaterality of the media, especially erstwhile it comes to the war in Ukraine, 1 can fundamentally only shrug at another manifestation of the full lie and, at the same time, the constant well-being of this society...
Most, though not all, mentioned portals, have been excluded from commenting. This is the censorship and regulation of constitutional freedoms of man and citizen. Moreover, by allowing comments “here” and excluding “there”, training and division of people – recipients of the media are carried out. specified a character – sharing and stigmatizing people – besides should be imposed on the basis of collusion of the media form “in Ukraine” alternatively of “in Ukraine”. utilizing the erstwhile form, they were stigmatized in this way, as inferior, as little worshiping Ukraine, as bad people, as alleged agents of Moscow, or possibly even as inferior Poles. It is in any of these media that are now protesting the Law and Justice, that there are situations that would be unthinkable in the Polish People's Republic – e.g. forcing the satirical apology for the joke. In the Polish People's Republic, you could have been seceded from TVP/PR or you could have been banned from performing, but you can't remember public causing in the media of the satirists.
Today, therefore, the murderers themselves are protesting against the murderers about a somewhat different vector of murderism. There is simply a series for the poor, or alternatively a festival for the stupid reptile. That's all.
Adam Laughter
P.S. An example of the fresh language imposed is besides the usage in the declaration of feminized profession names, in this case the word "editor", as a female editor. The rule of imposing artificial and sometimes ridiculous or even embarrassing female versions of words so far well functioning and not offensive in the male version (which in these cases is in fact neutral, and its "manhood" is only evidenced by a male variation), is done on the same rule as imposing "in Ukraine". The proposition is apparent – supporters of the linguistic tradition are branded white, male, heterosexual, chauvinist pigs by default. It is comic to remember in the promotion of female versions that the form of a "editor" may be associated with a "editor", which, like the world, was a word of contemptible or opportunistic journalist, sometimes simply a pseudo-journalist. Is that what the editor is talking about, or have they not thought about the consequences in their fanaticism? After all, I have not yet heard of the presidents whose comical speech is more apparent and visible even to... A fanatic (how!).
