Magdalena M. Baran: How is it to go from written word to print to glass screen? But it's a large change...
Aleksandra Pawlicka: Theoretically, it would seem that I am inactive doing the same due to the fact that I am inactive a writer conducting political talks. And I am acquainted with the camera, due to the fact that as a guest I frequently visited another TVs – I made podcasts for TVN24, I besides conducted debates available online. But it's not the same. Written journalism allowed me to verify conversations, interviewing I could do and 3 hours, I could go back to him, question the interviewer, arrange the text in a certain order. Now I only have 1 chance and a strictly defined time, due to the fact that all my programs are live. I had to learn to perceive more urgently. It seems to me that of all the gifts that are in the planet and which destiny separates among people, I have just been given the gift of listening.
It is an crucial and highly valuable gift. In this profession – contrary to appearances – not so apparent today...
I hear not only what my caller says, but what remains between the lines. What he sometimes doesn't want to say or can't rather explain his thoughts. Often, after an interview was sent for authorization in response, I heard that it was possible to give back precisely what my caller wanted to say. On television, the rigors of the minutes, erstwhile the publisher keeps counting the minutes, makes my attention should be differently divided. I utilized to let the interviewer talk, tame him with the situation of the conversation, due to the fact that it was easier to get into more and more hard topics. Now I should be like a whip over a talker, and that changes the dialogue, of course.
But there's a second shift in my work., It's palpable. The thing is, erstwhile I open my laptop today, I have all the scripts on my desktop. There are no texts. This may not be very severe, but for a writer who has written and then found her texts in print for 3 decades, the fact that she is not publishing anything present is simply a change. Shortly after I went to TVP, Jerzy Stuhr died. It turned out that I made 1 of the last, and in fact the last, printed interview with him, and everyone appealed to him due to the fact that the prof. in him talked about leaving, withdrawing from life, reconciling with death, about what is most crucial in life. Printed intelligence is simply a permanent trace. After what I'm doing today, there's no specified testimony. Of course, tv programs are archived, can be found on YouTube, statements are cut into “hundreds” and repeated repeatedly in various programs, but all of this lives rather briefly. The written word continues.
A small different is the quality of the conversation itself. I'm reminded of Tischner and his words that after a meeting, after a question and after an answer, we're not the same as before. That we owe ourselves, that we can blame ourselves. This is the minute erstwhile a conversation changes us, opens us up, or at least opens us to the position of another, another, whether we like it or not. And that's part of shaping the relation between 1 and the other, the alien and his, you and me. Given the conversations you have been having and conducting, they are a part of shaping the public sphere of how we, as spectators, listeners, or yet citizens, look at it. And if that's the case, then... what does the media talk look like to you today, in this fresh perspective, and does it have a chance to change, after what we saw in the public media during the erstwhile team's reign?
True, I went on public tv to change it. In fresh years TVP has been awarded a terrible stamp of utmost politicization. Everyone says "propagandical tube", but it was actually a tube of lies. Something else is having views and formatting highly conservative or liberal, and something else is saying and creating untruth. For 8 years, public tv has mixed facts with falsehood, something that is completely contrary to journalism. I decided to control to TVP for 2 reasons: I wanted to effort something fresh and – which was most likely the main motive – individual has to make this change, individual has to scrape from the bottom to which the public media were brought. I think those who have any experience in this profession and, above all, the desire to effort something new, have been given a unique opportunity. Whatever it is about today's public tv – after those fewer months erstwhile it is changed – came to it people who truly have a sense, possibly not a mission, but a desire to reconstruct journalistic integrity and integrity to the viewer. And that's great. This makes the blood feel like bubbles, as it did in 1989, erstwhile free media were formed and erstwhile I entered the labour marketplace myself. Back then, free media was a challenge and a realization that something truly fresh could be done, that a fresh reality was being created.
Is it akin now?
I think so. There have even been texts about the fact that there has been no specified movement in Polish media, as after 15 October last year, since the transformation. And even if my TV's autumn frame emphasizes that there are large series, fresh films, and old amusement programs are decently continued, they're not, not non-information tv is creating fresh quality today, due to the fact that it hasn't created very bad quality in fresh years. And a very bad opinion of public television. TVP Info with the political transmission of the day of the ruling organization was a mouth that the PiS gave TVP. Now there is simply a painful change in that image.
Since I've been a guest on public television, I like her more and more. From this position too, it is simply a large qualitative change, but first of all it is possible to show that there is simply a planet another than this political message of the day. On the another hand, it is besides a minute of inverting roles – I usually ask if they are my guests or students. Each specified change may be an interesting minute in reasoning about its own journalism; about the trust and work it entails.
Definitely. The first show I truly did from the march. I signed my contract on May 1, and on the same day, I was doing a program going into the studio, completely unaware of the camera I'm expected to be looking at, whether the prompter will have large letters and if I can. It worked out due to the fact that I met people who trusted me. The ones on the another side of the camera and the ones who entrusted me with the antenna. It's a very refreshing fresh experience.
But you're asking about creating space for conversation in the media. For years, I was convinced that a good interview could be done erstwhile she meets a man face to face, looks into the eyes. I went to the another end of Poland many times to make a conversation. I drove to Andrew Stasiuk for six hours, and then he took me to his car and drove to the mountains to sit in the clearing, look distant and talk. My best interviews, which I remember to this day and which are inactive alive, due to the fact that they are reminded – are those erstwhile I met with the interviewer respective times or lasted respective hours. erstwhile I interviewed Poland about Kora a year and a half before her death, we spent 2 days together. She said, “Turn on that recorder whenever you want and then interview it.” We didn't sit in chairs for a scheduled conversation, we were just talking, getting dumplings, drinking wine, playing a game. It was akin with the best of my interviews with Kazimierz Kutz about old age. We dated 3 times. Then he told me that I ripped his guts out with that interview, but that's how he got himself back. I'm utilized to long conversations. Therefore, erstwhile the pandemic came, I besides suffered from communication through various platforms. They force distance. Then it turned out that we were utilized to working long distance. I'd even say we got a small cranky. Even erstwhile it was possible to meet, any refused to decision in front of the screen. I think that affects the quality of the conversation. At her temperature. On television, it inactive happens to be utilized online with a guest, but it only happens erstwhile there is no chance of being in the studio, and we truly care about his opinion.
Live tv interview is not authorized. This is another large change compared to the possibilities, or even the comfort, that the press interview gives us. Does that make it easier or harder to work?
TV has this good or destructive magic that people want to come to show their face. Views even outside prime time is much higher than reading in the most widely read newspaper. People know that erstwhile they show up, they're public. As far as politicians are concerned, the time for election campaigns is strong. Then they simply arrive with doors and windows due to the fact that everyone wants to appear on the screen as frequently and as long as possible. After the election, they request to be reminded that they hold their mandate for people they can scope through the media.
You're asking for authorization. Otherwise, we talk to people I've talked to before, and we build common trust. They know that even if the interview is live, we're playing fair play. And it's not that there are no hard questions. They always are. It's about common respect. Authorization is simply a curse of Polish journalism, due to the fact that if individual says something, it takes responsibility. Authorization can improve stylistics, due to the fact that spoken and written language is guided by another laws, but you can't cut out your thoughts previously spoken. That's not what happens on the live show. On public tv today, I am talking to representatives of all political party. Interviews with those who, in their erstwhile power, refused to talk to independent media journalists are not easy. But I think that's how public media should work. They're for everyone. Recently, I had a gathering with the MPs KO and the PiS on the program. I ended up jumping in the throat and saying the day's message. It wasn't a conversation. But possibly we request to learn that too.
In the erstwhile 8 years, viewers have become accustomed to the fact that politicians, erstwhile going to their "media", anticipate that either individual accepts them in their entirety or does not accept the message they offer. The question is, where is the actual conversation gone, or a political debate consisting not of messages of the day, but of arguments? Where is the agora today, or place of exchange, besides on the level of ideas and facts? I have the belief that the media should service – although in part – its function, that is, not simply a space of confrontation. I'm talking about dialogue, not empty thesis given out of their bubbles, or shouting to each another like from the another side of the river or from the tops of the mountains. I think about creating a place, about the functions of the erstwhile agora – exchanges, conversations, sometimes arguments, due to the fact that we do not always gotta agree with each other. My point is to establish common respect and to recognise that nevertheless further political, public, social reality we will shape, we will at least effort to listen. We can't decision without this.
Exactly! It's crucial to hear each other, and I think we're inactive in the burping stage. Politicians especially. I besides run a program where journalists are interviewers, comment on politics and it is calmer than “talking heads” from the Sejm. Journalists get into a polemic, but it's not like 1 of them is trying to scream. Politicians do this notoriously to show that “my is on top,” “my right is the least.” For the viewer – I think – this is of small value, due to the fact that erstwhile you make a sound in the studio, you just can't perceive to it.
I besides run the Kontrapunkt programme, which I invitation people from a non-political shelf. And these are completely different conversations. I invited 3 judges to the regulation of law programme who were the faces of opposition to the demolition of the justice strategy during the regulation of Law and Justice: Paweł Yuszszyn, Waldemar Żurek and Igor Tuleja. In the next installment I had 3 co-creators of the Free Courts, whose professional careers divided after the election, due to the fact that Sylwia Gregorczyk-Abram inactive operates in the NGO and defends human rights, Maria Ejchart became Deputy Minister of Justice, so she switched to the side of power, and Michał Wawrykiewicz became a MEP. And they admit in the studio that, though they have gone their separate ways, they are friends and call each another all day. They say that on the air, on a live show, and they show viewers the average human face of public activity. I think you can, or even have, do it on TV. To make space for this conversation.
You're talking about trust and asking tough questions. This is not an easy play that requires mindfulness, but besides the ability to respect each other's borders.
Trust is not socializing, it is common respect for certain rules. Kind of like traffic. erstwhile we drive, we presume that we all follow the same rules so we don't kill each another in the road. It's the same in journalism. If we presume that the another individual understands the rules and follows them, we have a good start. Recently, my guest on the morning show was Przemysław Czarnek. I never spoke to him before, due to the fact that erstwhile I asked for an interview as a writer for “Newsweek” or sent questions to the ministry about the text being prepared, there was no feedback. Now he came to the studio. The united right knows that their electorate did not go entirely from TVP to the Republic television. We must scope people and Przemysław Czarnek repeated these androns, organization messages, we collided like from 2 sides of a concrete wall, but showed good will. It was a conversation after all.
A friend erstwhile gave me a code of journalistic ethics, which I effort to stick to – I mean the principles that Jim Lehrer created. What you say reminds me of him. Amongst the different rules, he says, “Bet that your viewer is just as intelligent, caring and good as you yourself.” I think it is crucial that we think so about our recipients, but besides about those with whom we are talking, although sometimes it is difficult. There are 3 crucial values in what you say. It's trust, it's work and a mission that's the foundation of this profession. Only together – founded and practiced – are the basis for our recovered free media to function, but besides to start convincing themselves, even in tiny steps, people who have left them. I mean those who were blinded by the propaganda of the erstwhile ruling team, those who abruptly felt that the media had been taken from them. And we say trust, mission, responsibility, and truly openness to the other, whatever it is.
Yeah, we don't exclude anyone. We're just trying to be included in our story. And of course, any viewers felt that their tv had been taken distant from them, moved to another, cultivating thing that happened on Voronica or the Insurgency Square over the years of the Law and Justice. However, as with the good name of all man, it is much easier to throw mud at him than to clear himself of it, just as with the institution – to rebuild assurance in an institution that has public tasks, it is highly difficult. In political journalism, which I have been practicing for years, it is highly crucial to ask myself why individual is telling us something? What's his interest? What kind of information does he want? What reason does he gotta put the thought, the subject, into public debate? Why is he doing this? Looking for answers to these questions is, in my opinion, a substance of journalistic responsibility.
To be no one's psychic and not to cultivate propaganda is 1 of those dreams of public media. But there are also problems – specified as the request to measurement fake news. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . social media. The information there is even faster, but it is frequently not verified. My students will tell you that present anyone who has a telephone can be a journalist. You open a channel on YouTube or TikToku and then... This fresh way of communication we experienced very powerfully at the beginning of the war in Ukraine when, on the 1 hand, we received an important, direct message, but on the another hand, we faced the request to verify it and separate information from manipulation or opinion.
Social media is an crucial origin of information today. In the case of the war mentioned by you, in its early stages, fewer editorials had their correspondents. What Ukrainian journalists or even people who drew from their social media gave us was the basis for knowing what was happening in Ukraine. And of course, social media is simply a revolution in journalism. The same as before was the Internet. erstwhile I started working in this profession, computers were just appearing in the editorial boards, and I was writing on diskettes. Another revolution was mobile phones, before the ministry or the Sejm called, dialing a landline and connecting through the headquarters. Next were 24-hour televisions serving information around the clock, the Internet, and shortly after it the social media. These are all steps that increase the velocity of information.
The consequence of this pace is that man stops following information. Journalists request to keep their hands on it, but the doctor who does the surgeries or the artist who learns the role, looks at the media little often, occasionally and reads headline’s. Sometimes erstwhile they're interested, they click on the title. It's 1 of the problems journalism faces today. It's both written and television. You can't go after the Xs and another net relays due to the fact that you just can't win.
We have heard many times that the paper has no future...
I hope the information on his death, which has been repeated for a long time, is false. All portals and televisions are based on what will produce paper. Just look at the morning services, they usually begin by reviewing the press, commenting on what the newspapers say. This does not change the fact that boxing with readability, with ratings, with clickability, the salesability of subscription kills media. This is simply a vicious circle, due to the fact that present the bishops sale out, next day Mr. Zenek, who cut off his finger, and the 3rd day Putin, who goes to Mongolia. Pure randomness, no logic, no predictability, just a blind search for what will sell. And the production of “walkable” content, and thus the spinning of loops, due to the fact that pauperization of information is simply a slippery slope. If you add artificial intelligence to this, which is simply a super tool, but as a mill of "journalist content" can only pass distant the same knowledge, then we have a recipe for slow death. And after all, journalistic investigations and moving interviews AI will not.
This tool is very dangerous, and sometimes it makes me feel that by overusing it, you can fall into talk due to the fact that the same information is processed any number of times. Returning the same in a different form. Apart from the talk itself, there is besides a minute of foaming, or even “requirement” from the interviewers, to play fairies on a peculiar political issue or on a possible solution. erstwhile I hear, "Well, how do you expect?", I'll get stiff... That's why my next question is, what does journalistic integrity look like today, and how does curiosity look like?
On the occasion of giving the Teresa Toranska award awarded by “Newsweek” were always repeated stories about how Teresa worked on interviewing for weeks as she returned to her interviewer. I've never had specified a luxury of work. Even erstwhile I was interviewing for 2 weeks, I had to compose another texts. But that time we talked about just now, it's just getting shorter. There's quite a few information going through the net all day, quite a few facts, more. updates. It's kind of like cooking. If we do something very precisely and with the best ingredients, we can enjoy it, and if we make semi-finished products and miss them, it'll most likely not be so delicious.
But as far as inquisitiveness is concerned, most of the scandals that the fresh power squad is dealing with, accounting for the predecessors, are the scandals excavated and described by the media. Without the work of journalists about any of these cases we would have no idea. Media kills momentum and smallness, but besides the fight for mercantylization of information.
Finally, I want to go back to the conversation itself, to the interviews you had for Newsweek, or to the 1 you're conducting on TVP Info now. How much do you feel for yourself that you're getting out of your people what you've seen before, heard and want to hear more? Is specified a conversation the beginning of a way that can lead us as a society or community not even to this large reconciliation, but to the soundness of thinking? besides reasoning that the media are reliable, responsible, that they can inspire confidence?
I always effort my best to prepare for the conversation – I read what the individual said earlier, what others thought about her and her work. The problem we're talking about. The most crucial thing for me is to get the most honest statement. More than just circular words. Politicians specialize in having millions of words to wrap the emptiness of their own speech. Therefore, we request to clarify the questions, ask for specifics, sometimes catch words. Sometimes before I go on the air, I ask my interviewer what has been bothering him most lately, what he's been working on, due to the fact that it allows him to contact the human side, open to any honesty. That's what I do in journalism. And the step, I think, to the agora you're asking about.
Alexander Pawlicka – writer moving publicist programs inTVP Info fromMay 2024 Previously, “Newsweek” journalist, “Slice”and correspondent of the BBC Section Poland in Brussels during the Polish negotiations with the EU.
TV and radio commentator, author of biographical books ("Family Stories" – based on talks with Jerzy Stuhr), interviews of rivers: "This terrible Wednesday" – with Magdalena Wednesday, "There is simply a life after the end of the world" – with Joanna Kos-Krauze and "Very long ago, about last Friday" – with Jan Tomasz Gross, as well as travel books: "Worldholics", "Seven times the world",“Zankar” and “Spitsbergen” and books devoted to the Women’s legislature – “Time for Women” and “Good We Were”.
A yoga instructor.
