I thought I would find an anonymous source who would say that Krzysztof Krzemiński, who writes for Bolec.Info, once worked for them illegally, and that Katarzyna Bodzioch (the publisher of Bolec.Info) did not pay taxes on that work. Then I would add quotations from Krzemiński and Bodzioch, who would of course deny it. I would also ask some tax official what penalties such an offence carries. Finally, I would encourage readers to decide for themselves who is right…
This is, of course, a joke, and it is utterly unbelievable that one could do such a thing. Yet it turns out that one can. As proof, here is a report written by Krzysztof Krzemiński about my friend, Grażyna Hanaf. Krzemiński probably listened to his editorial colleague, Marcin Marczewski, who claims that it is enough for all interested parties to speak in a piece. Such an argument is an excuse for those who cannot be bothered to verify information and—as one can see—fits Krzemiński perfectly. He published an anonymous allegation, put together several quotations, posed an open question and washed his hands of it. After all, he had created an “objective” report. The fact that it turned out to be nonsense, and harmful nonsense at that, apparently does not matter.
The assumption that “it is enough for all sides to be present in the article” and throwing everything into one bag, as if everything were equally important, is the first mistake in a journalist’s craft.
The second mistake is basing a report on a false premise. Even a cursory fact check is enough to discover that the anonymous source provides false information. Krzemiński does not check; he only calls people for quotations. In a conversation with me, he even admitted that he had not verified his informant’s identity—someone could have impersonated another person. He published the tip-off as it was.
The third professional mistake is pasting together various quotations and placing them in opposition to one another without understanding what they actually mean. It was enough for Krzemiński that the words were similar. This time it was about “controversy”. Krzysztof first quoted Grażyna. According to her, the content shown in the films, as well as the lectures resulting from them, is controversial (recently she told middle-school students about underage prostitutes from the film “Destined for the Brothel”). Then Krzemiński, apparently wanting to demonstrate Hanaf’s untruthfulness, quotes two more people. First, the man responsible for film education says that they do not show controversial content. But immediately afterwards he adds that the films they screen are described as controversial, although there is nothing in them that would harm young viewers. The person writing for Bolec.Info apparently forgot to cut out the second part of the quotation. Then he pastes in a statement by the cinema director, also seemingly opposed to Hanaf. The director also says that there is nothing controversial—but in Hanaf’s behaviour. She was not talking about the films or the content of Grażyna’s lectures. Either Krzemiński genuinely sees no difference, or he does and is counting on people not noticing it.
In fact, Krzysztof could have got up from behind his desk and gone to Monday’s lecture to hear for himself what Hanaf was saying. He did not. That is the fourth mistake. He writes about something he has never experienced himself, although he could have.
Krzemiński threw in several quotations and buried his head in the sand. And he probably feels fine, because right next to him his editorial colleague’s other head keeps repeating that it is enough for all sides to speak in the article. That this is enough…
No, it is not enough. Krzemiński produced nonsense, although his remuneration for it will presumably be taxed properly.
Krzysztof Gwizdała