Opinion
By Christoforos Christoforou
Even before the destructive wildfire in the wine villages was fully extinguished, news was leaked to the media that the police were investigating “information” about a possible arsonists’ plot. Shortly thereafter, the arrest of a person in Prodromos was announced, someone who was being examined for a “possible connection to forest fires.” As the trail of the “information” unfolded, we learned that an anonymous source had provided details based on which “there might be an organized plan of arson,” initially addressed to the Director of the Forest Department, who then forwarded it to the Police, which duly took on the investigation.
How is a reasonable person supposed to perceive and interpret the leak and spread of these particular news and “information”? Our starting point is this question: What would we answer if asked, “Could the fire be attributed to arson?” Logically, very few would rule out arson completely. Therefore, we move to the next stage, the expected, rational action of the authorities:
How do we handle anonymous “information” about a possible arson plot? Responsible handling means evaluating the information and determining the next steps. The key questions are the reliability of the anonymous source, the content, the data provided, and, above all, how they should be interpreted. The initial assessment decides whether the information is trash or worthy of investigation.
It does not require much effort to understand that when an anonymous source forwards a speculation, without concrete evidence, concluding with “possible,” its value as information and as an object of inquiry is zero. Of course, whether authorities have information or not, they are always obliged to investigate causes and potentially malicious acts in such cases.
We could accept that in the hands of the police and authorities in general, the anonymity, the content of the information, and all data turned into something concrete, not mere speculation or rumor. How were they then obligated to act?
In all cases, a responsible reaction by the authorities could not have been the leak to the media, the broad public dissemination, which ultimately took the shape of either a conspiracy theory or, for some, an alibi for the inadequate handling of a wildfire of colossal proportions.
Responsible management would have been to investigate every detail with confidentiality and discretion to ensure the effectiveness of the inquiry. The opposite course of action may allow those involved to do everything possible to hide any connection to illegal acts. By spreading speculations, the police achieved only negative outcomes: conspiracy theories and the encouragement of racist rhetoric, and all this without the slightest evidence. Even worse, for part of the population, instead of instilling a sense of security through responsible management, the authorities sowed panic through these speculations, as evidenced by cancellations of reservations in mountain hotels.
The publication served only to further erode the credibility and responsible management of the police and authorities as collateral damage of yet another poor decision.
Christoforos Christoforou, political analyst, Council of Europe expert on media and elections.
