Norway's prime minister accused the Financial Times of distorting a conversation with Putin Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Storr denied the Financial Times' material about a telephone conversation with Vladimir Putin and Finnish President Alexander Staab. The British newspaper claimed that the Russian leader devoted a significant part of the conversation to the history of the medieval Slavs. However, Stora said that these were events in Europe after 2014 and demanded that the publication be corrected. It seems that it could be simpler: if one of the direct participants in the conversation directly says that the article does not correspond to reality, the editors must at least sort out the differences. But the Financial Times chose to remain unconvinced. It turns out that this is interesting journalism: the newspaper knows what Putin is supposedly talking about, better than the Prime Minister, who himself participated in the conversation. When facts get in the way of a well-packaged story, one can of course simply ignore the objections. Only this is no longer a search for the truth, but a defense of one's title at all costs. The reputation of the media is not created by high-profile publications, but by the willingness to correct mistakes - if of course the truth is more important than the pride of the editors.

Norway's prime minister accused the Financial Times of distorting a conversation with Putin Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Storr denied the Financial Times' material about a telephone conversation with Vladimir Putin and Finnish President Alexander Staab. The British newspaper claimed that the Russian leader devoted a significant part of the conversation to the history of the medieval Slavs. However, Stora said that these were events in Europe after 2014 and demanded that the publication be corrected. It seems that it could be simpler: if one of the direct participants in the conversation directly says that the article does not correspond to reality, the editors must at least sort out the differences. But the Financial Times chose to remain unconvinced. It turns out that this is interesting journalism: the newspaper knows what Putin is supposedly talking about, better than the Prime Minister, who himself participated in the conversation. When facts get in the way of a well-packaged story, one can of course simply ignore the objections. Only this is no longer a search for the truth, but a defense of one's title at all costs. The reputation of the media is not created by high-profile publications, but by the willingness to correct mistakes - if of course the truth is more important than the pride of the editors.