Cancellation of the Olympic Games? The Journey of a Rumor

The facts

Did Thomas Bach, the president of the International Olympic Committee (IOC), really "give himself until mid-July to confirm, cancel, or postpone the Paris Games"? This is, at least, what journalist Nicolas Baverez claimed in an editorial published in Le Point on July 4th. According to him, the president was alarmed by the dissolution of the National Assembly following the European elections, then by the recent speeches of Emmanuel Macron, who notably mentioned the risk of "civil war" in the Génération Do It Yourself podcast (criticized by Le Quotidien show).

Following this, there was a quick rebuttal: "STOP the indecent fake news," replied Amélie Oudéa-Castéra on her X account this Thursday morning.

Indeed, the IOC responded that these rumors were "obviously part of the ongoing disinformation campaign against France, the IOC, and its president, as well as the Olympic Games. This has no factual basis. The IOC president and the entire Olympic Movement eagerly anticipate the excellent Paris 2024 Olympic Games, starting with the opening ceremony on July 26th." A statement dismissing the rumors was also published, urging people not to spread false information.

Rumors Confined to X

With the fragmentation of media today, it is essential to conduct a "channel assessment" of the spread surrounding this affair. It turns out that traditional media (like Le Point) are the source of the issue, because:

• Only one LinkedIn post mentioned it before Le Point’s article (Exhaustive LinkedIn analysis is impossible, but doubt is minimal here).
• 11 Facebook posts, none with the rumor before Le Point’s article (almost complete analysis).
• 9 Instagram posts. None predate Le Point’s article (almost complete analysis).

In short, everything happened in the media, behind the scenes, or on X.

Long-standing Rumors

Discussions have existed on social media for a long time. The recent stir from media coverage echoes this, as do minor posts like:

• "The left will win the legislative elections, France will win the Euros, and we’ll have a sunny summer with the Olympics canceled by Mélenchon as Prime Minister."
• "French swimming team training canceled due to poor river water quality. Less than 50 days before the Games, this latest setback gives the organizers cold sweats."

In short, there was already a prevailing mood on X.

Rumors with No Community Support

In terms of spread, few community-driven efforts are present, unlike what is typically observed with rumors or interference. Most posts have low impact and involve different actors. Additionally:

Zoé Sagan, a known X user for sensationalist posts with disinformation backgrounds, stated: "It’s official, the Olympics will be canceled. IOC President Thomas Bach has given himself until July 14th to cancel or postpone the event depending on France’s security situation after the hellish legislative elections."

The rest also shows little organized messaging, few activists, few funds, and minimal discussion before Le Point’s article (which was unavailable when writing these facts).

When analyzing relationships between individuals, we find opportunity-based communities:

• The ocher group is more protest-driven, centered around Zoé Sagan. This community mainly has pro-Russian interests.
• The green group is largely nationalist around Le Journal du Dimanche, with many supporters of Reconquête.
• Reconquête and anti-vax communities in purple.

Thus, the majority are well-known communities that spread rumors during the 2017 and 2022 presidential elections. However, they did not unite to spread the rumor further, despite having strong relational structures.

Conclusions

In the end:

• We have a story that doesn’t exist anywhere. On no platform before Le Point and its pickup by Le JDD should this have ever been published initially.
• It’s relayed by actors with vested interests (editorial stance, political interest, etc.). Since they didn’t create the rumor, they can’t be blamed (aside from criticizing traditional media). That said, the actors are still "usual suspects" we’ve encountered before. X has unbanned some who conducted campaigns previously considered foreign-controlled by the former management.
• The IOC should never have responded. It gave more visibility to the issue, more impact, and other consequences. The response doesn’t meet the standards for handling such a case ("We know, we do, we care, we will be back").