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?
克里斯安德森:克莉絲蒂安, 很高興你今天能來。 所以,你有個很棒的觀點, 也許可以說,在過去的幾年間, 你看見了一些令人擔憂的發展。 最讓你擔憂的是什麼?
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.
克莉絲蒂安艾曼普:嗯, 聽了前幾位講者的演說, 我可以借用他們所說的來表達: 比如,氣候改變、城市, 對我們的環境 以及生活的威脅。 基本上,可以歸結到了解真相, 並能夠針對我們 談論的議題去探究真相, 才能夠真正去解決它。 所以,如果 99.9% 的氣候科學 都是實證的、科學的證據, 但卻在與少數駁斥者 幾乎平頭式地競爭, 那就不是真相, 而是假新聞的縮影。 對我而言,過去幾年, 特別是最近這一年, 假新聞的概念被以一種 很讓人擔憂的方式給具體化了, 不再只是隨處喊喊的口號而已。 因為當你無法區別 真相和假新聞的差別時, 你就會更難去試圖解決 我們面對的一些重大議題。
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?
克里斯:你涉入 什麼是平衡、什麼是真相、 什麼是公正這些問題, 已經很長一段時間。 25 年前,你在巴爾幹 戰爭的前線做報導。 那時,你說過一句名言, 大聲說出人權被侵犯, 你說:「聽著,有些狀況 就是無法中立去看待, 因為當你中立時, 你就是共犯。」 你覺得現今的記者沒有留意到 那個關於平衡的建議嗎?
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.
克莉絲蒂安:我認為對記者而言, 客觀是黃金法則。 但我認為,有時我們 並不了解客觀的意義。 我在職涯的極早期已學到了這一點, 當時是在巴爾幹戰爭的期間。 那時我很年輕。 大約是 25 年前。 當時我們面對的是大規模的違反, 不只違反人權而已, 而是一路到排除異族和種族滅絕, 已經被世界最高戰犯法庭裁決了。 我們知道我們看見了什麼。 為了試圖告訴世界我們看見了什麼, 導致我們被控訴,說我們有偏見、 選邊站、 不看整體大局, 而只述說單方片面的故事。 我個人還特別遭到控訴, 比如說我站在塞拉耶佛市民的那一邊, 說我「站在穆斯林的那一邊」, 因為在那裡他們是被攻擊的少數, 被與塞爾維亞同一陣線的 基督徒攻擊。 那讓我憂心。 我憂心遭受這樣的指控, 心想,也許我錯了, 也許我忘了客觀是什麼。
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.
接著我開始了解,人們想要的 其實是什麼都不做, 不要涉入, 不要去改變局勢, 不要去找解決方案。 所以,那時他們的假新聞, 那時說謊的 包括我們的政府,我們的民選政府, 有著人權價值和原則的政府, 他們的謊言是,每一方都同等有罪, 這是由數百世紀的民族仇恨造成的; 而我們知道那並非事實, 而是一方鐵了心要屠殺另一方, 滅絕異族。 所以,就在當時我了解到 客觀意味著 給每一方被傾聽的平等機會, 並跟每一方都談, 而不是平等對待每一方, 不是勉強造出道德等值或事實等值。 當你面對國際法及人權法 被重大違反的危機關口, 如果你不了解你看到了什麼, 如果你不了解真相, 如果你被假新聞寫作典範給困住, 那麼你就是個共犯。 而我拒絕成為種族屠殺的共犯。
(Applause)
(掌聲)
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?
克里斯:所以,宣傳戰一直存在著, 而你那時有勇氣採取了堅定的立場。 不過,現今有了全新的 新聞變成假新聞的方式。 你會如何描述它的特性?
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."
克莉絲蒂安:嗯,我真的很憂心。 放眼任何地方, 我們都不斷遭受它的衝擊。 顯然,當自由世界的領袖, 當整個世界最有權勢的人, 也就是美國總統── 美國是全世界最重要、 最有權勢的國家, 在經濟、軍事、政治, 每個面向都是── 很顯然尋求要在全世界 提升價值和權勢。 所以我們這些只尋求真相的記者, 懷抱我們的使命, 跑遍世界去尋找真相, 要成為那些無法去到 世界各地的人的眼睛和耳朵, 我們要找出發生了哪些事, 哪些事會大大影響 每個人的健康與安全。 所以,當那個主要的世界領袖 指控你做假新聞時, 會引起呈指數成長的漣漪效應, 造成的結果是開始一點一點削弱 不只我們的信用, 還有人們的理智與主見。 人們看著我們,也許他們在想, 「嗯,如果美國總統都那樣說了, 也許或多或少是真的。」
CH: Presidents have always been critical of the media --
克里斯:總統們向來都對媒體很不滿──
CA: Not in this way.
克莉絲蒂安:不是現在這樣的方式。
CH: So, to what extent --
克里斯:所以,到什麼程度──
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
(Applause)
(掌聲)
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?"
克里斯:我是說,幾年前 如果有人看見大量資訊湧入, 資訊從 Twitter 及 Facebook 等地湧入, 他可能會說: 「我們未曾像現在這麼民主。 新聞量遠多於過去。 當然,總統們會說他們要說的話, 但其他人也都可以說自己想說的。 有什麼不好?為什麼 會存在額外的危險呢?」
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.
克莉絲蒂安:我希望那是真的。 我希望 資訊來源平台的數量激增 意味著真相和透明度激增, 深度和正確性也激增。 但我認為,實際發生的恰恰相反。 我承認自己有點算是盧德份子。 (註:反對技術革新的人) 即使當我們開始談到資訊高速公路, 那是很久以前了, 在社交媒體、Twitter、 這類平台之前, 其實那時我很害怕, 怕它會把人們放到某些線道或隧道, 使他們只聚焦在自己感興趣的領域, 而不是放寬視野去看大局。 我很怕演算法、對數 這類東西被用來 引領我們到特定的資訊管道, 而這正似乎是現在正在發生的情形。 人們已經在寫關於這個現象的文章, 人們說,是的,網際網路到來了, 它承諾讓我們能大量接觸更多民主、 更多資訊、 較少偏見、 和更多樣化的資訊。 但事實上,發生的情形相反。 所以對我來說,那是相當危險的。 同樣的,若你身為國家總統, 你的發言會掩護 其他不民主國家的領袖, 讓他們能進一步冒犯我們, 揮著假新聞的棍棒紮紮實實痛擊我們 和他們自己的記者。
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?
克里斯:單就已經發生的事來說, 非蓄意的後果到了什麼程度? 你所從事的傳統媒體業 扮演著調解和處理資訊的角色, 遵從某些基準, 駁回一些不可信的故事。 但現在 出版和散播的標準 只剩下有趣、注意力、 刺激、點閱數, 「它被點閱了嗎?」 「把它發出去!」 那是造成問題的部分原因嗎?
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.
克莉絲蒂安:我認為這是個大問題, 2016 年的大選已看到這現象, 那時,點閱誘餌是非常性感、 非常有吸引力的, 因此所有這些假新聞網站 及一則則假新聞 並不是隨意或偶然被放在那裡, 而是有一整個產業在製造假新聞, 在部份東歐地區,無論是哪, 假新聞被植入實體和網路的空間中。 所以我也認為, 我們的科技有能力 將這類東西擴散出去, 擴散的速度幾近音速或光速, 這是我們未曾面對過的。 我們未曾面對過 如此大量、未經彙整的資訊, 未被那些身負把關職則、 必須確認事實的真相、 並維持職業倫理準則 與行為準則的那些人
CH: Many people here may know people who work at Facebook
所彙整過的資訊。
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?
克里斯:這裡許多人可能認識 在 Facebook、Twitter、 Google 等公司工作的人。 他們都看似很棒、有著良善的意圖, 就讓我們先這樣假設。 若你能和這些公司的領導人說話, 你會對他們說什麼?
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?
克莉絲蒂安:你知道嗎, 我相信他們的意圖都是非常良善的, 他們確實發展出令人難以置信 並且改變遊戲規則的系統, 每個人都在這個名叫 Facebook 的東西上彼此連結。 他們為自己創造出大規模的經濟、 以及驚人的收入。 我只會說: 「各位,該是醒來的時候了, 聞一聞咖啡、看看現在 在我們身上發生了那些事。」 馬克祖克柏想要創造一個全球社群。 我想要知道:這個全球社群 看起來會是什麼樣子? 我想要知道行為準則到底在哪裡。 馬克祖克柏說── 我不怪他,他可能確實相信這點── 他說,如果認為俄國人 或是其他人可以在用這裡胡搞亂弄, 那就太瘋狂了。 我們在前幾週剛剛學到了什麼? 我們得知其實那方面的問題大得很, 現在他們得要調查到底怎麼一回事。 是的,他們目前正傾力試著 防止假新聞興起, 但你知道, 長久以來,假新聞一直未曾受限。 所以,我想我會說, 你們在科技方面才華橫溢, 咱們來想出另一個演算法, 行吧?
CH: An algorithm that includes journalistic investigation --
克里斯:一個包含 新聞調查的演算法──
CA: I don't really know how they do it, but somehow, you know -- filter out the crap!
克莉絲蒂安:其實我不清楚他們 怎麼做,但總要以某種方式 把狗屁都過濾掉!
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
And not just the unintentional --
不僅僅濾掉非蓄意的,
(Applause)
(掌聲)
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.
也要濾掉刻意植入的謊言, 由數十年來習以為常 把假新聞當作戰爭手段的那些人 所植入的謊言。 蘇聯人、俄國人, 他們是利用另類手法 製造戰爭的大師,是混合戰的大師。 假新聞是他們決定採取的手段。 在美國奏效了, 在法國行不通, 在德國還沒有用上。 選舉期間,他們試圖干預, 法國的現任總統埃瑪紐耶爾馬克宏 採取非常強硬的立場正面迎戰, 安格拉梅克爾也一樣。 (註:德國總理)
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?
克里斯:這當中是有些希望的吧? 世界在學習。 我們被騙過一次, 也許我們會再被騙一次, 但也許不會犯第三次錯。 是這樣的嗎?
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.
克莉絲蒂安:咱們就希望如此吧。 但我認為,在這方面 有很大一部份和科技相關, 科技也得要有某種道德羅盤。 我知道我在說廢話, 但你們明白我的意思。
CH: We need a filter-the-crap algorithm with a moral compass --
克里斯:我們需要一個道德羅盤 過濾狗屁的演算法。
CA: There you go.
克莉絲蒂安:你說對了。
CH: I think that's good.
克里斯:我認為那很好。
CA: No -- "moral technology." We all have moral compasses -- moral technology.
克莉絲蒂安:不,「道德科技」。 我們都要有道德羅盤──道德科技。
CH: I think that's a great challenge. CA: You know what I mean.
克里斯:我認為那是個大挑戰。 克莉絲蒂安:你懂我的意思。
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.
克里斯:花一分鐘談談領導。 你有和世上那麼多人說話的機會。 我認為我們當中有些人── 我代表自己發言, 不知道其他人是否有同感── 一直懷有這樣的失望: 領導人在哪裡? 我們這麼多人一直覺得失望── 翁山蘇姬最近怎麼搞的, 就像是:「不好!又陣亡了一個。」 很讓人心碎。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
Who have you met who you have been impressed by, inspired by?
你遇過誰, 你對誰印象的深刻、受到誰鼓舞呢?
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 --
克莉絲蒂安:你談到 世界正處在危機當中, 這點絕對是真的, 我們這些一生埋首在危機中的人── 我是說,我們都在精神崩潰的邊緣。 所以,現在壓力很大。 且你是對的, 我的確感受到領導的空缺狀態, 實際上也是如此, 且不只是我這樣說,我問了所有 與我對話過的人關於領導。 我今天在和賴比瑞亞 即將離職的總統談話, 艾倫強森瑟利夫, 她
(Applause)
(掌聲)
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.
在三週後, 她將會成為非常少數真正遵循憲法, 在規定任期結束後 就交出權力的非洲國家領袖之一。 她說她想要那麼做,教大家一課。 但當我向她問到領導時, 我快速丟給她一堆名字, 我提到新法國總統的名字, 埃瑪紐耶爾馬克宏。 她說── 我問:「你覺得他如何?」 她說: 「有潛力能夠成為 填補目前領導真空的領袖。」 我覺得那十分有趣。 正巧昨天我剛訪問馬克宏。 我能很驕傲地說, 我得到他的首次國際訪談。 很順利。那是昨天的事。 我的印象非常深刻。 不知道我是否該在 公開的論壇中這樣說, 但我印象非常深刻。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
And it could be just because it was his first interview, but -- I asked questions, and you know what? He answered them!
可能只因為那是他的首次訪談, 但我問了問題,你們知道怎樣嗎? 他回答了問題!
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
(Applause)
(掌聲)
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 --
沒繞圈圈, 沒閃避, 沒花五分鐘才回到重點。 不需要我一直打斷, 我以訪談時打斷對方而聞名, 因為想要他們回答我的問題。 他回答了我, 那十分有趣。 他說──
CH: Tell me what he said.
克里斯:告訴我他說了什麼。
CA: No, no, you go ahead.
克莉絲蒂安:不,不,你先說。
CH: You're the interrupter, I'm the listener.
克里斯:你是打斷專家,我是聽眾。
CA: No, no, go ahead.
克莉絲蒂安:不,不,請說。
CH: What'd he say?
克里斯:他說了什麼?
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.
克莉絲蒂安:好,今天在這裡談到 民族主義和對部族的忠誠。 我問他:「你怎麼有膽子去對抗 反全球化、民族主義、 民粹主義的主流趨勢,特別是 當你看到英國脫歐發生的情況, 當你看到在美國發生的狀況, 以及 2017 年初許多歐洲選舉 本來可能發生的狀況呢?」 而他說: 「對我來說,民族主義意味著戰爭。 我們以前就看過了, 我們以前在歐陸經歷過了, 而我非常清楚這一點。」 所以他並不只求政治的眼前利益, 像是擁抱最小共同點, 其他的政治選舉都會去 擁抱最小共同點。 而他對抗瑪琳勒朋, 瑪琳勒朋是個很危險的女人。
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?
克里斯:克莉絲蒂安,最後一個問題。 和我們談談值得散播的想法。 如果你能在這裡的每個人 腦中植入一個想法, 會是什麼?
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.
克莉絲蒂安:我會說, 要非常留意你的資訊來自何處; 要對你所讀到、聽到、 看到的資訊主動負責; 確保你的主要資訊必須是從 可信任的品牌那兒取得的, 不論資訊的來源 有多麼廣泛或是多麼多樣化, 一定要守住你認識的品牌, 因為在這個世界中,在目前這時刻, 我們的危機、我們的挑戰、 我們的問題,都非常嚴重, 除非我們都能以 全球市民的身份來參與, 能夠意識到真相, 能夠了解科學、實證證據與事實, 不然我們就只會離開正道, 走向潛在的大災難。
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."
所以我會說「真相」, 接著我會回到埃瑪紐耶爾馬克宏, 並且談「愛」。 我會說,還沒有足夠的愛。 我請他和我談談愛。 我說:「你的婚姻 是全球都很迷戀的目標。」
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
"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."
「你能跟我談談愛嗎? 對你而言愛是什麼?」 我從未請總統或民選領袖 跟我談論愛這議題, 我想試一試。 而他──你們知道嗎, 他真的回答了。 他說:「我愛我太太, 她是我的一部份, 我們在一起數十年了。」 但真正重要, 真正讓我難忘的是 他說: 「對我來說,家裡 有個人能告訴我真相 是非常重要的事。」
So you see, I brought it home. It's all about the truth.
看,我把話帶回到主題了, 重點就是真相。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
CH: So there you go. Truth and love. Ideas worth spreading.
克里斯:有你的。真相和愛。 值得散播的想法。
Christiane Amanpour, thank you so much. That was great.
克莉絲蒂安艾曼普, 非常謝謝你。很棒的訪談。
(Applause)
(掌聲)
CA: Thank you. CH: That was really lovely.
克莉絲蒂安:謝謝您。 克里斯:訪談非常愉快。
(Applause)
(掌聲)
CA: Thank you.
克莉絲蒂安:謝謝。