 Hello and thank you for joining us for this web chat commemorating the 26th anniversary of the World Press Freedom Day. I'm Peter Cloughty, host of Nightline Africa, a radio magazine show, and one-on-one with Peter Cloughty, a TV segment on Voice of America's Africa 54 TV show. Journalists shine a light on many issues, keeping citizens informed, prompting robust discussion and serious issues, and holding their governments, including our own, accountable. Today is an opportunity to honor the many journalists who have dedicated their lives and taking great risk to pursue this important work. During this discussion, we'll talk about the essential role that media plays in supporting elections and democracy, especially in the face of the increasing challenges of disinformation declining trust in news media and intimidation and violence against journalists. We'll also talk about how the digital transformation of media has created a fragmented news and information landscape and how that has impacted election reporting. Those of you viewing online can ask questions by submitting them in the comment section next to the video player or tweeting them using hashtag WFPD2019, that is WFPD2019. Joining us today is Lucinda Fleecing, an award-winning journalist with extensive international training experience in investigative reporting and election coverage. Lucinda has trained journalists in Africa, East and Central Europe, Latin America and South Asia. Her training manual for investigative reporting in developing democracies has been translated into 18 languages and circulated to more than 20,000 journalists. Our third panelist, Laurie Montenegro, DC Bureau Chief of Noticia Telemundo will be joining us in the comment section. She will help answer your questions and share links to resources. For the past 20 years, Laurie was a Washington correspondent for Telemundo covering the White House, Capitol Hill, the Supreme Court and the Justice Department. She is a recipient of the Presidential Award from the National Association of Hispanic Journalists. I'd like to start things off by asking our panel of experts a couple of questions related to the main theme of today's discussion, the role of a free press in elections. Lucinda, you've spent many years training journalists in election reporting. Can you start us off by sharing your thoughts on the role journalism plays in democracy and elections and share some tips for balanced coverage of candidates and the issues? Sure. Thank you, Peter. And hello, journalists around the world. Whenever I travel and work with you, I'm so impressed by your ingenuity and resourcefulness. Elections are a time when journalists really play an important, pivotal, vital role. And it starts with just the basics, informing voters. How can you vote? Where can you vote? When can you vote? Reporting on the process is that are the election and polls being played fairly? Are there election monitors to ensure that? What happens when they're not? Oftentimes you have to report when things are not free and fair. But I also want you to encourage, I also want to encourage you to reach beyond those basics and really inform the voters on who these candidates are. That's your job. And partly you can do it by creating the narrative. What's the story each campaign candidate is telling you? Write in-depth feature profiles. Write issues. For instance, you might just break out one issue, transportation, investment. How are each of the candidates, what are their ideas and proposals on that? Instead of talking to the candidates every day, which unfortunately is the practice around the globe here too, get out and talk to other people what they think of the issues, what they think of the candidates. Good people, pollsters, labor unions, independent academics, historians, local level government officials, they all are important. Most of all, talk to the voters. Don't just be a typewriter and we don't have typewriters anymore. Don't just be a stenographer and record the politician's statements. Get out and ask the voters, what are your concerns? Are you better off than the last election? Travel as far as you can. If you can't get out of the city, go into poor neighborhoods, rich neighborhoods. And as far and wide in the country as you can. Thanks Lucinda. In some regions of the world, traditional media such as newspapers, TV and radio news programs are still the primary sources of information and election coverage. However, digital platforms including social media and blogs have grown significantly in recent years and are now a key avenue by which people consume news. Well, I will give you an example about some of these instances in Nigeria for example during the recent presidential election. There were a few issues of one group trying to intimidate the other and prevent their supporters from going to vote where you had the Yoruba people and the Igbo people. They are all from the south. However, because they thought the Yoruba support the ruling party and the Igbo support the opposition, they said, well, Lagos is for Yoruba people, Igbos need not vote. So some of them went around in spite of police protection, intimidating sometimes, destroying ballot papers, ballot boxes. And so you have some of these poll observers who are scared they couldn't go there. Some of the poll officials couldn't administer the poll correctly. So the electoral commission was forced to cancel results from that section. So the opposition believed that it was an orchestrated attempt just to intimidate and harass the opponents from going to the polls because they thought the incumbent president was going to lose. And Lagos being one of the biggest states, the conventional wisdom is that if somebody wins Lagos and wins Kano, the two most popular states in Nigeria, the presidential candidate automatically becomes president. So they did everything they could to make sure that the opposition guy didn't win. But the ruling party came and said, well, this is not the case. There are a few hoodlums who defy the electoral law, intimidating and all that. That should not be blamed on the ruling party. But these are some of the issues as journalists that we have to take a critical look at and address and report them accurately because if you fail to report them accurately, there could be tension, there could be chaos, there could be violence. And some, at least 47 people were killed, estimated figures by the government. So these are some issues that we have to take a critical look at. What say you saying that? Well, with the growth of social media, unfortunately, a lot of these outlets, blogs, Facebook, Instagram, they don't follow the same practices as we as journalists do. And so rumors can start and we all know the danger of rumors. There's been many instances in Africa and really elsewhere too, South Asia, where you've had these social media outlets often promoting biased information and it can create violence and killings. I think I read a poll recently that 20% of African nation elections have violence association. That's a lot. Thank you. Now before we jump into viewer questions, let's dig into a poll question we shared on social media in the days leading up to this discussion. We asked, what aspect of election reporting are you most interested in hearing about? You can see the results on the screen. The top answer was the impact of disinformation on elections followed by the rule of free press and elections then protecting journalists from intimidation and violence. Lucinda, what are your reactions to this poll? Well, I think those are three really important issues. I'm going to start out with the ensuring that elections are free and fair. A lot of this has to do with process, what we call process stories, which is right about the process of the election. How are the polls set up? In our country in the US, we have a lot of problems where some of the polling stations are not accessible in poor neighborhoods in certain states. Is that happening in your country? A good way to judge your own nation is to look at what is the gold standard? How are elections monitored and carried out in countries where they do it right? You can just report on that and then compare your country. Talk to the election monitors. Are there international independent monitors coming in? They often will hold press conferences and tell you how the polling is going. Every step of the process of the election, leading up to it during and after, write those stories. They're often not that controversial and there should be information about it too. I know a lot of you are in countries where the results are disputed often for weeks or months. Just continue to write the daily stories on how that happens and seek out experts to comment on them. I also want to take up the second one of how can journalists protect themselves from intimidation and violence. A lot of you are in countries where that's a problem. As Peter introduced me, I teach a lot of investigative reporting. It sounds simple, but one of the best ways journalists can protect themselves is to be accurate and fair. I know of instances where violence has occurred because the journalists were not fair. For instance, I'm not going to say what country it is, but I am familiar with a case where the TV station broadcast a story that intimated that the president was beating up his wife. There wasn't any proof, and it was kind of a nasty story. Well, the TV station had a big reaction and violence against it, which is wrong, but if they were fair in the first place, perhaps they could have prevented that. Your first armor is to be free, to be fair and accurate. The second thing is I like a rule that we used to use at the Philadelphia Inquirer, which is don't become part of the story, which is don't get yourself hurt or killed. Don't do something foolish. It's not your job to get out there and stop violence. Your job is to be safe and secure so you can report on it. And then last, Peter, what should we say about disinformation? Well disinformation sometimes is dangerous. I will give you an example in Sierra Leone, for instance, where there was this rumor that the opposition party has brought in some equipment to manipulate the election results. Had it not been for my head of state from the neighboring country to step in to say no, let's address this accordingly. Some of us approached the chairman of the electoral commission who said, well, our system is analog, so there's no way you can bring it in a machine to manipulate the figures. And that calmed tension, but that disinformation could have created a whole lot of mess, unfortunately. Well now let's take some questions from the comments section, those following along on Twitter using the hashtag WPFD2019. How do digital platforms influence an electoral process, Lucinda? Well, you know, when we're talking digital platforms, that's a huge thing. Are we talking about the online website of reputable news organizations? Oftentimes the digital version of news organizations can be more full and complete than even their short broadcast or their newspaper. So I would say that's a good thing. Digital platforms could also include blogs and Facebook. And again, it depends on how accurate there are or if the stories are being planted as we have cases in this country by interfering foreign parties. So yes, they can influence. Well, the second part of the question is how can citizens be protected from disinformation and how can ordinary citizens support journalists and a free press, especially in the face of threats of violence and intimidation? Let's go back to the first one first, which is how can citizens be protected from disinformation. The news organizations have a duty and a responsibility to be as accurate as possible. And I think that what's happened now is that with all this digital news, there's sometimes pressure to rush to print something that the competitors are or to broadcast something. And I think the real lesson is everyone has to confirm their own information. Don't just repeat it because you're seeing that your competitor is or you want to rush to be first with the story. That's a tough thing to do, but it needs to be done. The other thing that how can citizens protect themselves? This is easier said than done too. Citizens need to be able to analyze news sources as whether they're credible. And it requires a lot. It requires them to look at websites and see who's funding them. Look at news organizations and say, do I believe these are not? And that's a big job and not everyone's doing it. The next question is from the U.S. Embassy in the Malawian capital in Longuay. Is it what can journalists do to make sure that there's no tension as voters wait for election results in case there's a delay? Because their election, general election is on May 21. Hello, Lulungi. I was there a couple of years ago and I enjoyed it. You can't make up information, but you can tell and share with the voters every step of the process. You can interview the election officials and the parties every day and give them updates. And that's all you can do, really, but that's a lot. Full disclosure. Just close with them and share with the voters everything you know about it and why the delays are there. Eddie, the election officials in Malawi sometimes have been forthcoming when you call them. They quickly answer your question. Reina asks, how can the media handle impartiality in the electoral process? Well, when you say handle, I think you maybe mean insurer. Impartiality in the electoral process. Again, this is something that this is one of our first duties in election coverage is report on the process. Share with voters. Are the polling stations and the counts and the monitoring officials adhering to international guidelines? Ask them. Compare them. International media monitors is easier because, as I say, they often will even have a press conference on a daily basis. But find out what the standards are and see how your country is adhering to them. Well, the second part of the question is, aside from disinformation, what are some potential of foreseen consequences and risk of digital media on how citizens consume election reporting? Who is responsible for protecting against the risks? Well, in this country, in the United States, we don't believe that the press should be licensed or there's no government body that punishes them except for the courts. There are some rules about fairness and broadcast. So it varies from country to country. But there are many, many instances of bias media around the world, I'm thinking of South Asia and Africa in particular, where some news outlets, they're not even news outlets, where some bias groups have set up particularly radio stations and broadcast what is clearly hate messages. And this has incited violence and interfered with the election. Who's responsible for stopping that depends on each country. But it's perhaps your responsibility as a reporter to report on these things and report how they adhere to what everyone would believe are international standards for reporting. What do you think, Peter? Unfortunately, sometimes when you have this kind of disinformation and impartiality and all that, it gives the government the leeway to crack down on the media, which is quite unfortunate. So you have some journalism groups all across the continent. Sometimes those who belong to those groups sometimes are a little bit more upright and follow the rules of journalism. However, those bloggers sometimes they are not upheld to the same standard. And people often gravitate towards that. And that is the challenge. So journalists will need to be accurate and fast to put the information out, the credible information out there in order to try to blunt the effects or the side effects of what misinformation they put out. Otherwise, we'll all be in deep trouble. And then you have the government cracking down. They come up with laws that are quite oppressive. And then it snowballs from there. It makes it difficult for journalists to do their jobs. And sometimes they can even use violence or state institutions to suppress the media. And we've seen it in a number of African countries. Absolutely. And more and more creeping into the mainstream press and broadcast are reports about social media. And sometimes it becomes the mainstream news organizations responsibility to report that these false rumors or unverified rumors are taking place. I'm thinking of right now in Sri Lanka, where following the terrible Easter Sunday bombings, the country shut down Facebook and a lot of social medias. And there was one column that I read where they said good, because this prevents the spread of rumors. I don't know if it's good or not. But in these kind of crisis situations, and you could argue for elections too, people really want to know what's happening. And that's our role is to provide that information. And when we don't know whether something is true, just say that too. That's true. And sometimes the election officials must be up and doing to provide information out there. Else you have people coming up with all kinds of suspicions and rumors you create unnecessary tension and chaos, possibly because once people don't know it creates a vacuum, then all kinds of actors will come in to act. And sometimes it will not be to the interests of the country. And that is what we need to guard against. One of the other part of the question is what role do other actors outside of the political space, especially private companies, have in combating disinformation and supporting a free press? And why does this matter for elections and democracy? That's kind of broad. But I'm thinking in corporations, oftentimes, is their role funding campaigns? Is that what we're talking about here? It depends. I mean, ideally, every country should have campaign finance laws where reporters and everyday citizens can look and see who is giving money to candidates. Perhaps your country doesn't have that. Many don't. If so, you can report on that fact, that there are no campaign finance laws. Sometimes it becomes journalists' role to think on the lawn view, OK, we don't have that kind of access now. How can we, as journalism organizations, do to lobby and create new laws that would allow that? Because that's a part of our duty, too. If you don't like the laws right now, let's have an active role in government and getting more free information. And I know that's a lawn view. It may take 10, 20 years, maybe longer, but it's worth doing as activists and journalists pressing for freedom of information. The interesting part of that is, most of these countries have in their constitution freedom of expression. The constitution guarantees it, but sometimes because of things that might not necessarily please the government, those accesses get shrunk and it's getting increasingly shrunk in a lot of places. So I guess the fight still goes on. The U.S. and Brazil alone, we ask, how can we increase voter participation among the youth? Well, first of all, I'm thinking, is that the press' news media's responsibility? Or is that the political parties? I would take that as a broader view and say, how can you increase youth involvement in news in just being informed? And one thing that has been growing, although not fast enough, is the idea of news literacy, which is, and it's starting to be taught in schools now, although not enough, which is teaching people, citizens, youth, how to analyze their own information sources to make sure they're getting independent and partial information. And those are really good things. Well, in some countries, I've seen the political parties getting involved where they go and talk to the citizens to try to converse vote in their campaigns and rallies. The electoral commission itself sometimes are giving some budget to educate the people through traditional media, the newspapers, TV. Now they're going digital, too, with Twitter, blogs and all that. And then you have the civic education. Non-governmental organizations also have been doing that in some countries that I'm aware of. But everybody has to get involved. I mean, it is your civic duty. You have to do it. So Kanataka asks, there are certain prescribed ethics for conventional media. However, the same is not applicable for new media. Has the time come to codify ethics for new media or social media? If yes, how do we go about it? Well, as I said before, in the United States, we don't believe that there should be licensing or mandatory codes. However, most credible, responsible news organizations have their own code of ethics. And those have been adapted to cover new media. I'm thinking of The Washington Post, which has a very strong code of ethics, and that covers whether journalists can blog their personal view on issues while being a reporter. The answer is no. And oftentimes they can be fired. I mean, there have been many instances of reporters being fired for expressing political report opinions about candidates when they're supposed to be impartial. And you can find these very easily. Google Washington Post code of ethics, and you'll see a good one. And various news organizations have promulgated them as well. The U.S. Consulate General Chenai asks, how can journalists best fact-check the statements of political leaders during election coverage? Well, that's become a whole industry. My friend, Andy Holand, over at Politifact, gives lectures on this and has tip sheets on how to do it. But in essence, they take every speech and go through the facts. And once Google is our friend, we can fairly quickly fact-check with independent facts, their own statements, and this should be done. I encourage everyone to look at Politifact. It's not the only one. But what I love about them is that they give a rating to politicians for each speech, which is green, true, goes up to yellow. And then at the very end, the meter is red, liar, liar, pants on fire. Interesting. You know, I've seen instances in some African countries where the politicians who make some of these false statements, so to speak, get upset when the facts are brought out. Some of their supporters don't take kindly to that. They go to the media stations, they attack them and all that. But then that should not stop them from doing the right thing because the citizens deserve to know what they are being told because they have the final decision to make to choose the best candidate. So I would encourage them to go ahead, check your facts, put the facts out there. It might not be pleasant to the people who are spewing some of these negative or false narratives. And sometimes they might come at you. But you have to be careful that you don't insinuate or call them names. You just put the facts out there, let the citizens themselves make a judgment on who is telling the truth or otherwise. Rafael asks, how can journalists protect themselves from criminal prosecution for doing their work? Well, again, we don't have criminal prosecution here if we're just doing their work. But in terms of accuracy, accuracy, accuracy fairness. The one case that we had in times in the United States we've had criminal prosecution is where journalists have been subpoenaed and asked to reveal their sources. And sometimes they usually will not do it. And then we have had cases of reporters going to jail rather than name their sources. I as a journalist devoted myself to trying to get people on the record as much as possible. I would listen to off the record things, but I didn't really like quoting anonymous sources. So that's one way to protect yourself is don't quote anonymous sources. It sounds utopian or ideal, but I found that you actually can usually convince people to go on the record if you just say, well, now wait a minute, let's see, what can you put on the record here? I don't know what other kind of criminal prosecution you have in mind. That's a tough one. I've seen instances where even when people go on the record and you play back the same information, they said, ah, my voice was distorted, you know, you've had instances with that. So sometimes it's a difficult one. Sabrina from U.S. Embassy Breachtown asks, to what extent should a journalist known to be affiliated with a political party report for said political party? Never. I mean, I know this is done, but the problem is, you know, you really don't have credibility to be independent and impartial. If you report for a political party and are identified as such, that's okay, and you're an activist then. And there are such a thing as journalism activists for a cause, but you should be identified as such. I mean, then you become a spokesman for the priority or, I won't say political hack, but what do you think, Peter? I think citizens can really determine which is credible, which news item is credible and which is not. And sometimes I have seen instances where a journalist would get information from a political party and then they plant it and then they have their byline. But then people will say, what happened to you? Where is the balance? If you don't take care, your credibility would go. And in our kind of profession, if your credibility goes, you're finished. Yeah. I mean, who would believe you? And you know what? The readers and viewers are pretty smart. Absolutely. And that is what sometimes the people tend to forget, that people will read what you are putting out there and they will decide whether you are being genuine, credible or, you know, otherwise. Fazzona at American Center Tashkent Uzbekistan asks, are there organizations which protect international journalists' rights? Yes. The Committee to Protect Journalists is based in New York and they do important work around the world really. And they do advocate for better press laws, better media laws and that's the one that comes to mind. Yeah. Committee. I mean, they are all over. They are very good. At some times, getting lawyers to represent members in several countries, I've seen a few of them where they got lawyers to protect them because they figured the guys were doing the right thing. They wrote, you know, credible stories, but then the powers that be didn't like them and they would try to use the state institution to intimidate and harass them. Maybe they might not have a case, but because they have the power, they try to use those institutions and those people have gotten off because the courts have, you know, come to a conclusion that, hey, this guy is just trying to use political influence to silence somebody here and there. Yeah. Sometimes they are not so lucky. Yeah. They put pressure. They also, by the way, publish an annual roster, unfortunately, of all the journalists who have been killed and attacked every year. All right. The viewing group at the U.S. Embassy in Haboroni, Botswana asked, is it ideal to set up a council that approves and regulates journalists or can they self-regulate? Well, as I said, we don't believe in that kind of regulation in the United States. I've seen it in other countries and, you know, I personally don't agree with it. I think the marketplace corrects and regulates. As you said, if your credibility goes, you're kind of gone as a journalist. What's your view on that, Peter? Well, I have seen instances where journalism groups like Southern African Journalist Organization, they have a group called MISA. Yeah. Very good group. You know, and they are quite good. They have training workshops for their member groups. So people are abreast with, you know, modding things of reporting and to be impartial and to be credible and fact-check and all that. So I think those can help because the sad part is, if you don't follow some of these rules to be credible to ensure your facts are, or your eyes are dotted and teased across, you will give these so-called oppressors who do not want information to get out the leg room to suppress. And that is not what you want because you want to be free. You want to uphold the stipulations of the Constitution with guarantees, freedom of expression, among other issues, yeah. And groups like MISA, which is a very good group. I've worked with them. They're strengthened numbers, particularly where you're in instances where there may be violence or government pressure. You know, this is really good time to have a journalism fraternity and sorority to representatives in parliament or in court to help you. They're strengthened numbers. Absolutely. Another question from the U.S. Embassy in Habaroni, Botswana. In the USA, there are media houses that are known to be pro-Republican or pro-democratic. Do you copy this practice in Africa? No. Yes, we do. And in the old days, 100 years ago, there was a lot of that in the media, and then we got away from there. I mean, everyone pretty much agrees that Fox News is a fan of the Republican Party. Now, the Republicans say that everything else is democratic. And I don't agree with that. But certainly, the editorial pages of some of our major newspapers are lean toward liberal. But it depends on your point of view. I don't think... I don't know. Would you agree with that? Well, I think you have a strong point. But then you also have to take a look at where they are in terms of how the embrace of the tenet of democracy is. Because while the U.S. has been practicing democracy for well over 200 years, in a lot of these African countries, some of them are between 20 to 30. And then there have been interruptions of military interventions here and there. So you need to look at where you are. In some West African countries and Southern African countries, I know the role of the media is very strong in those areas because they have been stable for so long. And so the politicians and the powers that be usually will allow them to operate with some freedom. It's not so in a lot of other countries. So it's the way democracy is, you know, the burgeoning democracy in these countries. So we have to weigh the two. Here, U.S. has been stable for a very, very long time. So they can experiment with whatever they want. Some African countries don't have that luxury to do that. Good point. U.S. Consulate Karachi, some say that control over digital media by governments can be beneficial for the masses. What do you think? What kind of control? I mean, you know, do we want them to be able to cut off our internet and phone surface? I don't. Do we want them controlling content? I mean, you know, we see in some countries, I'm thinking of China where you virtually can't get Facebook or many other digital platforms. So I don't know. I just read a really good article in the New York Times about YouTube, about the way that they're grappling with trying to shut down quickly when their mass attacks. And they're having trouble. I'm not sure I want to throw the government into that mix of controlling that. One thing I like to think about is when the tanks, the Soviet tanks rolled into Hungary in 1958, I think. The first thing they did is they went and destroyed the radio station. And why? Because they wanted to cut off communication to the people. And I feel the same way about digital access. We don't want anyone shutting that down. Press freedom should be that, press freedom. If you allow people to weigh in to control it, they will control it to an extent that the press freedom will be lost. So do not give them any room if you give them that room, trust me. I have seen instances where the government will use an excuse such as, well, we want to prevent instability and to maintain the territorial integrity of the country. So we have to shut it down in order for people not to go up in arms and try to destabilize the country. That is a way of shutting down free press. And you don't want that. American Corner UDP Santiago Chile asks, are there any types of electoral systems that can mitigate the effect of slanderous campaigns such as ranked choice voting instead of majority rule? And what do you think the outcome would be in the field of journalism? I'm not sure what ranked choice... I'm not sure either. But I guess in some instances where... Oh, I know. It's where you vote for your first, second and third choice and then they eliminate some. And so that, yeah, I have to say I'm not familiar enough on ranked choice. I do think that slanderous... I'd like to address that question. Is there anything that can be done to protect against slanderous campaigns? Slander, libel. In this country it is something that can be attacked through the civil courts. And I believe that. I don't think that we should be promulgating slanderous statements or libelous statements against people. And that, again, is where fact-checking comes in. And I think if, for instance, if you have one candidate slandering another, it's the role we can play is to immediately fact-check and point out if it's incorrect. I mean, fact-checking is the best way. That's your best tool to save yourself from reporting this slander because you could end up at the court. So US Embassy Habaroni Botswana asked, how do you deal with plagiarism in online media? Well, that's a good question. Again, on back to codes of ethics for journalists, and I really suggest you do look up the Washington Post code of ethics because they go into this. Again, when it's found out, journalists have been swiftly fired. It's so easy to cut and paste, but it's wrong. It's wrong whether it's in the newspaper, on the air, or on a blog. And it is easily found out, particularly because we can Google these things. I mean, as a professor, I used to Google sometimes sentences to see if they popped up someplace else. It's easily found out and it should be punished by the news organization themselves. Just avoid it. Yeah, exactly. Just avoid it. Just write your own stuff. Exactly. I mean, there's nothing wrong with that. If you write it and it's wrong, your editor might correct you and move along. There's no need in copying somebody's work. Write your own stuff. That's it. That's our model. All right. The U.S. Embassy in Cameroon writes, in a situation of conflict crisis characterized by violence and human rights violations, there's bound to, there's bound to voter apathy, especially among women. Yet, in my country, women are encouraged to participate in political leadership. What role should journalists play to ensure an effective participation of women in such context? You know, I'm not sure there's anything special to do except, again, this is media literacy. Make sure that if it's possible that there's media access throughout the community. I mean, radio is a wonderful media throughout Africa. And again, I'm not sure it's our role to ensure that people participate. It's our role to provide the information so they can. I can understand the background because in the southern part of Cameroon, there's this ongoing crisis of conflict where you have what you call the ambasunians fighting the government. They want a free country or a separate country. So that has been going on. Some journalists who have been reporting about it have gotten trouble with some of the authorities because the authorities believe they've been slanting to favor one or the other and they've gotten themselves into trouble. A case in point was a lady journalist who the authorities felt that she reported wrongly about some deaths, about some situations that the powers that be wanted to keep secret. That is what she said. She got into trouble. She was sent to the court. She was released subsequently. I don't know what has been the case, but there is this tension going on. Of course, the international community has spoken about it, encouraging both the government and the opposition to try to resolve that, but that is the background to the question that this guy was asking. U.S. consulate Karachi Pakistan asked, how can journalists and social media activists counter and avoid trolling and abusive language? Don't do it. I mean, I don't know. Maybe this is what they're talking about in the comment section, probably, when a story is published on social media and then there's comments. I don't know because not every media organization can afford to monitor and edit the comment sections. Because of that, some outlets have actually taken away the comment sections because they just can't control it. I don't know how to counter and avoid trolling and abusive languages. Again, you have to have someone there to look at it and remove it. If it's the official news organization's website, it's probably worth it. I mean, I've seen instances where there are editors who look at those and just remove them. Yeah. Just remove them and save everybody any headache. American Corner University Diego Portales in Santiago, Chile asked, will good journalism lay the groundwork for fair democracy or will good democracy lay the groundwork for fair journalism? Both. So you have your answer there. Sabrina Foster at the U.S. Embassy Breach Town, Barbados asked, how difficult is it for traditional media to correct this information after it has been circulating for a while? You know, it's difficult. What I'm thinking of right now is the anti-vaccine movement. Traditional media has for more than 10 years been correcting this incorrect information that vaccines are dangerous and cause autism and people just don't believe it. We can't control what people believe, but we can continue to correct it and not publish the wrong information. Well, Fatima Umar, U.S. Embassy Abuja, Nigeria, how can media combat recent damage to its reputation as a neutral and unbiased profession? Do the right thing. That's it. You know, journalists are never going to be terribly popular. That's not our job. In fact, I used to say when both sides were attacking me, it means I'm probably being fair. Well, see, in the Nigerian media landscape, anytime you go to Nigeria and you want some of the best media organizations to read their material and stuff, they would mention quite a few and they would tell you the rest are theirs or the rest are that because some of the politicians own some of these media organizations. So all the stories are tilted to favor them against the opponent. So we have to be very careful. But being unbiased, cross-checking your facts and writing the facts as you see them is the best way to go. Because as we said, if you are slanted, if you slanted a story or if you commit any libelous act, you will be taken to the court and sometimes some people might attack you for doing the right thing, but that should not stop you from doing that. And as we said, if your reputation is soiled, if your credibility is undermined by your actions, you are finished in that kind of profession. So you have to stay true to yourself, write the stories as you see them, check your facts and put them out there, let the citizens make their own judgment on the best information you put out there. Amen. Say another question, how can the international community more effectively work together to improve journalist safety and counter violence and intimidation against journalists worldwide? Well, it's a subject that is dear to the heart to many journalists, many international journalists. There are, you know, another organization that I would direct you to is the DART Center for Trauma. And they do quite a bit of work on improving or trying to protect journalists and taking their own safety measures. In fact, you can find some guidelines there on how to do it. There's always more work to be done. It's never enough. But, you know, journalists would also have to take their safety into their own hands. You have to be mindful of the kind of work that you do. If you're an investigative reporter, you know you sometimes come up with, you know, some stunning revelations and people who want to keep the information secret will come after you. So you have to be very careful and I've seen instances where friends of mine will cover their faces, will not go to certain places because they know some of their investigative work are quite explosive. Some of them got, even judges fired, their supporters came after them. Some politicians lost elections because of some information that came out because of investigative work. So, of course, their supporters are going to come after you. So you have to be mindful of where you go, where you visit people you talk to. Your safety should be your priority. Absolutely. I mean, oftentimes when I do investigate reporting, training, for instance, it'll always be, it'll often be young girls who want to go investigate human trafficking and prostitution. I don't think this is a great idea to go to those places where it's happening and start asking questions alone at night. You know, some of us just come and say safety. Absolutely. A few questions have come on specific tools that can be used to fact-check your work or new information. What tools do you use in your daily work to check facts and new information? How many sources do you need to have to verify a new piece of information? Well, I think I saw you answering that first. Right. Why don't you go ahead first? Right. I would, at VOA, what we do is in order to ensure that you are safe and your information is credible, we have three independent sources that would have to confirm. I go a little further by talking to people who know the subject to confirm or deny the story apart from having these three independent sources. And I think with the three independent sources, you are on a safer side rather than going out with information that could be challenged and, you know, as a result could damage your reputation or credibility. So these are some of the things that you have to do. You can even Google a few of the things that you want to find out to really ascertain whether these are factual or just somebody just putting things out there. And I also have instances where I have to call people or approach them to say, hey, I heard this. What really happened? Going to the real newsmaker sometimes will save you a lot of headache. Hey, I'm so glad. That is such good advice. Absolutely. And try to verify it yourself. Not just, you know, how many journalists today spend their time in the office on the phone and on the computer and not even on the phone or going out? That's great. It's easy to have the usual eight hours and not putting a lot of time to verify your source. A lot of people want to get the easy way out. They come and do their regular eight hours and go. But if you really want to have your information correct, sometimes it goes beyond the eight hours. And that's what we need to pay attention to. And there are other things. There are now, and you can easily find this by doing a Google search, there are visual fact checking. So for instance, say that there's a doctor photo. You often can find the original photo. I'm thinking of, there was a flood in a town in New Jersey here. And there was a picture of a shark fin swimming down the street. Well, by doing a little search in Google images, you can find the image of that shark. So it was obviously photodocked, photoshopped. So there's many imaginative tools out there. Daniel Mesfin at the American Center in the Ethiopian capital, Addis Ababa asked, how can journalists be accurate in fast changing situations, especially in countries with a restricted information space where it is very difficult for reporters to find and confirm information? Journalism is not easy. And unfortunately, there are no shortcuts. You just have to go through the process and work on it. And despite the pressure to be first, it's better to be right in 10 minutes late. I mean, I know that's easier said than done, but it comes down to that basic practice. I've had instances where I've gone to countries where it's difficult for local journalists to get information out. I just go to the sources of the information. You go to the officials who might ask them the question. Sometimes they may be rude. Sometimes they might not provide the information you need. But that should not stop you from asking those questions. By so doing, sometimes you can even get verification from other subordinates. And they will correct the information that you have. They might confirm it. I've had instances like that. And that helps. But the other thing is, back to what's in favor of using the internet, I go to a lot of trainings where journalists say there are no public records. And part of the training is to show them how you can find public records. Because there's more there than you think. And this becomes a burden for each of us to train ourselves. And I remember there was, are we connected with Nigeria? Yeah, there was a question from Abuja, yes. OK. Well, in Lagos, I worked with the webmaster in the Lagos Embassy, was a guy I really liked. And he used to say, you're in charge of your own education here. If you have 10 minutes a day only, work to increase your digital skills. I mean, he went to it. He was lucky. He started out by going to a training in Reuters, London. And when the training was over at five o'clock, the other reporters went out. He stayed in the computer lab learning as much as he could. And he just educated himself until he became the webmaster. I mean, we all have to do that. Even gray-haired people like me, we're in charge of our own education. And if we don't keep current, we're going to be left behind. That's what I was saying. You have to go beyond what is required of you in order to get the requisite information that you need. How can we maximize the potential benefits of social media? That is accessibility, democratizing information while mitigating the potential risks. Well, it's standard practice now for a lot of reporters to gather information from social media. For instance, I'm sure you probably all know this, that there are wonderful Facebook groups on various subjects, everything from diabetes to immigrant children. And you can find people to interview this way. Some radio reporters will send out a question in the morning. I'm working on this topic today. Is there anybody there that is experiencing difficulty or knows something about this? And then back from Twitter or Facebook or Instagram or Snapchat, they'll get answers. So it can be a wonderful tool to find people to interview. Explore as much as you can. The final question is, what role do other actors outside of the political space, especially private companies, have in combating this information and supporting a free press? Why does this matter for elections and democracy? Well, again, I'm not sure what the context for this is. Are we talking about private companies like social media organizations like YouTube and Facebook? I'm not quite sure. I mean, I think this is a discussion that's going on right now of what is their responsibility to shut down the disinformation. And I don't think we've come to a conclusion on this yet. It's a tricky question because we want free information, but we don't want to give the megaphone to people that are spreading lies. I think one of the significant ways by which we can combat disinformation is to put the accurate information out there. That's the significant thing we can do. And we have to go the extra mile by crossing every possible obstacle that we can to put the right information out there because people will be able to tell. I can't tell you enough about people sending you WhatsApp messages, Instagram messages, Facebook messages, trying to find out if the information they have is correct or not because they know you are into journalism, and so they come to you asking you questions. People will know others will not do that, but the mere fact that they come to you means something. It means they want to get the accurate information. These are some of the things that we have to do in order to put the right information there and to combat disinformation or rumors peddling by the people who really want to create unfortunate things. Peter, you and I seem to agree on a lot of this, accuracy, accuracy, the extra mile. That's the only way to go. Okay, it looks like we are almost out of time. Thank you all so much for your fantastic questions and comments. We've really covered a lot of ground today. Maybe those of you watching will continue engaging on these important press freedom and election reporting issues. Lucinda, do you have any final thoughts to share? Just, I salute you all in your other countries. I know that you face a lot of obstacles and you surmount them, and so I'm inspired by you and refreshed and glad to be with you on World Press Freedom Day. Thank you very much Lucinda. Wonderful. In closing, I'd like to thank our panelists for their great insights today. Hopefully, this discussion can serve as a launching point for a larger conversation on the critical role that a free press plays in supporting elections and democracy. A big shout out as well for the excellent questions from our online viewers and the live viewing groups at the Embassy of Habaroni Botswana, Embassy Adiz Ababa, American Spaces Bahirdar, Dire Dawa, Jima, and Yali Network members in Ethiopia, American Center Yaundi Cameroon, Embassy Kampala Uganda, American Center Lilongui Malawi, American Corners Kamengi and Gitege in Burundi, School of Journalism at Kagei Catholic Institute Rwanda, American Spaces in Nigeria, Abuja, Bauchi, Calabar, Ibadan, Jaws, and Canu, American Space San Pedro Sula Honduras, American Center Caracas, Venezuela, American Corner Universidad, Diego Portales, Santiago, Chile, Embassy Bridgetown Barbados, American Spaces, ICBEU in Ubereba and Manaus in Brazil, Colombo Americano in Cali, Colombia, American Space Pilsen Czech Republic, Windows on America in Kiev, Karkiv, Starok Bilsk, Dnieperu and Czech Kasi Ukraine, American Center Pristina Kosovo, Karachi Pakistan at the Center for Excellence in Journalism, Consulate Chennai, India at New Generation Media, Bangaluru, India at Savannah News, American Space Dushanbi, Tajikistan, American Corner Narin, Kyrgyzstan, American Center Tashinkent, Uzbekistan, and American Corners Astana Almati and Shinkent, Kazakhstan in Coordination with the British Council. I would also like to thank the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor and International Information Programs for their contributions to this program and all the work that they do to support and advance press freedom around the world. Thank you again and have a great day.