A powerful pen needs a responsible hand

A news report can expose corruption, protect a victim, save public money and compel an institution to correct its mistakes. But the same report, if based on inaccurate information, incomplete facts or careless interpretation, can destroy reputations, create public panic and cause enormous financial losses. In journalism, therefore, the power to publish must always be accompanied by the responsibility to verify.

That responsibility has never been more important. Information now travels at extraordinary speed. A report published on a news portal can reach millions through social media within minutes. By the time an error is identified, the damage may already have been done.

The consequences can be particularly serious when reporting involves banks and other financial institutions.

Banking is built on one fundamental asset: trust. People deposit their hard-earned money because they believe their bank is safe and their money will be available when needed. A misleading report suggesting that a bank is in serious trouble, that depositors' money is unsafe or that an institution may collapse can create fear almost instantly.

Once fear spreads, customers may rush to withdraw their deposits. What began as an inaccurate, exaggerated or poorly contextualised report can contribute to a genuine liquidity problem, causing reputational damage, business disruption and loss of confidence. In extreme circumstances, it can also create broader concerns about financial stability.

A striking example came from Brazil in August 2025. False claims circulated on social media suggesting that Banco do Brasil could face US sanctions because one of its customers was Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who had been sanctioned by the United States.

The bank rejected the claims and warned of the potentially serious economic consequences of false or incomplete information about financial institutions. Brazilian authorities referred the matter to the Federal Police for investigation, while the solicitor general warned that such misinformation could potentially trigger a bank run.

Banco do Brasil shares fell 2.2% in one trading session, although Brazilian banking stocks were also facing broader market pressure.

The lesson is clear: financial misinformation does not remain merely a wrong story on a screen. It can influence investors, unsettle depositors, damage confidence and place additional pressure on a financial institution.

This is why financial journalism demands an especially high degree of caution.

Reporting wrongdoing or financial weakness is not only legitimate – it is essential. Journalists have a responsibility to investigate corruption, mismanagement, regulatory violations and practices that may harm customers or the public interest.

But there is a fundamental difference between investigating a problem and presenting an unverified allegation as established fact.

Before publishing a sensitive report, journalists should examine relevant documents, consult multiple credible sources, seek responses from the institution or individual concerned and, where necessary, cross-check information with appropriate regulatory authorities.

A single anonymous source, social media post or unverified document should never become the sole foundation of a report capable of affecting public confidence.

The distinction between fact, allegation and interpretation must remain clear.

The collapse of Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) in the United States in March 2023 provides another important lesson. SVB already had serious financial vulnerabilities, including deposit outflows and losses associated with securities.

After the bank disclosed a major loss and plans to raise capital, concerns spread rapidly, including online. Depositors withdrew about $40 billion in a single day, while the bank expected around $100 billion in additional withdrawal requests the following day. Regulators ultimately closed the bank.

The SVB episode should not be described simply as a case in which social media caused a bank's collapse. The bank had substantial underlying weaknesses. But the episode demonstrated how digital communication can accelerate fear and depositor withdrawals once concerns about liquidity emerge.

The challenge is becoming even more complex with artificial intelligence.

A 2025 UK study, reported by Reuters, examined how AI-generated false narratives could increase the risk of bank runs. The research considered fabricated claims such as bank security breaches and found that convincing misinformation distributed through digital channels could encourage customers to move their money.

Reuters reported that about one-third of customers surveyed said they would be "extremely likely" to move their money after encountering such content in the study's scenario.

This creates a new responsibility for journalists. In an environment where fabricated documents, synthetic images, manipulated videos and AI-generated narratives can be produced within seconds, verification can no longer be optional. It must remain at the centre of journalism.

Another relevant example emerged in Cambodia in March 2026, when online claims targeted APD Bank, including allegations concerning its banking licence. APD Bank said the information was false and that the matter had been reported to the relevant authorities.

The episode also coincided with customer anxiety and restrictions on some banking services, illustrating why journalists must distinguish carefully between unverified claims, a bank's response, observable developments and information confirmed by regulators.

The precise financial consequences of the Cambodian episode should be treated cautiously. Nevertheless, it illustrates an important point: misinformation and uncertainty surrounding a financial institution can generate public anxiety quickly, requiring banks and regulators to respond before concerns develop into a wider crisis.

The Brazilian, American and Cambodian experiences illustrate a common principle: when financial information is wrong, incomplete or presented without sufficient context, its consequences can extend far beyond journalism itself.

Sensational headlines make this problem worse. In the digital age, many readers see only the headline before sharing a story. If the headline exaggerates the situation, a clarification buried inside the article may never reach those who have already formed an opinion.

This is particularly relevant in Bangladesh, where economic, political and institutional developments can quickly generate strong public reactions. Social media has made information more accessible, but it has also made misinformation more powerful.

A rumour can become "news" within minutes, and news can shape public perception before its authenticity has been properly established.

Journalists should therefore ask three simple questions before publishing sensitive information:

Is it true?

Is it sufficiently verified?

What could happen if it is wrong?

The third question is often overlooked.

Journalism is not simply about being first. It is about being right. A journalist who publishes an accurate report five minutes after a competitor may serve the public far better than one who publishes an inaccurate report first.

In matters involving banks, financial markets, public safety or national interests, accuracy should take precedence over speed.

This does not mean journalism should become timid. Responsible journalism is not about protecting powerful institutions from scrutiny; it is about ensuring that scrutiny is based on evidence.

No bank, company, government agency or public institution should be above investigation. But neither should any institution or individual be condemned by a report that has failed to meet basic standards of verification.

The principle applies equally to individuals. A careless allegation can damage someone's career, dignity and reputation within hours. Even if later proven false, a correction may not fully repair the harm.

In the age of search engines and social media, an inaccurate accusation can remain accessible long after the truth has emerged.

Technology has made this challenge even more complex. Artificial intelligence can generate information at extraordinary speed, while social media can distribute it globally within seconds.

But neither technology nor speed can replace human judgement, ethical standards and rigorous fact-checking. The more powerful the tools become, the greater the responsibility of those who use them.

Journalists must also recognise that context is part of accuracy. A technically correct statement can still mislead if crucial context is omitted.

A temporary banking-service disruption should not automatically be described as a collapse. Similarly, a regulatory investigation should not be presented as proof of wrongdoing unless the evidence establishes it.

A bank's denial, however, should not automatically be treated as proof that an allegation is false. Journalists must continue to examine the available evidence, seek independent confirmation and present the facts in their proper context.

Journalistic freedom is indispensable to democracy. A free press must be able to question governments, challenge institutions and expose wrongdoing. But freedom of the press cannot mean freedom from responsibility.

The public deserves journalism that is courageous but fair, critical but evidence-based, fast but accurate.

Ultimately, the credibility of journalism depends not on how loudly a story is presented, but on how carefully it is verified.

A journalist's pen can become a voice for the voiceless, a shield against corruption and a powerful force for accountability. But if that pen is guided by haste, speculation, prejudice or incomplete information, it can become an instrument of unintended harm.

A powerful pen, therefore, needs a responsible hand.