The way the mass media report on the activities of various kinds of centers of power has been and will remain a bone of contention between those in power and the journalists watching their every move. In societies that enjoy freedom of opinion, the press, radio and television are supposed to perform a supervisory function with regard to the authorities. A citizen of the state, or a resident of a city or municipality, has neither the opportunity nor often the desire to follow directly the activities of their representatives in various legislative bodies and of officials exercising executive power. The mass media do this on their behalf, revealing the behind-the-scenes aspects of these activities. And the fact that those whose actions are being scrutinized are not always pleased when the motives behind their actions and the criticism directed at them are exposed is precisely what creates tensions between them and inquisitive journalists. This is, however, the optimal model for the functioning of the media, which in this way protects authority from degenerating into clique-based activities and self-interest. It has, after all, proved sufficiently effective in democratic societies.
“Głos Bolesławca” is closely connected with our municipal authorities. In every issue, we find information about the activities of the local government. But are these the kinds of reports we could expect from a local newspaper that can observe from close quarters what is happening in our own backyard?
Articles concerning the authorities of Bolesławiec are an example of pastoral literature. In every paragraph, one can encounter phrases about the qualities supposedly characterizing the authorities: agreement, consensus, responsibility, shared concern, beautiful disagreement, and so on. And when some discord can no longer be omitted, it is downplayed and dealt with through further phrases of the opposite kind: discontent and quarrelsomeness.
The result of this blissful writing is a distorted picture of Bolesławiec’s local-government scene. Facts often disappear in a flood of adjectives intended to embellish and lend greater value to the authorities’ actions. It would be one thing if others praised these actions, but the newspaper does so even though its editor-in-chief is a member of the Municipal Board and, at the same time, its press spokesperson—and it does so unfailingly in his own words. A journalist who, according to the model of the press’s supervisory function, should watch the authorities’ every move is therefore simultaneously someone whose every move is being watched. Everyone knows how difficult it is to assess oneself objectively.
The selection of facts and their assessment in “Głos Bolesławca” are biased. The viewpoint of the Municipal Board dominates here. This is unacceptable in a newspaper financed by the local government, and therefore by all the city’s residents. Subjective assessments are appropriate in propaganda leaflets. A local newspaper, on the other hand, should primarily report the facts. Besides, mixing facts with commentary on them is a fundamental journalistic error. At the very least, the two should therefore be separated and, heaven forbid, the paper should not limit itself solely to assessments made exclusively from the point of view of those being assessed.
“Głos Bolesławca,” as “a city and municipality publication issued on the initiative of the Towarzystwo Miłośników Bolesławca,” may have been conceived from the outset as a flattering tribute to the city. In that case, however, the city’s residents should be asked whether they want to finance a publication devoted solely to such a purpose.
The editor-in-chief’s declaration that his publication wants to be a forum for responsible discussion of the city’s affairs, conducted in accordance with the maxim that “agreement builds, while disagreement destroys,” is very pious. But when this discussion is trimmed to predetermined limits and everything that goes beyond the idealized image of all-encompassing agreement is removed, the result of such conversation can only be a monologue. Moreover, the Editor’s desire for discussions concerning the city’s affairs—including those held at meetings of the Council and Committees—to be invariably characterized by agreement, civility and beautiful disagreement (?) is incomprehensible. Discussion, and therefore the shared search for truth, occurs only when people with differing views meet. In such a situation, easy and quick compromises are bad compromises. Only unrestricted discussion, in which different points of view clash, can guarantee a truly creative compromise. And the goal is important here: finding solutions that provide everyone with as much benefit as possible, rather than tailoring oneself to empty rhetoric in order not to step beyond the bounds of verbal culture. In this respect, the parliament led by Gucwa was very cultured—but what good did that do?
The city needs a well-made press. The benefit of this is obvious. For “Głos Bolesławca” to be useful to the city, it must become a publication that informs residents, reliably and in accordance with good journalistic practice, about the work of their representatives and offices. Only then can the City Council be justified in financing it. Besides, two new newspaper titles already exist in the city, and resistance to change at “Głos”... may push this publication to the margins of readership. Surely that is not the point?