Comments on: YouTube and the first casualty of war

By: The Worst of Perth

The Worst of Perth — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 09:20:50 +0000

There are skeptical comments like that on vast numbers of you tube videos, and many of these commenters are not going to convinced no matter what is said by other commenters or the poster. Interesting that many will turn straight to snopes to confirm validity.

By: Reasons not to ignore comments #2: The Daily Mail and Julie Moult | Online Journalism Blog

Thu, 04 Sep 2008 07:47:18 +0000

[...] blogged before about the problem with ignoring comments. But recently “marketing man gone native” blog Bloggerheads has been providing a rather [...]

By: paulbradshaw

paulbradshaw — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 09:01:20 +0000

Thanks Mike – that’s a great response and another demonstration of the importance of comments. As I say, the problem isn’t necessarily the footage itself (which is almost certainly genuine), but the treatment and sensationalisation and disengaged nature of it, which results in reader scepticism.
But re: your comment about ‘experts’ over there, you assume readers are, and they aren’t. They look to us for that, and if we don’t, then they’ll believe the comments of other readers who say “I knew someone who was in the SAS” (Yeah, right)

By: KoopTech » Titelgeschichte » Bewertungsprobleme in Nachrichtenströmen

KoopTech » Titelgeschichte » Bewertungsprobleme in Nachrichtenströmen — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 08:14:42 +0000

[...] von scheinbar professionellen Medienproduktionen auch gestandenen Journalisten nicht immer gelingt, zeigt Medienkritiker Paul Bradshaw mit einem Youtube-Video, das die angebliche Verletzung einer [...]

By: Ethical decisions become difficult when things get too real « Tuckr

Ethical decisions become difficult when things get too real « Tuckr — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 10:35:32 +0000

[...] footage of the reporter who was shot while doing a piece-to-camera in [...]

By: Mike Stucka

Mike Stucka — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 02:21:41 +0000

I posted a somewhat lengthy response over on MediaNation after seeing this blog posting linked over there. The short version: The comments by skeptics here are made by people with little real-world knowledge of firearms, and may well be secret Counterstrike addicts. The wind will rip your arm off?

As another MediaNation poster pointed out, what’s so unbelievable about a person getting shot in a war zone?

Further, Graham, above, updated that Reuters had picked up the story — after Reuters helped patch up the woman. So unless Reuters was in some sort of scam, yes, they confirm it.

Reuters also ran it in a story.

By: knackeredhack

knackeredhack — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 11:19:33 +0000

The UGC, if you are lucky, may represent some diversity of expertise and provide some skepticism, but that is not greatly helpful in real-time, as there will be some kind of lag and it is, all things being equal, a random process. In constructing a newsroom, or news generating mechanism, the more real-time you attempt to be the more you’re going to get tripped up by complex subjects like war, and vulnerable to fakery or just incomplete information.

I tend to believe that what passes for news judgement these days is rather binary. That’s not a good way to meet increased time pressures, although it may be a natural response to them. So, I’d argue some new heuristics need to be developed quickly if confidence in “serious” consumer-orientated news organizations is not to be eroded.

Then there is also the consideration of what expertise a modern newsroom should contain and how it should be organized for real-time engagement. My guess is this challenge will get lost in the shuffle toward an online focus, when it is probably fundamental to both risk management and long-term competitiveness.

By: paulb

paulb — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 08:23:39 +0000

Thanks for that. I found (some of) the comments more illuminating than (most of) the reporting. The key thing is, the two are being kept separate – there’s little point having a comments facility if you’re not going to engage with comments or benefit from them editorially (rather than just commercially).
I also think it highlights the importance of looking at existing comments when you take a video from YouTube or any other UGC site – the comments on YouTube put forward questions the journalist should address when republishing on their own site.

By: Graham

Graham — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 21:52:14 +0000

Good question. I was, and have to be, equally sceptical whenever I post anything like this on the Frontline Club blog. I did post it:

http://www.fromthefrontline.co.uk/blogs/index.php?blog=5&title=footage_of_georgian_tv_journalist_fired_&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

And that was some hours before western mainstream media. YouTube views were below 50 when I first saw it. However, I didn’t post it lightly. I read the comments on the original video, researched a bit about the commenter who claimed to be able to verify the authenticity of the video and chose to post it with careful use of language,

“A Georgian TV journalist is APPARENTLY fired upon by a Russian sniper and injured while delivering a piece to camera. Fortunately, she’s soon patched up and back on with the job.”

It’s “just” a blog post and my job is to point people to interesting stuff, but you can’t just post blindly. You can’t state this video is hard fact if you don’t know it is and absolutely not if you can’t easily verify a source before posting.

I kept an eye on the spread of the video and I noticed Reuters picked it up some hours later and I added their link. The Guardian soon followed and I added their link to another post. Later I noticed the name of the TV journalist who was shot appeared in another report. I then felt happy to leave the post as I had originally posted it as I felt reasonably confident that what it puported to show was factual. The “apparently” language left it vague enough to draw questions from unbelievers.

With a report like this you simply cannot blog it as fact unless you are confident you have independently verified it. However, linking to something after a degree of research and caveats can help the fact checking process along.

By: Jonathan Walker

Jonathan Walker — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 21:43:02 +0000

It seems from the video that the journalist herself doesn’t know exactly what happened to her. People commenting on whether a Russian sniper shot at her are responding to the way newspapers have interpreted the video, and the way other commenters have interpreted it, rather than the video itself.

I don’t think it would ever be possible to disprove the claim that it was a full-on fake in the sense of being deliberately faked by the journalist and her camera crew, or the Georgian/American/Israeli alliance as some YouTube posters claim. In theory, if it was fake then evidence to prove that might exist, but there’s no such thing as evidence it was real.

Even the type of thing that might convince most of us, such as an account from an apparently independent eye-witness or a doctor’s report stating her injuries are consistent with being grazed by a bullet could be part of the fakery, if one is inclined to believe that.