The National
Broadcasting Council

1. On 9-10 August 2022, information about the poisoning of the Oder river with a strong solvent – mesitylene – appeared on news portals and social media.

2. On 9 August 2022, the local portal, newslubuski.pl reported: ‘In a few hours’ time, a real paradise for anglers and tourists turned into hell. Thousands of dead and dying fish have washed ashore, and more are afloat in the Oder current! (...) A first analysis of samples has ruled out the possibility of asphyxiation, i.e. due to a significant reduction in the amount of oxygen dissolved in the water. (...). In the end, after a thorough analysis, it was determined that the water taken from the Oder contained significant amounts of mesitylene.’

3.  Following the local portal, information about the poisoning of the Oder with mesitylene was also disseminated by thematic portals of the national media. For example, on 10 August 2022, the WP Tech portal (WIRTUALNE MEDIA POLSKA S.A.), in a text published at 17:06, explained the reasons for the poisoning of the Oder as follows: ‘Industrial wastewater, which often contains various chemical substances, flows into the river. This is probably the cause of the ecological disaster on the Oder, which began a few days ago. As newslubuski.pl reports, employees of the Voivodeship Inspectorate for Environmental Protection in Wrocław have detected high concentrations of harmful mesitylene in the water.

4. This information was treated as confirmed (newslubuski.pl) or highly probable (WP Tech), although on 10 August 2022 at 15:56 the Chief Inspectorate of Environmental Protection published a communiqué in which it ruled out the presence of mesitylene in the river in five voivodships: Śląskie, Opolskie, Dolnośląskie, Lubuskie and Zachodniopomorskie.

5.  Despite this, on 10 August 2022 the information about the poisoning of the Oder with mesitylene was also treated as confirmed on social media. For example, a Twitter account published a post at 19:08 with the following alarmist content:

!!! A real ecological disaster on the Oder river. Tons of dead fish have been found on the banks of the Lower Silesian section of the river. Someone has dumped mesitylene into the Oder! - a highly toxic solvent. It may take up to a dozen years for the effects of the pollution to be eliminated.

6.  Studies by the Chief Inspectorate for Environmental Protection have ruled out mesitylene as a toxic substance in the Oder. However, the dissemination of unverified information about its presence in the days immediately preceding German media reports about the detection of mercury in the river made it likely that another type of toxin was also present and focused public attention on the poisoning of the Oder waters by a highly harmful substance. Data providing information and statistics on search trends for specific keywords on one of the most popular search engines show that the popularity of the keyword ‘mesitylene’ doubled every day between 9 and 11 August, peaking on the day the first information about the mercury poisoning of the river appeared.

Mercury in the Oder river: 11-12 AUGUST 2022

1. The first information about the presence of mercury in the Oder river appeared on the Polish internet during the night of 11 August 2022. According to a report by the PAP’s FakeHunter project, which aims to verify content posted on the internet and expose so-called 'fake news', a tweet by Robert Suligowski containing false information was among the tweets claiming that the Oder river was contaminated with mercury. It was published at 9:42pm on 11 August: ‘Well, the Germans tested the water in one day and found mercury. Bravo to the reconstruction group KaKaO, to the deputy minister for seas and oceans, who searched in Gdańsk and Warsaw, and to the Chief Inspectorate for Environmental Protection, who stuttered for two weeks’, the author attached a link to an article from the website of the local German radio and television station RBB24. According to FakeHunter, the text on the RBB24 website stated that water samples from the Oder river showed high levels of mercury contamination, which was to be determined by a state laboratory in Brandenburg. According to RBB24, the levels were so high that the test result could not be displayed, and the test had to be repeated on a larger scale. However, the same article also stated that RBB24 was referring to unofficial results. ‘The first results are available from yesterday evening. We don't have them officially yet, but they do indicate a massive exposure to mercury,’  was the quote from the Brandenburg State Laboratory reported by RBB24.

RBB24’s unconfirmed information was repeated – with the caveat that official results would have to wait – by many other German media outlets.

2. Moments after the above post was published, at 21:45, according to FakeHunter, a tweet by Pawel Wita was published which read: ‘Tests on the Oder river in Germany show that the water was contaminated with mercury. The fact that this has not been discovered in Poland is astounding’ (FakeHunter points out that Pawel Wita’s post is currently not publicly available due to the profile owner’s restriction of its visibility).
3.  Considering the above, it should be noted that the unofficial information from the German local radio and television station RBB24 has become credible news in Polish social media, although the Chief Inspectorate for Environmental Protection, in a communiqué on 11 August 2022, supplementing the announcement of the previous day, informed: ‘Our current results do not identify the presence of toxic substances (...) in the Oder river.’
4. The credible, though officially unverified, news on social media about mercury in the Oder, which originated in German media reports, was then disseminated on Polish media websites. Bartosz Wieliński, deputy editor-in-chief of Gazeta Wyborcza (AGORA S.A.), in an article with the clear title ‘German media: high levels of mercury found in the Oder’s waters’ published on wyborcza.pl at 23:01 on the night of 11 August, wrote, inter alia: ‘The level of mercury in the water is unbelievably high. The tests will be repeated, reports RBB radio. German police are also investigating massive fish deaths in the Oder. The Germans complain of a lack of cooperation with the Polish authorities.’  The title and headline of an article published the same hour on the rp.pl portal (GREMI MEDIA S.A.) was equally clear. The article, entitled 'Mercury found in German water samples from the Oder', informed readers that ‘Employees of a German state laboratory have found high levels of mercury in water samples taken from the Oder river,’ reports the German portal RBB24. The levels are so high that the test result cannot be displayed and must be repeated.
5. The presence of mercury in the Oder river became a ‘fact’ on the night of 11 August 2022, not only in the online editions of traditional media, but also, as already mentioned, in social media. Mercury in the Oder river was treated as a ‘fact’ not only by experienced journalists and opinion leaders (e.g. Bertold Kittel posted a tweet at 23:41 with the content: ‘Mercury in the Oder has not been detected by Polish laboratories (...)’, retweeting Paweł Wita’s post described above), but also by activists and social campaigners (e.g. Jan Mencwel posted a post at 23:13 with the content: ‘So the Oder has been poisoned with mercury! A deadly substance for all living things – including humans.... How is it possible that this has gone undetected? We live in a state of sodden cardboard that resembles the USSR in the Chernobyl era @MorawieckiM – dismissals NOW!)’       There was a growing conviction of catastrophe in the posts, accompanied by radical conclusions about the Polish political system (see the comparison of the situation in Poland with the USSR with the demand for resignations).
6.  The next day – on 12 August 2022 – the narrative on the mercury contamination of the Oder river continued in the traditional and social media. Politicians at the local government level, citing unverified information from the German media, declared their commitment to protecting people from the effects of the river's poisoning (e.g. a Twitter post by the Marshal of the Lubuskie Voivodeship, Elżbieta Anna Polak, at 7:21 a.m., stating: ‘Germany has examined the Oder. The Oderwelle reports high levels of mercury in the river. Under no circumstances should people go near the Oder or water their animals. We are applying for a declaration of a state of natural disaster!)’ and the inaction of the government administration in this matter (e.g. an entry by the Marshal of the Lubuskie Voivodeship, which reads: ‘The Marshal of the Lubuskie Voivodeship has applied to the Government of the Republic of Poland for an urgent declaration of a state of natural disaster! The local government is putting up posters warning the population, because the governor has not warned anyone!)’
7. In this context, it should be noted that, according to the list published on the gov.pl  website under the tab ‘Odra - stop disinformation’, the government administration has taken the following actions until 12 August 2022:

• 26.07 - After the first reports of dead fish in the Oder river, the Voivodeship Inspectorate for Environmental Protection (WIOŚ) in Wrocław immediately acted (taking water samples and analysing its chemical state). Water tests revealed high oxygen levels, so the physical and chemical state of the Oder river is continuously being monitored.
• 28.07 - The WIOŚ in Wrocław informs on TT about dead fish in the Oder between the Lipki lock and Oława.
• 2.08 - Information on the WIOŚ website in Wrocław about the actions of the Inspectorate. First results of the inspectors’ analyses of water samples. The local WIOŚ inspects and controls the water level in the Oder river. Samples are analysed in the following voivodeships: Śląskie, Opolskie, Dolnośląskie, Lubuskie and Zachodniopomorskie. The activities are supervised by the General Inspectorate of Environmental Protection (GIOŚ).
• 4.08 - The GIOŚ decision to start drone searches for possible causes and entities that could have contaminated the water and to keep the Central Testing Laboratory in round-the-clock operation mode.
• 5-8.08 - the situation on the Oder river is continuously being monitored at successive water stages in the Wrocław area and on other sections of the Oder river.
• 9. 08 - The WIOŚ in Wrocław submits a report to the Public Prosecutor's Office on dead fish in the Oder river.
• 10.08 - Notice on the website of the Chief Inspectorate for Environmental Protection on the current activities of the WIOŚ and inspections carried out in 5 voivodeships.
• 11.08 - Regional Directorates for Environmental Protection (RDOŚ) in Opole, Wrocław, Gorzów Wielkopolski and Szczecin under the supervision of the General Directorate for Environmental Protection determine the extent of losses of protected species – both fish and mammals. The RDOŚ in Wrocław is initiating proceedings under the Act on the Prevention and Remediation of Environmental Damage. The aim is to gather evidence and assess what remedial action needs to be taken. On the same day, a press conference was held in the village of Cigacice, Lubuskie Voivodeship: Jacek Ozdoba, Undersecretary of State in the Ministry of Climate and the Environment, Grzegorz Witkowski, Undersecretary of State in the Ministry of Infrastructure, Michał Mistrzak, Chief Inspector of Environmental Protection,and  Przemysław Dacy, President of the Wody Polskie State Water Management Authority. Deputy Minister Jacek Ozdoba stated during the conference: 'We are most likely dealing with the committing of an offence involving the introduction of a substance into the water that causes the death of fish and other organisms. This is currently being verified.'

8.  Local politicians in Germany have also drawn attention to the alleged inaction of the Polish government administration in the Oder river disaster, particularly regarding its information policy. According to an overview of the German media by the Polish Press Agency PAP, published on 12 August at 9:10 a.m., and updated at 11:12 a.m. the Polish government’s information policy on the matter was criticised by Brandenburg’s Environmental Minister Axel Vogel in an interview with RBB TV: ‘It is only through third parties and the media that we know that solvents are being released on a large scale, which could be responsible for the death of the fish. It should be noted that the agreed ways of reporting have not been followed and therefore we do not have as much information as we should have.’  At the same time, the tabloid BILD spread a vision of a frightening catastrophe in its reporting, informing readers that there was nothing but death floating in the Oder river.
9. Opinion-making leaders in Poland, including local government politicians, took the presence of mercury in the Oder river for granted and suggested a lack of central government action on the poisoning issue. For example, in a post published on Twitter at 8:09 a.m., Konrad Piasecki wrote: ‘I've been in Szczecin since yesterday, 300 metres from the Oder river, which will bring the mercury here in a moment. I am waiting for the RCB alarm, like the one I got after the Czajka accident. It’s impossible that for political considerations this would not happen, as I still haven’t  gotten it....
10.  At the same time, both on the Internet and on social media (Twitter - now ‘X’), the sense of danger from the presence of mercury in the river intensified, and the public’s attention gradually shifted from the causes to the potential effects of the danger. At 8:48 a.m., a text appeared on onet.pl (RASP), whose headline first pointed out the slowness of the Polish authorities in relation to the disaster, in contrast to the speed of the German side; it then diverted readers’ attention from the issue of verifying the presence of mercury in the Oder to the possible shortage of anti-toxic drugs in pharmacies: ‘Experts and Internet users find it hard to believe that the Germans took two days to find out what the Polish authorities needed two weeks’ time to find out. One pharmacist warns that if this information is confirmed, pharmacies may run out of certain medicines.’  The article also quotes Dr Paweł Grzesiowski's entry on mercury toxicity:  ‘(...) Mercury is especially toxic to children and pregnant women, damaging the brain, kidneys and intestines. Mercury is absorbed through the skin, respiratory tract and digestive system. Caution is advised.’  Equally dramatic consequences of the river poisoning, comparable even to the Chernobyl disaster, were predicted by opinion leaders in social media posts. At 9:45 a.m., the Gazeta Wyborcza journalist Michał Wojtczuk tweeted a comment by Wojciech Orliński, highlighting his expertise in chemistry. Among other things, Orliński wrote about the presence of mercury in the Oder river: ‘(...) some commentators are breathing a sigh of relief that there is nothing dangerous because the mercury will sink to the bottom and be easy to catch. It will not sink. It will bioaccumulate in fish and poison water supplies for decades. The effects could be worse than the small amount of radioactive nuclide that fell on us from Chernobyl.’ Information on the harmfulness of mercury to human health has also been provided by health portals (e.g. Medonet, RASP, 9:55: ‘Mercury in the Oder? Doctors: risk of organ damage and even death)’, websites of popular radio stations (e.g. TOK FM, INFORADIO - Agora Radio Group, 11:35 a.m.: ‘Mercury in the body. Doctors and pharmacists warn. First aid for mercury poisoning).’
11. The FakeHunter website, in an analysis entitled… ‘Fake news: Mercury in the Oder River - a white paper,’ pointed out that while reporting on the dangers of what to do if you come into contact with mercury is understandable in such a situation, some of the media coverage of the unconfirmed information about the presence of mercury in the river was seen as catastrophic in nature. In the course of the day, the unconfirmed information about mercury and the accompanying sense of danger and catastrophe also began to be exploited by politicians, e.g. by constructing allegories in Twitter posts in which they ascribed extremely negative characteristics to political opponents (Civic Platform leader Donald Tusk, in a post published at 11:43 a.m., said: ‘Not only the fish in the Oder are dying, the whole state is dying under Kaczyński. PiS is like mercury).’  The FakeHunter website analysis quoted above also pointed out: ‘The biggest furore, however, was caused by a tweet by the PO Marshal of the Lubuskie Voivodeship, Elżbieta Polak, who on 12 August, referring to the words of Brandenburg's Environment Minister Axel Vogel of the Greens, wrote: “It's true, nonetheless. Axel Vogel, Brandenburg's Minister for Agriculture and the Environment, confirmed to me in person that the mercury levels in the Oder river were so high that it was impossible to determine the extent of the problem. Tests on the fish themselves are not yet available. The German side should have them later today.”’
12.  The tweet from the Marshal of the Lubuskie Voivodeship was published at 16:42. Less than two hours later, the unconfirmed information about mercury was also treated as true and unequivocal on TOK FM's Tok 360 programme, broadcast at around 18:20, in a conversation with Polish journalist Urszula Ptak from Berlin (see podcast entitled: ‘The German studies are unequivocal - there is mercury in the Oder river. The catching off of dead fish will not stop soon’). In both cases (i.e. the entry of the Marshal of the Lubuskie Voivodeship and the broadcast on TOK FM), mercury in the Oder river was treated as a fact, despite the information given by the Deputy Minister of Climate and Environment, Jacek Ozdoba, at a press conference on the same day: ‘In the Lower Silesian, Lubuskie and West Pomeranian Voivodeships, according to our equipment and the samples taken, we do not confirm the media information about the mercury content in the Oder river’.
13. In the evening edition of Fakty (Facts), broadcast on 12 August 2022 on TVN at 19:00, the news about the poisoning of the Oder river was preceded by an announcement by the programme’s presenter, Grzegorz Kajdanowicz, who, presenting the journalistic material against the background of a screen showing a close-up of dead fish dumped on the riverbank, said: ‘(...) One of the largest and most important Polish rivers is dying before our eyes. Life in the Oder river is disappearing. There is a request from local government officials to declare a state of natural disaster, because the pollution is huge and dangerous. The first resignations were announced: the head of Wody Polskie (the State Water Holding – translator note) and the chief inspector of environmental protection – Magda Łucyan.’ 
14.  Magda Łucyan’s footage begins with a shot of dead fish floating on the surface of the water near a rocky shore. The reporter’s voice from off camera: ‘There is already a wave of dead fish in Szczecin.’  Then – in a Pan Shot – we see a section of beach and river bathing area, with a red flag on the lifeguard tower indicating that swimming is forbidden. The reporter’s voice from off camera: ‘That's why there’s a red flag.’  The next frame shows a semi-close up of Andrzej Kus, a representative of the Zakład Usług Komunalnych in Szczecin, speaking to the camera: ‘It is absolutely forbidden to go into the water. Lifeguards are watching.’ Another shot of dead fish on the riverbank, from above, at an angle. A reporter's voice off camera: ‘Szczecin reacts fastest of all. And instead of appeals and recommendations...’  At this point there is a cut to a near-close shot of the Voivode of West Pomerania leaving a conference. A reporter's voice from off-screen: ‘...convenes the crisis staff and speaks directly about the danger.’  The reporter’s words are followed by a close-up of the lifeguard, Aleksandra Ambroży, speaking to the camera against the background of the closed bathing area: ‘It is absolutely forbidden to touch the surface of the water.’  The next shot shows a representative of the Zakład Usług Komunalnych in Szczecin, Andrzej Kus: ‘We don't really know what it is.’ In the next frame we see the silhouette of a representative of the Fisheries Guard, standing on a boat or motorboat, first showing by camera two large dead fish thrown on top of a pile of previously collected and already dead specimens. The voice of the reporter: ‘ At this point, there is another cut to the dead fish, filmed in close-up, lying on the riverbank and being collected by the fishing guards, and the reporter continues her commentary from behind the frame: ...about the tonnes of dying fish, the poison, the pungent smell and the burns on their hands, the Polish authorities are still not answering the question.... Editorial cut to the dead fish seen from above – in the general plan – floating on the surface of the water. A reporter's voice off camera: ... ‘who, when and what did they release into the Oder river?’ Another camera shot of dead fish floating just below the surface, with voiceover commentary: ‘And why is there still contamination several hundred kilometres away?’ (At the same time, the camera lifts to show a larger section of murky water with dead fish). Next, Maciej Sobieraj, a representative of the West Pomeranian Nature Society, is filmed in near-close up and tells the documentarians: ‘Massive fish deaths. The fish are in different stages of decay ... There are fish that are dying. There are fish that are sort of moribund.’  There is a cut to a shot of dead fish floating just beneath the surface (shot from above, from the riverbank). At this point Maciej Sobieraj continues: ... ‘and there are also fish with neurological disorders.’  After his statement, Mariusz Strzelczyk, the commander of the Gryfino Social Fishing Guard, is filmed in near-close up and says: ‘We are scared here. We are really scared. Well, a disaster in general, yes? And every day, several times a day, we check what’s going on.’  A graphic of a smartphone is then shown, quoting an RCB text message alert  ('Attention! Polluted water in the Oder river. Do not bathe in the Oder and do not use water from the river. Follow messages from Sanepid: ‘Attention: Contaminated water in the Oder River and the reservoirs through which it flows. Do not enter or use the water. Do not eat fish or fish. Follow the instructions and a map of Poland with the districts of the West Pomeranian Voivodeship highlighted in red (the map is so large that the districts highlighted in red represent a small part of it). The graphic is accompanied by a reporter’s off-camera commentary: ‘Just today, the Government Security Centre sent text messages to residents of several districts along the Oder warning them not to bathe or use the river’s water.’ Another close-up of dead fish dumped on the riverbank. A reporter's comment from off camera: And here’s another question: ‘shouldn't text messages be sent to all the provinces through which the Oder river flows?’ Another shot of dead fish floating on the surface with a comment from the off-screen reporter (01:44): ‘Especially as the Germans are getting louder and louder about finding high levels of mercury in the samples.’  Images of dead fish being taken from the river with a landing net and a net. Another comment from an off-camera reporter (01:48): ‘First reported by the media, Mr Gregor Beyer, head of the Märkisch-Oderland district's environmental department, also spoke out today.’  A graphic appears showing, among other things, a picture of Mr Gregor Beyer against a background of dead fish in the river. Below the photo is the caption: Gregor Beyer, head of the environmental department of the Märkisch-Oderland district. Source: inforadio.de. Gregor Beyer's voice can be heard in the background, translated into Polish: ‘Since yesterday evening we have had the first unofficial test results, which speak of high mercury concentrations in the water. Is this the only factor? We do not know.’  After this statement, Polish government representatives are filmed in the general plan: Jacek Ozdoba, Undersecretary of State in the Ministry of Climate and the Environment, and Maciej Wąsik, Undersecretary of State in the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Administration – during the press conference. A reporter’s voice from off-camera: ‘The Polish authorities argue that there are no heavy metals in the samples.’ Footage of the two ministers standing behind their desks – a statement by Jacek Ozdoba: ‘According to our equipment readings and the samples taken, we cannot confirm the presence of mercury.’  This statement is contrasted by a graphic sign with a post on the Twitter account of Elżbieta Anna Polak, Marshal of the Lubuskie Voivodeship, which reads: ‘It's true after all. In a direct conversation with me, Axel Vogel, Brandenburg's Minister of Agriculture and the Environment, confirmed that the mercury levels in the Oder river were so high that the extent of the problem could not be determined. There has been no study of the fish themselves. The German side is expected to have them later today (text: the mercury concentration in the Oder was so high that the scale could not be determined is additionally highlighted in red). A reporter’s voice is registered from the background: ‘But the German side, the Minister of Agriculture and Environment of Brandenburg, confirmed to the Marshal of the Lubuskie Region that the mercury concentration was so high that the scale could not be determined.’  A near-close up of Dr Eryk Matuszkiewicz, a toxicologist at the Franciszek Raszei Municipal Hospital in Poznań (against the background of the hospital entrance and the ambulance standing nearby). The doctor talks about the harmfulness of mercury (02:26): ‘Mercury has primarily toxic, dangerous effects on the central nervous system... inorganic compounds also... on liver function, on kidney function... it can accumulate in these organs and lead to organ failure. And even pregnant women... because mercury crosses the placenta and enters the foetus.’  A frame showing the surface of the river with dead fish floating on the water. The camera moves quickly (presumably from a boat) along the bank. A reporter's voice from off camera: ‘The board of the Lubuskie region announces the submission of a motion ....’ A frame with dead fish wedged between stones. Voice-over continues: ‘for the introduction of a state of natural disaster...’. a frame shot of dead fish floating on the surface of the river by a concrete bank. A reporter continues to speak from behind the frame and makes further accusations. A shot of Elżbieta Anna Polak, Marshal of the Lubuskie Voivodeship, filmed in the centre of the frame during a conference. The marshal’s statement: ‘No one warned the inhabitants ... Children bathed in the Oder river. Animals entered the river.’ A shot of the river in the middle of the set. Two men in overalls and gloves are standing on its banks. They are using nets to catch dead fish from the river. A reporter's voice off camera: ‘Into the water from which, for another day, hundreds of kilos of dead fish will have to be fished out. ...’. A shot of the men pulling dead specimens out of their nets. A reporter's voice off camera: ‘Now the army is helping out...’ Footage of dead fish in a plastic sack. A reporter continues: ‘... with special security measures.’  A near close-up of Brigadier Michal Borowy, representative of the District Headquarters of the State Fire Service in Słubice, speaking: ‘Soldiers in masks, gloves, waders... They penetrate the shore and catch these dead fish there as well.’  Footage of  dead fish dumped on the river bank. A reporter’s voice off camera: ‘Unfortunately, it is not only fish that have fallen.’  There follows a series of statements from various people, filmed in near-close up. Mirosław Kamiński, president of the PZW district in Zielona Góra, statement: ‘Everything that lives in the water is almost dead.’     Dr Andrzej Woźnica, Director of the Silesian Water Centre, Faculty of Natural Sciences, University of Silesia in Katowice, states: ‘There is a high probability that these toxins have affected entire ecosystems: from bacteria to zooplankton, phytoplankton, zoobenthos and all organisms living in the Oder river.’ A picture of a bird perched in the branches of a tree, holding a dead fish in its talons. The voice of the reporter: ‘And when such dead organisms are eaten by other animals, such as dogs, cats or birds, they are also poisoned.’  A quick shot of Piotr Nieznański, representative of the Save the Rivers Coalition, speaking: ‘This system does not work.’  Then a shot of dead fish fished out of the river and placed on black plastic film, and later a piece of smartphone footage showing lots of dead fish floating on the surface of the water. A reporter's voice off camera: ‘The scale of the destruction is enormous, but it could have been much smaller if there had been a workable system of control and punishment.’ Screen split into two windows. In the window on the left of the screen, a near-close up of Piotr Nieznański; in the window on the right, of the author of the material, Magda Łucyan. Statement by Piotr Nieznański: ‘The system has drastically low penalties for environmental crimes, for causing damage to the environment, which can even encourage people to poison the environment.’ A Close-up of the heads of dead fish collected in a plastic sack. Clouded or bulging fish eyes can be seen. A reporter’s voice from off camera: Magda Łucyan, Fakty.
15.  After the news service, the TVN 24 and TVN 24 BiS programme Fakty po Faktach aired an interview with the Marshal of the Lubuskie Voivodeship, Elżbieta Anna Polak. The Marshal reiterated the narrative she had previously tweeted about the lack of action and information from the state regarding the poisoning of the river and the danger to people’s lives associated with this alleged inaction on the part of the authorities. According to Marshal Elżbieta Anna Polak, the government failed to provide information about the poisoning of the river and failed to warn citizens. In an interview conducted by Diana Rudnik, the politician said, among other things: ‘(...) No one in the local authorities informed us, and we are talking about people’s health and lives... This is a major catastrophe. The Oder is not the only river to be poisoned. Birds and animals are dying. Just a few days ago, children were bathing in the Oder, even though the government already knew that the poison was flowing.’
16.  In the evening of the same day, the information provided by the Polish media about the poisoning of the Oder River with mercury was no longer unequivocal, and the presence of the toxic substance in the river was questioned. At around 22:49, Gazeta Wrocławska (POLSKA PRESS GRUPA) quoted the contents of a communiqué from the Brandenburg Ministry of Agriculture, Environment and Climate Protection on the possible causes of the environmental disaster in the Oder River. The  Gazeta Wrocławska wrote: ‘In the letter sent to the media there is no confirmation of the information that the permissible level of mercury has been exceeded.’
17.  Although the above-mentioned communiqué pointed out that several factors could be responsible for the ecological disaster of the river (including the complicated hydrological situation caused by the heat) and that their verification requires further in-depth research, information pointing to the presence of mercury in the water continued to appear on news portals. For example, at 23:55, the wp.pl portal (WIRTUALNE MEDIA POLSKA S.A.) published a text entitled: ‘Not only mercury? Germans found something else in the Oder’, which suggested that not only mercury, but also high salinity was responsible for the fish die-off in the Oder river: ‘The cause of the mass fish die-off in the Oder river is being identified. The first results of the samples taken indicated that the mercury in the water was responsible for the poisoning. But it turns out that this is not the case at all. New laboratory results on Friday showed an increased salt load in the river,’  Brandenburg Environment Minister Axel Vogel said. Meanwhile, the above-mentioned communiqué from the Brandenburg Ministry of Agriculture, Environment and Climate Protection, also quoted by wp.pl, read: [The research] ‘is (...) not yet fully authoritative and not definitive. As a result, there has been a significant increase in atypical salt compounds, which may be related to the extinction of fish in the Oder. However, according to current knowledge, no single factor is responsible for the extinction. Today's data point to multiple causes, including the current very low flow rates and high-water temperatures.’

Mercury in the Oder proves to be FAKE NEWS – 13 AUGUST 2022

The Polish authorities on 13 August this year dismissed reports of mercury in the Oder river, as confirmed by subsequent Twitter posts by Anna Moskwa, the Minister of Climate and Environment, who said:

• (transl.:) ‘We have officially received the updated water test results from the German side. No mercury was found. Analyses on both sides of the border indicate high salinity. Comprehensive toxicological studies are underway in Poland. We will keep you informed of further results.’
• (transl.:) ‘The National Veterinary Institute has finished testing fish for heavy metals. It has ruled out heavy metals as the cause of the fish deaths. Further analysis is ongoing.’

1.  In the evening edition of Fakty, broadcast on 13 August 2022 on TVN, the presenter of the edition, Diana Rudnik, announced journalistic material on the poisoning of the Oder river against the background of a photo of firemen pulling dead fish out of the water: ‘Good evening. If not mercury, what has been killing the Oder river for at least 19 days? What has caused the mass death of fish, and what is causing worrying symptoms in people who have not been alerted to the danger? Studies on both the Polish and German sides of the river point to high salinity. There is a reward of one million zlotys for the identification of the culprit. Magda Łucyan.’
2. The footage begins with a general map showing hundreds of dead fish  in an overhead projection. A reporter’s voice from off-screen: ‘These are the latest images of hundreds more dead fish.’  A shot of a flowing river with dead fish floating on the surface. The reporter continues off camera: Widuchowa, 40 km from Szczecin. A near-close up on a resident of Widuchowa, who talks about feeling threatened: ‘We fear for our health and lives (at this point she looks at her daughter). Ours and the children's’ (sigh). ‘Well, it is an unimaginable catastrophe.’  A frame with a near close-up of another inhabitant of Widuchowa and a woman’s statement: ‘This is a travesty in general, what is happening.’           A near-close up of an elderly man, a resident of Widuchowa. His statement: ‘I have no confidence.’  General plan showing possibly WOT soldiers or officers from other services catching dead fish from the river. A reporter's voice from off screen: ‘This lack of confidence is due to lack of information and lack of timely response from the services.’  A general view of the river. In the foreground, a piece of paper taped to a warning sign reads: ATTENTION: Poisoned Oder river.  Do not approach the river, and a corpse's head drawn underneath. A reporter's voice from off camera: ‘And this has realistically affected people's lives.’  Near-close up of an elderly man, Roman Włoch, boatman at the tourist port on the Oder river in Cigacice. The man says: ‘A colleague... here... who was sailing on Sunday, carrying children in a boat. Er... on Monday... er... got a skin allergy.’          A frame with a dead fish floats on the surface of the river. The man continues: ‘His skin was spotted from top to bottom.’  A reporter's voice from off-camera: ‘Mr Roman is a petty officer at a marina on the Oder river and he himself ....’ Frame with hundreds of dead fish. Voice over: ‘...only a week ago he entered the river from which today...’ A close-up of the dead fish dumped on the riverbank. The reporter continues from off camera: ‘...continues to fish out the dead fish.’ Back to the frame with a near-close up of Roman Włoch saying: ‘My legs began to hurt terribly, my muscles.... By 1p.m. I had a fever and dragged myself home.... and the dog, of course.’  General plan showing a man in a mask collecting dead fish in plastic sacks. A reporter’s voice from off camera: ‘Mr Roman’s son and many of his friends had similar symptoms.’  Close-up of plastic sacks marked ‘POLICE’ containing dead fish. Voice from off-camera: ‘Because until yesterday, no one had any official information that it was dangerous to use the river.’  Middle set - statement to camera by an elderly man, Wiesław Kotyza, signed as an activist: ‘I pass through Krosno Odrzańskie every day. I often take the ferry. I see hundreds of fishermen and tourists lining the shore...’. General map showing men in black uniforms with the word ‘guard (STRAŻ)’ written on them, carrying large plastic sacks. Continuation of Wiesław Kotyza’s statement: ‘... they are hanging around. Nobody informed them.’  A reporter’s voice from off camera: ‘On the contrary, there were completely mixed messages.’ A shot of the Oder river in the general plan. In the foreground a board with the word 'Oder' on it. A reporter's voice from off-camera: ‘Because just two days ago the Deputy Minister of Infrastructure was asked by the inhabitants of Cigacice ...’. A shot with the Deputy Minister filmed in the middle of the set during a meeting with the residents. The off-screen reporter continues: ‘...about safety, he even encouraged swimming in the river.’ A dialogue between Deputy Minister of Infrastructure Grzegorz Witkowski and the residents of Cigacice is then presented. A question is taken from a local resident to the Deputy Minister: ‘Can we take our children there on Saturday?’ Answer from the minister: ‘Yes, you can.’ Another woman, nodding her head, confirms: ‘Yes, yes?’ A statement is heard: ‘So we have information that we can ...’. A question from the crowd: ‘Will you go in the water?’  The deputy minister replies: ‘I will go in.’ A woman, who is not in the picture, makes sure he does: ‘You will go into the water, correct?’  Deputy Minister: ‘I will go in.’  Women in the crowd: ‘Then you can come in.’  The Deputy Minister looks down at his shoes and trousers. Someone in the crowd says: ‘You are welcome to splash in the water.’ Another voice: ‘I'll hold your shoes for you.’ Deputy Minister responds: ‘Fine.’ Another female voice: ‘Me too.’ Deputy Minister: ‘I'm coming in, really. I'm coming in. Just let me... Let me change.’  An overhead shot of dead fish in the river Oder. A reporter's voice from off camera: ‘Today his boss, Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki, has a very different tone.’  Close-up of Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki's face as he says: ‘Ladies and gentlemen...’  A reporter's voice from off-screen: ‘...  and speaks with complete seriousness about the millions...’  Close-up of Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki (centre of frame) with Deputy Minister of Interior and Administration Maciej Wąsik on his left and Deputy Minister of Environment and Climate Jacek Ozdoba on his right during a meeting with journalists at the Lubuskie Governor’s Office. The voice-over continues: ‘...a reward for help in finding the culprits.’  Overhead shots of dead fish in the river and on the banks. The reporter continues with a voice-over:  ‘...and the ever-present danger.’ Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki is heard saying: ‘I have ordered all the services...’ Frame with a near-close up of the Prime Minister saying: ‘...to make sure that it doesn't lead to any further mishaps, especially in relation to people.’ (Cut). ‘Informal bathing areas will be patrolled by the police to ensure they are not abused...’.  At the conference, the Prime Minister and politicians are again presented in a general plan view, then the Prime Minister again in a near-close up, while the off-camera reporter comments: ‘Unfortunately, as in all previous conferences, there was a lack of detail. The Prime Minister did not answer any questions.’  A general map of the Oder River is shown with dead fish floating on the surface. The reporter continues: ‘Who dumped what in the Oder and when?’ Back to Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki, filmed in a near-close up, almost facing the camera, who says: ‘In all probability, there has been a discharge of a substance that has had certain effects.’  A view from above shows dead fish and plastic sacks lying on a tarpaulin. The reporter comments from behind the frame: ‘The whole of Poland has been able to watch these certain effects almost live for days.’  A projection from above, from an even greater distance than before, of the aforementioned tarpaulin, the riverbank and its current. The reporter continues from behind the frame: ‘...It's tons of dead fish, the pungent smell and the burns of the anglers. As a reminder...’ A graphic image appears on the screen with an animated timeline on which the dates, marked in yellow with their associated places and slogans of the events, move from right to left. Reporters from off-screen: ‘The first official reports appeared in Lipki on 26 July, 19 days ago...’. Near-close up of Zdzisław Uryga, the head of Lipki village, who says: ‘I heard from the lock workers that exactly on 26 July...’  Half close-up of a fisherman from the village of Lipki, Henryk Hofman, saying: ‘There were such bream in the river ... all sorts... pike ... everything was once swimming in the willows.’ Back to the graphic with the animated timeline. Dates marked in red with the recorded appearance of dead fish also begin to appear on the graph. The date is then accompanied by a drawing of a dead fish. Then an off-screen voice of the reporter can be heard: ‘The very next day the reports went to the Environmental Inspectorate. On the 30th of July, the dead fish appeared in Oława, and the city representatives report (alongside the animated timeline, a list of institutions to which the city of Oława had sent information about the pollution of the river appears on the screen) that by the 1st of August, they had forwarded the information to, among others, the public prosecutor's office, the police, the Ministry of Climate, the provincial marshal, the provincial governor, the Chief Environmental Inspector, and many other local institutions. And although a wave of contamination was sweeping through more and more towns, the first RCB alerts did not appear until 12 August.’ A close-up of the content of the Twitter post by the Minister of Environment and Climate, Anna Moskwa (content as in point 7; Tweet at 10:23). A reporter’s voice from off-screen: ‘Climate Minister Anna Moskwa says she has received the official results of the German study and, as she writes, no mercury was found.’  Minister Anna Moskwa's tweet disappears, leaving the shot of the river with dead fish floating on the surface. The reporter continues: ‘But analyses on both sides showed high salinity. Magda Łucyan, Fakty.
3. Following the news on TVN 24 and TVN 24 BiS, the programme Fakty po Faktach included an interview with the deputy speaker of the Polish Sejm (Parliament), Mr Piotr Zgorzelski, and the deputy speaker of the Polish Senate, Gabriela Morawska-Stanecka. The denunciation of the presence of mercury in the Oder  river – as reported in the Fakty news service – was irrelevant to the assessment of the authorities’ actions and the information provided by representatives of the public administration on the matter. One could even get the impression that the guests on the programme were not aware of this fact. Deputy speaker Gabriela Morawska-Stanecka said: ‘But I keep asking: what are the research results (...) I have not seen the research results, I have not heard that these research results exist.’  Diana Rudnik, the interviewer, emphasised the number of days that had passed since the first local information about the poisoning of the river: ‘At least 19 days after the beginning of this Armageddon,’ as the mayor of Krosno Odrzańskie said, ‘we have had no answer to the question: who... well, perhaps who is the least important aspect in this situation... with what was the river Oder poisoned.’  The deputy speaker, Piotr Zgorzelski, however, listed various hypotheses for the poisoning of the river. ‘Today the Law and Justice Party (PiS), just like the Law and Justice Party, is focusing on who did it. That is of course very important. There are different hypotheses. There is talk of some kind of power station. Various things like that. This is about something else. Who - we'll get to that because it's not the most important thing at the moment. People have to be tested, so the health service ... take advice from experts, experts who are available in local authorities and universities. You just have to reach out to them. Don’t just stare at your government. Stare at your party because nothing will come of it.’

CONCLUSIONS FROM THE ANALYSIS:

The news of the mercury contamination of the river, which came from the German media before it was officially verified, was given credence in social media posts not only by so-called ordinary users, but also by politicians, opinion leaders and journalists. It was in posts on Twitter (now ‘X’) that the main threads of the narrative of an environmental disaster allegedly caused first by mesitylene and then by mercury took shape. These included:

• certainty about the slowness or even inaction of the state in the event of a catastrophe, especially in relation to the speed of German action (see posts on the evening of 11 August 2022);
• unambiguity in the assessments of the presence of mercury in the river (see posts on the morning of 12 August 2022);
•  catastrophism in the assessment of the situation, both in terms of the possible consequences for human life and health, and for the state as a political system and mechanism for countering the threat to citizens (see posts comparing the situation to the Chernobyl disaster and a post on TT about the ‘dead-fish state of the PiS (Law and Justice)’. Subsequently, the news about the mercury in the Oder river was disseminated in the traditional media (online, radio and TV) with an accompanying sense of increasing danger that shifted the public’s attention from the causes to the potential effects of the contamination. In this context, an analysis of the content of the news about the poisoning of the Oder river, which was disseminated in successive editions of Fakty in the period of 12-13 August this year, i.e. at the time when unverified reports about the presence of mercury in the river appeared in the media, shows that:
• The narrative framework of the presented events was formed by picture-image frames (i.e. the narrative frame of the presented events was formed by picture-images - e.g. pictures of dead fish, which recurred in individual news reports), related off-camera comments (e.g. the wave of the contamination) and on-camera statements by so-called ordinary people and experts (residents of the districts through which the Oder river flows, e.g. ‘the people living along the Oder are not the only ones who are aware of the contamination’). For example, ‘Well, this is an unimaginable disaster’, an expert from the University of Silesia in Katowice, ‘There is a high probability that these toxins have affected entire ecosystems)’, building up a picture of an all-encompassing catastrophe, the extent of which no one except the local authorities and the self-organised inhabitants tried to limit.
• Into this narrative frame was inserted the motif of the lack of a proper response to the catastrophe by the authorities, especially at the central governmental level (ministers, the Prime Minister of Poland). In the materials analysed, the reaction of the authorities to the poisoning was presented as late, and the viewers could even get the impression that there was no reaction at all for a long time, or that it was not commensurate with the seriousness of the threat. These aspects were highlighted, among others, by :
• counting down the days since the first local information about the pollution of the river occurred (see comment): ‘Because eighteen days after the first official reports of tonnes of dying fish, poison, a pungent smell and burnt hands, the Polish authorities have still not answered the question: who, when and what did they let into the Oder? And why is there still contamination several hundred kilometres away?’; see comment on timeline graphic: ‘Reminder. The first official reports already appeared on 26 July in Lipki, i.e. 19 days ago...)’;
• Presentation of extracts from the statement of the Marshal of the Lubuskie Voivodeship, Elżbieta Anna Polak, from the press conference, in which she emphasises the danger to people and animals caused by the lack of information about the pollution (see Statement of Elżbieta Anna Polak: ‘Nobody warned the inhabitants....). Children bathed in the Oder. Animals went into the Oder’ and the following comment by an off-screen reporter: ‘Into the water from which hundreds of kilos of dead fish will have to be fished out for another day.... )’;
• the presentation in a sequence of events of the statement of Wiesław Kotyza, presented as an activist coming from the local community (see statement: ‘I see hundreds of fishermen and tourists on the shore. Nobody informed them)’ and the report on the meeting of the Deputy Minister of Infrastructure, Grzegorz Witkowski, with the inhabitants of Cigacice, during which the Deputy Minister declared his readiness to enter the Oder (see Report on the meeting with comments from the side-lines): ‘Because only two days ago the Deputy Minister of Infrastructure, when asked by the inhabitants of Cigacice about safety, even encouraged swimming in the river)’. In addition, the announcements and positions of government representatives made to the public at press conferences, or the measures presented by the authorities, were presented as appeals and recommendations, without any specifics (see frames from the conference of Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki with commentary): ‘(Unfortunately, at this conference, as at all previous conferences, there was again a lack of specifics. The Prime Minister did not answer any questions)’. The activity of the government on the issue of the poisoning of the Oder was contrasted with the concrete actions of the local authorities (see the statements of the Szczecin lifeguard with short, clear messages about the threat).
• The message about the activity and actions of the authorities was inscribed in a dichotomous image of reality, which juxtaposed opposites both in the image and in the associated sound layer: the general (appeals and recommendations of the authorities) vs. The general (appeals and recommendations from the authorities) vs the specific (actions by local authorities and residents); the official and static (conferences of government representatives) vs the dynamic, characterised by action in the here and now (fishing, banning people from the water, etc.); the formal and distancing (images of ministerial conferences) vs. the emotional and fearful or compassionate (statements by residents about danger and fear).
• A specific point of the message constructed in this way about the pollution of the Oder river and the actions of representatives of the wider state in this aspect were the statements of a representative of the coalition: ‘Let's save the rivers’ (see the last excerpts of the news from 12 August this year): ‘This system does not work; the system has drastically low penalties for environmental crimes, for causing damage to the environment, which can even encourage people to poison it’, the overtones of which were directed and reinforced by an off-camera comment from a reporter with the content: ‘The scale of destruction is enormous, but it could be much smaller if there were an effective system of control and punishment in place.’
• In this context, it should be noted that the material quoted an expressive opinion of an expert, but did not refer to the facts, i.e. the criminal law in this regard and the effectiveness of detection of this type of crime by the authorities. Article 185 par. 1-3 of the Penal Code provides for penalties of six to twelve years’ imprisonment – depending on the nature and seriousness of the offence – for perpetrators of serious environmental pollution (e.g. improper handling of waste, radioactive materials), which, among other things, causes damage to the flora and fauna, a lowering of the water table or significant damage to human health. In turn, Polish police statistics show that between 2005 and 2021, nine offences under Article 185 of the CC were committed, with a detection rate of 88.8% (eight out of nine offences detected).
• The information provided by the German side in the material of 12 August 2022 (see translation of the statement by Gregor Beyer, head of the environmental administration in the district of Märkisch-Oderland) about the unofficial test results that spoke of high mercury concentrations in the water - apart from the mere fact of informing the audience about the likelihood of the river being poisoned by a deadly substance - had several functions in the narrative carried out in Fakty. First, it heightened the sense of danger associated with the pollution (see off-camera comment): ‘The fact that the German side is getting louder and louder about the fact that they found high concentrations of mercury in the samples, as well as the statement of a toxicologist about the effects of mercury poisoning following the citation of the information provided by the German side). Secondly, it highlighted the alleged inadequacy of the measures taken by the government in the face of the potential danger (see graphic and commentary on the messages sent out by the RCB: just today, the Government Security Centre sent text messages to the inhabitants of several river districts warning them not to bathe or use river water. And this raises another question: shouldn't the messages have been sent to all the provinces through which the Oder flows? Especially as the Germans are getting louder and louder about finding high levels of mercury in the samples). Thirdly, it served to undermine the credibility of the government's statements on the poisoning of the river (see the summary of Deputy Minister Jacek Ozdoba’s statements at the press conference): ‘According to our equipment and the samples taken, we do not confirm the mercury content with the Twitter post (now ‘X’) by the Marshal of the Lubuskie Voivodeship, together with the reporter's off-camera comment: 'But the German side, namely the Minister of Agriculture and Environment of Brandenburg, confirmed to the Marshal of the Lubuskie Voivodeship that the mercury concentration was so high that the scale could not be determined)’.
• On this last point, it should be emphasised that the media coverage of the presence of mercury in the river on 11-13 August this year did not point to any significant differences between the Polish and German tests of the water quality of the Oder River. Firstly, sampling on the Polish side was carried out in the current of the Oder. On the German side, samples were taken in oxbows and tributaries of the Oder River. This is what the Minister of Climate and Environment, Anna Moskwa, said later, i.e. on 20 August 2022, in an interview with the PAP: ‘The issue of mercury was artificially triggered by Polish opposition politicians. Specifically, by Ms Elżbieta Polak, Marshal of Lubuskie, to whom the Brandenburg Minister of the Environment, Alex Vogel, allegedly said something about the presence of mercury in the Oder. We immediately set about testing the water and fish on our side of the river for mercury. The results of our tests ruled out the presence of mercury in the Oder, but the issue was still alive. It wasn't until the 15th of August that we received the results from the Germans of a sample taken on the 11th of August, which did indeed show the mercury - with very little exceedances for surface water and no exceedances at all for drinking water. We immediately asked the Germans where the sample had been taken. It turned out to be from an oxbow of the River Oder, where there is no traffic any more. They tested the bottom sediments and the reservoir. These two sites - in general - are not directly connected to the Oder.’

PAP: So the cause of the fish deaths is not and was not mercury?

No research confirms that. At least that is what the Germans think. This is the position of my German counterpart, Steffi Lemke, who officially said at a press conference that mercury was not the cause of the fish deaths in the Oder. For me, the research results that come to me from Polish institutions and everything that the German government communicates on this matter are facts. The rest is informational noise (...)

Secondly, based on research carried out in Europe, for example the European Environment Agency's 2018 report entitled: Mercury in Europe's environment a priority for European and global action, mercury is a significant environmental risk, but in many European countries the permissible standards for mercury are being exceeded. They are much higher in Germany and the Scandinavian countries than in Poland, as shown in the map below showing the impact of mercury on European water quality.

The information about the poisoning of the Oder River with mercury was denied twice in the Fakty news service material of 13 August 2022:

• indirectly: in the introduction to the material (see Diana Rudnik's statement: ‘If not mercury, then what has been killing the Oder River for at least 19 days?)’;
• directly: in the final excerpt of the material (see the Twitter post of the Minister of Environment and Climate and the accompanying off-camera comment: ‘Climate Minister Anna Moskwa reported that she had received the official results of the German study and, as she writes, no mercury was found).’
• The dementi (formal denial) served at the same time to maintain the previously constructed narrative about the pollution of the river. On the one hand, the first sentence of the release ruled out the presence of mercury in the Oder river (see excerpt from the statement: ‘If not mercury...’), on the other hand, it drew the audience’s attention to the increasing passage of time since the first reports of the poisoning of the river and the lack of an answer to the question of the cause of the poisoning (see excerpt from the statement: ‘...what has been killing the Oder for at least 19 days?’) This construction of the introduction invalidated the thread related to the appearance of mercury in the river but allowed all the other elements of the disaster narrative to be maintained (the lack of a quick and decisive response by the authorities, the endangerment of people’s lives and health, the active counteraction to the poisoning by local authorities and communities). The beginning of the material prepared by reporter Magda Łucyan also served to maintain the existing narrative undermining the effectiveness and credibility of the authorities in the Oder river pollution case. It began with a picture shot of hundreds of dead fish, followed by statements from three Widuchowa residents. The first focused on the ever-present threat to the lives and health of the local community, including children (see statement: ‘We fear for our health and lives. Ours and our children's’). Others pointed to a lack of logic and ineffectiveness on the part of the authorities (see statement: ‘This is a travesty in general what is happening’) or the credibility of the services and the government in this matter (see statement: ‘I have no confidence’ and the reporter's comment from the beginning: ‘This lack of confidence is due to the lack of information and the failure of the services to respond in time’). In this context, the final content of the Twitter post by the Minister and Climate and Environment about the absence of mercury in the river did not undermine the narrative of pollution in the materials analysed ­– as it did not follow directly from the previous sequence of information, suggestions, and visual associations. Instead, it was a kind of addition whose primary function was to replace an invalidated element of the narrative (the presence of mercury) with a new one (high salinity), allowing it to continue unchanged (see the reporter’s comment from the beginning): ‘But analyses on both sides showed high salinity’). The fact that the narrative had not changed was also indirectly proven by the interview with guests in the programme Fakty po Faktach of 13 August 2022, in which the statements of the guests omitted the dementi (see statement of the deputy speaker of the Polish Senate): ‘But I keep asking: what are the results of the tests (...) I have not seen the results of the tests, I have not heard that these test results are there’) or pointed to other, undetermined causes of the poisoning, which were treated as unimportant for the accepted narrative of the disaster (see statement of the Deputy Speaker of the Sejm of the Republic of Poland: ‘There are various hypotheses. There is talk of some kind of power station. Various things like that. This is about something else. Who - we will find out because that is not the most important thing now. People need to be tested, and so the health service ... take advice from experts, experts who are available and in local authorities and in universities. You simply must reach out to them. Don't just be beholden to your government, of one's own party, because that simply won't work.

EPILOGUE

1. 14 August 2022. Elżbieta Anna Polak, Marshal of the Lubuskie Voivodeship, referring to her Twitter post confirming the presence of mercury in the Oder River, said in the programme Gość Wydarzeń (Guest of the Events) on Polsat News (Telewizja Polsat Sp. z o.o.):

Journalist: So what is mercury or is there no mercury?

Mr Editor, I think you know .... The government may not, but the Oder is flowing. It has already flowed into the Baltic Sea, so this mercury was there on Friday. Subsequent tests did not confirm it, but today, before we spoke, I read in the media that mercury had been found in more samples. And in fact we still don't have any information about what poisoned the Oder.

Journalist: (...) Axel Vogel that you mentioned, said that .... He told the Marshall of the Voivodeship about the high concentration of mercury in a sample of water from the Oder, but in that conversation, he made it clear that mercury was definitely not the cause of the fish deaths in such a short period of time. So that's what happened - do you confirm this or not?

Yes, of course (...)

2. The Chief Inspectorate for Environmental Protection (GIOŚ) reported in a communique dated 15 August 2022 that: 'Testing of water samples from the Odra river border on the Polish side in the Lubuskie Voivodeship, carried out continuously by the Central Research Laboratory of the GIOŚ, did not confirm the presence of mercury.'
3. One day later, i.e. on 16 August 2022, the GIOŚ reported that it had sent samples abroad for laboratory analysis. The first samples have already been sent to the Czech Republic. Others will be sent to the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. In total, up to 87 samples will be tested outside Poland. The Polish police will help with their transport.
4. On 23 August 2022, the Chief Inspectorate of Environmental Protection received the results of comparative tests of water samples from the Oder river from a laboratory in the Czech Republic. The results of the Czech tests turned out to be consistent with the results of the tests conducted by the Central Research Laboratory of the GIOŚ. Three days later (26 August 2022), the GIOŚ reported the same convergence between the Polish and Dutch studies.
5. On 30 September 2022, the preliminary report of the Oder River Situation Team was published. The scientists who wrote the report concluded that the fish kills were caused by a fast-acting toxin produced by ‘golden algae’. The die-offs were not caused by heavy metals, pesticides or petroleum-based substances. On the other hand, the massive microalgae bloom was caused by overlapping factors: changing water parameters – including an increase in salinity caused by hydrological drought, hot weather that raised the water temperature to 27 degrees Celsius, and high levels of sunlight that accelerate algal growth compared to previous years. These conclusions were drawn on the basis of more than 36,000 studies that were carried out.
6. The analysis by the FakeHunter website cited above, entitled – Fake news: mercury in the Oder river - a white paper, found among other things that the fake news about mercury was also eagerly taken up by the Russian media, where it was circulated as intensively as in Poland on 12 August. The gazeta.ru website, for example, wrote that the German authorities were accusing Poland of a major ecological disaster after the discovery of mercury in the transboundary Oder river. This information appeared both in mainstream media such as the TASS agency (which, however, in addition to quoting the words of the Lubuska Marshal Elżbieta Polak, added that the Polish side had not found any mercury) and in portals that spread much less sophisticated Russian disinformation.

Thus, without resolving the question of whether the creation of fake news about mercury was a spontaneous process or inspired by someone, it is worth recalling how disinformation about environmental threats is used by the Russians. Eight years ago (the year of the annexation of Crimea), when shale gas extraction was being debated in Europe and the US, there was a wave of environmental fake news produced by Russian services (...) Apparently, scientific reports were used which threatened to pollute surface waters and came from bribed – as we recently learned from the German daily Die Welt – environmental organisations.

7.  On 14 and 15 August, the websites onet.pl, wp.pl and others – following the PAP website – published reports from the portal of the German newspaper Maerkische Oderzeitung, according to which paper mills in Germany, such as PM2 in Eisenhuettenstadt and Leipa in Schwedt, are discharging waste water into the Oder at temperatures above 30 degrees. The portal recalls that high temperatures were the only factor that led to the Oder River disaster last year. It goes on to say: ‘Sewage at elevated temperatures flowed into the Oder, which was already exposed to high temperatures.’ As the portal reports, the said limit of 30 degrees Celsius was exceeded for the first time in March last year. On 8 August 2022, according to the portal, the sewage temperature was 34 degrees.

RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF JOURNALISTS TO PRESENT REAL AND DILIGENTLY - PREPARED REPORTS

1. The Press Law of 26 January 1984, in Article 6. 1 states:

The press is obliged to the truthful representation of presented reports.

2. Journalistic integrity is not only one of the pillars of the journalistic profession, but also a guarantee of freedom of expression, which is so important in any democratic society. However, as underlined by the European Court of Human Rights: ‘Article 10 [of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms] protects the right of journalists to report information, provided that they do so in good faith and on an accurate factual basis and provide reliable and accurate information in accordance with journalistic ethics’ (Report of 13 January 1998, Fressos and Roire v. France, Application 29183/95, para. 74, RJD 1999, A. M. Nowicki European Convention on Human Rights. Wybór orzecznictwa, issue. 2, CH BECK, Warsaw 1999 pos. 1342A). Polish jurisprudence aptly emphasises that: ‘The right to freedom of expression and communication of information is not absolute and is subject to limitations resulting, inter alia, from the need to consider the rights of others. It is therefore always necessary to strike a balance between the right to information and freedom of expression, on the one hand, and the individual's right to protection of his or her reputation, on the other’ (Supreme Court ruling of 5 June 2003, II CKN 14/01). Regarding the role of journalism in society and the consequences that can be caused by irresponsible press material, the Supreme Court stated that: ‘The special nature of a journalist's work and the irreparable damage he or she may cause by his or her ill-considered̨ activity justify the expectation of extraordinary, above-average diligence from journalists in the performance of their service. The difference between the requirement of "extraordinary diligence" formulated for journalists and the expectations of other professions lies in the fact that journalists are expected not only to have ordinary professionalism, to routinely exhaust professional procedures, but also to make an effort not only to be professionally efficient, sensation-seeking, to seek out irregularities and illegality, but also to be a person who sees more than one side of the argument and, above all, to write truthfully and with integrity’ (Supreme Court decision of 17 October 2002 IV KKN, 634/99).
3. Doctrine and case law point to the need for the journalist to verify information at the stage of gathering it, then at the stage of compiling it, and finally at the stage of publication itself. When gathering information, a journalist should consider the credibility of the sources he or she uses, whether they are personal sources or documents. At the stage of gathering information, the journalist should rely on sources that are credible. Certainly, and this is not only a matter of common sense, but has also been confirmed by case law; unreliable sources are those which are in conflict with the protagonist of the journalistic material. As the Supreme Court has stated: ‘The duty to exercise particular care and diligence requires that information be verified in the most objective manner possible and not be based solely on information provided by interested and impartial persons (...)’ (Supreme Court judgment of 18 June 2003, II CKN 226/01). In the above-mentioned paragraph, i.e. paragraph 2 of the study, the ruling of the Supreme Court also indicates that a lack of particular diligence is evidenced by:

• failure to verify data,
• lack of diligence in the use of press material,
• lack of objectivity,
• tendentiousness,
• creation of a specific mental climate,
• bias,
• an incomplete presentation of the circumstances of the case.

4.  Furthermore, the doctrine emphasises that: ‘the manipulation of facts or statements of others (abridging them, selecting only those that fit the thesis of the article, etc.) should clearly be judged as a breach of diligence and fairness. Indeed, manipulation leads to the presentation of a completely different version of the events or assessments made by the participants in a given event. It is also a violation of journalistic standards for a journalist to make evaluative statements on the basis of manipulated facts.’ (M. Brzozowska-Pasieka, M. Olszyński, J. Pasieka, The Polish Press Law  (Prawo prasowe). Practical Commentary, Lex 2014). In turn, according to E. Szydełko-Ferenc: ‘Truthfulness consists in reliability, i.e. adherence to facts. Facts (phenomena) should be presented objectively and completely, without manipulating selected fragments.’   The Press Law, in Article 12(1), clearly states that a journalist is obliged to exercise special care and diligence in the collection and use of press materials, in particular to verify the truthfulness of the information obtained or to indicate its source.
5. A similar position of the judiciary refers to the announcements or titles of press materials, emphasising that ‘at no point in a press publication can there be untrue statements that violate the personal rights of others, based on unreliable information. The composition of the article, titles, subtitles and photographs may also be considered a violation of the right to privacy if their selection and arrangement create an untrue image of the person concerned (...) that is detrimental to these rights. The headline of an article, as well as its title, is usually the most prominent element of a publication and one of its functions is to attract the reader's attention. Often the reader's interest is limited to what is contained in the headline or title of the article, which further obliges all persons responsible for the publication to maintain diligence and moderation.’ (Supreme Court ruling of 27 January 2010 II CSK 326/09).
6. It should also be recalled that the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, in its Resolution 1003 of 1 July 1993 on journalistic ethics, stressed that: ‘The communication of information should be based on the truth, supported by adequate verification and documentation of the material gathered, impartiality of the message both in presentation, description and narrative. Rumours cannot be passed off as information. Titles of information, as well as their summaries, must reflect as accurately as possible the essence of the facts and data presented. (...) A journalist should therefore not alter true, unbiased information or honest opinion (...) in order to create or shape public opinion (...). To this end, also within the framework of the law, inquisitive journalism should be based on true and honest information and such opinions and cannot be reconciled with journalistic campaigns according to preconceived positions and special interests’ (Zeszyty Prasoznawcze no. 3-4/1994, pp. 155, 158).
7. Therefore, attention should be drawn to the need to act in accordance with the duties of journalists as specified in the Press Law. The influence of the electronic media is very great. As mentioned above, the requirement of journalistic integrity is one of the basic duties when preparing press materials. It manifests itself in the presentation of a comprehensive, objective picture of the reality being described. Integrity also implies responsibility for the written word, honesty and reliability. Special care is nothing more than the duty to verify the truth of the information obtained, to check it with the persons affected by the events described. The judgment of the Wrocław Court of Appeal emphasised that: ‘If a journalist is unable to verify the information given to him or her, he or she must not, under any circumstances, put forward unambiguous propositions based solely on the testimony of one party, as such an action is contrary to the diligence and reliability that he/she must maintain. Similarly, the mere fact of quoting another person's statements in a given press article, even with an indication of the source, does not preclude illegality. Such an interpretation of the publication does not exempt the journalist from exercising special care and diligence when gathering and using press material (Judgment of the Wrocław Court of Appeal of 30 June 2010, I ACa 394/10). A similar position was taken by the Supreme Court, which stated that:  ‘the repeated repetition of certain information in other media does not exclude the duty of diligence and reliability in gathering and publishing press material.’ (Article 12(1)(1) of the Press Law). ‘Furthermore, (...) acting in the name of a legitimate social interest and striving to sensationalise press articles must not be at the expense of disseminating untrue facts’ (Supreme Court ruling of 12 September 2007, I CSK 211/07).
8. Freedom of the media and freedom of public expression are therefore not unlimited. Journalists work within a certain framework. Their rights and obligations are regulated by the Press Law of 26 January 1984 and the Broadcasting Act of 29 December 1992. Both the case law of the Constitutional Tribunal and that of the European Court of Human Rights indicate that ensuring the realisation of these values may justify restrictions on civil rights and freedoms, including freedom of expression. As stated by the Constitutional Tribunal in its judgment of 23 March 2006 (K-4/06): 1) freedom of expression is one of the foundations of a democratic society, a condition for its development and the self-realisation of individuals; 2) this freedom is not limited to information and opinions that are positively received or perceived as harmless or indifferent; 3) the role of journalists is to disseminate information and ideas on matters of public interest and importance. At the same time, the Constitutional Tribunal stated that 'Similarly to the Convention standard, the constitutional freedom of expression may be subject to restrictions in connection with Article 31(3) of the Constitution (Constitutional Tribunal ruling of 12 May 2008, SK 43/05), provided that these restrictions are provided for by law, are necessary for the protection of the values listed in this provision (in particular public morality) and affect the exercise of this freedom without violating its essence. However, the role of the media and freedom of expression in the functioning of a democratic society means that state interference in freedom of expression in the media is permitted only in exceptional cases and must be duly justified.’ (Constitutional Tribunal ruling of 2 July 2013, III SK 42/12).