In Bishkek, beneath the mountains, a group of people has gathered for something that sounds formal but feels urgent: the 26th Central Asian Media Conference. Organized by the Office of the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, it brings together journalists, officials, researchers, activists, and experts from across the region. The official theme is “Building Shared Reality: Information Integrity, Media Ethics and Trust in the Digital Age.” Behind that long title is a much simpler question: how can people who are surrounded by different screens, different feeds, and different versions of the same event still agree on basic facts? In a world where a video can be manipulated in minutes, where a rumor can cross borders before a correction can be published, and where trust in institutions is fragile, the idea of a shared reality feels more difficult than ever. Yet the fact that more than 120 people from six countries came to Bishkek suggests a strong desire to find answers together. They are not pretending that the problem is simple, or that any single country can solve it alone. They are here to talk, listen, and understand each other a little better. Bishkek is a fitting place for this conversation. It is a city where old Soviet architecture mixes with new cafes and coworking spaces, where tradition and digital change live side by side. That mix makes the official language feel alive. Behind phrases like “information integrity” and “media ethics” are real people trying to make sense of an increasingly confusing information environment, and trying to protect the space where public conversation happens.
The people in the room are not a single, uniform crowd. More than 120 representatives of government agencies, media outlets, civil society, academia, and international institutions are taking part, coming from Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. There are veteran reporters who have spent decades chasing stories, young fact-checkers who know how to trace a manipulated image back to its source, government officials responsible for media laws, professors who study online behavior, and activists who defend the right to speak freely. They do not always agree. A government official and an independent journalist may look at the same problem and see different threats. A fact-checker and a social media influencer may have different ideas about how to build trust. But the conference is designed to create a space where these differences can be discussed openly. What unites the participants is a shared recognition that the information landscape has become harder to navigate. In the past, an editor or broadcaster had a certain amount of power to decide what was important. Today, anyone with a smartphone can reach a huge audience. That is liberating, but it also means falsehoods can spread as quickly as truth. The participants bring their own experiences. Some have dealt with political pressure; others have dealt with online harassment; others have seen how a single piece of disinformation can inflame tensions or create panic. They come to Bishkek not only to talk about what has gone wrong, but also to share ideas about what has worked. There is something deeply human about this process. People from different backgrounds, speaking different languages, with different political systems and traditions, sitting in the same room and trying to find common ground. It is not always comfortable. But it is necessary. If the media cannot be trusted, public debate becomes impossible. If citizens cannot agree on basic facts, democracy becomes a shouting match. The conference is an attempt to prevent that future. The fact that it is the 26th time this conversation has been held shows that the work is difficult, but it is not new.
The opening remarks were delivered by Salkyn Sarnogoeva, Deputy Minister of Culture, Information and Youth Policy of Kyrgyzstan. Her speech set the tone for the whole conference. She spoke about the importance of regional cooperation in developing a free and responsible information space. That phrase is worth pausing over. “Free and responsible” is not an either/or formula. It is a recognition that freedom of expression and responsible journalism need each other. A media space that is free but irresponsible can become a swamp of rumors and abuse. A media space that is responsible but not free can become a tool of propaganda. Sarnogoeva stressed that people need reliable information and that governments have a role in ensuring public access to it, but she also emphasized the need to protect freedom of expression. This is a delicate balance. It is easy to talk about fighting disinformation in a way that becomes an excuse for censorship. It is also easy to defend freedom of expression in a way that ignores the damage done by harmful falsehoods. Her remarks acknowledged both dangers. She called for regional cooperation because information does not stop at borders. A false story that starts in one country can spread across the region in hours. A legal decision in one country can affect media freedom in another. An online platform based thousands of miles away can shape public conversation in Bishkek, Almaty, Dushanbe, Ashgabat, Tashkent, and Ulaanbaatar. No single government can control that reality, and no single country can solve it alone. Her presence also sent a message: governments are part of the conversation too. Media policy is not made by journalists alone. It is made by politicians, regulators, and courts. If those voices are not in the room, the conversation is incomplete. The goal is not to choose between freedom and responsibility, but to build an information space where both can thrive. That is a hard task, but it is the only realistic one.
The main discussions revolve around media freedom, professional journalistic ethics, efforts to counter disinformation, the development of media literacy, and ways to strengthen public trust. These are not abstract topics. They touch everyday life. Consider a grandmother in a small town who receives a voice message on WhatsApp telling her that a certain medicine is dangerous. She shares it with her family out of love. The message is false, but it spreads. Consider a young person who sees a manipulated video of a politician saying something outrageous. The video goes viral, and before anyone can check it, opinions have already formed. Disinformation is not just a problem for journalists and fact-checkers. It is a problem for everyone who tries to make decisions about health, safety, politics, and personal relationships. The participants know that there is no single solution. Laws can punish the worst forms of harmful speech, but they cannot cure the deeper problem of mistrust. Fact-checking can debunk false stories, but it cannot always stop them from spreading. Media literacy programs can teach people how to verify sources, but it is hard to teach critical thinking to a population that is exhausted and overwhelmed by information. And yet, the conference is not hopeless. Professional journalism ethics are still relevant, perhaps more than ever. The old values of accuracy, fairness, accountability, and transparency are the building blocks of trust. When journalists commit to those values, they offer the public something that algorithms cannot: a human being willing to stand behind the story. Media ethics are not just about avoiding mistakes. They are about being honest about what you know, correcting errors quickly, and treating people with dignity. Media literacy is also deeply human. It is a way of approaching the world. It means asking questions before sharing, looking for sources, noticing when something makes you angry or afraid and pausing to check whether it is true. It means teaching children, and also adults, that not everything on a screen is real. It is hard, patient work, and it does not make headlines. But it may be the most important work of all.
The conference agenda also covers changes in the media landscape in the digital age, the need to develop critical thinking, and the promotion of responsible information consumption. The digital age has been a revolution, but like all revolutions, it has created new problems. The old gatekeepers—editors, publishers, broadcasters—had many flaws, but they also had standards. Today, the gatekeepers have been replaced by algorithms. These algorithms are not designed to protect truth. They are designed to keep people watching, clicking, and sharing. They often reward outrage, fear, and sensationalism. A calm, carefully researched article is less likely to go viral than a dramatic, half-true headline. This is not because people are stupid. It is because human attention is limited, and the digital economy is built on capturing it. The result is an environment where reality feels unstable. People see different versions of the same event depending on their platform, language, political views, and social media networks. They begin to doubt not only the media, but also each other. That is why the conference talks about building a shared reality. It is not about forcing everyone to agree. It is about making sure public conversation is based on facts that can be verified, rather than fantasies that are merely repeated. Developing critical thinking is a key part of this. Critical thinking is not the same as cynicism. A cynic assumes that everything is false. A critical thinker asks questions, weighs evidence, and changes their mind when new information appears. This is a skill that can be learned, and it must be practiced. The conference also stresses responsible information consumption. That phrase sounds formal, but it means that the people who read, watch, and share news are not passive consumers. They are part of the information ecosystem. When they share a story without reading it, they amplify noise. When they send a rumor to a family group chat, they help it spread. When they refuse to engage with something designed to make them angry, they weaken the incentives for outrage. This is not easy. It goes against the way our minds are wired. But it is possible. And it becomes easier when people work together, and when they are supported by media that deserve their trust. The digital age has not destroyed the need for journalism. It has made good journalism more valuable. The challenge is to help people recognize the difference between information produced with care and information produced to manipulate them.
The organizers say the forum is intended to provide a platform for sharing experience, discussing current challenges, and developing common approaches to the region’s information space. That is the official goal, but the real value is often found in quieter moments: a conversation during a coffee break, an idea shared between fact-checkers from different countries, a journalist telling a colleague about a story that changed the way she sees her work. These human connections matter. They remind participants that they are not alone. The problems they face—disinformation, declining trust, pressure on media freedom, the overwhelming pace of digital change—are not unique to their country. They are shared across the region and across the world. Shared problems are easier to face when people share solutions. The conference does not pretend to have all the answers. It does not offer a simple recipe for rebuilding trust. But it creates a space where people can be honest about difficulties and still leave with a sense of purpose. “Building Shared Reality” is not a slogan that can be achieved overnight. It is a long-term project, and it requires many actors. Governments, media outlets, civil society, educators, technology companies, and ordinary citizens all have a role. The conference in Bishkek is a small but important part of that project. It brings together people who might otherwise never meet, and it encourages them to think beyond their own borders. It recognizes that the information space is not a national issue but a regional and global one. And it affirms that despite all the forces pulling people apart, there is still a desire to find common ground. As the conference ends, participants will return to their home countries carrying new ideas, new contacts, and, hopefully, a renewed commitment to truth, ethics, and trust. The road ahead is not easy. There will be more disinformation, more manipulation, more difficult conversations. But the fact that people are willing to sit down, talk, listen, and try again is itself a reason for hope. A shared reality cannot be imposed from above. It has to be built from below, one conversation at a time. In Bishkek, that building has begun.