Despite the left-wing media lying, journalists can continuously ask questions of Viktor Orbán and other members of the government—just think of the international press conferences, the Government Info briefings, or even yesterday’s Peace March.
The real question is: why aren’t the representatives of the Tisza Party being questioned about the Ukrainian threats against our country, the oil blockade, or their economic plans?
Well, of course we know why—if they told everything, they would fail.
Now the Prime Minister is about to go on a public nationwide tour, and it’s being claimed that he hasn’t done anything like this for 26 years. That’s simply not true. I remember, for example, during previous campaigns—whether in smaller towns or elsewhere—he regularly appeared before crowds. And, with all due respect, you journalists are also present at these events and have the opportunity to ask questions.
Every year, there is an international press conference where many questions can be asked. Gergely Gulyás also holds press briefings weekly or biweekly following government meetings. I am here as well—you can ask questions here too. So it simply cannot be said that we are not available for questioning.
Instead, I would turn the question back to you: why don’t you ask the Tisza Party candidates? From what I see, they are hiding across the country and are unwilling to share their views. And we know why—they themselves say that if they revealed everything, they would fail.
I am really looking forward to these questions, including one I expect the press to ask: why hasn’t Péter Magyar spoken for weeks about the Druzhba oil pipeline? When Hungary is being pressured from abroad, when we receive no answers, when the Hungarian fact-finding delegation is not allowed to investigate why no oil is coming through the Druzhba pipeline—why has Péter Magyar remained silent for weeks?
🔍 Rhetorical / propaganda analysis
1️⃣ “The left-wing media is lying” – preemptive delegitimization
(preemptive delegitimization)
Excerpt:
“Even though the left-wing media is lying…”
Technique:
➡️ Right at the beginning, it defines who is “not trustworthy”
➡️ Does not refute a specific claim → generalizes (“is lying”)
➡️ Binary framing: “us vs. them”
Goal:
➡️ Eliminate the need for verification
➡️ Protect its own narrative from criticism
Effect:
➡️ The audience becomes less likely to trust other sources
⚠️ Real issue:
➡️ No concrete example → just labeling
2️⃣ “You can ask us” – defensive legitimization
(defensive transparency framing)
Excerpt:
“you can continuously ask questions… press conferences…”
Technique:
➡️ Lists institutional examples (Government Info sessions, etc.)
➡️ Emphasizes apparent openness
Goal:
➡️ Reinforce the image of democratic functioning
Effect:
➡️ “If there are press conferences → the system must be transparent”
⚠️ Real issue:
➡️ The real question is not whether forums exist, but:
- what questions are actually asked
- whether real answers are given
- whether critical media is present
3️⃣ DISTRACTION (whataboutism)
(whataboutism / redirection)
Excerpt:
“why aren’t the Tisza representatives being asked…?”
Technique:
➡️ Shifts focus away from the original criticism
➡️ Puts another actor at the center of the debate
Goal:
➡️ Reduce accountability of one’s own side
Effect:
➡️ The discussion changes topic → no real answer is given
⚠️ Key point:
➡️ This is a classic propaganda technique
4️⃣ “They are hiding” – weakening the opponent
(delegitimization / coward framing)
Excerpt:
“they are hiding across the country… not willing to speak…”
Technique:
➡️ Claim without evidence
➡️ Moral labeling (“hiding”)
Goal:
➡️ Portray the opponent as incompetent or cowardly
Effect:
➡️ “If they’re hiding → they must be hiding something”
⚠️ Real issue:
➡️ No concrete data or event
5️⃣ “If they spoke → they would fail”
(mind reading / narrative injection)
Technique:
➡️ Assigns thoughts to the opponent
➡️ Presents assumptions as facts
Goal:
➡️ Preemptively discredit any future statements
Effect:
➡️ “We already know → whatever they say will be bad”
⚠️ Logical issue:
➡️ No evidence → pure speculation
6️⃣ VICTIM POSITION + THREAT
(victimhood + external threat framing)
Excerpt:
“Hungary is being blackmailed from abroad…”
Technique:
➡️ External enemy (Ukraine)
➡️ Own side = victim
Goal:
➡️ Trigger national unity
Effect:
➡️ “There is danger → now is not the time for criticism”
⚠️ Real issue:
➡️ Oversimplifies a complex geopolitical situation
7️⃣ STATEMENT DISGUISED AS A QUESTION
(loaded question)
Excerpt:
“Why has Péter Magyar been silent for weeks?”
Technique:
➡️ A claim framed as a question
➡️ Built-in accusation: “he is silent”
Goal:
➡️ Create suspicion without proof
Effect:
➡️ The claim “feels true”
🧠 Overall picture (very important)
The text is a classic propaganda mix, where the following appear simultaneously:
🔹 1. Defense
➡️ “you can ask us”
🔹 2. Attack
➡️ “they are hiding”
🔹 3. Victimhood
➡️ “we are being blackmailed”
🔹 4. Distraction
➡️ “but why aren’t they being asked?”
⚠️ About the “slightly narcissistic” part (what you mentioned)
What you’re sensing is not a clinical psychological diagnosis, but rather:
👉 a communication pattern:
✔️ self-justification (“we are open”)
✔️ victim positioning (“we are under attack”)
✔️ projection (“they do what we don’t”)
✔️ narrative control
In propaganda terms:
➡️ “projection + victim framing + control”
📌 In short
This text:
- does not respond to criticism
- instead reframes the debate
while simultaneously:
- delegitimizing
- playing the victim
- attacking
- redirecting attention