Social Media And Reporting Violence

With the millions of apps,
websites and other platforms for people to communicate through the Internet, we can safely say this indeed is the age of social media.
As journalists, the social media has become a huge asset and has enabled us employ some of the most powerful tools and apps to share accurate and credible information to our audiences. Today, almost every newspaper, radio station, TV station and online newspaper is on Twitter, Facebook, etc.
We share steady streams of accurate and reliable information and data in real time to millions of people across the world and attract instant reaction. But as journalists, we must continuously strive to provide responsible reportage of violence and humanitarian crisis and help in the processes of justice, peacebuilding and rehabilitation.
Now that internet and smartphone penetration is high, social media platforms provide a critical source of information about events that are unfolding, how people are experiencing these events, where attacks and atrocities are taking place, and who is involved.
Currently, the social media is one of the most abused channels of information discrination and propaganda. Therefore, as professionals, we need tobe careful about the way we use the new media.
We want to treat the things we find on social media and sources of such information with caution. There is always the possibility that people may be manipulating information for their own good, that they have heard.
In some conflicts, particularly where atrocities are being committed, we will want to be cautious about unwittingly giving perpetrators information about safe havens and hiding places where they may seek out victims. We may not want to reveal information about places of refuge unless we know these places are protected.
It is vital to be aware that photographs and video released online can be faked by parties to provoke further conflict or to win over national and international sympathies.
We can do these through the following ways:
Provide an alternative to propaganda and the rumors that spark fear and which can promote further violence.
Continuously updating our stories and websites as soon as we get new information and putting out links to these on relevant and popular social media networks.
Direct people to other sites of information that we know to be reliable.
Warn people against the dangers of responding to unconfirmed rumors on social media. This can include pointing out when photographs, video, and “news stories” have been faked. Information about such fakes can sometimes be obtained from fact checking websites such as StopFake, an organization dedicated to verifying information on social media and to combating misinformation.
Follow-up on stories and updates by asking both governments and humanitarian agencies how they are planning to respond to the needs expressed by people affected by violence.
WHAT WE SHOULD AVOID
Sensational language: We do not need to be sensationalist or judgmental in describing violence and atrocities. It is better to describe what we see in detail without the intention of provoking by emphasizing too much gruesome detail. We want to avoid exaggeration by using neutral language that lets audiences understand what has happened and the extent of the brutality involved, but we do not need to be overly explicit in our descriptions. We may want to drive home the horror of an atrocity, but we must be aware that gruesome descriptions and images can be too much for audiences to confront. People will often turn the page, change the channel, or shut down a web-page if descriptions and images are too difficult to bear. It is also important to respect the victims of violence and their families. We do not want to further traumatize people who are already suffering. To say someone was burned to death inside a building is already bad enough, but we do not need to describe the charred remains of a body for people to understand what has happened.
Victimizing language
Lynch and McGoldrick suggest that when talking to people who have been affected by violence we should avoid using words like – “devastated’, ‘defenseless’, ‘pathetic’, or ‘tragedy’, which only tell us what has been done to and could be done for a group of people by others.”
They suggest that treating people only as victims is disempowering and suggest that they have limited options. They recommend that we should rather report “what has been done and could be done by the people.”
We should also ask questions about what they are doing and what they think should be done to improve their situation, particularly by responsible authorities. We can also encourage people to contribute to deliberations about solutions to conflicts by asking people to describe the kinds of solutions they envisage.
Consider the impact of images
We face very difficult decisions when it comes to the choice of images and video we use when reporting on violent conflicts. Do we show our audiences graphic images of violence, suffering, and death? Will shocking images help to drive home the horror of armed conflicts and encourage people to take steps to end violence, or will they provoke more anger and exacerbate violence? They may do both. We cannot conceal what is happening, but at the same time we want to be aware of the impact of our work.
Tips from BBC’s editorial guidelines on war, terror and emergencies state:
We should respect human dignity without sanitizing the realities of war. There must be a clear editorial justification for the use of very graphic pictures of war and atrocity.
Central to this guidance is the importance of careful consideration when deciding on which images to use and how to use them.
Drama and audience appeal are not adequate motivations for using pictures that could provoke violence in a highly-charged atmosphere.
We need to consider what an image is saying about a conflict and what its impact might be. We also want to ask whether there are other images we could use that would help people to understand the conflict without the same negative effects.
In addition, how we caption or script around images is always very important.
We need to ensure our audiences are clear about the context. For instance, does the subject matter represent the impact of a one-sided attack on civilians by a major power, or does it show the impact on civilians of an ongoing civil war between rival groups?
Further, we also want to be conscious of the needs of our subjects, those people who are photographed and their families. In this regard, the BBC guidelines state that journalists need to – balance the public interest in full and accurate reporting against the need to be compassionate and to avoid any unjustified infringement on privacy. It is rarely justified to broadcast scenes in which people are dying. It is always important to respect the privacy and dignity of the dead. We should avoid the gratuitous use of close-ups of faces and serious injuries or other violent material.
Treat all information with extreme caution
Information can be very fluid and hard to come by during times of extreme conflict. Parties anxious to use the media to win the support of sympathetic stakeholders are likely to bury, stretch, or completely reverse the truth to get positive and sympathetic coverage. We need to treat all claims with caution. People will often try to feed us false information with the deliberate goal of provoking further conflict, concealing what they have done, or shifting the blame to someone else. We will sometimes get reports of attacks and atrocities having taken place from sources we do not know; we need to be especially careful with these claims until they have been verified by sources that we trust.
Even when we have confirmation from sources we trust, we still want to establish how they know what they know. These are some questions we will want to ask:
Did our sources witness what happened? How much were they able to observe?
Have our sources been to the scene?
Did they witness what happened, or are they providing a second-hand account?
Can they verify their claims?
Do our different sources’ accounts support or contradict each other?
There may be times when we are satisfied that information we have received about a violent action or an atrocity is accurate, yet we still do not know enough to give a full account. If we are convinced the story does not hold, then we need to be careful about making specific claims. One option is to let the audience know that a story is emerging, but that we have not been able to verify all the facts and that we will keep people updated as more information emerges. This is particularly important for the social media which can provide regular updates. We also need to make it clear who the source of the information was in terms of political positioning, expertise, and proximity to the event
Provide information people can use to find safety and protection
We can help non-combatants find places of refuge and to move more safely through conflict zones by providing people with information about where fighting is taking place, where fighters are located, and where atrocities are being committed. However, conflict areas change very rapidly and we need to be continually updating our information. If we cannot get updates from an area, then we should let people know when we were last able to update our information about what is taking place in an area. In some conflicts, particularly where atrocities are being committed, we will want to be cautious about unwittingly giving perpetrators information about safe havens and hiding places where they may seek out victims. We may not want to reveal information about places of refuge unless we know these places are protected.

Isine, a visiting Professor to the American University of Nigeria (AUN) and an Editor with Premium T`imes Newspaper, presented this paper at a two-day workshop for journalists in Abuja organized by ICRC and NRCS.

Ibanga Isine