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, dobrošla pri nas. Imaš ta neverjeten pogled na zadeve in verjetno lahko rečem, da si v zadnjih nekaj letih opazila skrb vzbujajoč razvoj dogodkov. Kaj te najbolj vznemirja?
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 environment and our lives. It basically also boils down to understanding the truth and to be able to get to the truth of what we're talking about in order to really be able to solve it. So if 99.9 percent of the science on climate is 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 alarming and 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 solve some of the great issues that we face.
Samo poslušanje prejšnjih govornikov -- lahko strnim njihove besede: podnebne spremembe denimo, mesta, grožnja našemu okolju in našim življenjem. Načeloma se vse skupaj lahko strne v razumevanje resnice in sposobnost priti do resnice o zadevi, o kateri govorimo, da bi lahko resnično našli rešitev. Če je 99,9 % znanja o podnebju empirične narave, podprto z znanstvenimi dokazi, vendar temu v skoraj isti meri nasprotuje peščica dvomljivcev, to ni prava resnica. To je najboljši primer lažne novice. Zame se je predstava o lažnih novicah kristalizirala v zadnjih nekaj letih, predvsem to zadnje leto, vendar na skrb vzbujajoč način, ne zgolj kot vseprisoten slogan. Namreč ko ne moremo razlikovati med resnico in lažnimi novicami, je bistveno težje iskati rešitve za nekatere velike izzive, s katerimi se soočamo.
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 advice about balance?
Že dolgo se ukvarjate z vprašanji, kaj je ravnovesje, kaj je resnica, kaj pomeni nepristranskost. Pred 25 leti ste iz prvih bojnih vrst poročali o vojni na Balkanu in takrat ste slavno dejali, sklicujoč se na kršenje človekovih pravic, da obstajajo situacije, v katerih je nemogoče biti nepristranski. Namreč če si nepristranski, postaneš sokrivec. Se ti zdi, da današnji novinarji ne upoštevajo tega nasveta o ravnovesju?
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 court in the world. So, we know what we were seeing. Trying to tell the world what we were seeing brought 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 attacked by Christians on the Serb side in 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.
Mislim, da je nepristranskost zlato pravilo za novinarje. Vendar se mi zdi, da včasih ne razumemo, kaj pomeni nepristranskost. Jaz sem se tega naučila zelo, zelo zgodaj v svoji karieri, ravno v času poročanja z Balkana. Takrat sem bila mlada. To je bilo pred približno 25 leti. Soočali smo se s kršitvami na celi črti, ne samo s kršenjem človekovih pravic, temveč tudi z etničnim čiščenjem in genocidom. O tem so sodili na najvišjih sodiščih za vojne zločine na svetu. Torej vemo, kaj smo videli. Ko smo svetu poskušali prenesti, kaj smo videli, smo postali tarča kritik o pristranskosti, obtožili so nas, da smo se postavili na eno stran, da ne vidimo celotne slike in da poskušamo predstaviti samo eno plat zgodbe. Meni osebno so očitali, da sem stopila na stran prebivalcev Sarajeva, "na stran Muslimanov", ker so bili manjšina, ki je bila napadena s strani krsčanskih Srbov v tej regiji. Bila sem v skrbeh. Te kritike so me vznemirjale. Mislila sem, da mogoče nimam prav, da sem pozabila pravi pomen objektivnosti.
But then I started to understand that what people wanted was 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 cleanse another side. So that is where, for me, I understood that objectivity means giving all sides an equal hearing and 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 point in situations of grave violations of international and humanitarian law, if you don't understand what you're seeing, if you don't understand the truth and if you get trapped in the fake news paradigm, then you are an accomplice. And I refuse to be an accomplice to genocide.
Sčasoma pa sem dojela, da so ljudje želeli zgolj eno -- da se ne naredi nič. Da se nihče ne vmešava, da nihče ne spreminja situacije, da se ne najde rešitev. Tako so njihove takratne lažne novice, njihova takratna laž -- vključno z lažmi naše takratne vlade, demokratično izvoljene vlade, ki podpira vrednote in principe človekovih pravic -- njihova laž je bila, da obe strani nosita enako breme krivde, da gre za stoletja etničnega sovraštva, čeprav smo vedeli, da to ne drži. Ena stran se je odločila, da bo ubijala, morila in etnično čistila drugo stran. To je zame bil trenutek, ko sem dojela, da nepristranskost pomeni enakovredno poslušati vse plati zgodbe in komunicirati z vsemi stranmi, ne pa obravnavnati vse strani enako ter ustvarjati prisiljeno moralno enakopravnost ali enakopravnost dejstev. Če pri soočanju s tem kriznim trenutkom v situacijah, v katerih se hudo kršita mednarodno in humanitarno pravo, če ne razumeš, kar vidiš, če ne dojameš resnice in se ujameš v vzorec lažnih novic, postaneš sokrivec. In jaz ne želim nositi breme krivde za genocid.
(Applause)
(Aplavz)
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?
Že od nekdaj se bijejo propagandne bitke, v katerih si nastopila pogumno kot v tistih časih. Vendar gre dandanes za povsem nov način spreminjanja novic v lažne. Kako bi ga opisala?
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 truth in order to be everybody's eyes and ears, people who can't go out in various parts of the world to figure out what's going on about things that are vitally important to 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 away at 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."
Poglej, resnično sem zaskrbljena. Kamorkoli pogledam smo bombardirani z lažnimi novicami. Ko te voditelj svobodnega sveta, najvplivnejša oseba na celem svetu, predsednik Združenih držav Amerike -- to je najpomembnejša in najvplivnejša država na celem svetu v gospodarskem, vojaškem in političnem smislu, ki očitno poskuša promovirati svoje vrednote in moč po svetu. Mi, novinarji, samo iščemo resnico -- to je naša misija -- hodimo po svetu in iščemo resnico, želimo biti oči in ušesa za vse ljudi, za ljudi iz različnih delov sveta, ki ne morejo naokrog, da bi izvedeli več o zadevah, ki so bistvenega pomena za zdravje in varnost vseh ljudi. Torej, ko te mogočen svetovni voditelj obtoži širjenja lažnih novic, se sproži neustavljiva verižna reakcija. Začne se krhati ne samo verodostojnost novinarjev, temveč tudi človeški razum. Razum ljudi, ki nas gledajo in si morda mislijo: "No, če je to prišlo iz ust predsednika Združenih držav, je v tem mogoče kanček resnice."
CH: Presidents have always been critical of the media --
Predsedniki so že od nekdaj kritični do medijev ...
CA: Not in this way.
Ne na tak način.
CH: So, to what extent --
Torej, v kolikšni meri ...
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
(Applause)
(Aplavz)
CH: I mean, someone a couple years ago looking at the avalanche of information pouring 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?"
Nekdo, ki je pred nekaj leti opazoval plaz informacij, ki se je vsul na Twitterju, Facebooku in drugih omrežjih, si je morda mislil: "Poglej, naše demokracije so bolj zdrave kot kadarkoli, še nikoli ni bilo toliko novic. Predsedniki bodo seveda rekli, kar želijo reči, a tudi vsi ostali lahko rečemo, kar želimo reči. Kaj nam pri tem ni všeč? Zakaj nam to predstavlja nevarnost?"
CA: So, I wish that was true. I wish that the proliferation of platforms upon which we get our information meant that there was a proliferation of truth and transparency and 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 afraid that that would put people into certain lanes and tunnels and have them just focusing on areas of their own interest instead of seeing the broad picture. And I'm afraid to say that with algorithms, with logarithms, with whatever the "-ithms" are that 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 cover to affront us even worse, and to really whack us -- and their own journalists -- with this bludgeon of fake news.
Želim si, da bi bilo tako. Želim si, da bi širjenje platform, prek katerih dobimo informacije, prineslo tudi širjenje resnice in transparentnosti in globine in točnosti. Vendar menim, da se je zgodilo ravno nasprotno. Veste, v meni se skriva malo ludistke, priznam. Že ko smo se začeli pogovarjati o informacijski avtocesti, kar je bilo že dolgo nazaj, pred pojavom družbenih medijev, Twitterja in vseh ostalih, me je resnično skrbelo, da bo ta razvoj popeljal ljudi na določene poti in v tunele, kjer se bodo osredotočili samo na zadeve, ki jih zanimajo, namesto da bi dobili celoten vpogled. In bojim se, da so nas algoritmi in logaritmi in vsi mogoči "-itmi" pahnili v vse te določene informacijske kanale. Zdi se, da se dandanes dogaja prav to. O tem fenomenu se piše. Ljudje so pravili, da je pojav interneta obljubljal vedno večji dostop do demokracije, do več informacij, do več objektivnosti, do več raznolikih informacij. V resnici pa se je zgodilo prav nasprotno. In to se mi zdi zelo nevarno. Poleg tega če si predsednik ZDA in izrečeš določene stvari, daješ moč tudi voditeljem drugih, nedemokratičnih držav, da nas še bolj oskrunijo in da resnično dotolčejo tako nas kot njihove lastne novinarje s to palico lažnih novic.
CH: To what extent is what happened, though, in part, just an unintended consequence, that the traditional media that you worked in had 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 amplification is 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?
V kolikšni meri je to, do česar je prišlo, deloma vendarle le nenamerna posledica? Tradicionalni mediji, v katerih ste delali, so imeli vlogo zbiranja in posredovanja informacij, pri čemer so se upoštevale določene norme, objava določenih zgodb je bila zavrnjena zaradi vprašljive verodostojnosti. Danes pa je merilo za objavo in odmevnost zgolj pritegniti zanimanje, pozornost, biti razburljiv, pridobiti klik -- "Že imamo kaj klikov?" "Objavite to!" Je to pripeljalo do težav?
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 items were not just haphazardly and by happenstance being put out there, there's been a whole industry in the creation of fake news in 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 stuff at the speed of sound or light, just about -- we've never faced that before. And we've never faced such a massive amount of information which is not curated by those whose profession leads them to abide by the truth, to fact-check and to maintain a code of conduct and a code of professional ethics.
Mislim, da je to velik problem, to smo videli tudi na volitvah leta 2016, ko je bila ideja vabe za klike izredno seksi in privlačna. Vse te strani z lažnimi novicami in teme lažnih novic se niso pojavile kar tako po naključju. Za ustvarjanjem lažnih novic stoji cela industrija v delih Vzhodne Evrope, kjerkoli, in zasidrana je tako v realnem svetu kot na spletu. Mislim torej, da so temu doprinesle tudi tehnološke zmožnosti, ki omogočajo širjenje vseh teh zadev s skoraj svetlobno hitrostjo. S tem se soočamo prvič. In prvič se soočamo tudi s tako ogromno količino informacij, ki jih ne zbirajo tisti, ki jih poklic vodi k zavezanosti resnici, preverjanju dejstev, in ohranjanju kodeksa ravnanja in kodeksa poklicne etike.
CH: Many people here may know people who work at Facebook or 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?
Veliko ljudi iz publike verjetno pozna nekoga, ki dela za Facebook, Twitter, Google ali druge platforme. Vsi so videti kot čudoviti ljudje z dobrimi nameni -- recimo, da je temu tako. Če bi imeli možnost za pogovor z vodji teh podjetij, kaj bi jim rekli?
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 themselves and 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 think that the Russians or anybody else could be tinkering and messing around with 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 now to 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?
Veste kaj, verjamem, da so zelo dobronamerni in da seveda razvijajo neverjeten sistem, ki spreminja svet in v katerem so vsi povezani preko te zadeve, imenovane Facebook. Zase so ustvarili ogromen posel in neverjetne zaslužke. Rekla bi jim samo, naj se prebudijo, pogledajo zadevi v oči in vidijo, kaj se nam ravnokar dogaja. Mark Zuckerberg želi ustvariti globalno skupnost. Zanima me, kakšna bo ta globalna skupnost, kje je kodeks ravnanja. Mark Zuckerberg je dejal -- in ne obsojam ga za to, verjetno je verjel v to -- da je noro misliti, da bi Rusi ali kdorkoli drug lahko stikal in delal neumnosti na platformi. In kaj smo se naučili v zadnjih nekaj tednih? Da je zadeva pravzaprav zelo problematična in da jo morajo zdaj raziskati ter ugotoviti, kaj se dogaja. Zdaj vsekakor poskušajo narediti vse, da bi preprečili širjenje lažnih novic, vendar je vse skupaj dolgo časa potekalo brez nadzora. Mislim, da bi jim rekla, da so tehnološko izredno podkovani, najdimo drug algoritem. To ni možno?
CH: An algorithm that includes journalistic investigation --
Algoritem, ki vključuje novinarsko raziskovanje ...
CA: I don't really know how they do it, but somehow, you know -- filter out the crap!
Ne vem, kako to delajo, ampak naj nekako počistijo to sranje.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
And not just the unintentional --
In ne zgolj nenamerne laži,
(Applause)
(Aplavz)
but the deliberate lies that are planted by people who've been doing this as a matter of warfare for 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, as did Angela Merkel.
temveč namerne laži, ki so jih vcepili ljudje, ki jih že desetletja uporabljajo kot orožje za vojskovanje. Sovjeti, Rusi -- oni so mojstri vojskovanja z različnimi sredstvi, mojstri hibridnega vojskovanja. Odločili so se za ta način. V Združenih državah so bili uspešni, v Franciji ne, prav tako ne v Nemčiji. Med volitvami v Franciji in Nemčiji, v katere so se Rusi poskušali vmešati, se jim je francoski predsednik Emmanuel Macron odločno in neposredno zoperstavil, prav tako Angela Merkel.
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?
Zdi se, da obstaja kanček upanja, kajne? Da se svet uči. Enkrat so nas pretentali, mogoče jim uspe še enkrat, a tretjič zagotovo ne. Je tako? Upajmo.
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.
Vendar mislim, da je ta zadeva močno povezana s tehnologijo. Tudi tehnologija bi morala dobiti nekakšen moralni kompas. Vem, da zveni nesmiselno, ampak veste, kaj hočem povedati.
CH: We need a filter-the-crap algorithm with a moral compass --
Potrebujemo algoritem za odstranjevanje sranja in moralni kompas.
CA: There you go.
Točno tako.
CH: I think that's good.
Mislim, da je to dobro.
CA: No -- "moral technology." We all have moral compasses -- moral technology.
Ne, moralno tehnologijo potrebujemo. Moralne kompase imamo vsi, potrebujemo moralno tehnologijo.
CH: I think that's a great challenge. CA: You know what I mean.
Mislim, da gre za velik izziv. Saj veste, kaj mislim.
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.
Povejte nam kaj o voditeljih. Imeli ste priložnost govoriti s številnimi ljudmi s celega sveta. Mislim, da smo nekateri -- govorim v svojem imenu, ne vem, če so vsi istega mnenja -- nekako smo razočarani. Kje so voditelji? Mnogi smo razočarani. Aung San Suu Kyi in nedavni dogodki -- pomislil sem: "Ne! Spet je nekomu spodletelo!" Tako žalostno je.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
Who have you met who you have been impressed by, inspired by?
Koga si spoznala, kdo te je navdušil, inspiriral?
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 --
No, omenjaš svet v krizi, kar popolnoma drži, in mi, ki se celo življenje poglabljamo v to krizo, smo na robu živčnega zloma. Trenutno je precej stresno. In prav imaš -- obstaja to zaznano in dejansko pomanjkanje voditeljev. To ne pravim samo jaz. S komerkoli se pogovarjam, jih vprašam o voditeljih. Danes sem se pogovarjala s predsednico Liberije v odhodu, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, ki ...
(Applause)
(Aplavz)
in three weeks' time, will be one of the very rare heads of an African country who actually abides by the constitution and 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.
ki bo čez tri tedne postala ena od zelo redkih vodij afriške države, ki dejansko upošteva ustavo in odhaja s položaja po preteku določenega mandata. Dejala je, da želi s tem dati lekcijo. A ko sem ji postavila vprašanje o voditeljih in ji na hitro naštela nekaj imen, izpostavila sem francoskega predsednika Emmanuela Macrona, je dejala -- jaz sem vprašala: "Kaj ti pride na misel, ko izgovorim njegovo ime?" Dejala je, da se razvija v potencialnega voditelja, ki bi zapolnil trenutno pomanjkanje voditeljev. To se mi je zdelo zelo zanimivo. Včeraj sem imela intervju z njim. Ponosno lahko rečem, da je to bil njegov prvi mednarodni intervju. Bilo je odlično, ravno včeraj. In zelo me je navdušil. Ne vem, ali naj takole javno govorim o tem, ampak bila sem resnično navdušena.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
And it could be just because it was his first interview, but -- I asked questions, and you know what? He answered them!
To je morda zato, ker je to bil njegov prvi intervju. Postavljala sem mu vprašanja in veste kaj -- dejansko je odgovarjal na njih!
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
(Applause)
(Aplavz)
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 --
Ni bilo olepševanja, ni bilo omahovanja, nisva zapravljala minut za vračanje na temo, ni mi ga bilo treba prekinjati, po čemer sem sčasoma postala znana, saj želim, da ljudje odgovarjajo na vprašanja. In on je odgovarjal in bilo je zelo zanimivo. Rekel je ...
CH: Tell me what he said.
Povej mi, kaj je rekel.
CA: No, no, you go ahead.
Ne, ne, kar nadaljuj.
CH: You're the interrupter, I'm the listener.
Ti si ta, ki prekinja, jaz pa tisti, ki posluša.
CA: No, no, go ahead.
Ne, ne, nadaljuj.
CH: What'd he say?
Kaj je dejal?
CA: OK. You've talked about nationalism and tribalism here today. I asked him, "How did you have the guts to confront the prevailing winds of anti-globalization, nationalism, populism when you can see what happened in Brexit, when you could see what happened in the United States and what might have happened in many European elections at 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 denominator that had been embraced in other political elections. And he stood against Marine Le Pen, who is a very dangerous woman.
V redu. Danes si govoril o nacionalizmu in tribalizmu. Vprašala sem ga, kako je imel pogum, da se postavi po robu prevladujočim trendom antiglobalizacije, nacionalizma in populizma po dogodkih z Brexitom, po tem, ko je videl, kaj se dogaja v Združenih državah, in kaj bi se lahko zgodilo na mnogih evropskih volitvah v začetku leta 2017. Dejal je: "Zame nacionalizem pomeni vojno. Temu smo že bili priča. To smo že preživeli na mojem kontinentu in glede tega sem zelo jasen." Ni želel torej zgolj zaradi politične primernosti sprejeti nekakšnea najnižjega skupnega imenovalca, ki je bil sprejet na drugih političnih volitvah. Po robu se je postavil tudi Marine Le Pen, ki je zelo nevarna ženska.
CH: Last question for you, Christiane. TED is about ideas worth spreading. If you could plant one idea into the minds of everyone here, what would that be?
Zadnje vprašanje zate, Christiane. Bistvo TED-a so ideje, vredne širjenja. Če bi lahko v naše glave vcepila eno idejo, kakšna bi bila?
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 citizens who appreciate the truth, who understand science, empirical evidence and facts, then we are just simply going to be wandering along to a potential catastrophe.
Bodite resnično pozorni na to, od kod dobite določeno informacijo. Prevzemite odgovornost za to, kar berete, poslušate in gledate. Poskrbite, da glavne informacije dobite pri zaupanja vrednih ponudnikih, četudi je vaš dotok informacij širok, eklektičen, resnično se držite uveljavljenih imen, ki jih poznate. V današnjem svetu, v tem trenutku, so naše krize, naši izzivi in naši problemi zelo hudi. Če se ne angažiramo vsi kot globalni prebivalci, ki cenijo resnico, ki razumejo znanost, empirične dokaze in dejstva, bomo enostavno tavali -- v potencialno katastrofo.
So I would say, the truth, and then I would come back to Emmanuel Macron and 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."
Rekla bi torej resnica in potem bi se vrnila k Emmanuelu Macronu in govorila o ljubezni. Mislim, da je v zraku premalo ljubezni. Prosila sem ga, naj mi pove kaj o ljubezni. Rekla sem: "Veš, tvoj zakon je postal globalna obsesija."
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
"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."
"Mi lahko poveš kaj o ljubezni, kaj ti pomeni?" Še nikoli nisem predsednika ali izvoljenega voditelja vprašala o ljubezni. Tokrat sem poskusila. Dejal je -- dejansko je odgovoril -- da ima rad svojo ženo, da je del njega in da sta skupaj že desetletja. A izjava, ki resnično šteje, ki me je osupnila, je, da mu je izredno pomembno imeti nekoga doma, ki mu pove resnico.
So you see, I brought it home. It's all about the truth.
Vidite, vrnila sem se na začetek. Vse se vrti okrog resnice.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
CH: So there you go. Truth and love. Ideas worth spreading.
Resnica in ljubezen torej. Ideji, ki ju je vredno širiti.
Christiane Amanpour, thank you so much. That was great.
Christiane Amanpour, najlepša hvala, bilo je odlično.
(Applause)
(Aplavz)
CA: Thank you. CH: That was really lovely.
Hvala vam. Bilo je res lepo.
(Applause)
(Aplavz)
CA: Thank you.
Hvala.