Vladimir Sungorkin, chief Editor: “Кomsomolskaya Pravda” published the interview with a “secret witness” in December. But not everyone believed us

The main priority of “Кomsomolskaya Pravda” is to provide its readers with the most reliable information as quickly as possible. Today we received another proof of our allegiance to this principle. The Investigative Committee confirmed the accuracy of the information concerning the Malaysian Boeing crash investigation published by the paper in December, 2014.

The article «Malaysian Boeing hit by an Ukrainian pilot - captain Voloshin» was published in “Кomsomolskaya Pravda” in December, 22.

I will remind you that the Ukrainian aircraft technician from the Dnipropetrovsk region airport came to our Editorial office this day. It was he who told us the sensational news. On July 17, 2014, when Malaysian Boeing was shot down, he was at the airfield, from which the Ukranian Su-25 with “air-to-air” missiles took off. According to the witness, the name of the pilot was Vladislav Voloshin. Then the air jet returned without any missiles. And the pilot was very frightened. The witness heard his phrase: “The aircraft, it was not the one”. And some time later he told another pilot that «the aircraft got on a wrong time to a wrong place”.

We checked that man’s papers – he was not an actor and not a man of straw. We couldn’t reveal the real data of the witness –our interlocutor’s relatives were in Ukraine and he was afraid of revenge and blackmail. That’s why we used sound retouch in his video interview.

A few people tried to accuse “Кomsomolskaya Pravda” of lie. Now that The Investigative Committee revealed the official data received after the interview of the witness and his name ( Evgeniy Agapov) we believe it’s necessary to return to the topic of his visit to our editorial office in December. Now you can see on our web-site his video interview without any sound retouch.

By the way, it’s the best proof that “Кomsomolskaya Pravda” never used «gray» schemes in providing information.

Besides, we’d like to tell all our colleagues who blamed us of inaccuracy that they shouldn’t judge everyone for themselves and should follow their own rules and principles. If someone prefers to use false evidence and video data in their work, information taken from social networks and other unverified sources – it’s their own right. But you can’t all such people journalists.

We apply another principles in our work. It’s important to us to remain a reliable source of information.