Turkey, propaganda and eyewitness media: A case study in verification for news by Sam Dubberley.
I would amend Michael Garibaldi‘s line in Babylon 5: Exercise of Vital Powers (#4.16):
Everybody lies.
to read:
Everybody lies. [The question is why?]
No report (“true” or “false”) is made to you without motivation. The attempt to discern that motivation can improve your handling of such reports.
Sam’s account is a great illustration of taking the motivation for a report into account.
For the other side of this story, enjoy Milo Yiannopoulos’s Twitter ban, explained by Aja Romano, where Aja is supportive of Twitter and its self-anointed role as arbiter of social values.
From my point of view, the facts are fairly simple:
Milo Yiannopoulos (formerly @Nero) has been banned from Twitter on the basis of his speech and the speech of others who agree with him.
What more needs to be said?
I have not followed, read, reposted or retweeted any tweets by Milo Yiannopoulos (formerly @Nero). And would not even if someone sent them to me.
I choose to not read that sort of material and so can anyone else. Including the people who complain in Aja’s post.
The Twitter Nanny becomes censor in insisting that no one be able to read tweets from Milo Yiannopoulos (formerly @Nero).
I’ve heard the argument that the First Amendment doesn’t apply to Twitter, which is true, but irrelevant. Only one country in the world has the First Amendment as stated in the US Constitution but that doesn’t stop critics from decrying censorship by other governments.
Or is it only censorship if you agree with the speech being suppressed?
Censorship of speech that I find disturbing, sexist, racist, misogynistic, dehumanizing, transphobic, homophobic, supporting terrorism, is still censorship.
And it is still wrong.
We only have ourselves to blame for empowering Twitter to act as a social media censor. Central point of failure and all that jazz.
Suggestions on a free speech alternative to Twitter?
Not a guide to particular sources, although examples are mentioned, Alastair Reid sets out categories of fake news sources in The 5 sources of fake news everyone needs to look out for online.
From the post:
No, soldiers aren’t being kicked off an army base to make way for Syrian refugees. Sorry, but Ted Cruz didn’t have a Twitter meltdown and blame God for his failed presidential campaign. And that viral video of a woman being chased down a mountainside with a bear is almost definitely fake.
The internet has a fake news problem and some lies can be dangerous. A fantastic story might be entertaining, but misinformation can fundamentally change how people view the world and their fellow citizens, influencing opinions, behaviour and votes.
This isn’t really news – lies have always been part of the fabric of society, whether spoken or written – but the internet has given anyone a platform to share false information and the tools to make untruths ever harder to detect.
Understanding the origins of fake news is part of the process. So where does it come from?
…
I’m disappointed people are spreading the truth about Ted Cruz not blaming God for his failed campaign. Anything, lie, fact, rumor, etc., that blackens his reputation cannot be a bad thing in my view.
Let obscure history dissertations separate fact from fiction about Ted Cruz several centuries from now. Once we are certain the stake they should drive through his heart upon burial isn’t going to work loose. The important goal now is to limit his ability to harm the public.
And so it is with all “fake” news, there is some goal to be furthered by the spreading of the fake news.
“Official sources of propaganda” are the first group that Alastair mentions and somewhat typically the focus is on non-Western governments, although Western propaganda gets a nod in the last paragraph of that section.
My approach to Western (and other) government reports, statements by government actors or people who want to be government actors is as follows:
What other purpose would statements, reports from the government have if they weren’t intended to influence you?
Do you really think any government wants you to be an independent, well-informed participant in public decision making processes? No wonder you believe fake news so often.
Don’t you find it odd that Western reports of Islamic State bombings are always referred to as “terrorist” events and yet when Allied forces kill another 56 civilians, nary a peep of the moniker “terrorist?”
Alastair’s post is a great read and help towards avoiding some forms of fake news.
There are other sources, such as the reflex to parrot Western government views on events that are more difficult to avoid.
PS: I characterize bombing of civilians as an act of terrorism. Whether the bombing is with a suicide-vest or jet aircraft, the intent is to kill, maim, in short, to terrorize those in the area.
June’s fake news quiz: Football fans, kissing politicians and Arnie on safari by Alastair Reid, First Draft.
Alastair’s fake news quiz is a good way to find out.
Prior fake news quizzes are listed in case you want to test your long term memory.
Secret Rules Make It Pretty Easy For The FBI To Spy On Journalists by Cora Currier.
For those of us who suffer from reflexive American exceptionalism, that press censorship happens “over there,” Cora’s story is a sobering read.
From the post:
Secret FBI rules allow agents to obtain journalists’ phone records with approval from two internal officials — far less oversight than under normal judicial procedures.
The classified rules, obtained by The Intercept and dating from 2013, govern the FBI’s use of National Security Letters, which allow the bureau to obtain information about journalists’ calls without going to a judge or informing the news organization being targeted. They have previously been released only in heavily redacted form.
Media advocates said the documents show that the FBI imposes few constraints on itself when it bypasses the requirement to go to court and obtain subpoenas or search warrants before accessing journalists’ information.
…
Cora goes on to point out that the FBI issued nearly 13,000 NSLs in 2015.
After great coverage on the FBI and its use of NSLs, Cora concludes:
…
For Brown, of the Reporters Committee, the disclosure of the rules “only confirms that we need information about the actual frequency and context of NSL practice relating to newsgathering and journalists’ records to assess the effectiveness of the new guidelines.”
That’s the root of the problem isn’t it?
Lack of information on how NSLs are being used against journalists in fact.
Care to comment on the odds of getting an accurate accounting of the FBI’s war on journalists from the FBI?
No? I thought not.
So how can that data be gathered?
Question for discussion (NOT legal advice)
In 2005, the non-disclosure requirements for NSLs were modified to read:
18 U.S. Code § 2709 – Counterintelligence access to telephone toll and transactional records
…
(2) Exception.—
(A)In general.—A wire or electronic communication service provider that receives a request under subsection (b), or officer, employee, or agent thereof, may disclose information otherwise subject to any applicable nondisclosure requirement to—
(i) those persons to whom disclosure is necessary in order to comply with the request;
(ii) an attorney in order to obtain legal advice or assistance regarding the request; or
(iii) other persons as permitted by the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or the designee of the Director.
…
Each person in the chain of disclosure has to be advised of the requirement to keep the NSL secret.
Unless the law has changed more radically than I imagine, the burden of proving a criminal offense still rests with the government.
If I am served with an NSL and I employ one or more attorneys, who have assistants working on my case, and the NSL is leaked to a public site, it remains the government’s burden to prove who leaked the NSL.
The government cannot force the innocent in the chain of disclosure to exculpate themselves and leave only the guilty party to face justice. The innocence can remain mute, as is the privilege of every criminal defendant.
Is that a fair statement?
If so, how many brave defendants are necessary in the chain of disclosure per NSL?
As Jan says in Twitter and the Monkey Man:
“It was you to me who taught
In Jersey anything’s legal, as long as you don’t get caught”
If that sounds anarchistic, remember the government chose to abandon the Constitution, first. If it wants respect for law, it should respect the Constitution.
Journalists under fire and under pressure: summer magazine 2016 by Vicky Baker.
From the post:
Index on Censorship has dedicated its milestone 250th issue to exploring the increasing threats to reporters worldwide. Its special report, Truth in Danger, Danger in Truth: Journalists Under Fire and Under Pressure, is out soon.
Highlights include Lindsey Hilsum, writing about her friend and colleague, the murdered war reporter Marie Colvin, and asking whether journalists should still be covering war zones. Stephen Grey looks at the difficulties of protecting sources in an era of mass surveillance. Valeria Costa-Kostritsky shows how Europe’s journalists are being silenced by accusations that their work threatens national security. Kaya Genç interviews Turkey’s threatened investigative journalists, and Steven Borowiec lifts the lid on the cosy relationships inside Japan’s press clubs. Plus, the inside track on what it is really like to be a local reporter in Syria and Eritrea.
Also in this issue: the late Swedish crime writer Henning Mankell explores colonialism in Africa in an exclusive play extract; Jemimah Steinfeld interviews China’s most famous political cartoonist; Irene Caselli writes about the controversies and censorship of Latin America’s soap operas; and Norwegian musician Moddi tells how hate mail sparked an album of music that had been silenced.
The 250th cover is by Ben Jennings. Plus there are cartoons and illustrations by Martin Rowson, Brian John Spencer, Sam Darlow and Chinese cartoonist Rebel Pepper.
You can order your copy here, or take out a digital subscription via Exact Editions. Copies are also available at the BFI, the Serpentine Gallery, MagCulture, (London), News from Nowhere (Liverpool), Home (Manchester) and on Amazon. Each magazine sale helps Index on Censorship continue its fight for free expression worldwide.
Index on Censorship magazine was started in 1972 and remains the only global magazine dedicated to free expression. It has produced 250 issues, with contributors including Samuel Beckett, Gabriel García Marquéz, Nadine Gordimer, Arthur Miller, Salman Rushdie, Margaret Atwood, and many more.
Sadly, there is no lack of volunteers for the role of censor.
There are the four horsemen of internet censorship, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Microsoft, attempting to curry favor with the EU by censoring content.
Other volunteers include Jonathan Weisman (The Times deputy Washington editor), Andrew Golis (founder and CEO of This.cm), and of course, Hillary Clinton, a long time censorship advocate. To mention only a few of them.
Despite the governments and other forces supporting censorship and the never ending nature of the war against censorship, mine is not the counsel of despair.
The war against censorship cannot be waged by front line fighters alone.
The Other End of the Spear: The Tooth-to-Tail Ratio (T3R) in Modern Military Operations by John J. McGrath (2012), summarized the ratio of combat to other troops in Iraq with this graphic:
Professional armies recognize the value of non-combat roles.
Do you?
Subscribe to Index on Censorship today!
PS: While we are talking about war, remember that professional military organizations study, practice and write about war. Stripped of the occasional ideological fluff, their publications can help you avoid any number of amateurish mistakes.
How social media has changed the landscape for editorial cartooning by Ann Telnaes.
At the center of the social media outrage that Ann describes was her cartoon:
I did not see the original Washington Post political attack ad featuring Cruz and his daughters, but the use of family as props is traditional American politics. I took Ann’s cartoon as criticism of that practice in general and Cruz’s use of it in particular.
Even more of a tradition in American politics, is the intellectually and morally dishonest failure to engage the issue at hand. Rather than responding to the criticism of his exploitation of his own children, Cruz attacked Ann as though she was the one at fault.
That should not have been unexpected, given Cruz’s party is responsible for the “Checkers” speech and other notable acts of national deception. (If you don’t know the “Checkers” speech, check it out. TV was just becoming a player in national politics, much like social media now.)
As you can tell, I think the response by Cruz and others was a deliberate distortion of the original cartoon and certainly the abuse heaped upon Ann was unjustified, but what I am missing is the threat posed by “social media lynch mobs?”
What if every buffoon on Fox, social media, etc., all took to social media to criticize Ann’s cartoon?
Certainly a waste of electricity and data packets, but so what? They are theirs to waste.
Ann’s fellow cartoonists recognized the absurdity of the criticism, as would any rational person familiar with American politics.
Ann suggests:
…
How should the journalism community protect cartoonists so they can do their jobs? We need to educate and be ready the next time a cartoonist aims his or her satire against a thin-skinned politician or interest group looking for an opportunity to manipulate fair criticism. Be aware when a false narrative is being presented to deflect the actual intent of a cartoon; talk to your editors and come up with a plan to counter the misinformation.
…
Sorry, what other than “false narratives” were you expecting? Shouldn’t we make that assumption at the outset and prepare to press forward with the “true narrative?”
Ann almost captures my approach when she says:
It has been said cartoonists are on the front lines of the war to defend free speech.
The war to defend free speech is quite real. If you doubt that, browse the pages of Index on Censorship.
Where I differ from Ann is that I don’t see the braying of every buffoon social media has to offer as a threat to free speech.
Better filters are the answer to buffoons on social media.
Panama Papers are available. Why hasn’t U.S. asked to see them? by Marisa Taylor and Kevin G. Hall.
From the post:
…as of June 23, Panama said it had not received a single request from the United States for access to the data seized by Panamanian authorities from Mossack Fonseca, the law firm at the heart of the Panama Papers, said Sandra Sotillo, spokeswoman for Panamanian Attorney General Kenia Porcell.
…
A great account of the where’s and wherefore’s of the US failure to request the seized documents that closes with this quote:
…
Roma Theus, another former federal prosecutor, was surprised it had taken so long to ask for the data.“It’s not three-months difficult,” he said of the process.
He also wondered why European countries, such as Germany or England, haven’t requested the data.
“It’s a very legitimate question why they haven’t, given the enormous amount of data that’s available on potential corruption and other crimes,” Theus said. “It’s inexplicable.”
Considering the wealth and power of those who use offshore accounts to hide their funds, do you find the failure of the U.S., Germany, and England to request the data “inexplicable?”
I don’t.
Corrupt but not “inexplicable.”
After you read this story, be sure to read the others listed under The Secret Shell Game.
Index on Censorship Big Debate: Journalism or fiction? by Josie Timms.
From the webpage:
The Index on Censorship Big Debate took place at the 5th annual Leeds Big Bookend Festival this week, where journalists and authors were invited to discuss which has the biggest impact: journalism or fiction. Index’s magazine editor Rachael Jolley was joined by assistant features editor of The Yorkshire Post Chris Bond, Yorkshire-based journalist and author Yvette Huddleston and author of the award- winning Promised Land Anthony Clavane to explore which medium is more influential and why, as part of a series of Time To Talk debates held by Eurozine. Audio from the debate will be available at Time to Talk or listen below.
Highly entertaining discussion but “debate” is a bit of a stretch.
No definition of “impact” was offered, although an informal show of hands was reported to have the vast majority remembering a work of fiction that influenced them and only a distinct minority remembering a work of journalism.
Interesting result because Dickens, a journalist, was mentioned as an influential writer of fiction. At the time, fiction was published in serialized formats (newspapers, magazines) Victorian Serial Novels, spreading the cost of a work of fiction over months, if not longer.
Dickens is a good example to not make too much of the distinction, if any, between journalism and fiction. Both are reports of the past, present or projected future from a particular point of view.
At their best, journalism and fiction inform us, enlighten us, show us other points of view, capture events and details we did not witness ourselves.
That doesn’t accord with the 0 or 1 reality of our silicon servants, but I have no desire to help AIs become equal to humans by making humans dumber.
Enjoy!
Stefano Bertolo tweets:
From the Chicago Tribune post:
On June 4, the satirical news site the Science Post published a block of “lorem ipsum” text under a frightening headline: “Study: 70% of Facebook users only read the headline of science stories before commenting.”
Nearly 46,000 people shared the post, some of them quite earnestly — an inadvertent example, perhaps, of life imitating comedy.
Now, as if it needed further proof, the satirical headline’s been validated once again: According to a new study by computer scientists at Columbia University and the French National Institute, 59 percent of links shared on social media have never actually been clicked: In other words, most people appear to retweet news without ever reading it.
…
The missing satire link:
Study: 70% of Facebook users only read the headline of science stories before commenting, from the satirical news site Science Post.
The passage:
According to a new study by computer scientists at Columbia University and the French National Institute, 59 percent of links shared on social media have never actually been clicked: In other words, most people appear to retweet news without ever reading it.
should have included a link to: Social Clicks: What and Who Gets Read on Twitter?, by Maksym Gabielkov, Arthi Ramachandran, Augustin Chaintreau, Arnaud Legout.
Careful readers, however, would have followed the link to Social Clicks: What and Who Gets Read on Twitter?, only to discover that Dewey mis-reported the original article.
Here’s how to identify the mis-reporting:
First, as technical articles often do, the authors started with definitions. Definitions that will influence everything you read in that article.
…
In the rest of this article, we will use the following terms to describe a given URL or online article.Shares. Number of times a URL has been published in tweets. An original tweet containing the URL or a retweet of this tweet are both considered as a new share.
…(emphasis in the original)
The important point is to remember: Every tweet counts as a “share.” If I post a tweet that is never retweeted by anyone, it goes into the share bucket and is one of the shares that was never clicked on.
That is going to impact our counting of “shares” that were never “clicked on.”
In section 3.3 Blockbusters and the share button, the authors write:
…
First, 59% of the shared URLs are never clicked or, as we call them, silent. Note that we merged URLs pointing to the same article, so out of 10 articles mentioned on Twitter, 6 typically on niche topics are never clicked 10.Because silent URLs are so common, they actually account for a significant fraction (15%) of the whole shares we collected, more than one out of seven. An interesting paradox is that there seems to be vastly more niche content that users are willing to mention in Twitter than the content that they are actually willing to click on.
… (emphasis in the original)
To re-write that with the definition of shared inserted:
“…59% of the URLs published in a tweet or re-tweet are never clicked…”
That includes:
Since tweets and re-tweets are lumped together (they may not be in the data, I haven’t seen it, yet), it isn’t possible to say how many re-tweets occurred without corresponding clicks on the shortened URLs.
I’m certain people share tweets without visiting URLs but this article isn’t authority for percentages on that claim.
Not only should you visit URLs but you should also read carefully what you find, before re-tweeting or reporting.
Investigative journalism tools by Markus Mandalka.
From the webpage:
Free software for journalists: Tutorials, bookmarks and open source tools for journalistic research, investigations and privacy and other digital tools for investigative journalism and data driven journalism or datajournalism:
…
Numerous resources organized under the following broad categories:
A very useful site that is also available in Deutsch.
Suggestion: It’s easy to get overwhelmed by tool listings. Outline what you want from a tool in X category and go over the tools in that category with a view of selecting only one.
Use it long enough to see if it meets your current requirements. It may not be the latest or most talked about tool, but if it fits your needs and work flow, what more would you want?
That’s not to blind you to better tools, which do appear from time to time, but time spent on tool mastery is time not spent on research, writing and reporting.
From the webpage:
Journalists and media workers are confronting relentless pressure simply for doing their job. Mapping Media Freedom identifies threats, violations and limitations faced by members of the press throughout European Union member states, candidates for entry and neighbouring countries.
…
My American readers should not be mis-led by the current map image:
If it is true the United States is free from press suppression, something I seriously doubt, it won’t be long before it starts to rack up incidents on this site.
Just today, Newt Gingrich, a truly unpleasant waste of human skin, proposed re-igniting the witch hunt committees of the 1950’s. Newt Gingrich Suggests Reforming House Un-American Committee In Wake Of Orlando Shooting.
The so-called “presumptive” candidates for President, Clinton and Trump, have called for tech companies to aid in the suppression of jihadist content and even the closing off of parts of the internet.
At least once a week, visit the Mapping Media Freedom and do what you can to support the media everywhere.
How to Read a Legal Opinion: A Guide for New Law Students by Orin S. Kerr.
If I would require one rule for reporting on courts and legislatures it would be: No story will be published without links to the bill, law or decision being reported.
How hard is that?
Yet every day posting appear where you must guess to find an opinion or legislative material.
Links won’t keep you mis-reporting laws and opinions but it will enable your readers to spot such mistakes more easily. (Is that the reason links are so often omitted?)
If you want to improve your skills at reading opinions, take a look at Kerr’s How to Read a Legal Opinion: A Guide for New Law Students.
Black’s Law Dictionary is a great help, but don’t use an “original” or out-dated version. The law is stable, but not that stable. There is an iPhone version.
Bear in mind that Black’s doesn’t record every nuance for every term defined by a statute or used by a court. It is a general guide only.
@newsnerdrepos tweets every time one of 85 news github accounts posts a new repo.
Just started but what an excellent idea!
My Data Is Dirty! Basic Spreadsheet Cleaning Functions by Paul Bradshaw.
A sample from Paul Bradshaw’s new book, Finding Stories in Spreadsheets.
Data is always dirty but you don’t always need a hazmat suit and supporting army of technicians.
Paul demonstrates Excel functions (sniff, other spreadsheet programs have the same functions), TRIM, SUBSTITUTE, CHAR, as easy ways to clean data.
Certainly makes me interested in what other techniques are lurking in Finding Stories in Spreadsheets.
Enjoy!
When you read: British lawmakers pass new digital surveillance law by Elizabeth Piper and William Schomberg, do you think:
If you said #2 and/or #3, your right!
Answers #1 and #4 are false.
I’m completely innocent of any experience with procedure in the UK Parliament but discovering the Reuters headline was false, wasn’t all that hard.
If you don’t know UK parliamentary procedure, check before reporting: http://www.parliament.uk/.
For the Investigatory Powers Bill, you could start at: About Parliament to get an overview of the process and some rather imaginative terminology used to describe the process.
Quick tip: Look for Bills before Parliment if the bill has just been in the news. Easiest place to look for the latest information.
Scroll down and you will find the Investigatory Powers Bill is now in the House of Lords.
The Investigatory Powers Bill link takes you to a very well-organized page that summarizes the current bill status (not a law) along with the full text and links to other useful resources.
The page also offers RSS and email alerts of further action on this bill. You will be accurately informed despite repeated AP reports of its passage.
If you do report on the Investigatory Powers Bill include its status page. That will assist voters in knowing who is responsible for this travesty, should misfortune prevail and it become law.
Columbia Journalism Review – Become a Charter Member
From the webpage:
For half a century, the Columbia Journalism Review has assessed the performance of American journalism, becoming an essential read for top leaders in the media industry and a respected voice of press criticism.
Now you can show your support for CJR’s role as media watchdog and advocate for a sustainable, viable and free press by becoming a Charter Member.
Your Charter Memberships benefits include:
- Subscription to the print magazine
Two biannual issues of the newly expanded and enhanced Columbia Journalism Review.- Members-Only eNewsletter
Every week, members will receive an update from the editors with insights and previews available only to members.- Quarterly Updates from the Editor
Every three months, members will receive an insider’s report about journalism from the CJR newsroom.- eAlerts
Members will receive email alerts notifying them of important and timely articles.- Invitations to CJR Events and Panel Discussions
Members will be invited to attend live and live-streamed CJR events and panels.- Listing on Membership Page
In recognition of your support for the CJR mission, all Charter Members will be recognized on the website.Plus Coming Soon:
- Exclusive Members-Only Content
Only CJR members will have access to select CJR content and resources including the popular “Who Owns What” database.- Members-Only Group Forum
A place for members to discuss what’s on their minds, ask questions, and share experiences.- Members-Only Discounts
Exclusive CJR member discounts at other affiliated organizations.Sign up as a Charter Member today and you will receive the Spring issue celebrating the centennial anniversary of the Pulitzer Prizes.
I need funds to be incoming but when I saw this opportunity to become a charter member of the Columbia Journalism Review, more funds became outgoing.
It really is that important.
A journalism powered bright light on government and corporations may not stop or deter actions that harm the public, but it will enable resistance.
Please join the Columbia Journalism Review and urge your friends to as well.
How fake news sites frequently trick big-time journalists by Jack Murtha.
From the post:
It would’ve been one hell of a story. Early this month, “news” surfaced that Michael Jordan—yes, the Michael Jordan—had threatened to move his NBA team, the Charlotte Hornets, from North Carolina unless the state repealed a law barring transgender people from using the bathroom of their choice. Air Jordan hadn’t seemed so heroic since he saved Bugs Bunny in the 1996 movie Space Jam.
Except the news was as fictional as the film.
A few sites posing as legitimate news organizations, including one that crudely imitates ABC News’ logo and web address, first published the bunk Jordan story. From there it spread to other media outlets, like Metro US, Elite Daily, and the Dallas Voice. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel even weaponized the false claim in an editorial against North Carolina’s law. For what felt like the millionth time, fake news sites—the kind that say they’re satirical but are nothing like The Onion—had duped journalists into buying a bogus story.
For now, forget the hoaxsters and hoodwinked journalists who continue to fuel this tire fire. The more significant culprits are the companies that enable and reward behavior that empowers fake news. In striving for traffic, prolific output, and social media hype, some newsrooms have prioritized the quick and provocative, while undervaluing reporting. This system has allowed fake news sites to essentially develop best practices to fool journalists. Facebook now lets users flag fake news stories, which then appear less frequently, or with an attached warning, in newsfeeds. But without a top-down cultural shift in journalism, garbage stories will continue to enter the mainstream.
…
I share Murtha’s annoyance with news organizations that don’t emphasize quality reporting but “fake” news stories are only the tip of that iceberg.
It is apparently standard practice with some news outlets to not include links to original press releases or documents discussed in a story. What possible benefit is derived by forcing readers to search for original sources is unclear.
Perhaps it lessens the odds of discovering the reporter didn’t read the document in question? Other suggestions?
Or stories that repeat official propaganda without raising factual or logical errors in such propaganda. The media’s dog like subservience to government on stories of terrorist “propaganda” for example.
How often does your news organization mention countering terrorist “propaganda” is difficult because much of it is true??
Perhaps better, does your news organization ever even ask if terrorist “propaganda” is true?
5 free tools for finding and verifying YouTube videos in news by Alastair Reid.
From the post:
With more than 500 hours of video uploaded to YouTube every minute, Google’s video platform is still the most popular in the world for publicly sharing videos with the rest of humanity.
Granted, some of them may be teenagers playing computer games, unboxing consumer goods or just accidentally filming their feet, but YouTube is a vital resource for eyewitness media around news stories. Here are some tools to bear in mind for finding and verifying such footage.
…
I maintain an internal webpage with links grouped by categories. Bookmarks are too easy to forget and why bother with searching?
All five of these links will be clustered in YouTube videos.
Enjoy!
PS: If you work in one those organizations where sharing isn’t all that odd, consider having a communal internal webpage for common resources.
Panama Papers May Inspire More Big Leaks, if Not Reform by Scott Shane.
Gabriel Zucman (Berkeley economist) spots the mis-direction inherent in the “Panama Papers” moniker.
…
In fact, some experts believe the “Panama” label is misleading, obscuring the central role of several states, including Delaware, Wyoming and Nevada, in registering companies with hidden ownership. Mossack Fonseca probably represents just 5 or 10 percent of the industry creating anonymous companies, said Mr. Zucman of Berkeley, so the disclosures have left the vast majority hidden.And no matter where shell companies may be registered, he said, much of the wealth they own is invested in the United States, in real estate, stocks and bonds. “The U.S. could find out who the true owners are,” Mr. Zucman said.
But the United States may illustrate the difficulty of moving from splashy revelations to serious change. States with a stake in the lucrative corporate registration business are likely to resist serious changes, and Congress appears unlikely to act anytime soon on comprehensive reform bills.
…
For all of the hooting about the “Panama Papers” consisting of 11.5 million documents, weighing in at 2.6 terabytes, a moment’s consideration carries the sobering realization, this is from a single law firm.
If you consider all the documents held by corporate law firms in the states mentioned by Zucman, plus a few others: Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Nevada, New York, Wyoming, the amount of data may exceed multiple zettabytes.
Shane generously remarks: “…and Congress appears unlikely to act anytime soon on comprehensive reform bills.”
Unlikely? Unlikely?
I assume you agree that the laws that enable the hiding of wealth are not accidental.
Don’t be distracted by reform side-shows, presented by the people responsible for the problem.
Let’s go big-leak hunting.
Yes?
A multinational demands to know who reads MuckRock and is suing to stop us from posting records about them by Michael Morisy.
Michael captures everything you need to know in his first paragraph:
A multinational owned by Toshiba is demanding MuckRock remove documents about them received under a public records act request, destroy any copies we have, and help identify MuckRock readers who saw them.
…
After skimming the petition and the two posted documents (Landis+Gyr Managed Services Report 2015 Final and Req 9_Security Overview), I feel like the man who remarked to George Bailey in It’s A Wonderful Life, “…you must mean two other trees,” taking George for being drunk. 😉
As far as I can tell, the posted documents contain no pricing information, no contact details, etc.
Do you disagree?
There are judges who insist that pleadings have some relationship to facts. Let’s hope that MuckRock draws one of those.
Do you wonder what other local governments are involved with Landis+Gyr?
There is a simple starting point: Landis+Gyr.
How to create interactive maps with MapHub by Mădălina Ciobanu.
From the post:
Maps may not be every graphics editor or reporter’s favourite way to illustrate information, particularly a more interesting dataset that can lend itself to a more creative format, but sometimes they are the best way to take your readers from point A to point B – literally.
We have written about mapping tools before, so make sure you check out the list (and stay tuned for an update!), but in the meantime this guide will show you how to create a quick interactive map using free platform MapHub, which is currently available in beta.
…
After you read about using MapHub, be sure to follow the link to resources on other mapping tools as well.
One quick use of maps for stories such as Congress, Maps and a Research Tale – Part 1, where public land is going to be mined in a noisy and toxic way, is to plot the physical residences of those who support the project versus those who oppose it.
I haven’t gathered that data, yet, but won’t be surprised if supporters DO NOT have the mine in their backyards.
Other examples of how distance increases political support for noxious activities?
Recent research reveals false rumours really do travel faster and further than the truth by Craig Silverman.
From the post:
A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth has got its boots on, or so the saying goes, and new research has sought to prove just how long it takes fact checking to catch up.
On average, it takes more than 12 hours for a false claim to be debunked online, according to two recent projects that compared how falsehoods and truths spread.
One study analyzed rumors on Twitter and found that a rumor that turns out to be true is often resolved within two hours of first emerging. But a rumor that proves false takes closer to 14 hours to be debunked.
Another study looked at how long it took for a fact check or debunking article to be published as a counter measure to a fake story. It found “a characteristic lag of approximately 13 hours between the production of misinformation and that of fact checking”.
The studies used different methodologies and look at different elements of the online rumor and misinformation ecosystem. But they both provide evidence that falsehoods spread for hours and take hold online before being debunked.
Both research groups say their findings highlight the need for better — and especially faster — approaches to countering online misinformation.
…
A counter-factual response to these reports would be the failure of false U.S. social media propaganda falling to truthful Islamic State reports. Why It’s So Hard to Stop ISIS Propaganda.
Or is it that U.S. government lies are so clumsy that they lack the punch of other falsehoods?
Or perhaps the U.S. government tells so many lies that it’s hard to judge the impact of only one?
Unless and until better/faster approaches “…to countering online misinformation” appear, consider how you can use the gap between rumor and correction to your advantage.
Is that arbitrage in truth?
Alicia Shepard in A few weeks after the Panama Papers’ release, The New York Times and Washington Post start digging in caught me off guard with:
Many newspapers aren’t comfortable with ICIJ’s “radical sharing” concept.
Suspecting Alicia was using “sharing” to mean something beyond my experience, I had to read her post!
Alicia explains the absence of the New York Times and the Washington Post from the initial reporting on the Panama Papers saying:
Why weren’t the Times or the Post included originally? Walker said that, in general, many newspapers are not comfortable with ICIJ’s “radical sharing” concept, in which all journalists who agree to collaborate must promise to share their reporting, protect confidentiality, not share the data, and publish when ICIJ gives the go-ahead.
I see. “Radical sharing,” means collaborating on research, a good thing, protecting confidentiality, another good thing, then being bound to not share the data (restricting the data to ICIJ approved participants), a bad thing, and publishing when allowed by the ICIJ, another bad thing.
Not what I would consider “radical” sharing but I can see why newspapers, like many traditional publishers, fear the sharing of research. Even though sharing of research in other areas has been proven to float all boats higher.
The lizard brain reflex against sharing still dominates in many areas of human endeavor. News reporting in particular.
Alicia also quotes Marina Walker saying:
“We are excited to be working with The New York Times and The Washington Post, two of the world’s best newspapers,” said Marina Walker, deputy director of the Washington, D.C.–based ICIJ. “Both of them signed up at more or less the same time, two or three weeks ago. Both teams were recently trained by ICIJ researchers and reporters on how to use the data and we continue to assist them as needed, like we do with other partners. So far, so good.”
The “smoking gun” for my suggestion in Panama Papers – Shake That Money Maker that the ICIJ are hoarding the Panama Papers for their own power and profit.
The ICIJ wants control over the data, realizing that training and assistance are never free, to dictate who sees the data and when they can publish using the data.
Combine that with the largest data leak to date and the self-service nature of the claim the data might reveal the leaker becomes self-evident.
Hoarding data for profit is, as I have said, understandable and to some degree even reasonable.
But let’s have that conversation and not one based on specious claims about a leaker’s or public’s interest.
PS: Getting to dictate to the Washington Post and the New York Times must be heady stuff.
PPS: Any Panama Paper secondary leakers yet?
Panama Papers Source Offers Documents To Governments, Hints At More To Come
From the post:
The anonymous whistleblower behind the Panama Papers has conditionally offered to make the documents available to government authorities.
In a statement issued to the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung and the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, the so-called “John Doe” behind the biggest information leak in history cites the need for better whistleblower protection and has hinted at even more revelations to come.
Titled “The Revolution Will Be Digitized” the 1800-word statement gives justification for the leak, saying that “income inequality is one of the defining issues of our time” and says that government authorities need to do more to address it.
Süddeutsche Zeitung has authenticated that the statement came from the Panama Papers source. The statement in full:
…
As I pointed out in Panama Papers – Shake That Money Maker and $230 Billion Impact of Partial Use of Panama Papers, doing more than profiting Süddeutsche Zeitung and others requires releasing the Panama Papers to legal authorities.
My suggestion did not influence the relaxing of the hoarding of the Panama Papers but I welcome the move.
The full statement of “John Doe” throws Süddeutsche Zeitung a bone and says they have rightly refused to release the leak to authorities.
I’m sure you are as curious as I am about that statement.
BTW, if and when the Panama Papers are leaked to one or more governments, be on guard for fake Panama Papers which are infectious, etc. Possibly even those leaked by governments.
Leaks can always have malicious content but purported high visibility leaks perhaps more than others.
The Value of Offshore Secrets – Evidence from the Panama Papers by James O’Donovan, Hannes F. Wagner, Stefan Zeume.
O’Donovan and colleagues find the keyhole view of the Panama Papers has erased $230 Billion in market capitalization among the firms exposed by those papers.
Imagine the impact if:
Until there is a full release, or a secondary leak, of the Panama Papers, we may never know.
Abstract:
We use the data leak of the Panama Papers on April 3, 2016 to study whether and how the use of offshore vehicles affects valuation around the world. The data leak made transparent the operations of more than 214,000 shell companies incorporated in tax havens by Panama-based law firm Mossack Fonseca. The Panama Papers implicate a wide range of firms, politicians, and other individuals around the globe to have used secret offshore vehicles. Allegations include tax evasion, financing corruption, money laundering, violation of sanctions, and hiding other activities. We find that, around the world, the data leak erased an unprecedented risk-adjusted US$230 billion in market capitalization among 1,105 firms with exposure to the revelations of the Panama Papers. Firms with subsidiaries in Panama, the British Virgin Islands, the Bahamas, or the Seychelles – representing 90% of the tax havens used by Mossack Fonseca – experienced an average drop in firm value of 0.5%-0.6% around the data leak. We also find that firms operating in perceivably corrupt countries – particularly in those where high-ranked government officials were implicated by name in the leaked data – suffered a similar decline in firm value. Further, firms operating both in Mossack Fonseca’s primary tax havens and in countries with implicated politicians experienced the largest negative abnormal returns. For instance, firms linked to Mossack Fonseca’s tax havens and operating in Iceland experienced negative abnormal returns of -1.4%; the data leak revealed that Iceland’s Prime Minister failed to disclose beneficial interest in a British Virgin Islands incorporated shell company. Overall, our estimates suggest that investors perceive the leak to destroy some of the value generated from offshore activity.
Want your leak hoarded for personal gain?
I think you know the lesson the Panama Papers teaches.
What a broad shadow “privacy” can cast.
A week or so ago, Keeping Panama Papers Secret? Law Firms, Journalists and Privacy, I was pointing out the specious “we’re protecting privacy claims” of Suddeutsche Zeitung.
Now, the United States cites “privacy concerns” in not revealing the identities of sixteen military personnel who murdered 42 people and wounded 37 others in an attack on a Doctors Without Borders (MSF) hospital in Afghanistan last year. US: Afghan MSF hospital air strike was not a war crime
The acts of aircraft crews may not be war crimes, they can only function based on the information they are given by others, but the casual indifference that resulted in wholly inadequate information systems upon which they relied, certainly could result in command level charges of war crimes.
Moving war crimes charges upon the chain of command could well result in much needed accountability.
But, like the case with Suddeutsche Zeitung, accountability is something that is desired for others. Never for those calling upon privacy.
Captured U.S. Trade Agency Resorts to Bullying Again in 2016 Special 301 Report by Jeremy Malcolm.
Jeremy does a great job dissecting the latest tantrum-by-proxy of U.S. industry, delivered by the United States Trade Representative. But, it’s hardy news that the USTR is a captive of the U.S. entertainment and Big Pharma.
No, the news waits until the last paragraph of Jeremy’s post:
… the foreign press often wrongly reports on the Special 301 as if it were more than just a unilateral wish-list from certain U.S. industries. The result is foreign governments coming under unfair pressure to amend their laws and to divert enforcement resources, without any international obligation for them to do so….
That’s news and it is something that can be addressed, by ordinary readers.
First, readers fluent in languages other than English should seek out non-U.S. news reporting on the most recent U.S. industry tantrum-by-proxy report.
You can refer to it by its formal title, 2016 Special 301 Report, but always include (U.S. industry tantrum-by-proxy report) as an alternative title.
Second, use the Jeremy’s post and compare the resources he cites to non-U.S. press reports. Contact reporters to correct stories that don’t point out entertainment or big pharma origins of those claims.
Reporters are always over-worked and under-resourced so be polite, brief and specific about your corrections and how they can verify the correctness of your statements.
It may well be that the same actors who have corrupted the United States Trade Representative (USTR) are the same ones putting pressure on a foreign government. Which makes reporting of undue influence on trade issues even more important.
Third, remember that taking legal advice from the world’s largest arms dealer, the architect of trade agreements that favor corporations over natural persons, the tireless servant of U.S. business interests, is like getting career counseling from a pimp. Your best interest isn’t upper most in their mind.
ICIJ to Release Panama Papers Offshore Companies Data by Marina Walker Guevara.
From the post:
The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists will release on May 9 a searchable database with information on more than 200,000 offshore entities that are part of the Panama Papers investigation.
…
While the database opens up a world that has never been revealed on such a massive scale, the application will not be a “data dump” of the original documents – it will be a careful release of basic corporate information .
ICIJ won’t release personal data en masse; the database will not include records of bank accounts and financial transactions, emails and other correspondence, passports and telephone numbers. The selected and limited information is being published in the public interest.
Meanwhile ICIJ, the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung which received the leak, and other global media partners, including several new outlets in countries where ICIJ has not been able to report, will continue to investigate and publish stories in the weeks and months to come. (emphasis added)
…
A teaser from ICIJ.
ICIJ is shaking the Panama Papers as a money maker.
Here a video depiction:
I don’t object to ICIJ and its 400 or so blessed journalists making money from the Panama Papers.
A lot of money has been invested in making the data dump useful and profits here will support more investigations in the future.
Admitting profit is driving the concealment of the Panama Papers enables a rational discussion on releasing the data dump.
For example, when law enforcement authorities request copies of data relevant to their jurisdictions, they should have to pay for the research to segregate and package those files, along with agreements to not post publicly post them for some set time.
In terms of public access, Süddeutsche Zeitung (SZ)/ICIJ has had these documents for more than a year. Two years from the first publication, how much low-lying fruit could be left? Especially given the need to re-process the raw data to explore it.
Reasonable profits are necessary and just, hoarding (think monopoly/anti-trust) and avoiding accountability are not.
A new offer for membership in the Open Data Institute:
Data impacts everybody. It’s the infrastructure that underpins transparency, accountability, public services, business innovation and civil society.
Together we can embrace open data to improve how we access healthcare services, discover cures for diseases, understand our governments, travel around more easily and much, much more.
Are you eager to learn more about it, collaborate with it or meet others who are already making a difference with it? From just £1 join our growing, collaborative global network of individuals, students, businesses, startups and organisations, and receive:
- invitations to events and open evenings organised by the ODI and beyond
- opportunities to promote your own news and events across the network
- updates up to twice a month from the world of data and open innovation
- 30% discount on all our courses
- 20% reduction on our annual ODI Summit
If you search for Süddeutsche Zeitung (SZ), the hoarders of the Panama Papers, you will come up empty.
SZ is in favor of transparency and accountability, but only for others. Never for SZ.
SZ claims in some venues to be concerned with the privacy of individuals mentioned in the Panama Papers.
How to judge between privacy rights of individuals, parties to looting nations, against the public’s right to judge reporting on the same? How is financial regulation reform possible without the details?
SZ is comfortable with protecting looters of nations and obstructing meaningful financial reform.
You can judge news media by the people they protect.
Powered by WordPress
