12 Jan 18 | Journalism Toolbox Spanish
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Los «me gusta» de las redes sociales, las fotos graciosas y la búsqueda de la reacción inmediata son parte de la presión bajo la que se encuentra el periodismo veraz. Lo cuenta Richard Sambrook”][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner][vc_column_text]
Un miembro del público fotografía a Donald Trump en un mitin en Reno (Nevada) durante su campaña electoral, Darron Birgenheier/Flickr
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
El periodismo serio se asfixia. Le están quitando el aire el comercialismo rampante y una insistente demanda de inmediatez, impacto y opiniones polarizadas en un mundo abierto las 24 horas. Los antiguos modelos de negocio fallan y, por el momento, no parece que haya una alternativa a las noticias serias capaz de imponer el interés público frente a lo que el público encuentra, simplemente, interesante.
Internet ha minado la autoridad del periodismo y la confianza depositada en él, reencauzando para sí tanto el público como la publicidad y distrayendo la atención con sensacionalismo, curiosidades y —cómo no— noticias falsas. Si bien la información leal es vital en toda democracia que se precie, hoy día todos estamos pagando el precio de su devaluación.
Fijémonos, por ejemplo, en Estados Unidos. Desde la derogación en 1987 del Principio de imparcialidad (fairness doctrine) —que obligaba a los canales de televisión a retransmitir informativos imparciales y equilibrados—, durante la presidencia de Ronald Reagan, el partidismo tanto en las tertulias de radio como en las cadenas informativas de televisión ha contribuido a un clima político polarizado y a la elección de un presidente populista. Los índices de audiencia controlan la publicidad, y el sensacionalismo, a su vez, controla esos índices. El drama de la campaña electoral de Donald Trump disparó las cifras de audiencia y, con ellas, los ingresos por publicidad. Como declaró Leslie Moonves, director ejecutivo de la CBS: «Puede que a Estados Unidos no le convenga [la candidatura de Trump], pero a CBS le ha venido de vicio».
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/4″][/vc_column][vc_column width=”3/4″][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
El muro entre las operaciones comerciales y editoriales del periodismo se disuelve. Se espera que la publicidad nativa —relaciones públicas camufladas de periodismo— acuda al rescate comercial para plataformas como Buzzfeed o el New York Times. Si los lectores no se dan cuenta, o les da lo mismo, ¿importa que lo que antes llamábamos publicidad tenga ahora aspecto de noticia? No siempre, pero a medida que las relaciones públicas, la publicidad, el activismo político y el entretenimiento comienzan a mezclarse con el periodismo, se abre la puerta a la explotación y al pánico de las noticias falsas que hemos sufrido estos últimos meses. Son demasiadas las personas que ya no saben distinguir entre esas categorías de información, cosa que se debe en gran medida a que las empresas de comunicación son cómplices de su confusión. Un estudio de la universidad de Stanford descubrió que el 82% de los estudiantes no sabían distinguir entre contenido patrocinado y noticias independientes. En Reino Unido, una encuesta de YouGov para Channel 4 halló que solo el 4% de los encuestados podían distinguir con certeza entre una noticia falsa y una real.
Las redes sociales y los gigantes de la tecnología tienen gran parte de culpa. Jonah Peretti, cofundador de Buzzfeed y el Huffington Post, dijo recientemente que el comportamiento social ha cambiado el mundo de la comunicación para siempre. Según él, compartir es el sistema de medición clave, indicador del consumer value —la valoración de un producto o servicio por parte del consumidor—, y su compañía se fundamenta en medir y fomentar el contenido compartido.
Está claro que ha resultado en un éxito apabullante para muchas plataformas sociales. El problema es que el acto de compartir es un buen indicador de dicho consumer value, pero no así del citizen value —la obtención de beneficios definidos por la ciudadanía—. Compartir premia la sensación por encima de la autoridad, y fomenta una economía online basada en el clickbait, en la que no importa si algo es cierto o no lo es, mientras hagas clic y las empresas se suban al carro de tu curiosidad.
Así que una mentira extravagante acumulará un millón de visitas antes de que alguien repare en la verdad, más prosaica. En el mundo del periodismo, solía decirse: «si eres el primero y te equivocas, no eres el primero». Hoy, si eres uno de los adolescentes macedonios que se dedican a inventar noticias para amasar ingresos por publicidad, todo eso te da lo mismo.
La nueva economía de la información, en la que se valoran la sensación y la inmediatez por encima de la autoridad o la veracidad, ha contaminado el debate público y ha dejado a muchos ciudadanos profundamente confusos acerca del funcionamiento del mundo.
¿Qué se puede hacer al respecto? El problema es que los dos gigantes de internet —Facebook y Google— que hoy controlan la forma en la que nos enteramos de lo que pasa en el mundo son globales, y no rinden cuentas prácticamente a nadie salvo a sus accionistas. Y sus juntas, por supuesto, están mucho más interesadas en embolsarse enormes beneficios que en asumir responsabilidades sociales. Con todo, hay signos de que ambas empresas están respondiendo a lo que perciben como perjudicial para su marca, extirpando noticias falsas, alterando los algoritmos, apoyando programas de educación en medios de comunicación y ayudando a buscar un nuevo modelo económico para el periodismo. Es posible que estas acciones aligeren parte de la enorme presión que sufren los intentos serios por informar, pero hay mucho camino por recorrer.
Algunos proponen que haya más medios de comunicación públicos financiados por fundaciones. Pero iniciativas como esas normalmente se dan a pequeña escala y son insostenibles a largo plazo, o bien imposibles de reproducir en otros países que no gozan de una extendida filantropía.
Existen nuevas iniciativas procedentes de los grandes medios, como la inclusión de más servicios de verificación de datos y, en el caso de la BBC, un compromiso con el «periodismo lento»: un alejamiento deliberado de la demanda instantánea de Twitter a favor de un enfoque más pausado y reflexivo hacia la noticia. Un gesto digno de agradecer, pero que solo una organización de gran tamaño y financiación pública puede permitirse.
Ha llegado a reconocerse que los medios digitales se han adelantado tanto a la capacidad de casi cualquier persona de entenderlos, que es preciso un compromiso renovado con la alfabetización mediática —comprender y diseccionar los medios de forma más amplia—. Es crucial ayudar a la gente a pensar de forma crítica y a reconocer la diferencia cualitativa entre un tuit y un artículo bien fundamentado de una organización informativa responsable, pero es un proceso a largo plazo.
Mientras tanto, tenemos el periodismo que nos merecemos. Así que, piénsatelo dos veces antes de darle a me gusta en un titular sensacionalista de una fuente que no conoces: cada vez que lo haces, ayudas a dar forma al entorno mediático. Suscríbete a una organización de noticias serias de tu elección; el buen periodismo cuesta dinero. Y ve despacio: en lo que respecta a entender el mundo, la rapidez es una dudosa virtud.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Richard Sambrook es profesor de periodismo en la facultad de periodismo de la Universidad de Cardiff y exdirector del Servicio Mundial de la BBC.
Este artículo fue publicado en la revista de Index on Censorship en primavera de 2017.
Traducción de Arrate Hidalgo
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row content_placement=”top”][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_custom_heading text=”The big squeeze” font_container=”tag:p|font_size:24|text_align:left” link=”url:https%3A%2F%2Fwww.indexoncensorship.org%2F2017%2F12%2Fwhat-price-protest%2F|||”][vc_column_text]The spring 2017 issue of Index on Censorship magazine looks at multi-directional squeezes on freedom of speech around the world.
Also in the issue: newly translated fiction from Karim Miské, columns from Spitting Image creator Roger Law and former UK attorney general Dominic Grieve, and a special focus on Poland.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_single_image image=”88803″ img_size=”medium” alignment=”center” onclick=”custom_link” link=”https://www.indexoncensorship.org/2017/12/what-price-protest/”][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/3″ css=”.vc_custom_1481888488328{padding-bottom: 50px !important;}”][vc_custom_heading text=”Subscribe” font_container=”tag:p|font_size:24|text_align:left” link=”url:https%3A%2F%2Fwww.indexoncensorship.org%2Fsubscribe%2F|||”][vc_column_text]In print, online. In your mailbox, on your iPad.
Subscription options from £18 or just £1.49 in the App Store for a digital issue.
Every subscriber helps support Index on Censorship’s projects around the world.
SUBSCRIBE NOW[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
15 Jun 17 | Statements
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Increasingly, governments are devolving responsibility for determining what constitutes unacceptable content to private companies.
Legislation approved by the German cabinet in April 2017 threatens fines on companies that fail to take down content that might contravene some 24 current provisions of the German Criminal Code, including offences as varied as “defamation of the state and its symbols”, “anti-constitutional defamation of constitutional organs” and “defamation of religions, religious and ideological associations.”
The measure effectively outsources decisions on the balance between freedom of expression and other legally protected rights to private companies and so threatens open and democratic discourse at the heart of the one of the world’s largest, most stable democracies.
The idea that the threats we face are in some way more acute than those that have gone before — and therefore necessitate a restriction of hard-won freedoms — is not new.
“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety,” argued US founding father Benjamin Franklin, showing the conflict goes back centuries.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Don’t lose your voice. Stay informed.” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_separator color=”black”][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][vc_column_text]Index on Censorship is a nonprofit that campaigns for and defends free expression worldwide. We publish work by censored writers and artists, promote debate, and monitor threats to free speech. We believe that everyone should be free to express themselves without fear of harm or persecution – no matter what their views.
Join our mailing list (or follow us on Twitter or Facebook) and we’ll send you our weekly newsletter about our activities defending free speech. We won’t share your personal information with anyone outside Index.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][gravityform id=”20″ title=”false” description=”false” ajax=”false”][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_separator color=”black”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”12″ style=”load-more” items_per_page=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1513167493075-fe4186d8-a3f4-4″ taxonomies=”16928″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
11 Nov 16 | Mapping Media Freedom, News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Each week, Index on Censorship’s Mapping Media Freedom project verifies threats, violations and limitations faced by the media throughout the European Union and neighbouring countries. Here are five recent reports that give us cause for concern.
Turkey’s main internet regulator, Information and Communication Technologies, sent instructions to operators to close VPN services, according to technology news site Webtekno.
The ICT said it was acting within the scope of Article 6, paragraph 2 of law no 5651 in adopting a decision requesting Turkish operators to shut down VPN services.
The decision covers popular encryption services as Tor Project, VPN Master, Hotspot Shield VPN, Psiphon, Zenmate VPN, TunnelBear, Zero VPN, VyprVPN, Private Internet Access VPN, Espress VPN, IPVanish VPN.
According to Webtekno some VPN services are still available such as Open VPN.
“This is clearly detrimental to journalists and the protection of their sources,” Hannah Machlin, project officer for Mapping Media Freedom, said.
Turkey’s internet censorship did not stop with VPNs as the country faced a shutdown of the popular social media sites Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and more. This was the first time in recent years that the Turkish government targeted popular messaging apps such as WhatsApp, Skype and Instagram, according to Turkey Blocks.
The Independent states that it’s unclear whether the social media outage came from an intentional ban, an accident or a cyber attack. Turkey Blocks believes the outage was related to the arrest of political activists for the opposition party the previous night.
Turkey has increasingly utilised internet restrictions to limit media coverage in times of political unrest.
Spanish group Morera and Vallejo, has decided to slash contracts with photographers working for their newspaper, El Correo de Andalucía, according to the Sevilla Press Association (APS).
The three photographers working as “fake” freelancers for the newspaper were on a permanent contract without the benefits of being an employee. New contracts for the photographers worsened their conditions, lowering their pay and lessening the work photographers can put in daily.
APS additionally states that journalists working for El Correo de Andalucía are expected to act as photographers as well, doubling the amount of work they must put in. The newspaper pushed for the merging journalism and photography but journalists are unwilling to steal their coworkers’ jobs.
Four journalists from the Center for Investigative Reporting in Serbia (CINS) have noted that they have been followed and photographed on mobile phones by unknown individuals, NUNs Press reported.
CINS, which is known for reporting on corruption and organised crime in Serbia, believes the stalkers are an attempt to intimidate their journalists. Editor-in-chief Dino Jahic stated that they’re unsure who is behind the harassment, “We are working on dozens of investigations all the time, and each of them could trigger somebody’s anger.”
On its website, CINS wrote that they were determined to continue their investigations despite the intimidation. Their case has been reported to the Ministry of Interior and the public prosecutor’s office in Belgrade.
The online investigative news site Ukrayinska Pravda has reported that Ukrainian authorities wiretapped the outlet’s offices during the summer of 2015.
Editor-in-chief Sevgil Musayeva-Borovyk said in March of 2016, an unidentified person handed in an envelope with operational reports, activities and topics recently discussed by UP. The site has no evidence that wiretapping has continued since then.
According to Ukrayinska Pravda, the security service of Ukraine was carrying out orders from the president’s administration. Ukrayinska Pravda reported that it was not only its journalists that were targeted, claiming the staff of several other media sites have been tapped. Mapping Media Freedom does not yet know which other organisations.
Journalists have asked the security service of Ukraine, interior minister and chairman of the national police to respond to the information UP has gathered.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Click on the bubbles to view reports or double-click to zoom in on specific regions. The full site can be accessed at https://mappingmediafreedom.org/
[/vc_column_text][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1478786551399-adbbd256-7b8d-7″ taxonomies=”6564″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
11 Oct 16 | Digital Freedom, Magazine, Volume 45.03 Autumn 2016
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
CREDIT: ra2studio / Shutterstock
Securing your connection
Activists in countries where the web is heavily censored and internet traffic is closely monitored know that using a virtual private network or VPN is essential for remaining invisible.
A VPN is like a pair of curtains on a house: people know you are in but cannot see what you are doing. This is achieved by creating an encrypted tunnel via a private host, often in another country, through which your internet data flows. This means that anyone monitoring web traffic to find out persons of interest is unable to do so. However, the very fact that you are using a VPN may raise eyebrows.
An increasing number of VPNs promise truly anonymous access and do not log any of your activity, such as ExpressVPN and Anonymizer. However, access to some VPN providers is blocked in some countries and their accessibility is always changeable.
Know your onions
One of the internet’s strengths is also one of its weaknesses, at least as far as privacy is concerned. Traffic passes over the internet in data packets, each of which may take a different route between sender and recipient, hopping between computer nodes along the way. This makes the network resilient to physical attack – since there is no fixed connection between the endpoints – but also helps to identify the sender. Packets contain information on both the sender’s and recipient’s IP address so if you need anonymity, this is a fatal flaw.
“Onion” routing offers more privacy. In this, data packets are wrapped in layers of encryption, similar to the layers of an onion. At each node, a layer of encryption is removed, revealing where the packet is to go next, the benefit being that the node only knows the address details of the preceding and succeeding nodes and not the entire chain.
Using onion routing is not as complicated as it may sound. In the mid-1990s, US naval researchers created a browser called TOR, short for The Onion Routing project, based on the concept and offered it to anyone under a free licence.
Accessing the dark web with the Tor browser is a powerful method of hiding identity but is not foolproof. There are a number of documented techniques for exploiting weaknesses and some people believe that some security agencies use these to monitor traffic.
Put the trackers off your scent
Every time you visit a popular website, traces of your activity are carefully collected and sifted, often by snippets of code that come from other parts of the web. A browser add-on called Ghostery (ghostery.com) can show you just how prevalent this is. Firing up Ghostery on a recent visit to The Los Angeles Times website turned up 102 snippets of code designed to track web activity, ranging from well-known names such as Facebook and Google but also lesser known names such as Audience Science and Criteo.
While some of this tracking has legitimate uses, such as to personalise what you see on a site or to tailor the ads that appear, some trackers, particularly in countries where there are lax or no rules about such things, are working hard to identify you.
The problem is that trackers can work out who you are by jigsaw identification. Imagine you have visited a few places on the web, including reading an online article in a banned publication and then flicking through a controversial discussion forum. A third-party tracker used for serving ads can now learn about this behaviour. If you then subsequently log into another site, such as a social network, that includes your identity, this information can suddenly be linked together. Open-source browser extensions such as Disconnect (disconnect.me) offer a way to disable such trackers.
Use the secure web
A growing number of popular websites force visitors to connect to them securely. You can tell which ones because their addresses begin with https rather than http. Using https means that the website you are visiting will be authenticated and that your communications with the site are encrypted, stopping so-called man-in-the-middle attacks – where a malicious person sits between two people who believe they are communicating directly with each other and alters what is being communicated. Google, as well as using https for both Gmail and search, is also encouraging other websites to adopt it by boosting such sites up the search rankings.
Rather than remembering to check you are using https all the time, some people employ a browser extension created by the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Tor Project called HTTPS Everywhere to do it for them. It is available for Chrome, Firefox and Opera and forces browsers to user https versions of sites where available.
Hide your fingerprints
Traditional identification methods on the web rely on things like IP addresses and cookies, but some organisations employ far more sophisticated techniques, such as browser fingerprinting. When you visit a site, the browser may share information on your default language and any add-ons and fonts you have installed. This may sound innocuous, but this combination of settings may be unique to you and, while not letting others know who you are, can be used to associate your web history with your browser’s fingerprint. You can see how poorly you are protected by visiting panopticlick.eff.org.
One way to try to avoid this is to use a commonly used browser set-up, such as Chrome running on Windows 10 and only common add-ins activated and the default range of fonts. Turning off Javascript can also help but also makes many sites unusable. You can also install the EFF’s Privacy Badger browser add-on to thwart invisible trackers.
Mark Frary is a journalist and co-author of You Call This The Future?: The Greatest Inventions Sci-Fi Imagined and Science Promised (Chicago Review Press, 2008)
This article is from the Autumn issue of Index on Censorship Magazine. You can order your copy here, or take out a digital subscription via Exact Editions. Copies are also available at the BFI, the Serpentine Gallery, MagCulture, (London), News from Nowhere (Liverpool), Home (Manchester), Calton Books (Glasgow) and on Amazon. Each magazine sale helps Index on Censorship continue its fight for free expression worldwide.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”From the Archives”][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_single_image image=”90642″ img_size=”213×289″ alignment=”center” onclick=”custom_link” link=”http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/03064220008536724″][vc_custom_heading text=”Anonymous now” font_container=”tag:p|font_size:24|text_align:left” link=”url:http%3A%2F%2Fjournals.sagepub.com%2Fdoi%2Fpdf%2F10.1080%2F03064220008536724|||”][vc_column_text]
May 2000
Surfing through cyberspace leaves a trail of clues to your identity. Online privacy can be had but it doesn’t come easy, reports Yaman Akdeniz.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_single_image image=”89179″ img_size=”213×289″ alignment=”center” onclick=”custom_link” link=”http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/03064220701738651″][vc_custom_heading text=”Evasion tactics” font_container=”tag:p|font_size:24|text_align:left” link=”url:http%3A%2F%2Fjournals.sagepub.com%2Fdoi%2Fpdf%2F10.1080%2F03064220701738651|||”][vc_column_text]
November 2007
Nart Villeneuve provides an overview of how journalists and bloggers around the world are protecting themselves from censorship.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_single_image image=”89164″ img_size=”213×289″ alignment=”center” onclick=”custom_link” link=”http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0306422010363345″][vc_custom_heading text=”Tools of the trade” font_container=”tag:p|font_size:24|text_align:left” link=”url:http%3A%2F%2Fjournals.sagepub.com%2Fdoi%2Fpdf%2F10.1177%2F0306422010363345|||”][vc_column_text]
March 2010
As filtering becomes increasingly commonplace, Roger Dingledine reviews the options for beating online censorship.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_separator][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_custom_heading text=”The unnamed” font_container=”tag:p|font_size:24|text_align:left” link=”url:%20https%3A%2F%2Fwww.indexoncensorship.org%2F2017%2F09%2Ffree-to-air%2F|||”][vc_column_text]The autumn 2016 Index on Censorship magazine explores topics on anonymity through a range of in-depth features, interviews and illustrations from around the world.
With: Valerie Plame Wilson, Ananya Azad, Hilary Mantel[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_single_image image=”80570″ img_size=”medium” alignment=”center” onclick=”custom_link” link=”https://www.indexoncensorship.org/2016/11/the-unnamed/”][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_custom_heading text=”Subscribe” font_container=”tag:p|font_size:24|text_align:left” link=”url:https%3A%2F%2Fwww.indexoncensorship.org%2Fsubscribe%2F|||”][vc_column_text]In print, online. In your mailbox, on your iPad.
Subscription options from £18 or just £1.49 in the App Store for a digital issue.
Every subscriber helps support Index on Censorship’s projects around the world.
SUBSCRIBE NOW[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
