We print the text of Dominic Zdort, which appeared on page net Institute Ordo Iuris.
I'll start with a individual memory that will make it easier to realize the current situation. In 1994, I first accepted the proposal to work on Polish Television. My friend Piotr Zaremba became head of the publicist department in the One, and he proposed that I be his deputy liable for political issues.
At that point Zaremba was the most serious commentator of the "Life of Warsaw", possibly even then the most crucial publicist in the country (and surely was heading in this direction), I in the "Rzeczpospolita" as a political reporter gradually gained recognition, but I was far distant erstwhile it came to my professional position, to Peter. We both made good money in our editorials and were valued. Our decision to go to work on TVP resulted from motivation – delight forgive pathos – patriotic, we wanted to change Poland, heal its public media, service democracy and pluralism.
After I was hired on TVP, I was officially given the position of “the editor of the ordering”, we joked that I gained the competence to order pizza for the editor. Piotrek Zaremba rapidly – and rightly – understood that it was impossible to make real changes in the then tv environment, full of communists pretending to be “fachurs”, not easy excavated, cynics without views and careers ready to service any further power. At the time, the fresh editors on TVP differed somewhat from the current ones, those from the Sienkiewicz recruitment, so alternatively of releasing people who deserved the erstwhile power, they gave them a chance to redeem the wines.
Zaremba was then replaced by Cezary Jęks, who did not express any expressive views, but was well versed in tv and motorization and was simply an honest man (which for the current ruling crew on TVP was meaningless, and so they threw him out of work, they had adequate to inactive function there for the past 8 years).
One of the “competent specialists” who worked with us was Andrzej Kwiatkowski. any may inactive remember him, due to the fact that in the times of the Polish People's Republic and at the dawn of the 3rd Republic he was a tv promoter, a celebrity almost. This is where I start.
Kwiatkowski in those days led and edited on TVP a weekly, Thursday program of the alleged large publicist. It was an hourly broadcast in which usually 8 guests gathered in the tv studio were arguing about something. 1994 – what does that mean to us? any people most likely remember that shortly before the abortion law was passed and there were heated disputes, whether and how the Polish state should participate in the protection of the life of unborn children.
No 1 has that idea?
At the time, I was to supervise the Thursday publicist program on abortion by Andrzej Kwiatkowski. The guest list that was originally presented to me amazed me a little. For the 8 people who were planned to invite, there was no opponent of free abortion. There were activists who presented an ambivalent attitude, but no strong criticism of abortion. erstwhile politicians, activists, left-wing ideologists... I demanded balance of this composition, asked for an “invitation” of any clergyman, any doctor who understood the importance of protecting life. – Ok – Kwiatkowski replied definitively – we will try.
After another hour, one, two, three, I inactive received the answer: there are no people in Poland who have specified – anti-abortion – views. There are no specified doctors, no specified sociologists, no specified philosophers, that's all. They found a clergyman, most likely the only 1 they knew, celebrated for the protection of AIDS patients – Fr Arkadiusz Nowak, who did not deal with the protection of unborn life, but always wanted to appear in front of the cameras, so he agreed to come.
I was incapable to even answer myself whether it was the classical incompetence of programme developers or their closure in the post-communist social bubble, where everyone thinks the same and specified issues do not realize whether or not they could be obstructive, malicious, evil will. I reached out to my own notebook (for respective years I was a journalist, a reporter), and I besides asked my friends to propose any people who could “slural” specified a discussion. I gave Mr Andrzej Kwiatkowski 10 names, and all time he calls, I gave him 10 names.
Not much. As far as I remember, they asked 1 individual on my list. The debate was poor, actually playing for 1 goal. “My” guest was attacked from all sides (but at least he was!), the priest was conciliative and neutral, others played in the orchestra, which was conducted by Andrzej Kwiatkowski. It was a breakthrough for me: then I decided that after the preparation of a fresh frame (it was in the tv agenda the key cesuria) I besides escaped, I returned to printed media (then rather strong). The ecological dominance of red simpletons, avoiding real discussion on the most crucial topics, the real clash of worldviews, refusing to arrange fencing on sharp arguments, measured me.
SEE ALSO: [ OUR INTERVIEW] Baby parasite in the womb?! We answer Annie Orawiec
30 years passed like a day
What has changed since then in the abortion debate? In times of erstwhile power, the subject was mostly not publicized. Of course, there have been talks about these issues, sometimes even interesting, but it should be said explicitly: in general, these matters of no 1 on public tv were besides interested, journalists and editors were more afraid with the political “bouncing”.
And present we gotta conclude that nothing has changed in this area for 3 decades. As the fresh authority has decided to overthrow the existing government on abortion, respective programmes have been held on TVP in fresh weeks. In the programs, representatives of the 3rd Way, the people of Szymon Holownia and Władysław Kosiniak-Kamish, argue, within 1 political camp, with politicians from Włodzimierz Czarzasty and Donald Tusk's camp – they discuss how much and how the regulations request to be changed, how to facilitate access to abortion and to what extent. Politicians and experts from conservative backgrounds for these debates were not allowed almost at all, and if so, as "paprotki", standing on the side of the windowsill and giving an alibi for pluralism itself with their presence.
The tv discussion mentioned above 3 decades ago reminded me erstwhile I listened to a fresh TVP Info program about abortion. At the table six women were planted demanding freedom of abortion (one moderate, the remainder radical) and 1 man with different views – there was another conservative and 2 abortion enthusiasts on the Internet. The guest selection itself (and the “guest” – as the guide emphasized) showed what was going on.
I don't want to mention to the contention of the dispute now. I am not going to compose who was right, who wasn't (although of course I have my own view of it), but – erstwhile it comes to the journalistic method – it is precisely like the 1994 one. Ok, we agree to the presence of individual outside the mainstream, outside the liberal environment, but only to trample him into the ground to humiliate him, to cast lies and manipulation on him – without any strong arguments, of course.
On specified crucial (perhaps the most important) issues of civilization, specified as abortion, there is simply a debate rather uneven. It is not equal from the beginning erstwhile after the fall of communism, in the 1993 law, Polish pro-life communities agreed to recognise unborn children as little valuable than born ones. This law was a kind of first sin. Since it is established in the regulations that there is simply a punishment for abortion of up to 3 years in prison, and for murders in newborns from 6 months to 8 years (while killing an adult was rightly more severe), how about the real protection of the life of a small man?
In view of specified a legal foundation for debate, it is barely amazing that the pro-abortion environments are so easy relativizing the killing of unborn today. Since from the beginning the unborn life was not equal to adult life, present it is much easier to request broad legalization of abortion.
But these methods...
Let us effort to kind things out; examine what types of methods abortion advocates usage in social, media and online debates. I leave out the function of presenters or journalists moving programs, due to the fact that their impact is visible at first glance.
- Selection of guests
This is simply a key component in shaping the discussion. First of all, most of the words of “experts” seem to have greater public support for any ideological thesis. And it's easy for them to shout a polemic, especially erstwhile he's a average and cultural man. In addition, if we have respective women on the 1 hand and 1 man on the other, we know that we are dealing with a misogynist, a man who hates women. Another thought is to find specified experts, who, while performing the roles of professionals, at the same time present clear pro-abortional views. In this case, lawyers and doctors (apparently and straight to a camera admitting that they are ‘an abortion’) – even if they are number in their environments, they become representatives of the audience.
- Nomenclature, meaning of words
This makes it easier to have a discussion. You do not usage the word child, but – at best – the fetus, although you usually avoid at all naming “this thing” that develops in your mother’s stomach. alternatively of talking about the protection of life and even abortion, there is talk about the protection of reproductive health, about the medical procedure, possibly about basic medical care. With the pro-life environment in the 1990s, it managed to unenchant the previously cursed notion of "protecting the life of the conceived", but liberal propaganda over time has rewound its nomenclature – 1 that is expected to tame society with the fact that abortion is something average and even necessary. After all, it is only the treatment of a female "who is pregnant".
- Support for pregnant women
What kind of backup? This is bribing these mediocre women, who are in a dramatic situation, cars or apartments, various social bribes (type 500+ or 800+) to force them to give birth and rise children – against their will.
- Surveys
Everyone knows their results are different due to the fact that they're easy to manipulate. If their poll is done by OKO.press and Tok FM, it will always be a unusual coincidence that it is consistent with the views of officials of these media, if ‘Rzeczpospolita’, then it may be more balanced. You may have the impression that any social opinion investigation studios match the expectations of the payers and live from specified practice. In the media debate, in order to give it the right direction, it is essential to quote a poll that will support the communicative that editors like and omit uncomfortable research. And frequently it is better not to give who the poll ordered, due to the fact that possibly in the eyes of any audiences specified ideologically extremist "sponsors" as OKO.press and Tok FM could induce distrust for the results of the study.
- Street probes
It's the simplest tool to manipulate discussion. 30 people are recorded on the street, preferably in the center of the large city. 14 specified opinions are utilized in the column, which can confirm the thesis of the programme's creators and 1 ambivalent and 1 negative. And we have pluralism of views. The fact of time, the fact of the screen.
- Screenography
Last but not least. In the background behind the discussions is permanently placed red lightning, a symbol of the pro-abortion movement, the alleged women's strike. Throughout the course of the tv debate, the window displays footage from demonstrations supporting the intended thesis, not erstwhile showing the other organization action.
SEE ALSO: The National March of Life ahead of us! Let us be a sign of opposition and remorse!
No compromise
Similar methods are, of course, utilized in media debates on a number of subjects, although on the question of unborn life, or, as 1 prefers, a "basic medical procedure", to an exceptionally full extent.
Finally, I would like to add a reflection, which in no case can be an excuse for the performers of specified “set” broadcasts. most likely a substantive debate on abortion in Poland cannot be held. The assumptions of both parties to this dispute are based on a completely different axiology, on completely different grounds, on different meanings and concepts which the opponents do not intend to acknowledge. For 1 is the right of a female to full decide the form of her body, regardless of all circumstances, for the another the absolute value is to defend the life of all human being.
There is no indirect position between specified views, it does not exist. The compromise, as the 1993 Act was called, was a fraud. We all cheated, any agreeing to what they called the enslavement of the female body, others turning a blind eye to the mass killing of unborn children.
It is fundamental issues, and their solutions depend on the further destiny of our civilisation. It is impossible to have a mild and concluding discussion on these topics, and it is surely impossible to scope a common position. But that doesn't mean you can't debate by giving all parties equal opportunities.
SEE ALSO:
