Taking Out The Trash

"In ten years we'll wonder why we were so worked up."

Prf Matt Waite heads up the University of Nebraska's Drone Journalism Lab which has received $50,000 from the Knight Foundation to research the ethics and uses of UAVs by the media.

You can see the latest experiments from his lab in the clip below. As opposed to Lewis Whyld's UAV, which covered flooded areas in the UK (outlined in my previous post), Waite's team has been looking at droughts in America. Below the clip Prof Waite explains to me in detail how he sees the media using UAVs in the years to come.

 

Q: What do you hope/plan to have produced for the Knight Foundation come the end of your grant?

A: Several things. First, we want to build, fly and test some UAVs. Just getting some experience and writing about it openly will be very beneficial for journalists trying to evaluate this idea. Right now, I think we've all seen too many movies and have some wild eyed ideas of what's possible. Putting some reality into the discussion will be step one. Second, we're going to write about ethical issues involved, both from a historical perspective and from an in-the-field experience perspective. We think that by using them, we'll think of new questions to ask. Third, we hope to have a legal, ethical and safety framework for journalists who want to use UAVs to do journalism. We want to give journalists tools to make decisions about when and how - and if at all - to use UAVs.

Q: Apart from American news organisations, where else do you see drone journalism advancing quickest? It seems that in some cases NGOs/activists are taking up the possibilities quicker than news outlets.

A: I fully expect others to take it up faster than newsrooms do. News organizations, if I'm being nice, tend to be rather deliberative with these kinds of things. There are laws and rules in place that give business managers and corporate legal counsels pause when it comes to using UAVs — at least currently — so I think activists with less concern about the feelings of authorities will move much quicker than news organizations. But I think you're going the right direction with NGOs. I'd throw in democracy activists and rebel movements too. If you're a Syrian rebel, and you need the world to sympathize with your cause, getting pictures and video and news out of there is important. It's a matter of time before an NGO uses a UAV to photograph human rights abuses and changes the world's opinion about a place.

Q: Would it be accurate to say that drone journalism is a situation where legal (aviation and privacy) codes are struggling to keep pace with corporate/individual innovation?

A: There's no doubt that's the situation. Think about it. Right now, you can go to any mall and buy a quad-copter with a high definition camera mounted on the front of it that only requires an iPhone or Android phone to fly, all for $350. That video can be recorded right on the device and uploaded to the internet in minutes. There are laws that could be brought to bear, but those laws never considered someone with a flying toy capable of taking broadcast quality video.

Q: Setting aside aviation rules, what is the biggest barrier to a freelance photographer/broadcaster aiming to use a drone today?

A: Cost and complexity would be easy answers, but I think the key one people aren't thinking about because we don't have a lot of experience with it is safety. I think people have this idea — based on what we see of military drones in war zones flying for long periods of time seemingly without error — that these things are reliable and safe. They're getting more reliable and they're getting safer, but there's still a substantial risk of a crash every time they take off. If you're a freelance photojournalist, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you don't have the insurance needed when your photo drone loses an engine and crashes on the head of a protester. A significant amount of research needs to be done on when, where and how these things can be used safely. 

Q: In ten years time how would you expect to see drone journalism being used?

A: In 10 years, I think drones for journalism will be boring. I think they'll be like smartphones. They're another tool in the kit. Of course we use UAVs to cover a wildfire. Why wouldn't we? We've been doing it for years. That kind of thinking. I'm really excited about drones for journalism, I think they'll be a very useful tool for a lot of journalists in the very near future, but I think they're just another tool. Drones will not be writing stories. Drones will not find the humanity in a story. Drones will be a tool for journalists to do what they do best: journalism. And that's all that they are. In 10 years, we'll look back at all this fuss about drones and wonder why we were so worked up.

Spy in the sky

The next few years are likely to see a new tool added the journalist's armoury - unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).

Drone journalism already has its own academic department and on Monday a workshop takes place in Oxford organised by the Reuter's Institute for the Study of Journalism. In the next edition of the NUJ magazine The Journalist I'll be looking in detail on how the media plans to use UAVs for news gathering.

For the article I interviewed Lewis Whyld, a photographer with the Press Association, who has built his own UAV. He used it this year to take pictures of flooding. In the full interview below Lewis explains more about how he plans to use his flying camera.

Summer flooding filmed with my UAV from Lewis Whyld on Vimeo

“I've been developing the systems in private for years because I realised the potential for news-gathering and journalism, but people generally thought it was a crazy idea so I kept it quiet.

“I've built some from scratch and some modified from existing airframes. It has taken a few years of experimenting, designing and flying to get a good understanding of which works best for the wide variety of conditions you might find on a story.

“Beyond the airframe you need to design or find a powertrain that will give you the necessary lift. Beyond the powertrain are the electronics, sensors, gyro stabilisers and satellite connections that give you altitude, groundspeed, airspeed, navigational tools, flight stabilisation and autopilot/waypoint functions.

“You will need a radio link from the ground to the UAV for control, which along with the flight time helps determine your range. I also add a live video-link to the ground so I can fly from the point of view of the UAV. To do this you will have to build your own antennas for the frequencies you have selected.

“I record the 'live' view on the ground using a groundstation that I built from scratch that can display all of the in-flight data received from the UAV, including battery voltages, RSSI (signal strength indicator) and GPS position together with the live video feed and altitude, speed etc.

“Placing the items in the UAV requires thought as the centre of gravity (COG) needs to be precise. Different centres result in different flying characteristics, and thus it may be necessary to change the COG depending on the conditions of the story you are covering.

“Using a UAV to film the floods was more of an experiment. It is rare to see UAV footage in difficult weather conditions. As a result I can transfer the techniques to my newer, more stable airframes.

“The need in this country is not as great as it is elsewhere - both in terms of commercial and journalistic uses. My UAVs are primarily designed for use in other countries. I plan on invading the privacy of dictators, despots and human rights abusers who massacre civilians with impunity. Every generation of journalists has a responsibility to use the tools available to them in order to discover and report the truth.

“My UAVs and for use in places where people are being shot in their back-gardens rather than sunbathing. It's as simple as that.”

Eyes on the prize

The Journalist, the magazine of the National Union of Journalists, has published an article by me looking at Amnesty International UK's media awards for human rights reporting.

From a photographic essay on the Dale Farm travellers to a film uncovering atrocities in Sri Lanka, the 21^st Amnesty International UK media awards suggest that human rights reporting is in good health.

But there is a warning from award winners that not enough is being done to foster such reporting.

Vanessa Baird, co-editor of the New Internationalist, was a winner in the consumer magazine category for an article looking at people fighting back against mining exploitation in Peru.

“I think the media would do better at covering human rights if it carried a greater diversity of news, from different parts of the world and on different aspects of human rights,” she says. “Much of the time the various outlets are telling pretty much the same stories - and actually, not very many of them. As a result, we are getting a shockingly narrow and repetitive slice of the world's news from the mainstream media.”

You can read the rest of the article here. There is a longer interview with Vanessa Baird below.

Militant groups in Davao City hit the streets in commemoration of the 59th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Pic by Keith Bacongco

The piece stemmed from the dissertation I did for my Journalism MA which looked at ten years of the Amnesty awards to see who won, what kind of abuses were covered and which countries featured. The germ of the idea came from reading Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine and in particular the passages on how human rights organisations dealt with abuses in Argentina in the 1970s. If you want to get academic on this then you can read When do Opportunities become Trade-offs for Social Movement Organizations? Assessing Media Impact in the Global Human Rights Movement by Kathleen R Rodgers or Transnational Information Politics: NGO Human Rights Reporting by Ron, J, Ramos, H and Rodgers, K.

You can read the full dissertation here and you see a spreadsheet on the results from 2002-2012 broken down by type here.

Let's get it up front first; this is NOT an attack on Amnesty International or on the undoubted quality of those shortlisted. However I think there is a legitimate debate to be had about how the media report human rights stories. Since the Amnesty awards are one of the main ways excellence in this area is rewarded it is fair to consider what constitutes the best in such reporting. What does the awards list say about what the media think of good human rights reporting? What is Amnesty encouraging journalists to see as the best through these awards?

Looking at the last decade, the results showed that a relatively small group of outlets were consistently nominated (Guardian, Channel 4, BBC). They also showed that some parts of the globe appeared more popular than others. African countries such as the Democratic Republic of Congo were visited regularly South America had largely disappeared. Unsurprisingly, where Western armies tread, human rights stories follow.

While there are 30 articles in the UN Declaration on Human Rights some breaches struggle to trouble the awards list. The right of workers to join a trade union is one. Indeed stories about exploitation often show individuals at the mercy of unfathomable forces, rather than fighting back. The awards seem to favour stories about the abuse involving women and children.

 

Vanessa Baird receiving the award with Helena Drakakis of The Big Issue

There is a lot in the dissertation (well, it's 14,000 words, what do you expect) and, as ever, more than I could have included in the Journalist article. However I thought it might be useful to put in the full response I got from the New Internationalist's Vanessa Baird because it raises a lot of interesting points. Vanessa picked up an Amnesty award for the magazine's Nature's Defenders edition.

 

Q: What made you want to cover this issue in particular - what made it stand out?
A: The clash between multinational corporations and indigenous people is being played out in many parts of the world today.
But in Peru, it has been most intense and, at times, violent. Peru's indigenous people are truly on the frontline. They are up against multinational capital and extractive mining industries that are depleting and poisoning the water on which they depend for survival, with cyanide, mercury and other heavy metals. They are up against against big dam hydroelectric projects to create electricity for Brazilian energy corporations that will flood out and destroy the homes and livelihoods of thousands of indigenous Amazonian people.
Occasionally, individual incidents hit the international news - like when more than 30 people died in a fight between indigenous people and police at Bagua,in the Peruvian jungle,in 2009.
But from local contacts on the ground I knew that these protests were happening across the country, pretty much all the time, and that the human rights of indigenous protesters and environmental activists were being abused on a daily basis. More than 100 people had died in the last three years as a result of such environmental conflicts and many more had prison sentences hanging over them, simply for protesting.
When I got to Peru and observed some of these confrontations, I found that the clash goes far beyond a tussle over territory or resources. It's a conflict between two diametrically opposed views on how to treat the natural environment and on how to live. On the one hand, the corporations exist to extract as much as possible from it in order to maximize their profits. On the other hand, indigenous communities view nature (or 'Pacha Mama' as they call it) as a common good. They believe that you have to protect nature if you want it to protect you, and that means not taking more from it than you need. They call this 'living well'. They have the support of local environmental groups and scientific organizations that see all too clearly the damage being done by the extractive industries and see in the indigenous approach lessons we could all learn.
So this is a story about human rights but it's also about environmental rights - and, today especially, the two are often indivisible.

Q: Your story raises an issue of concern - does the award help highlight that? If so, how?
A: I think it gives extra media attention to the way in which, for example, the Ashaninka people are, with some success, resisting mega -dam projects and helps garner international support for them.
The organisations that helped me - CARE in Peru and the Rainforest Foundation in Britain – are well aware that adverse international publicity can sometimes have a greater impact on governments and corporations than can be achieved by local or national press. (Indeed, an international company that was to build one of the dams - Odebrecht - actually pulled out because of adverse publicity, saying it was doing so 'out of respect for local people'. The Canadian miner, Bear Creek, saw its share price fall when its clash with local people became international news.)

Q: Are there enough journalists doing human rights stories (and enough places to publish/broadcast them)? Do these awards properly reflect media coverage of human rights? Where could the media do better in covering human rights?
A: My experience as a co-editor of New Internationalist tells me that there are plenty of journalists out there, wanting to write human rights stories. The difficulty is finding enough media outlets. And as times get tougher for independent media the situation is likely get worse.
I think we are being let down badly by the major broadcast media, including the BBC, which over the years have been dis-investing in serious journalism and the more complex, slow-burning stories. I think the Amnesty Awards had some very powerful winners this year and I felt humbled to be included among them. Understandably, given world events, reports from the Middle East and North Africa dominated the field.
But I do wonder what happens to news from other places, when all the media decides to focus so heavily on one area?
I think the media would do better at covering human rights if it carried a greater diversity of news, from different parts of the world and on different aspects of human rights. So much of the time the various outlets are telling pretty much the same stories - and actually, not very many of them. As a result, we are getting a shockingly narrow and repetitive slice of the world's news from the mainstream media.

I'd like to thank Vanessa, photographer Mary Turner, film maker Callum Macrea, Angus Stickler from the Bureau of Investigative of Journalism and Amnesty's Mike Blakemore for giving up their time to talk to me for The Journalist article. As ever, I could only use parts of their longer and well-considered opinions. The results, and any errors, are mine. The plaudits they received for their work are theirs and well deserved.

Listen again to the Childhood and the Media conference

The Childhood and the Media Conference which took place at Bath Spa University (and which led to the Daily Mail story detailed in the earlier blog post),was organised by David Niven Associates in association with the university.

It featured a range of speakers looking at issues around the representation of young people and the media. You can open a PDF about the conference by clicking here.

I've clipped some of the talks from the conference and you can listen to them below. I've not kept in the Q&As because the quality is not good enough.

First up is Simon Milner who is UK Policy Director for Facebook with an 11 minute talk covering its safety policy and young people.

Milner

Then there is Naomi Gummer who is UK Public Policy Analyst at Google with an 11 minute talk on protecting people online.

Gummer

After Naomi comes Mike Jempson, director of MediaWise and a fellow journalism lecturer at the University of the West of England, with a 15 minute talk about representations of young people in the media.

Jempson

Then there is a series of short talks totalling 25 minutes from Charlotte Dewar, head of complaints at the Press Complaints Commission, followed by Dr Fleur Fisher, chair of the Teenage Magazine Arbitration Panel, and finally Sue Steel who is the co-ordinator of the Anti-Bullying Alliance.

First panel

They 30 minute keynote talk was given by Jim Gamble who resigned as head of Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre after a row with Home Secretary Theresa May over its future.

Gamble

Finally, David Niven (click here for a pdf outlining his wealth of experience in child protection and parenting) wrapped up events on the day over 9 minutes.

Niven

 

Mature approach needed to transgender issues

The Journalist has just published an article by me looking at the media coverage of transgender issues (turn to page 12).

I got some nice feedback from the people at Trans Media Watch. It's interesting that they see the best focus for their work as television. Print they see as to inflexible, too wedded to old habits. Getting better television coverage will drag print in its wake.

It does seem that transgender issues are getting better coverage on television while papers just rely on the point-and-laugh format. It is also clear that people are getting a lot better at holding the media to account over poor reporting and offering up new ideas and angles for stories. It's just that because the PCC is so bad at protecting group rights there is no incentive for the worst offenders in print to get things right.

Bloggers big bash in Bristol

What’s the Blogging Story

October 22nd, 7pm / Watershed Media Centre, Bristol

Who can you trust when the new media meets the old? An evening of debate with mainstream journalists and bloggers. What’s the relationship between traditional and new media – the tired and the wired as some call them? Is blogging journalism? And who can you believe in this age of blogs, tweets and pay walls?

Join Roy Greenslade (The Guardian), Donnacha Delong (NUJ Vice President), Sunny Hundal (Liberal Conspiracy), Brooke Magnanti (Belle du Jour) and a panel of popular bloggers to determine who will dominate the future of news.

A Bristol Festival of Ideas event, in association with the NUJ Bristol branch, the University of the West of England MediaAct project and MediaWise, as part of a weekend study on the impact of the blogosphere.

Blogging Hell!

Pervasive Media Studio

Leadworks, Anchor Square, Bristol

Saturday October 23rd, 11am-1pm

Finding common cause across borders: Planning for international action on media standards.

What’s the role of online journalism in sustaining democratic societies? What role can the blogosphere play in more rigidly controlled societies? Can bloggers develop systems of self regulation that could enhance journalism standards?

This is the opening workshop in what promises to be a long-running debate.

 

Jo Bloggs – but is it journalism?

Pervasive Media Studio

Leadworks, Anchor Square, Bristol

Saturday October 23rd, 2-4pm

Is blogging the new journalism? Are blogs a new, democratic kind of publishing, giving a voice to everyone? Or are they just a platform where gossip, speculation and bias are passed on as fact, and nothing can be trusted?

As the lines between traditional and citizen journalism blur, how are mainstream media owners and regulators responding? Are the interests of citizen journalists, bloggers and mainstream journalists the same or contradictory? Where does the National Union of Journalists fit in the new media world? Should bloggers be able to join the NUJ?

Join leading bloggers and mainstream journalists for a revealing discussion and some possible resolutions.

 

I'm with the brand

Article by me for The Big Issue in the North on the marketing of modern festivals

BITN 825_16

BITN 825_17

See the BBC report Trafigura is trying to gag

Via, oooh, lots of people including A Very Public Sociologist and Liberal Conspiracy comes the opportunity to stick it to a large multinational with nasty lawyers.

On his blog, Don't Get Fooled Again, Richard Wilson writes:

Late last week the BBC chose to delete from its website a damning Newsnight investigation into the Trafigura scandal, following legal threats from the company and its controversial lawyers, Carter-Ruck.

The mainstream UK media has so far assiduously avoided reporting on the BBC’s climbdown. Yet it’s an issue that raises serious questions about the state of press freedom in Britain, at a time of unprecedented attacks on the media.

So here is that film and here's a link to this censored report of Trafigura's activities

Think of it as an early Christmas treat and remember, it's better to give than receive so pass it on.

A winter Lobster

Lobster - the journal of parapolitics - has been published twice a year in print form since 1983; and today becomes an online only magazine.

Here's the table of  contents for the winter 2009/2010 issue:

• John Booth:
  Arnhem 65 years on
• Phil Chamberlain:
  The construction industry blacklist: how the Economic League lived on
• 'a consultant' reviews Alpha Dogs
• Robert Henderson:
  Laissez faire as religion
• Solomon Hughes:
  The curious case of Prospect
• Simon Matthews:
  The life and times of Simon Dee
• Robin Ramsay:
  The miners and the secret state The economic crisis Subservience to America
• Dr. T. P. Wilkinson:
  Superstition and Farce: the survival of the Inquisition in American political culture
• Book review

You can download a copy for yourself by visiting Lobster's website.

Saturday at the movies: Manufacturing Consent

All this debate about Newspeak in the 21st Century (see comments in post a bit below) and because I've been reading up recently on Bernays and Lippmann and watching a bit of Adam Curtis for my MA I thought I'd post a little morsel of Chomsk to (en)lighten your weekend.