SAN FRANCISCO: When a doctored video of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi — one altered to show the Democratic leader slurring her words — began making the rounds on Facebook last week, the social network didn’t take it down. Instead, it “downranked” the video, a behind-the-scenes move intended to limit its spread.
That outraged some people who believe Facebook should do more to clamp down on misinformation. Pelosi derided Facebook Wednesday for not taking down the video even though it knows it is false.
But the company and some civil libertarians warn that Facebook could evolve into an unaccountable censor if it’s forced to make judgment calls on the veracity of text, photos or videos.
Facebook has long resisted making declarations about the truthfulness of posts that could open it up to charges of censorship or political bias. It manages to get itself in enough trouble simply trying to enforce more basic rules in difficult cases, such as the time a straightforward application of its ban on nudity led it to remove an iconic Vietnam War photo of a naked girl fleeing a napalm attack. (It backed down after criticism from the prime minister of Norway, among others.)
But staying out of the line of fire is harder than it used to be, given Facebook’s size, reach and impact on global society. The social network can’t help but run into controversy given its 2.4 billion users and the sorts of decisions it must make daily— everything from which posts and links it highlights in your news feed to deciding what counts as hate speech to banning controversial figures or leaving them be.
Facebook has another incentive to keep its head down. The deeper it gets into editorial decisions, the more it looks like a publisher, which could tempt legislators to limit the liability shield it currently enjoys under federal law. In addition, making judgments about truth and falsity could quickly become one of the world’s biggest headaches.
For instance, Republican politicians and other conservatives, from President Donald Trump to Fox News personalities, have been trumpeting the charge that Facebook is biased against conservatives. That’s a “false narrative,” said Siva Vaidhyanathan, director of the Center for Media and Citizenship at the University of Virginia. But as a result, he said, “any effort to clean up Facebook now would spark tremendous fury.”
Twitter hasn’t removed the doctored Pelosi video, either, and declined comment on its handling of it. But YouTube yanked it down, pointing to community guidelines that prohibit spam, deceptive practices and scams. Facebook has a similar policy that prohibits the use of “misleading and inaccurate” information to gain likes, followers or shares, although it apparently decided not to apply it in this case.
None of these companies explicitly prohibit false news, although Facebook notes that it “significantly” reduces the distribution of such posts by pushing them lower in user news feeds.
The problem is that such downranking doesn’t quite work, Vaidhyanathan said. As of Wednesday, the video shared on Facebook by the group Politics Watchdog had been viewed nearly 3 million times and shared more than 48,000 times. By contrast, other videos posted by this group in the past haven’t had more than a few thousand views apiece.
Further complicating matters is the fact that Facebook is starting to de-emphasize the news feed itself. CEO Mark Zuckerberg has outlined a broad strategy that will emphasize private messaging over public sharing on Facebook. And Facebook groups, many of which are private, aren’t subject to downranking, Vaidhyanathan said.
Facebook didn’t respond to emailed questions about its policies and whether it is considering changes that would allow it to remove similar videos in the future. In an interview last week with CNN’s Anderson Cooper, Facebook’s head of global policy, Monika Bickert, defended the company’s decision , noting that users are “being told” that the video is false when they view or share it.
That might be a stretch. When an Associated Press reporter attempted to share the video as a test, a Facebook pop-up noted the existence of “additional reporting” on the video with links to fact-check articles, but didn’t directly describe the video as false or misleading.
Alex Stamos, Facebook’s former security chief, tweeted Sunday that few critics of the social network’s handling of the Pelosi video could articulate realistic enforcement standards beyond “take down stuff I don’t like.” Mass censorship of misleading speech on Facebook, he wrote, would be “a huge and dangerous increase in FB’s editorial power.”
Last year, Zuckerberg wrote on Facebook that the company focuses on downranking so-called “borderline content,” stuff that doesn’t violate its rules but is provocative, sensationalist, “click-bait or misinformation.”
While it’s true that Facebook could just change its rules around what is allowed — moving the line on acceptable material — Zuckerberg said this doesn’t address the underlying problem of incentive. If the line of what is allowed moves, those creating material would just push closer to that new line.
Facebook continuously grapples with the right way to deal with new forms of misinformation, Nathaniel Gleicher, the company’s head of cybersecurity policy, said in a February interview with the AP. The problem is far more complex than carefully manipulated “deepfake” videos that show people doing things they never did, or even crudely doctored videos such as the Pelosi clip.
Any consistent policy, Gleicher said, would have to account for edited images, ones presented out of context (such as a decade-old photo presented as current), doctored audio and more. He said it’s a huge challenge to accurately identify such items and decide what type of disclosure to require when they’re edited.
Facebook isn’t deleting the fake Pelosi video. Should it?
Facebook isn’t deleting the fake Pelosi video. Should it?
- Pelosi derided Facebook Wednesday for not taking down the video even though it knows it is false
- Facebook has long resisted making declarations about the truthfulness of posts that could open it up to charges of censorship or political bias
New Arab Journalism Award board formed
- Mona Ghanem Al-Marri will lead the board, Dr. Maitha Buhumaid to serve as secretary-general
- Arab News Editor-in-Chief Faisal J. Abbas selected as member
DUBAI: Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al-Maktoum, vice president and prime minister of the UAE and ruler of Dubai, on Thursday approved the newly restructured board of directors for the Arab Journalism Award. The board will be chaired by Mona Ghanem Al-Marri, vice president and managing director of the Dubai Media Council.
The revamped board includes prominent intellectuals, media leaders, and academics from across the Arab world, reflecting a commitment to fostering regional media excellence.
Al-Marri, a key figure in the UAE’s media landscape, is also president of the Dubai Press Club, making her one of the most influential voices in Arab media today.
Dr. Maitha Buhumaid, the Dubai Press Club’s current director, will serve as the award’s governing body’s secretary-general.
Also on the board is Ghassan Charbel, editor-in-chief of Asharq Al-Awsat; Ahmed Al-Muslimani, chairman of Egypt’s National Media Authority; Sultan Al-Nuaimi, author and director general of the Emirates Center for Strategic Studies and Research; and Arab News Editor-in-Chief Faisal J. Abbas.
The AJA is scheduled to be held in May, coinciding with the Arab Media Summit, the largest media thought leadership event in the Middle East, which will run from May 26-28 in Dubai.
Journalist-turned-MP faces demeaning attacks as Lebanese parliament votes for president
- The heated exchange led Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri to instruct his deputy, Elias Bou Saab, to escort Aoun out of the session
DUBAI: Lebanese journalist-turned-politician Paula Yacoubian was interupted and verbally attacked by MP Salim Aoun during the first round of a voting session to elect a president after a two-year power vaccum.
A video broadcast from inside Lebanese Parliament building at Downtown Beirut shows Yacoubian accusing some MPs of using the constitution as a pretext to obstruct the session, asserting that the real reason was the refusal of some to allow Lebanese army commander Joseph Aoun to become president.
This accusation sparked an objection from Salim Aoun, who retorted: “This is out of order. Paula, you covered for a kidnapped prime minister and now you’re lecturing about virtue.”
He added: “You’re the biggest liar on the political scene, and your whole history lacks honor and morality.”
Yacoubian responded angrily, saying: “Shame on you!”
The argument escalated, with Aoun using offensive language to attack Yacoubian.
The heated exchange led Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri to instruct his deputy, Elias Bou Saab, to escort Aoun out of the session to resolve the dispute.
On Thursday, Joseph Aoun was selected as the country’s new president in the second round of voting after receiving 99 votes.
He succeeds Michel Aoun, whose term ended in October 2022.
As a sitting army commander, Joseph Aoun is technically barred from becoming president by Lebanon’s constitution. The ban has been waived before, but it means that Aoun would face additional procedural hurdles.
Australia frets over Meta halt to US fact-checking
- Australia has frequently irked social media giants with its efforts to restrict the distribution of false information or content it deems dangerous
- Late last year, the country passed laws to ban under-16s from signing up for social media platforms
SYDNEY: Australia is deeply concerned by Meta’s decision to scrap US fact-check operations on its Facebook and Instagram platforms, a senior minister said Thursday.
The government – which has been at the forefront of efforts to rein in social media giants – was worried about a surge of false information spreading online, Treasurer Jim Chalmers said.
“Misinformation and disinformation is very dangerous, and we’ve seen it really kind of explode in the last few years,” Chalmers told national broadcaster ABC.
“And it’s a very damaging development, damaging for our democracy. It can be damaging for people’s mental health to get the wrong information on social media, and so of course we are concerned about that.”
Meta chief executive Mark Zuckerberg announced Tuesday the group would “get rid of fact-checkers” and replace them with community-based posts, starting in the United States.
Chalmers said the decision was “very concerning.”
The government had invested in trusted Australian news providers such as the ABC and national newswire AAP to ensure people had reliable sources for information, he said.
Disinformation and misinformation had become “a bigger and bigger part of our media, particularly our social media,” the treasurer said.
Australia has frequently irked social media giants, notably Elon Musk’s X, with its efforts to restrict the distribution of false information or content it deems dangerous.
Late last year, the country passed laws to ban under-16s from signing up for social media platforms. Offenders face fines of up to A$50 million ($32.5 million) for “systemic breaches.”
But in November, a lack of support in parliament forced the government to ditch plans to fine social media companies if they fail to stem the spread of misinformation.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said Wednesday he stood by the ban on children’s access to social media because of the impact it had on their mental health.
Asked about Meta’s fact-checking retreat, Albanese told reporters: “I say to social media they have a social responsibility and they should fulfil it.”
Australian group Digital Rights Watch said Meta had made a “terrible decision,” accusing it of acting in clear deference to incoming US president Donald Trump.
AFP currently works in 26 languages with Facebook’s fact-checking program.
Facebook pays to use fact checks from around 80 organizations globally on the platform, as well as on WhatsApp and Instagram.
Australian fact-checking operation AAP FactCheck said its contract with Meta in Australia, New Zealand, and the Pacific was not impacted by the group’s US decision.
“Independent fact-checkers are a vital safeguard against the spread of harmful misinformation and disinformation that threatens to undermine free democratic debate in Australia and aims to manipulate public opinion,” said AAP chief executive Lisa Davies.
CNN defamation trial comes at a rough time for legacy media — and for the struggling network
- US Navy veteran Zachary Young blames CNN for destroying his business when it displayed his face onscreen during a story that discussed a “black market” in smuggling out Afghans for high fees at the time of the Taliban takeover
NEW YORK: At a particularly inopportune time for legacy media and CNN, the news outlet is on trial in Florida this week, accused of defaming a Navy veteran involved in rescuing endangered Afghans from that country when the US ended its involvement there in 2021.
The veteran, Zachary Young, blames CNN for destroying his business when it displayed his face onscreen during a story that discussed a “black market” in smuggling out Afghans for high fees at the time of the Taliban takeover.
In a broader sense, the case puts the news media on the stand in journalism critic Donald Trump’s home state weeks before he’s due to begin his second term as president, and on the same day Facebook’s parent introduced a Trump-friendly policy of backing off fact checks. Young’s attorney, Kyle Roche, leaned into the press’ unpopularity in his opening arguments on Tuesday.
“You’re going to have an opportunity to do something significant in this trial,” Roche told jurors in Florida’s 14th Judicial Circuit Courts in Panama City on Tuesday. “You’re going to have an opportunity to send a message to mainstream media. You’re going to have an opportunity to change an industry.”
That’s the fear. Said Jane Kirtley, director of the Silha Center for the Study of Media Ethics and the Law at the University of Minnesota: “Everybody in the news media is on trial in this case.”
Actual defamation trials are rare in this country
Defamation trials are actually rare in the United States, in part because strong constitutional protections for the press make proving libel difficult. From the media’s standpoint, taking a case to a judge or jury is a risk many executives don’t want to take.
Rather than defend statements that George Stephanopoulos made about Trump last spring, ABC News last month agreed to make the former president’s libel lawsuit go away by paying him $15 million toward his presidential library. In the end, ABC parent Walt Disney Co. concluded an ongoing fight against Trump wasn’t worth it, win or lose.
In the most high-profile libel case in recent years, Fox News agreed to pay Dominion Voting Systems $787 million on the day the trial was due to start in 2023 to settle the company’s claims of inaccurate reporting in the wake of the 2020 presidential election.
The Young case concerns a segment that first aired on Jake Tapper’s program on Nov. 11, 2021, about extraction efforts in Afghanistan. Young had built a business helping such efforts, and advertised his services on LinkedIn to sponsors with funding who could pay for such evacuation.
He subsequently helped four separate organizations — Audible, Bloomberg, a charity called H.E.R.O. Inc. and a Berlin-based NGO called CivilFleet Support eV — get more than a dozen people out of Afghanistan, according to court papers. He said he did not market to — or take money from — individual Afghans.
Yet Young’s picture was shown as part of CNN story that talked about a “black market” where Afghans were charged $10,000 or more to get family members out of danger.
The plaintiff says the story’s reference to ‘black market’ damaged him
To Young, the “black market” label implied some sort of criminality, and he did nothing illegal. “It’s devastating if you’re labeled a criminal all over the world,” Young testified on Tuesday.
CNN said in court papers that Young’s case amounts to “defamation by implication,” and that he hadn’t actually been accused of nefarious acts. The initial story he complained about didn’t even mention Young until three minutes in, CNN lawyer David Axelrod argued on Tuesday.
Five months after the story aired, Young complained about it, and CNN issued an on-air statement that its use of the phrase “black market” was wrong. “We did not intend to suggest that Mr. Young participated in a black market. We regret the error. And to Mr. Young, we apologize.”
That didn’t prevent a defamation lawsuit, and the presiding judge, William S. Henry, denied CNN’s request that it be dismissed. CNN, in a statement, said that “when all the facts come to light, we are confident we will have a verdict in our favor.”
Axelrod argued on Tuesday that CNN’s reporting was tough, fair and accurate. He told the jury that they will hear no witnesses who will say they thought less of Young or wouldn’t hire him because of the story — in other words, no one to back up his contention that it was so damaging to his business and life.
Yet much like Fox was publicly hurt in the Dominion case by internal communications about Trump and the network’s coverage, some unflattering revelations about CNN’s operations will likely become part of the trial. They include internal messages where CNN’s reporter, Alex Marquardt, says unflattering and profane things about Young. A CNN editor was also revealed on messages to suggest that a Marquardt story on the topic was “full of holes,” Roche said.
“At the end of the day, there was no one at CNN who was willing to stand up for the truth,” Roche said. “Theater prevailed.”
Axelrod, who shares a name with a longtime Democratic political operative and CNN commentator, contended that the give and take was part of a rigorous journalistic process putting the video segment and subsequent printed stories together. “Many experienced journalists put eyes on these stories,” he said.
It’s still going to be difficult for CNN to go through. The network, with television ratings at historic lows, doesn’t need the trouble.
“At a moment of wider vilification and disparagement of the press, there is every reason to believe this will be weaponized, even if CNN prevails,” said RonNell Andersen Jones, a professor at the University of Utah law school and expert on libel law.
The case is putting a media organization and its key players on the stand in a very public way, which is something people don’t usually see.
“I always dread any kind of libel cases because the likelihood that something bad will come out of it is very high,” Minnesota’s Kirtley said. “This is not a great time to be a libel defendant if you’re in the news media. If we ever did have the support of the public, it has seriously eroded over the past few years.”
Israeli military tightens media rules over war crimes prosecution concern
- Under the new rules, media interviewing soldiers of the rank of colonel and under will not be able to display their full names or faces, similar to the rules that already exist for pilots, an Israeli military spokesperson says
JERUSALEM: The Israeli military placed new restrictions on media coverage of soldiers on active combat duty amid growing concern at the risk of legal action against reservists traveling abroad over allegations of involvement in war crimes in Gaza.
The move came after an Israeli reservist vacationing in Brazil left the country abruptly when a Brazilian judge ordered federal police to open an investigation following allegations from a pro-Palestinian group that he had committed war crimes while serving in Gaza.
Under the new rules, media interviewing soldiers of the rank of colonel and under will not be able to display their full names or faces, similar to the rules that already exist for pilots and members of special forces units, Lt. Col. Nadav Shoshani, an Israeli military spokesperson told reporters.
The interviewees must not be linked to a specific combat event they participated in.
“This is our new guideline to protect our soldiers and to make sure they are safe from these types of incident hosted by anti-Israel activists around the world,” Shoshani said.
He said that under existing military rules, soldiers were already not supposed to post videos and other images from war zones on social media “even though that’s never perfect and we have a large army.” There were also long-standing rules and guidelines for soldiers traveling abroad, he said.
Shoshani said activist groups, such as the Belgium-based Hind Rajab Foundation, which pushed for the action in Brazil, were “connecting the dots” between soldiers who posted material from Gaza and then posted other photos and videos of themselves while on holiday abroad.
Last year, the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, as well as a Hamas leader, Ibrahim Al-Masri, over alleged war crimes in Gaza, drawing outrage in Israel.
Shoshani said there had been “a handful” of cases where reservists traveling abroad had been targeted, in addition to the case in Brazil, all of which had been started by activist groups pushing authorities for an investigation.
“They didn’t open an investigation, they didn’t press charges or anything like that,” he said.
