The global television news agencies and their handling of user generated content video from Syria

This article examines the role the global television news agencies play in the handling of user generated content video from Syria. In the absence of independent journalists, Reuters, Associated Press and AFP are sourcing citizen videos from YouTube channels and passing it on to their clients. This article examines verification processes that the agencies undertake to check on the veracity of this material and asks whether the agencies have abandoned independent journalism to activists. This article provides a comparative analysis of two months ‘worth of UGC videos from Syria that were broadcast by the global news agencies after Russia joined the bombing campaign in Syria in late 2015. It analyses the content, verification processes and information that the agencies give their clients about this material. Through interviews with senior editors from the three organisations, questions of certainty versus probability are explored, along with ethical arguments about propaganda versus information transparency.

Sample

This article examines the role that the global TV news agencies – Associated Press(AP/APTN), Reuters and Agence France-Presse (AFPTV) play in the sourcing, verification and republishing of user generated content (UGC) from Syria. The territories under Islamic State (IS) control are now almost completely cut off to either professional or local journalists, leaving the way open for the various participants in the war to put out their own versions of the truth. While scholars have analysed the way that IS ‘events’ find their way into mainstream and alternative media, little attention has been focused on the role of the main engine drivers of international news – the global news agencies. These organisations have taken on a new job of brokering the UGC material that comes out of Syria and is passed on to TV audiences worldwide.

Main Findings

The findings reveal that all three television agencies are grappling with the complications of handling UGC from Syria. They are all sourcing it from the same Syrian YouTube channels and they are all employing similar methods of verifying this material. The Reuters news agency put out the largest number of videos during the months of October and November 2015, while simultaneously giving out significantly less information to clients about the videos’ provenance. Reuters’ Yann Tessier believed the news agency was only sending out material that was checked and verified, and yet at the same time, the words purportedly, said to be and allegedly are in all scripts and shot-lists. He appeared to consider that the agency might move to a more clear-cut policy of ticking off verification methods, but he was making no promises. AP, on the other hand, put out half the material that Reuters did over the same period. Beth Colson admitted that AP had employed words in the past that gave the agency ‘distance’ from confirming the materi-al’s origins. However, the agency had since changed this policy and now did more concentrated verification of the material and was being more transparent with clients about what they knew. AP also gives out names and information about the groups posting the picture and an explanation about their affiliations. AFP-TV put out video on only four days. It went even further in giving information to clients by also publishing the URL of the sites from which the original video was taken. Emails passed on to this author reveal that a number of checks and balances were done and finally the dope-sheets are quite clear about what was known and what was not confirmed.

Policy recommendations/implications

This sourcing and verification show the enormous changes that have taken place in the production practices of news agencies due to the growth of social media and citizen journalism, along with the problem of not having their own personnel in place. ‘Amateur video’ has historically always played a part in agency life, but now it plays a much more significant role. Agencies pride themselves on being the first people into a combat zone and the last people to leave. But now this war is being covered third-hand and largely by activists. It is likely that the difficulties of being certain about the footage lessen its worth for clients. Perhaps it is used by broadcasters more as ‘wallpaper’ to cover general bombing references rather than as a valuable picture that can help explain what is happening in Syria. It is only rarely that a video or picture has become iconic in this war, and this is usually when it has been widely republished via social media. However, this can only be confirmed if interviews are followed up with the broadcast clients of the agencies. It would certainly be interesting to see if, in this ‘post-fact world’, broadcasters care less about certainty of provenance when using agency material. When news agencies, as prime drivers of the world’s media agenda use the words ‘purportedly’ and ‘said to be’ about material that they are carrying, then it should be worrying for all of us as viewers of these images further down the chain.