About two weeks ago, Wlodimierz Cimoszewicz, the Minster of Foreign Affairs, offered his resignation in connection to an information leak, but his resignation was rejected. On that Monday, the weekly newspaper/tabloid “NIE” (No) published excerpts from cimoszewicz’s old computer hard drives. The information released ranged from the Minister’s blood type (O-) to his passport number (0013283 D) to personal emails of his secretary concerning a really nice blouse she got on sale (“Tylko 30 zloty!” = only 30 zloty!).
The editor of NIE, Jerzy Urban, in, for him, an unprecedented sign of respect, agreed to turn over the hard drives to the authorities and will probably not publish any information sensitive to national security interests. But now the tables are turned because it is the journalist who will decide what is secret or not secret. Urban and his paper are interesting phenomenon in their own right. He is remembered as the despicable spokesperson from martial law in the 1980’s and no respectable person, I have been told on numerous occasions, would ever purchase or read NIE. The paper has been sued many times for slander, libel, and pornography charges and is commonly known to print much of the most scandalous gossip that other major papers will not touch.
When the story came out, a reporter friend of mine sent me an SMS:
“Now, it seems we have increased considerably the access to information in this country… Or what do you say? (I presume you know the news, huh?)
to which I replied: “do you mean the Rywin story or the Cimoszewicz?”
“Cimoszewicz! There we have secret information going public and god knows where else… And free press (! Nie!) possibly limiting itself (?) not to reveal it all”
In the days following the story, some of the details of the leakage slowly came out. The hard drives were originally sold to a computer re-sale shop for used parts. Someone at the government warehouse apparently stole the hard drives without knowing what was on them for the grand total of… 5 dollars! However, after dumping them off, a University of Warsaw student got ahold of the hard drives and it seems NIE was not the first newspaper he offered them to. Several editors of major newspapers came forward to say they were solicited in the weeks before NIE published the excerpts. The going price: $10,000. The student was arrested in less than a week, but NIE will face no charges.
The story constitutes a very public example of what many journalists have told me, mostly in rumor form: that Polish journalists are paying for information. Aside from information access laws not functioning well and journalists taking part in a less formal relationships of information exchange, the purchase of information seems to me like another separate form of information flow. I have heard the stories of leaks and the accusations of information coerced from government sources, but the purchase of information is something I have never heard a journalist admit to. This is considered the lowest of the low. The leak or inside contact is considered useful, even essential, but the shared goal of both sides is some sort of public interest. Meanwhile, the purchase of information is viewed as if both sides only work in their private interests of profit.
the more cynical among us would easily put forth the criticism of a so-called free press, saying that they do not always print important stories because of special interests. but these criticisms usually amount to little more than just criticism.
but what if there was proof of such a practice? how many reporters have to repeat this same story before we can believe it and how many other reporters and editors will then deny such a thing?
last week, I spoke with an investigative journalist and I asked him this question, whether or not the Polish press drops stories due to conflicts of interest, political reasons, or for the protection of specific groups or individuals. he was taken aback by the question at first and asked me, “how did you know that?” then he admitted that this was true, but it was somewhat difficult to explain. there are no protected people, the practice is news media-specific, editor-specific, and/or time-specific.
speaking with another reporter, admittedly a reporter who is rather young and without experience or contacts in other countries, he said that he had never examined the problem too critically. “but don’t you think this happens in all places?” he asked me. “I don’t really know, but I think I know it happens here,” I said. we talked about a story he had been pursuing concerning the head of a children’s aid organization. this very respected head of a respected and important institution had divorced his wife and was apparently now living with a young woman who he was at one time helping through his organization. a law enforcement officer had brought the case to the reporter’s attention and even invited him to come to his office to examine the confidential documents regarding the case, saying that he was simply disgusted by this man’s conduct. but for the reporter, there was a sense of conflict and the story would not be printed, or at least not immediately. first, they needed to work out a plan: how to release the story without damaging the children’s organization? there is only one such organization in Poland (not children’s organizations, of course, but I don’t want to write anything too specific). in our conversation, I said that I would probably expect an American newspaper to print the story immediately. of course, we have many children’s aid organizations and we would realize that not all of their officials are doing something wrong. but is it the job of a newspaper to make these decisions? in Poland, that is the job of some of the newspapers, particularly those papers with a “mission.” and that mission, as explained simply by at least one editor, is “modernization,” but has also been explained in terms of the best interests of Poland. this is not simply a case of media bias or deciding a story is more or less important, but the denial of a story that would presumably make headlines because publishing the story would diverge from the moralistic mission of the newspaper.
first you make a call or send an email. and you contact someone very busy. if an email, there is no response, so you later make a call. if a call, then they ask that you call them back in a week or two or next month. or worse yet, that you email them a reminder at that time. then, they set things back further for various other reasons. next thing you know, it is up to them to be calling you back, which is the worst situation of all. because after putting the callback off for a couple weeks, they find it either painfully embarrassing to call you back at such a late date or they forget all about it. maybe worse still, they start hoping you have forgotten about them. meanwhile, you’re working on 10 things at once and may very well forget about them, letting them off the hook.
here’s another email excerpt from the field:
Hi Michel,
I tried to call you several times about 9 pm but the line was busy, so I gave
up. I am sorry I did not give you any sign after we had contacted last time. I
had much work but in real I just have no excuse. First I had forgotten and
then I felt stupid, so finally I did nothing.
I am glad you still want to talk to me. If you mean by the next Tuesday
April the 13 it is ok for me. Could we meet at 3 pm somewhere in downtown.
We could sit somewhere buy a beer and talk over some scientific stuff. What
do you think?
this Monday, I had an interview with an investigative journalist I had been tracking down for over 4 months. and next week, I will have an interview with a lawyer who I had tracked down for 7 months! the journalist told me I would make a good investigator, because I am so dedicated to finding people. he was 99% sure that I had forgotten all about him – and maybe this is why he never gave me his cell phone number! so when I called him at his office, and he is never there at the office, he was taken by surprise. I had finally cornered him.
in a strange way, I have become what I am studying: a digger, an investigator, collector of lost stories, rumor-listener, nervous and stressed out, elated at new revelations. but most importantly, I have become (more) courageously and annoyingly persistent.