Who remembers Tiananmen?

In the day-to-day fierce battle for a viewer or more clicks in the market, these principles seem like heavy lead to the feet of newsrooms as they try to run a sprint. But what's the point if you run fast and never reach the finish line?!

The phenomenon of fake news (and the growing danger even to the stability of societies from its rapid spread), has become especially relevant in the last few years, and intensified by the growing popularity of social media and the era of "post-truth politics". "Fake News" as a phenomenon and a term is not something new, it dates back to the 19th century, it is associated with sensationalist articles in newspapers, but the dangers of fake news have multiplied in the age of digital and above all social media, which have led to a wide availability of information and news, and with that, the lightning spread of fake news.

The researchers of the current situation with fake news in the world, and also our region, which is particularly vulnerable and subject to attacks from foreign centers that abuse fake news for various types of destabilization, have made serious and clear analyzes about the social context in the post-truth policy era, algorithms, methodologies, goals and concepts of those who create them, why the population is vulnerable and cannot immediately recognize them, etc.

What particularly worries me, and I am writing from the perspective of many years of experience as a journalist in serious media, is the erosion of quality in traditional journalistic newsrooms, which thereby lost the quality of information, and thus the authority and trust of the audience. And pushed into a rush of fast and sensational news, they left a huge empty space for the penetration of fake news.

As a journalist, I had the rare privilege of working for one of the most influential and serious media – the BBC World Service. In those nineties of the last century, journalism was a valued, important, well-paid and very serious profession. There were strict reporting rules and high ethical standards, but the BBC, as one of the world leaders in the production of quality news, also had special rules, and a whole book of internal instructions on how BBC correspondents and journalists should work. . High standards, theoretical training, but also practical training and serious feedback from the work itself, created a drill, which set really high standards of journalism, even unimaginable for today's "standards" in journalism.

Today there is more and more talk about the need for fact-checking before news is broadcast, but at the time, the first rule of those working in the BBC Newsroom was that no news could be broadcast, no matter how is it important and attractive, if there is no confirmation for it from at least two serious world agencies (Reuters and France Press) for example... If the news is only from Reuters, it should not have been broadcast, if there was no confirmation from at least one other major world agency . The only news that could be reported from a single source was if it came originally from a BBC journalist, because the BBC trusted its journalists unreservedly, because of the drill they had to go through to become BBC reporters.

One of the rules I've always remembered from those training sessions is that the speed of breaking news is of course important, and it's a natural journalistic urge to be the first to break an exclusive story, but that the BBC doesn't always have to be the first - but it always has to be. accurate, so that when the audience sees or hears a BBC news story, there is no doubt that the information is correct. One of those instructors is my friend Mark Brayne, a journalist with vast experience who, before becoming one of the BBC's leading reporters, worked for many years as a Reuters correspondent from Moscow. Mark reported on the violent student demonstrations in Beijing in 1989 and their bloody suppression by the Chinese army, which eventually unleashed tanks on the students anyway, in what became known as the Tiananmen Square Massacre.
In the square, among the students, information was constantly being spread about what China's political leadership was doing and what its plans were to deal with the months-long protests. Mark was telling me that the information, which he categorized as unconfirmed rumors, was then repeatedly verified as correct, and that it was later found out that the rumors were actually spread on purpose by the Politburo of the Communist Party of China itself.

One day, the main news among the students in the square was that the leader Deng Xiaoping had resigned. Mark could not verify this information in any way, due to the closedness (non-transparency) of the communist establishment and especially its suspicion of reporters from Western countries. Because of the experience that the rumors in the square in the past months were always confirmed as correct, he decided to announce it. He gave the information in his report to the BBC with a dozen fences - as a reflection of the atmosphere in the square and that basically there is talk among students that Deng ALLEGEDLY resigned, and that there is no confirmation of that news. In a very short time, the headline news in Tiananmen Square was that Deng had resigned. Not as a rumor, that he allegedly submitted, but as a fact. Everyone that Mark asked how do you know this is a fact answered him – well it sure is – they called the BBC!

Deng Xiaoping did not resign, and Mark paid the price of broadcasting this unverified information with his journalistic career. That illustration of the power of the media, especially such a strong world media with authority, and what can cause the broadcast of unverified information shown through the reporter's own bitter experience, forever remained in my memory as an internal alarm, when I would have learned important information - about which I have not been able to fully verify, and the ruin of a brilliant career for broadcasting unverified news. Since then, my main goal in journalism has not been to find out or to publish first, but to finish my career (already 31 years) without being refuted!

In the day-to-day fierce battle for a viewer or more clicks in the market, these principles seem like heavy lead to the feet of newsrooms as they try to run a sprint. But what's the point if you run fast and never reach the finish line?! Because the main goal must be accurate and verified information, trust and authority – as opposed to copy-paste quasi-journalism, which harms both the media and societies.

The author is a journalist and editor

Dear reader,

Our access to web content is free, because we believe in equality in information, regardless of whether someone can pay or not. Therefore, in order to continue our work, we ask for the support of our community of readers by financially supporting the Free Press. Become a member of Sloboden Pechat to help the facilities that will enable us to deliver long-term and quality information and TOGETHER let's ensure a free and independent voice that will ALWAYS BE ON THE PEOPLE'S SIDE.

SUPPORT A FREE PRESS.
WITH AN INITIAL AMOUNT OF 60 DENARS

Video of the day