Biodun Iginla, BBC News

Biodun Iginla, BBC News
Showing posts with label France24 News Media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label France24 News Media. Show all posts

Tuesday, August 28, 2018

Analysis: Crippling costs of war reporting and investigative journalism


by Natalie de Vallieres and Biodun Iginla, France24 News Media Analysts, Paris


    © AFP/File | A total of 50 journalists have been killed so far this year according to RSF

    PARIS  - 
    The cost of war reporting and investigative journalism is becoming prohibitive for media outlets, campaigners have warned.
    With Internet giants like Google and Facebook soaking up advertising revenue while using the content of traditional media for free, quality journalism has been caught in a double bind, experts say.
    At the same time it had become more expensive and dangerous to cover conflict zones, said Jean-Francois Leroy, the head of Visa pour l'Image, one of Europe's most important photojournalism festivals.
    While many journalists were killed covering the Vietnam and Yugoslav wars, "journalists were not then actual targets. That has all changed," he said.
    A total of 50 journalists have been killed so far this year, according to RSF (Reporters Without Borders).
    As well as setting out to kill reporters, insurgent groups and criminal gangs have also kidnapped them for ransom.
    "It has become more and more expensive to cover conflicts like Iraq," said Leroy. "Security costs have exploded. You need fixers, bodyguards, translators and drivers.
    "A few years ago the New York Times estimated that it cost $10,000 (8,600 euros) a day to cover a story in Baghdad," said Leroy, whose festival in Perpignan in southwestern France next week is covering topics from "Big Food" to the fate of Rohingya Muslims.
    - 'Fighting for its life' -
    Investigative journalism has also been squeezed as the mainstream media's economic model has been crushed by tech giants, said Gerard Ryle, head of the Washington DC-based International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), the body behind the Panama Papers and Paradise Papers revelations.
    "Journalism is fighting for its life at the moment," Ryle told us at France24.
    "It is dying. The advertising models that sustained reporting, never mind investigative reporting, are broken, and the media has not found a way to replicate them.
    "Businesses are cutting back and the first thing that they cut is investigations because they are expensive. Not only are they time-consuming but they are also very risky," he said.
    "You are not always going to get a story and even when you do it can be very expensive to defend legally, you can end up in court fighting" big corporations who don't want the truth to come out.
    With many fewer reporters doing more and more work, scandals are being missed, which is a major worry for democracy, Ryle argued.
    "There is huge pressure on younger journalists to produce more and more, what is described as 'churnalism', working very quickly turning around press releases and statements and not having the time to check facts or poke around".
    - Democratic safeguard -
    Ryle said the Panama Papers investigation -- which uncovered clandestine financial dealings on a grand scale through offshore shell companies -- cost the ICIJ $2 million.
    "To that you have to add to the cost of the 300 reporters who were collaborating on the project in 80 countries across the world, which would be millions more."
    Ryle insisted that despite the obstacles investigative journalism was experiencing a renaissance thanks to "a small number of journalists around the world".
    "This is partly because of non-profits like ourselves (supporting reporting) and because of Trump and the fake news era we are in, journalists are more keen to prove what we are doing is worthwhile and essential.
    "Journalism is fighting for its life and is trying to make itself relevant and counter all the attacks on it. So in some ways there is better reporting being done now," he said.
    "There is definitely a fight back. Philanthropists are seeing the need to support investigative reporting in order to keep people accountable.
    "It is pretty small compared to the old business model but it is certainly growing. People are funding reporting because they see a democratic need for it -- but it is not making up for what was there before."

    Posted by at No comments:
    Labels: , , , ,

    Saturday, August 25, 2018

    Analysis: Trump social media 'censorship' claim is fake but widely believed


    by Melissa Gruz and Biodun Iginla, France24 News Media Analysts, Washington DC


      © AFP/File | President Donald Trump has alleged that social media firms are censoring conservatives despite little evidence backing up the claim

      WASHINGTON  - 
      There is little evidence to back up Donald Trump's persistent claim that social media firms "silence" or "censor" conservatives, but the notion has nonetheless gathered widespread acceptance among his considerable following.
      The US president returned to the topic on Friday with a tweet saying: "Social Media Giants are silencing millions of people... People have to figure out what is real, and what is not, without censorship!"
      The comments marked the second time in a week Trump has attacked tech platforms over alleged political bias.
      Days earlier, he tweeted that "Social Media is totally discriminating against Republican/Conservative voices. Speaking loudly and clearly for the Trump Administration, we won't let that happen."
      Both Twitter and Facebook deny bias in policing their platforms, and various studies suggest conservatives are thriving on social media.
      Still, a Pew Research Center survey released in June found 43 percent of Americans think major technology firms support the views of liberals over conservatives, and 72 percent accepted the idea that social media platforms actively censor opposing political views.
      Among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, a whopping 85 percent said they think social media sites intentionally censor political viewpoints, Pew found.
      The blocking of Alex Jones, who operates the conspiracy theory site Infowars, has given ammunition to those claiming motivations behind bans.
      And on Friday, a US House committee announced that Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and other tech executives will appear before a panel on September 5.
      Dorsey acknowledged in a recent CNN interview that the company's bias "is more left-leaning" but that this is not reflected on the platform.
      "The real question behind the question is, are we doing something according to political ideology or viewpoints? And we are not. Period," Dorsey said.
      - 'Game the refs' -
      According to Angelo Carusone, president of the left-leaning media watchdog group Media Matters for America, conservatives are railing at social media firms "to game the refs," and put more pressure on the platforms.
      Carusone said this strategy worked in 2016 when Facebook "essentially fell for a fake news story" after claims of bias against conservatives and eliminated its "trending topics" section.
      Social media firms are to blame in part, because "in an attempt to mollify their right wing critics they have reinforced and validated the critiques even though they are baseless," he said.
      Carusone said a study by his group and another by the social media monitoring firm NewsWhip found no systematic bias on tech platforms and concluded that conservatives had substantial presence on tech platforms.
      But the loud complaints from the president and his supports can still influence public opinion even if the claims are untrue, notes Jeff Hemsley, a Syracuse University professor of information studies.
      "Conservatives have long held the view that all media is liberal, so this is an old complaint they're now applying to social media," Hemsley said.
      - Algorithms, legal questions -
      Complicating the debate is how social media feeds are organized by algorithms based on user profiles.
      While some users might claim bias, "the algorithms take into account your interests, your habits and those collectively can influence what you see," said Liz Woolery, a policy analyst at the Washington-based Center for Democracy and Technology.
      Trump's assault however raises of host of legal and political issues about the rights and obligations of social media platforms.
      As private entities, they can set their own terms. If they are not public spaces they can't be accused of censorship.
      Conversely, the president's threats could be viewed as an infringement of the constitutional rights of the companies, legal scholars say.
      "Even if social media providers were biased against conservatives (and there is no evidence to support this), they would be fully permitted to do so -- just like the constitution protects Fox News's or Breitbart's strong editorial biases," Eric Goldman, co-director of the High-Tech Law Institute at Santa Clara University, said in a blog post.
      "As a result, any action Trump might take against social media providers would be clearly and unambiguously unconstitutional."
      Still, social media firms could face pressure from the unrelenting attacks by the president, said Hemsley.
      "I'm not sure the president has much legal recourse but I wouldn't put it past this administration to try to institute laws that give the government more control over media in general and that includes social media," said Hemsley.
      Dannagal Young, a University of Delaware communications professor, said the various political factions have differing views on bias and freedom of speech.
      "Liberals want social media to protect vulnerable communities from harmful speech and conservatives want the freedom to say the things they want to say," Young said.
      Woolery said one concern is that the pressure may prompt companies to take action rashly. She noted that Facebook's curbs on political ads, for example, have impacted many users with no political agenda because of how the policy is being enforced.
      "These companies are being told to do something, to do anything," she said.
      "They must be careful it doesn?t create more problems down the road."

      Posted by at No comments:
      Labels: , , , , , , , ,
      Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)