Chris Anderson: Christiane,great to have you here.So you’ve had this amazing viewpoint,and perhaps it’s fair to say that in the last few years,there have been some alarming developments that you’re seeing.What’s alarmed you most?
Christiane Amanpour: Well, just listening to the earlier speakers,I can frame it in what they’ve been saying:climate change, for instance -- cities, the threat to our environmentand our lives.It basically also boils down to understanding the truthand to be able to get to the truth of what we’re talking aboutin order to really be able to solve it.So if 99.9 percent of the science on climateis empirical, scientific evidence,but it’s competing almost equally with a handful of deniers,that is not the truth;that is the epitome of fake news.And so for me, the last few years -- certainly this last year --has crystallized the notion of fake news in a way that’s truly alarmingand not just some slogan to be thrown around.Because when you can’t distinguish between the truth and fake news,you have a very much more difficult time trying to solvesome of the great issues that we face.
克莉丝蒂安艾曼普：嗯，听了前几位讲者的演说，我可以借用他们所说的来表达：比如，气候改变、城市，对我们的环境以及生活的威胁。基本上，可以归结到了解真相，并能够针对我们谈论的议题去探究真相，才能够真正去解决它。所以，如果 99.9% 的气候科学都是实证的、科学的证据，但却在与少数驳斥者几乎平头式地竞争，那就不是真相，而是假新闻的缩影。对我而言，过去几年，特别是最近这一年，假新闻的概念被以一种很让人担忧的方式给具体化了，不再只是随处喊喊的口号而已。因为当你无法区别真相和假新闻的差别时，你就会更难去试图解决我们面对的一些重大议题。
CA: Well, you’ve been involved in this question of,what is balance, what is truth, what is impartiality,for a long time.You were on the front lines reporting the Balkan Wars 25 years ago.And back then, you famously said,by calling out human right abuses,you said, "Look, there are some situations one simply cannot be neutral about,because when you’re neutral,you are an accomplice."So, do you feel that today’s journalists aren’t heeding that adviceabout balance?
CA: Well, look, I think for journalists,objectivity is the golden rule.But I think sometimes we don’t understand what objectivity means.And I actually learned this very,very young in my career,which was during the Balkan Wars.I was young then.It was about 25 years ago.And what we faced was the wholesale violation, not just of human rights,but all the way to ethnic cleansing and genocide,and that has been adjudicated in the highest war crimes courtin the world.So, we know what we were seeing.Trying to tell the world what we were seeingbrought us accusations of bias,of siding with one side,of not seeing the whole side,and just, you know,trying to tell one story.I particularly and personally was accused of siding with,for instance, the citizens of Sarajevo --siding with the Muslims,because they were the minority who were being attackedby Christians on the Serb sidein this area.And it worried me.It worried me that I was being accused of this.I thought maybe I was wrong,maybe I’d forgotten what objectivity was.
克莉丝蒂安：我认为对记者而言，客观是黄金法则。但我认为，有时我们并不了解客观的意义。我在职涯的极早期已学到了这一点，当时是在巴尔干战争的期间。那时我很年轻。大约是 25 年前。当时我们面对的是大规模的违反，不只违反人权而已，而是一路到排除异族和种族灭绝，已经被世界最高战犯法庭裁决了。我们知道我们看见了什么。为了试图告诉世界我们看见了什么，导致我们被控诉，说我们有偏见、选边站、不看整体大局，而只述说单方片面的故事。我个人还特别遭到控诉，比如说我站在塞拉耶佛市民的那一边，说我「站在穆斯林的那一边」，因为在那里他们是被攻击的少数，被与塞尔维亚同一阵线的基督徒攻击。那让我忧心。我忧心遭受这样的指控，心想，也许我错了，也许我忘了客观是什么。
But then I started to understand that what people wantedwas actually not to do anything --not to step in,not to change the situation,not to find a solution.And so, their fake news at that time,their lie at that time --including our government’s,our democratically elected government’s,with values and principles of human rights --their lie was to say that all sides are equally guilty,that this has been centuries of ethnic hatred,whereas we knew that wasn’t true,that one side had decided to kill,slaughter and ethnically cleanseanother side.So that is where, for me,I understood that objectivity means giving all sides an equal hearingand talking to all sides,but not treating all sides equally,not creating a forced moral equivalence or a factual equivalence.And when you come up against that crisis pointin situations of grave violations of international and humanitarian law,if you don’t understand what you’re seeing,if you don’t understand the truthand if you get trapped in the fake news paradigm,then you are an accomplice.And I refuse to be an accomplice to genocide.
CH: So there have always been these propaganda battles,and you were courageous in taking the stand you took back then.Today, there’s a whole new way, though,in which news seems to be becoming fake.How would you characterize that?
CA: Well, look -- I am really alarmed.And everywhere I look,you know, we’re buffeted by it.Obviously, when the leader of the free world,when the most powerful person in the entire world,which is the president of the United States --this is the most important, most powerful country in the whole world,economically, militarily, politically in every which way --and it seeks to, obviously, promote its values and power around the world.So we journalists,who only seek the truth --I mean, that is our mission --we go around the world looking for the truthin order to be everybody’s eyes and ears,people who can’t go out in various parts of the worldto figure out what’s going on about things that are vitally importantto everybody’s health and security.So when you have a major world leader accusing you of fake news,it has an exponential ripple effect.And what it does is,it starts to chip awayat not just our credibility,but at people’s minds --people who look at us,and maybe they’re thinking,Well, if the president of the United States says that, maybe somewhere there’s a truth in there."
CH: Presidents have always been critical of the media --
CA: Not in this way.
CH: So, to what extent --
CH: I mean, someone a couple years ago looking at the avalanche of informationpouring through Twitter and Facebook and so forth,might have said,Look, our democracies are healthier than they’ve ever been. There’s more news than ever.Of course presidents will say what they’ll say,but everyone else can say what they will say.What’s not to like? How is there an extra danger?"
克里斯：我是说，几年前如果有人看见大量资讯涌入，资讯从 Twitter及 Facebook 等地涌入，他可能会说：「我们未曾像现在这么民主。新闻量远多于过去。当然，总统们会说他们要说的话，但其他人也都可以说自己想说的。
CA: So, I wish that was true.I wish that the proliferation of platforms upon which we get our informationmeant that there was a proliferation of truth and transparencyand depth and accuracy.But I think the opposite has happened.You know, I’m a little bit of a Luddite,I will confess.Even when we started to talk about the information superhighway,which was a long time ago,before social media, Twitter and all the rest of it,I was actually really afraidthat that would put people into certain lanes and tunnelsand have them just focusing on areas of their own interestinstead of seeing the broad picture.And I’m afraid to say that with algorithms, with logarithms,with whatever the "-ithms" arethat direct us into all these particular channels of information,that seems to be happening right now.I mean, people have written about this phenomenon.People have said that yes,the internet came,its promise was to exponentially explode our access to more democracy,more information,less bias,more varied information.And, in fact, the opposite has happened.And so that, for me,is incredibly dangerous.And again, when you are the president of this country and you say things,it also gives leaders in other undemocratic countries the coverto affront us even worse,and to really whack us -- and their own journalists --with this bludgeon of fake news.
CH: To what extent is what happened, though,in part, just an unintended consequence,that the traditional media that you worked inhad this curation-mediation role,where certain norms were observed,certain stories would be rejected because they weren’t credible,but now that the standard for publication and for amplificationis just interest, attention,excitement, click,Did it get clicked on?Send it out there!and that’s what’s -- is that part of what’s caused the problem?
CA: I think it’s a big problem,and we saw this in the election of 2016,where the idea of "clickbait" was very sexy and very attractive,and so all these fake news sites and fake news itemswere not just haphazardly and by happenstance being put out there,there’s been a whole industry in the creation of fake newsin parts of Eastern Europe, wherever,and you know, it’s planted in real space and in cyberspace.So I think that, also,the ability of our technology to proliferate this stuffat the speed of sound or light, just about --we’ve never faced that before.And we’ve never faced such a massive amount of informationwhich is not curatedby those whose profession leads them to abide by the truth,to fact-checkand to maintain a code of conduct and a code of professional ethics.
CH: Many people here may know people who work at Facebookor Twitter and Google and so on.They all seem like great people with good intention --let’s assume that.If you could speak with the leaders of those companies,what would you say to them?
克里斯：这里许多人可能认识在 Facebook、Twitter、Google 等公司工作的人。他们都看似很棒、有着良善的意图，就让我们先这样假设。若你能和这些公司的领导人说话，你会对他们说什么？
CA: Well, you know what --I’m sure they are incredibly well-intentioned,and they certainly developed an unbelievable, game-changing system,where everybody’s connected on this thing called Facebook.And they’ve created a massive economy for themselvesand an amazing amount of income.I would just say,Guys, you know, it’s time to wake up and smell the coffee and look at what’s happening to us right now."Mark Zuckerberg wants to create a global community.I want to know: What is that global community going to look like?I want to know where the codes of conduct actually are.Mark Zuckerberg said --and I don’t blame him,he probably believed this --that it was crazy to thinkthat the Russians or anybody else could be tinkering and messing aroundwith this avenue.And what have we just learned in the last few weeks?That, actually, there has been a major problem in that regard,and now they’re having to investigate it and figure it out.Yes, they’re trying to do what they can nowto prevent the rise of fake news,but, you know,it went pretty unrestricted for a long, long time.So I guess I would say, you know,you guys are brilliant at technology;let’s figure out another algorithm.Can we not?
CH: An algorithm that includes journalistic investigation --
CA: I don’t really know how they do it, but somehow, you know --filter out the crap!
And not just the unintentional --
but the deliberate lies that are plantedby people who’ve been doing this as a matter of warfarefor decades.The Soviets, the Russians --they are the masters of war by other means, of hybrid warfare.And this is a --this is what they’ve decided to do.It worked in the United States,it didn’t work in France,it hasn’t worked in Germany.During the elections there,where they’ve tried to interfere,the president of France right now, Emmanuel Macron,took a very tough stand and confronted it head on,
CH: There’s some hope to be had from some of this, isn’t there?That the world learns.We get fooled once,maybe we get fooled again,but maybe not the third time.Is that true?
CA: I mean, let’s hope.But I think in this regard that so much of it is also about technology,that the technology has to also be given some kind of moral compass.I know I’m talking nonsense,but you know what I mean.
CH: We need a filter-the-crap algorithm with a moral compass --
CA: There you go.
CH: I think that’s good.
CA: No -- "moral technology."We all have moral compasses -- moral technology.
CH: I think that’s a great challenge.CA: You know what I mean.
CH: Talk just a minute about leadership.You’ve had a chance to speak with so many people across the world.I think for some of us --I speak for myself,I don’t know if others feel this --there’s kind of been a disappointment of:Where are the leaders?So many of us have been disappointed --Aung San Suu Kyi,what’s happened recently,it’s like, "No! Another one bites the dust."You know, it’s heartbreaking.
Who have you metwho you have been impressed by, inspired by?
CA: Well, you talk about the world in crisis,which is absolutely true,and those of us who spend our whole lives immersed in this crisis --I mean, we’re all on the verge of a nervous breakdown.So it’s pretty stressful right now.And you’re right --there is this perceived and actual vacuum of leadership,and it’s not me saying it,I ask all these --whoever I’m talking to,I ask about leadership.I was speaking to the outgoing president of Liberia today,[Ellen Johnson Sirleaf,]who --
in three weeks’ time,will be one of the very rare heads of an African countrywho actually abides by the constitutionand gives up power after her prescribed term.She has said she wants to do that as a lesson.But when I asked her about leadership,and I gave a quick-fire round of certain names,I presented her with the name of the new French president,Emmanuel Macron.And she said --I said, "So what do you think when I say his name?"And she said,Shaping up potentially to be a leader to fill our current leadership vacuum."I thought that was really interesting.Yesterday, I happened to have an interview with him.I’m very proud to say,I got his first international interview.It was great. It was yesterday.And I was really impressed.I don’t know whether I should be saying that in an open forum,but I was really impressed.
And it could be just because it was his first interview,but -- I asked questions, and you know what?He answered them!
There was no spin,there was no wiggle and waggle,there was no spend-five-minutes- to-come-back-to-the-point.I didn’t have to keep interrupting,which I’ve become rather renowned for doing,because I want people to answer the question.And he answered me,and it was pretty interesting.And he said --
CH: Tell me what he said.
CA: No, no, you go ahead.
CH: You’re the interrupter,I’m the listener.
CA: No, no, go ahead.
CH: What’d he say?
CA: OK. You’ve talked about nationalism and tribalism here today.I asked him, "How did you have the guts to confront the prevailing windsof anti-globalization, nationalism, populismwhen you can see what happened in Brexit,when you could see what happened in the United Statesand what might have happened in many European electionsat the beginning of 2017?"And he said,For me, nationalism means war. We have seen it before,we have lived through it before on my continent,and I am very clear about that."So he was not going to,just for political expediency,embrace the, kind of, lowest common denominatorthat had been embraced in other political elections.And he stood against Marine Le Pen,who is a very dangerous woman.
克莉丝蒂安：好，今天在这里谈到民族主义和对部族的忠诚。我问他：「你怎么有胆子去对抗反全球化、民族主义、民粹主义的主流趋势，特别是当你看到英国脱欧发生的情况，当你看到在美国发生的状况，以及 2017 年初许多欧洲选举本来可能发生的状况呢？」而他说：「对我来说，民族主义意味着战争。我们以前就看过了，我们以前在欧陆经历过了，而我非常清楚这一点。」所以他并不只求政治的眼前利益，像是拥抱最小共同点，其他的政治选举都会去拥抱最小共同点。而他对抗玛琳勒朋，玛琳勒朋是个很危险的女人。
CH: Last question for you, Christiane.Tell us about ideas worth spreading.If you could plant one idea into the minds of everyone here,what would that be?
CA: I would say really be careful where you get your information from;really take responsibility for what you read, listen to and watch;make sure that you go to the trusted brands to get your main information,no matter whether you have a wide, eclectic intake,really stick with the brand names that you know,because in this world right now,at this moment right now,our crises, our challenges,our problems are so severe,that unless we are all engaged as global citizenswho appreciate the truth,who understand science,empirical evidence and facts,then we are just simply going to be wandering alongto a potential catastrophe.
So I would say, the truth,and then I would come back to Emmanuel Macronand talk about love.I would say that there’s not enough love going around.And I asked him to tell me about love.I said, "You know, your marriage is the subject of global obsession."
Can you tell me about love? What does it mean to you?"I’ve never asked a president or an elected leader about love.I thought I’d try it.And he said -- you know, he actually answered it.And he said, "I love my wife,she is part of me,we’ve been together for decades."But here’s where it really counted,what really stuck with me.He said,It is so important for me to have somebody at home who tells me the truth."
So you see, I brought it home. It’s all about the truth.
CH: So there you go. Truth and love.Ideas worth spreading.
Christiane Amanpour, thank you so much. That was great.
CA: Thank you. CH: That was really lovely.
CA: Thank you.