Reporters shouldn’t forget old techniques for checking information. Image: Alex Steffler/ Flickr /Creative Commons
Can you stand it up? Those five words were the ones I probably uttered more than any other when editing a daily newspaper. Excited reporters would be fed a diet of rumours: a member of parliament has left his wife, the chief constable has been suspended. These snippets would then be thrown into the daily news conference. And, with some exaggerated world-weariness, I would ask the key question. Can you stand it up? I never heard about half of the stories again.
Our advantage was that when a lead emerged at midday, we had nine hours to stand it up. If we couldn’t make it watertight we could give ourselves another 24 hours. In today’s digital world the pressure is on to push the button as soon any unsubstantiated tale flashes across our Twitter feeds. And the rush to publish means half-baked stories, outdated pictures and factual errors appear on websites that should know better. The irony is that verification has never been easier. My staff used to tread a regular path to our library to consult Dod’s Parliamentary Companion, Bartholomew’s Gazetteer and our own cuttings. Now you can check almost everything online. So why don’t we? As Spotlight, the Oscar-winning Hollywood film on investigative journalism shows, sourcing, checking and re-checking is how you nail whether a story stands up. In the world of 24-hour news and digital everything, those traditional techniques should not be forgotten. They include:
Be suspicious of everything. Take nothing at face-value. Check for vested interests. Trust no-one – even good contacts.
Your job is to confirm things. If you can’t, try harder. If you really can’t, don’t publish.
Always go to primary sources. Ask the chief constable if he is being suspended. Ask the authority chairman. If they won’t talk, find the committee members – all of them. When my neighbour was killed the local paper splashed it and got three facts wrong. Nobody from the paper had called the family (or me for that matter). Nobody bothered to make the effort. Shocking.
Follow the two-sources rule. Get everything verified by at least two trustworthy sources. Ideally on the record.
Use experts. There are universities, academics, specialists who will flag up credibility issues. Experts also know other experts.
Every story has a paper trail. There are still archives (try LexisNexis), court papers, Company House, Tracesmart. Has the same mistake been made before?
Ask yourself the key questions. What else can I look at? Who else can I talk to? Is it balanced? Did I write the headline first and make the story fit?
Make sure the readers understand what is opinion and what is fact. And that includes the headline.
Sweat the small stuff. Dates, spelling, names, figures, statistics. Don’t forget the who, what, why, where, when and how.
Evaluate the risk. There are times when with all the rigorous checking, a story might still only be 99%. If instinct and public interest tell you to publish – pass it to the editor. That is what he or she is paid for. And, with the other nine rules followed thoroughly, hopefully the editor won’t need to ask the key question.
Peter Sands is the former editor of UK daily newspaper the Northern Echo and runs media consultancy Sands Media Services. This story is an extract from a longer report by First Draft’s Alastair Reed about the importance of verification to stop the spread of hoaxes and propaganda online.
Winners of the 2016 Freedom of Expression Awards: from left, Farieha Aziz of Bolo Bhi (campaigning), Serge Bambara — aka “Smockey” (Music in Exile), Murad Subay (arts), Zaina Erhaim (journalism). GreatFire (digital activism), not pictured, is an anonymous collective. Photo: Sean Gallagher for Index on Censorship
Murad Subay
In 2011, artist Murad Subay took to the streets of Yemen’s capital, Sana’a to protest the country’s dysfunctional economy and institutionalised corruption, and to bring attention to a population besieged by conflict. Choosing street art as his medium of protest, he’s since run five campaigns to promote peace and art, and to discuss sensitive political and social issues in society. Unlike many street artists, all his painting is done in public, during the day, often with passers-by getting involved themselves.
Subay won the 2016 Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression Award for Arts.
Zaina Erhaim
A Syrian-native who was studying journalism in London when war broke out in Syria in 2013, Zaina Erhaim decided to return permanently to report and train citizen journalists in the war-ravaged country. Between the violence and deadly misogyny of IS and the bombing raids of Russian allies of Assad the danger of living in the region as a female reporter is immense. However, Erhaim has trained hundreds of journalists, including many women.
Erhaim won the 2016 Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression Award for Journalism.
Bolo Bhi
Bolo Bhi, which means “speak up” in Urdu, is a non-profit run by a powerful all-female team, fighting for internet access, digital security and privacy in Pakistan and around the world. Founded in 2012 by Sana Saleem and Farieha Aziz, they have since fought tirelessly to challenge Pakistan’s increasingly pervasive internet censorship.
Bolo Bhi won the 2016 Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression Award for Campaigning.
Smockey
Serge Bambara — aka Smockey, meaning “se moquer”, or “to mock” — is a hip-hop artist from Burkina Faso, who has had a marked impact on political and social developments there.
Smockey is the inaugural recipient of the Music in Exile Fund Fellowship.
GreatFire
GreatFire was set up in 2011 by three anonymous individuals to counter the “Great Firewall of China”, the systematic blocking by the Chinese government of any website deemed controversial, including any that touch on news, human rights, democracy or religion.
GreatFire is the winner of the 2016 Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression Award for Digital Campaigning. We spoke to a GreatFire representative Charlie Smith, a pseudonym.
What does this award mean to GreatFire?
“It’s a great honour. Working in China, GreatFire has a pretty difficult job and we often feel we’re on our own. It means a lot to us to get this award. It’s like feedback; it’s very nice.”
What’s standing in your way?
“Our adversary is not just the Chinese authorities. There are dominant foreign internet companies that are putting obstacles in our way. They could be helping us more. It’s sometimes harder to deal with the major internet players than the Chinese authorities.”
What kinds of pressures does GreatFire face?
“Last year, in New York, we organised an art show and events. One of the events we organised was around feminism. Participants’ families were threatened at home in China. It makes it quite unsafe for people.”
Is the situation getting worse?
“Recently, there have been tons of arrests and detentions. People I speak to in other organisations agree. No one has ever seen anything like this. The Chinese authorities are trying to disrupt networks. More sites have been blocked. There’s more domestic censorship. It is getting worse.
“Telegram was blocked by China after realised that activist lawyers were using it to communicate with their clients. When it was blocked the lawyers were using WeChat to communicate with their clients. The authorities sat back and watched the connections. They arrested 100 people on a Friday night.”
What’s GreatFire’s biggest challenge?
Funding is our biggest challenge. We’re a victim of our own success. The more people use the app, the more it costs us. Our solution is based on collateral freedom. The more people are using it the more collateral freedom costs. China knows that there is an economic cost to shutting us down [because we are using systems that generate revenues for Chinese companies]. But it costs us money to run. It costs us 20 cents per user per month.
People can make donations through freebrowser.org.
It’s our hope that we don’t exist next year because the Chinese censorship system will be gone.
Films, like every kind of art, are often made purely for cinema’s sake – but sometimes they aren’t. Some of the most iconic recent films have actually played a major role in inspiring rights’ movements and protests around the world.
Ten Years, recipient of Hong Kong’s best film award on 3 April 2016, is just one of the latest examples of how cinema can side up with rights: films have often given protests momentum and a cultural reference.
Sometimes, directors have spoken out publicly in favour of protests; other times the films themselves have documented political abuses. In other cases, protesters and activists have given a film a new life, turning it into an icon for their protests on social media even against the directors’ original ideas.
Here are a few recent cases of popular films that have become symbols of rights’ movements around the world:
Directed by Chow Kwun-Wai with a $64,500 budget, Ten Years is a “political horror” set in a dystopian 2025 Hong Kong. In the five short stories told in the film, Chow Kwun-Wai warns against the effects that ten years of Beijing’s influence would have on Hong Kong: The erosion of human rights, the destruction of local culture and heavy censorship.
According to the South China Morning Post, Ten Years was not intended to be a political film, but the political content is explosive to the extent that some critics have dubbed it “the occupy central of cinema”.
China Digital Times reports that both the film and the awards ceremony are banned in China. On Sina Weibo, China’s leading social network, the searches “Ten Years + Film Awards” (十年＋金像) and “Ten Years + film” (十年＋电影) are blocked from results.
Birdman
Winner of a 2015 Oscar, Birdman’s plot is not about rights or protests: The film told the story of a popular actor’s struggles years after his success impersonating a superhero.
But Mexican director’s Alejandro González Iñárritu’s acceptance speech turned it into the symbol of a protest against Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto.
After asking for a respect and dignity for Mexican immigrants in the USA, Iñárritu said in his speech: “I want to dedicate this award for my fellow Mexicans, the ones who live in Mexico. I pray that we can find and build a government that we deserve.”
The speech came after the Mexican government declared the death of 43 students who went missing while organising a protest.
Iñárritu’s speech made Twitter erupt against Peña Nieto’s government under the hashtag #ElGobiernoQueMerecemos, “the government we deserve”.
Twitter user Guillermo Padilla said, “Now we are only missing a good ‘director’ in this country” – a play on words since “director” means both director and leader in Spanish.
The sci-fi blockbuster Hunger Games took a life of its own in Thailand, where student demonstrators turned the protagonist’s salute into a symbol of rebellion against the ruling junta.
In the film, set in a heavily oppressed country where every year young people are forced to fight to death in a nationally televised contest, protagonist Katniss Everdeen defies the central government and inspires a rebellion against totalitarian rule. Her three-finger salute becomes the symbol of the protest.
In Thailand, students started to use the three-finger salute as a symbol of rebellion after the military government took power with a coup on 22 May 2014 and clamped down on all forms of protest, censored the country’s news media, limited the right to public assembly and arrested critics and opponents. According to The New York Times, hundreds of academics, journalists and activists have been detained for up to a month.
The Guardian reported that social activist Sombat Boonngam-anong wrote on Facebook: “Raising three fingers has become a symbol in calling for fundamental political rights.”
Since then, using the salute in public in groups of more than five people has been prohibited through martial law.
V for Vendetta
V for Vendetta holds a special place among films about freedom of speech. In 2005, it was incredibly successful bringing the themes freedom of speech and rebellion against tyranny into the mainstream media debate.
In the film, a freedom fighter plots to overthrow the tyranny ruling on Britain in a dystopian future. The mask he always wears has the features of Guy Fawkes, an English Catholic who attempted to blow up the parliament on 5 November 1605.
The mask has since become an icon. According to The Economist, the mask has become a regular feature of many protests. Among others, it has been adopted by the Occupy movement and Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks.
David Lloyd, author of the graphic novel on which the film is based, has called the mask a “convenient placard to use in protest against tyranny … It seems quite unique, an icon of popular culture being used this way.”
Suffragette
In 2015, the film historical drama Suffragette inspired a protest against the government’s cuts to women services in Britain.
The film shows the struggle for women’s rights that took place in the beginning of the 20th century, when Emmeline Pankhurst led an all-women fight to gain the right to vote.
Before the movie premiere in London’s Leicester Square, activists from the feminist group Sister Uncut broke away from the main crowd, and laid down on the red carpet.
According to The Independent, they chanted “It is our duty to fight for our freedom,” and held signs reading “Dead women can’t vote” and “2 women killed every week” to draw attention to domestic violence and cuts to women’s services.
One protester told The Independent: “We’re the modern suffragettes and domestic violence cuts are demonstrating that little has changed for us 97 years later.”
The case against Azerbaijani writer Akram Aylisli, who previously faced charges of hooliganism after being detained at Baku Haydar Aliyev International Airport on 30 March, has expanded to include charges of resisting the authorities with violence. Under article 315.1 of the criminal code, this is punishable by up to three years in prison.
The move came following an open letter Aylisli sent to Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev. In it, he points to the absurdity of the claim that a “78-year-old heart patient, a weak man” could assault a 35-year-old “stocky athlete”. The writer asked the president to intervene and remove the criminal case against him.
“Following [the letter], against all my expectations, my situation rapidly got worse,” Aylisli told Index on Censorship, referring to the new charges. “Also, a new vicious, libellous public campaign against me started in media,” he added.
In March, Aylisli was detained for 12 hours at the airport when he was due to participate in an Italian literary festival. He was accused of assaulting border guards and his travel documents were confiscated.
“Absurdly and illogically, this alleged incident of punching a border guard happened well after the plane departed and was later used by the border service as an explanation for denying the border crossing before the plane had left!” he told Index on Censorship.
Aylisli was once a popular writer in Azerbaijan until 2012 and the publication of his novel Stone Dreams, which tells of the massacres of Armenians in Azerbaijan. His books have since been burned and threats have been made to cut off his ear. Index on Censorship has published one of his short stories, translated into English for the first time, its latest issue.
