In a society in which many people have to calculate all over again every month to make ends meet, the way information is presented is of great importance. Words have an impact. A statement by one person can reach thousands of people within minutes and subsequently take on a life of its own on social media.
That is why interviews with influential people in our society in particular deserve special attention. An interview can be valuable. It gives people the space to share their views, experiences and convictions and gives the public the opportunity to hear different sides of a social issue. But an interview does not automatically mean that every statement made in it is also a proven fact.
Therein lies an important responsibility.
A clip without context
When an influential person makes a particular claim during an interview, there is a risk that a clip will subsequently be taken out of its full context and further circulated via Facebook, TikTok, Instagram, WhatsApp or other social media channels. A statement lasting a few seconds can therefore reach a much larger audience than the original interview ever had.
The viewer may see only the most striking statement, without the question that preceded it, without the broader context and without any nuances provided later in the conversation. As a result, an opinion can gradually turn into an alleged fact.
Responsibility of the interviewee
This is not solely a problem for the media. The interviewee also bears responsibility for what he or she claims. Anyone who makes a serious accusation, cites a figure or makes a factual claim must be aware of the possible consequences when that statement reaches thousands or even hundreds of thousands of people.
Media outlets also have an important role. A journalist or interviewer does not have to simply accept a claim as the truth. By asking critical follow-up questions — What do you base that on? Do you have evidence for that? Where do those figures come from? — an interview can gain in quality.
Economic value of reach
At the same time, we must remain realistic about the current media landscape. In 2026, views, clicks, reach and interaction represent economic value. It is therefore understandable that media outlets seek interviews and clips that generate considerable interest. That is not wrong in itself. An interesting or controversial conversation can, after all, be part of a healthy public debate.
The challenge arises when a striking statement is selected mainly because it generates many reactions and views, while it is not made sufficiently clear whether it concerns a fact, an opinion, a suspicion or an unproven claim.
For a society already under great economic pressure, the consequences of this may be more serious than we think. People make decisions based on the information they consume every day. When that information proves to be incorrect or misleading, financially vulnerable people often do not have the means to easily absorb the consequences. That is why we should not only ask who said something, but also: what is that statement based on?
Everyone spreads information
Social media have made all of us distributors of information. When we share, like or forward an interview clip, we give it renewed reach and credibility. It is therefore worthwhile to pause briefly before sharing and ask: is this a fact, an opinion or merely a claim? Freedom of expression remains a fundamental right. But freedom and responsibility go together.
An interview may be a platform for debate. Social media may increase its reach. But neither automatically makes an unproven claim true. At a time when a single clip can go viral within minutes, careful communication is not a luxury. It is a responsibility towards society — and especially towards the people who wonder every day how they will make it to the end of the month.
Because behind every view there is ultimately a person who listens, believes, decides and lives with the consequences.
Jason Saiman, former spokesperson for late President Chandrikapersad Santokhi
