It is not easy being a writer these days. Especially one who wins awards, attracts readers’ interest and, on top of that, has the courage to express his feelings publicly. But even the greatest creators face the troubles of everyday life—including the fact that journalists do not write exactly what they would like them to.
“Sławek, congratulations on your great speech about marriage equality, and of course I wish you all the best!” Gwizdała wrote approvingly. What did Gortych say? He thanked him—naturally—but then immediately poured out his grievances, seasoned with spiteful remarks. No, not over the content of the article, but because the istotne.pl editorial team focused on his public proposal rather than on the book’s content, the readers’ poll or his literary achievements. After all, a person winning an award and additionally declaring his love on stage is no sensation, right?
Gortych accused the editorial team of a lack of journalistic reliability and of focusing on his orientation instead of the fact that his book had received a record number of votes. In messages, he thundered that it was manipulation. As everyone knows, every editorial team should first consult him about what and how it should write...
What is amusing (and perhaps somewhat paradoxical) is that the istotne.pl article titled “Author of Crime Novel of the Year Proposes at Book Fair” attributed a certain influence on public opinion to Gortych in such an important and socially significant matter as marriage equality. Not every writer, while accepting an award for his body of work, chooses to make such a bold and public gesture. Thus, the article highlighted not only his status as a literary figure but also as a public figure whose actions can shape social debate. It is therefore difficult to claim that the editorial team took one sentence out of context and turned the article into cheap clickbait.
Gwizdała explained to Gortych that journalists decide what they consider important to their readers. “It is not appropriate to influence journalistic independence,” the journalist replied to the suggestion that the article should be changed. It is interesting that Gortych, so sensitive to all manifestations of bias, had no problem in this case demanding interference in someone else’s text.
There is no denying that this story has a tragicomic element. Here is a writer whose speech (along with his proposal) at the gala becomes the subject of public discussion; he does not want to be the protagonist of that debate, yet he continually keeps the subject alive in messages to a journalist. He is not satisfied with having been portrayed as an opinion leader in an important social issue. What is more, he accuses the media of focusing on something he himself made a spectacular part of his appearance.
The climax? The conversation between Gwizdała and Gortych ends with the writer taking offense and ironically saying, “thank you for the conversation.”
And did you also, like Gortych, take our article the wrong way? Is the article really the one that deserves criticism, or perhaps the fact that a bestselling author does not quite understand how independent journalists work?