If you looked at the excellently designed page of Népszava on Saturday afternoon, you might have immediately noticed two headlines. According to one, the Orbáns have taken a quarter of the pensions of the elderly , and the other, entitled Orbán, above controversy And how do these two correlate? I say so.

In the interview, László Juhász, head of the retired section of the Hungarian Trade Union Confederation, founding president of NYUSZET, explains that Hungarian pensioners are practically threatened with starvation, what this government does, or rather does not do, for the elderly, except for the president of the republic, of course, is terrible and terrible. who will receive his priority pension prematurely and obviously undeservedly. The author of the interview sets the tone with undisguised demagoguery, with the news of János Áder's future retirement, and the first four questions deal with nothing more than gossip about the pension of the president of the republic:

Journalist: The president of the Hungarian Trade Union Confederation this week considered the presidential pension unacceptable because, in his opinion, János Áder never dealt with the problems of the employees. Yes with pensioners?

László Juhász: Neither with us. Neither he nor any other state leader has any meaningful performance behind his high income.

Logical, right? According to this, only those who have dealt with the problems of employees or pensioners - like I think László Juhász - and whom "they" decide has an excellent performance - like I think Ferenc Gyurcsány - can get a high pension, while the president of a right-wing government should go to the salt office . And, of course, those who have paid hundreds of millions of HUF in pensions also have long years of service. I note that only 106 people in Hungary have pensions that exceed one million forints, so thinking about social justice along this theme is pure bullshit. Of course, this is also the goal, to harass the susceptible layer, which is known for its performance and services to society.

Then we can also find out exactly how the Orbáns took a quarter of the pensions of the elderly:

In the last ten years, the elderly have lost a quarter of their pension because the increase in wages is not taken into account in the annual pension increases.

So, it was not what Népszava claims in the headline that the Orbán government reduced Aunt Juliska's HUF 120,000 pension to HUF 90,000, but Juhász claims that the pensions did not increase as he thought they should have. But it is also worth comparing this statement with the real data provided by KSH, so we have to look at the aggregate replacement rate; the extent to which the Hungarian pension can replace earnings. This rate comes out as the quotient of the median individual gross pension of the 65-74 age group and the median gross earnings of the 50-59 age group, and although it decreased from 67% to 64% in 2016, it is still 6 percentage points below the European remained above the EU average. Plus, in Hungary, pensions are tax- and contribution-free, so the indicator in our country is the ratio of net pension to gross income. Thus, the actual earning power of the pension is stronger than the value of the indicator.

With all of this, it is possible and worthwhile to have a legitimate discussion about our pension system itself, its details, perceived or real errors, but this does not mean that we are telling big lies for purely political purposes. The piquancy of the interview culminates in the following question and answer:

The legislation establishing the gift-giving was created in a very serious financial crisis. Why do they still need to be maintained today?

Nothing justifies it. In addition, the pension premium has now depreciated, because it was calculated on the average pension of HUF 80,000 at the time, which has since doubled.

So, as a result of the unprecedented GDP growth, the unprecedented pension premium that will soon be paid - the legal regulation of which was laid down by the socialist government, but at that time the pension premium was only known in theory, on paper, while the 13th monthly pension was taken away - László Juhász, at the same time reveals, that the average pension doubled. You know, the one the Orbáns took a quarter of.

And this is where Péter Németh comes into the picture, who, now that the Tranzit festival about the freedom of debate is booming - where records are being broken in terms of both participants and spectators - explains in his publicity that Orbán failed miserably in that ominous prime ministerial debate against Gyurcsány , and since then he has been constantly avoiding the contests, and even expects the same from his subjects (again, see Tranzi), but the real problem is

that for a decade and a half, he has been and continues to poison the spiritual well in Hungary. We are already full of poison.

I don't think Péter Németh reads Népszava, maybe not even his own articles.

There are basic conditions for a meaningful debate based on arguments, which the opposition participants are largely unable/unwilling to fulfill. For example, it doesn't hurt if both parties consider as evidence that the table in front of them is a table and the chair they are sitting on has four legs. It is not possible to have a meaningful debate, especially a policy debate, if one side lies without batting an eye and deceives the lay audience by operating with theatrical Greek fire and false data. What was later revealed about Gyurcsány - and since then about how many other opposition politicians! – but of course this doesn't bother the loyal media, in our case the former editor-in-chief of Népszava.

I note that the methods of many opposition press workers are similarly debatable, you can notice this at any government briefing or even international press conference, who listens with hollow ears to the political statements disguised as questions. Because if a question is phrased in such a way that it also formulates a false claim with clever product association, its purpose is not to practice ethical journalistic behavior or to provide information, but pure provocation and discrediting. For example:

According to leaked information, yesterday Viktor Orbán bathed in the blood of innocent kittens in the Carmelite monastery, then met with the red-haired foreign minister behind closed doors, but the red-haired delegation did not join them until later. May I know what exactly was said in this meeting?

So it doesn't matter what means the questioning journalist or the politician taking on the debate uses in order to achieve his goal. Just imagine what would happen if one entered the ring with gloves and the other with a knife in a boxing match! In sports, of course, competitors are bound by strict rules, and rightly so, and failure to comply with them, unethical and dishonest behavior has fatal consequences. But in politics or the media?

Without batting an eye, the increasingly unscrupulous lying of the discredited alliance takes place under the banner of their propaganda media decorated with loud headlines. Like the flow of water - respect for the exception. And if anything, it's well poisoning.

Featured image: Shutterstock