Rights-Defense Commentary: Tolerance Exists Only in the Halls of Power, Accountability Is Directed Only at the People—Disaster Public-Opinion Governance Must Eliminate “Double Standards”

Special commentator：Mu Jiangshan

Since the beginning of summer，many parts of China have successively experienced extreme weather disasters such as typhoons、tornadoes and torrential rains，with violent winds and rain sweeping across urban and rural areas，causing casualties、damage to homes and property losses，leaving countless people to face the impact of natural disasters directly。When major disasters strike suddenly，scenes are chaotic、information is complicated and circumstances change from moment to moment，meaning that the public-opinion environment surrounding disaster situations is naturally in a state of confusion。On July 23，2026，the Cyberspace Administration of China and the Ministry of Emergency Management jointly deployed a campaign to centrally clean up and rectify illegal and harmful information concerning disasters and accidents during the flood season，cracking down hard on malicious phenomena such as using AI to fabricate disaster situations、splicing together fake videos、deliberately fabricating dangerous conditions and profiting through fraud carried out in the name of disasters，with the purpose of purifying cyberspace、stabilizing social sentiment and ensuring the orderly advancement of disaster relief and rescue efforts，thereby demonstrating the prudence and goodwill of governance at the highest level。Yet at the level of implementation，current governance of public opinion surrounding disaster situations continues to face deep-rooted structural contradictions，with problems including imbalanced standards for tolerating mistakes、blurred boundaries of oversight and the distortion of implementation at the grassroots level becoming increasingly prominent，urgently requiring profound reflection and timely correction。

When natural disasters strike suddenly，distorted information is an ordinary occurrence，and tolerance for mistakes should be a basic consensus in public-opinion governance。At the moment a disaster occurs，transportation is disrupted、communications are obstructed and scenes are chaotic，and neither official media、mainstream platforms、ordinary self-media outlets nor members of the public can easily obtain precise、complete and comprehensive disaster data at the first opportunity。Core information such as the number of casualties、the scope of the affected area、the scale of losses and the progress of rescue efforts，all requires time to be counted、verified and compiled one item at a time。In this process，data discrepancies、information omissions and wording mistakes by official media，as well as the release of content inconsistent with subsequent official notices，are normal phenomena under extreme circumstances。Looking at major disasters in the past，official media have repeatedly made incorrect reports、omissions and misreports，and the eventual handling has mostly consisted of deleting articles and withdrawing reports、issuing corrections and explanations and publicly apologizing，with no investigation of responsibility、penalties or accountability，leaving considerable room for tolerance。The general public has also broadly understood the objective limitations of special circumstances。

Human nature is shared，and the same principle should apply to communication: mistakes in statements made by ordinary people should be met with even greater tolerance and understanding。The overwhelming majority of self-media outlets and ordinary internet users have no subjective malicious intent to spread rumors for profit or create panic，and they are at the front lines of disasters、close to the reality on the ground，with most of what they publish consisting of casual records、direct observations and fragmented information。Because of limited personal information channels、insufficient verification capabilities and inadequate statistical conditions，minor discrepancies between the casualty figures and descriptions of the affected situation they publish and the final official notices are genuinely unintentional errors and understandable under the circumstances。Yet in actual governance，grassroots cyberspace-affairs departments often adopt an excessively strict “one-size-fits-all” standard，simply labeling any statement from the public that does not completely accord with the official account as “false information” or “rumor fabrication and dissemination”，and routinely deleting posts and restricting traffic、banning accounts and summoning or punishing people for questioning，creating the glaring double standard that official mistakes can be excused while mistakes by ordinary people must be severely punished。

The deeper governance paradox stems from the fierce conflict between the highest-level requirement to seek truth from facts and the grassroots mentality of protecting one’s own performance record。The central authorities have repeatedly stressed that disaster statistics must be truthful、pragmatic and transparent，and have strictly prohibited delayed reporting、omissions、concealment and falsification。Only accurate and complete disaster data can enable higher authorities to precisely allocate rescue forces、disburse disaster-relief supplies and improve disaster-prevention plans。But under the pressure of grassroots assessment systems and career advancement，some local officials have developed a distorted performance mentality：truthfully reporting casualty figures and disaster losses means exposing shortcomings in governance、facing the risk of accountability and affecting their prospects for promotion。As a result，deliberately understating casualty figures、shrinking the scope of affected areas and concealing gaps in disaster response have become unspoken rules in some localities，directly producing the absurd situation in which official public data are distorted while firsthand observations by members of the public seek the truth。

This has generated the most pernicious disorder in current public-opinion governance：the truth is criminalized while lies are exempt from responsibility。When local authorities conceal disaster situations or inflate or falsify data，the “scaled-down disaster situation” in official notices is not the truth，while the actual casualties and conditions in affected areas disclosed by self-media outlets through firsthand footage、villagers’ testimony and on-site visits instead accord with the full facts。Yet under the implementation framework of the special campaign，these public voices that dare to expose the truth and conduct public-opinion oversight are instead classified as harmful information and removed or banned because they are “inconsistent with official notices”。The channels for public oversight that should have enabled higher authorities to identify omissions and correct concealed reporting have been forcibly blocked，loopholes in grassroots governance have been covered up and concealment has been allowed to remain hidden，completely departing from the original purpose of the state’s campaign to rectify public opinion、regulate order and safeguard people’s livelihoods。

Even more alarming is that special campaigns can easily degenerate into tools for selective enforcement by grassroots authorities。Some localities use the policy window created by centralized cleanup and rectification campaigns to suppress self-media outlets that have long spoken independently、dared to criticize current abuses and been enthusiastic about supervising government affairs。They turn a blind eye to accounts that deliberately splice together fabrications、maliciously incite panic or spread rumors for profit，while precisely targeting and launching heavy crackdowns on public accounts that dare to expose shortcomings in disaster response and supervise the performance of grassroots authorities，acting in the name of “purifying the public-opinion environment” to suppress public oversight and creating a pervasive chilling effect online。

Governing rumors and regulating public opinion has never meant imposing a uniform line or suppressing voices from the public，but rather punishing wrongdoing while tolerating mistakes、distinguishing boundaries and applying constraints in both directions。The bottom line for internet governance should be clear：crack down hard on illegal acts involving deliberate fabrication、AI-generated fake disaster situations、splicing together old news to attract traffic and fraud committed in the name of disasters；fully tolerate unintentional mistakes、information discrepancies and fragmented expressions by members of the public；and hold grassroots officials strictly accountable for dereliction of duty involving the concealment of disaster situations、falsification of data and the covering up of problems。

Those who govern should understand that turbid water cannot be blocked with a one-size-fits-all approach; it can only be dredged and guided to flow, addressing the source and clearing it up。Only by abandoning double standards、clarifying the boundaries of law enforcement、tolerating well-intentioned speech and rigorously investigating concealment by grassroots authorities, and by finding a balance between public order and press freedom and between social stability and public oversight, can the rectification of public opinion surrounding disaster situations return to its original purpose of safeguarding people’s livelihoods and respecting the truth，so that after every natural disaster there will be not only the warmth of orderly rescue efforts but also the responsibility of honesty and transparency。