,
20 tweets,
4 min read
Read on Twitter
On the dispute between @GilCabacungan and @rapplerdotcom over a @Politiko_Ph story which Rappler, as an accredited FB fact checker, tagged as ‘false’, I believe Rappler's action was wrong, fraught with conflict of interest and, if not corrected, sets a dangerous precedent. THREAD
2) From where I stand, it looks like Rappler is staffed by young, dedicated and idealistic journalists who are passionate about what they’re doing. They believe strongly in their cause, and are led by veterans who are some of the country’s best in investigative journalism.
3) As a journalist, Gil Cabacungan is one of the most prolific producers of “scoops” in local news scene. He broke some of the biggest stories as a business reporter for the Inquirer, and again as a political reporter, and continues to do so today as Politko’s co-founder.
4) Now take this example: Years ago, Gil wrote — quoting an unnamed source — that Japan’s Kirin would buy 49% of San Miguel Brewery. Big business news. But no sooner was it published than Kirin issued an official denial from Japan. San Miguel also issued a standard denial.
5) If this happened today, and if Rappler had fact-checked it (assuming they expanded scope to validate business news), the article would be a prime candidate to be labeled ‘false’. You have official denials from two of the parties involved versus Gil quoting an unnamed source.
6) If, in the present fact checking context, either Kirin or San Miguel, for whatever motive (not liking a pesky reporter?) flagged the article to Rappler under its reporting mechanism, what would happen? Prima facie, Rappler would have strong basis to tag the item as ‘false’.
7) As it turned out, the Kirin story was eventually confirmed. Weeks later, a multibillion dollar deal was announced where the Japanese brewer bought into San Miguel. Gil was right. But the gap between denial and confirmation lasted weeks — an eternity in the Internet age.
8) Hypothetically, had Rappler declared Gil’s Kirin story as false in the interim, the damage to him and his news organization would have been substantial... and would have stuck in the reading public’s minds long after any reparations would have been made.
9) Another example: During President Duterte’s 2016 China state visit, I wrote that the Philippines and China would enter into a joint oil exploration agreement in the South China Sea. Scoop. Banner headline. My sources were three unnamed administration officials.
10) But the President denied the story! So what more would a fact checker need to label my story ‘false’ (with the ensuing adverse impact on myself and my news organization)? They had a denial from the highest official of the land. It doesn’t get more authoritative than that.
11) Then a year later, Palace officials confirmed that an exploration deal was in the works. Another year later, the deal was sealed during Xi Jinping’s 2018 state visit. But what would have happened during the two-year gap had my original story been labelled on FB as fake news?
12) These two preceding examples are not the kind of disinformation the FB-Rappler partnership was envisioned to combat. I’d imagine that the Politiko article at the root of the current dispute is not the kind of “fake news” the fact-checking scheme was meant to fight, either.
13) Gil’s published output is often abrasive, provocative and sometimes outrightly incendiary. Sometimes they’re slanted this way or that. (But hey, by nature, every single news item out there has an angle or slant.) However, he’s NOT in the business of publishing fake news.
14) My point: Disputes over news articles happen all the time. Sources, when caught in a bind for whatever reason, have always been ready to deny stories they helped shape. Using their assertions as basis for fact checking, as Rappler did with Politiko, is INCOMPLETE and FLAWED.
15) I'm saying this because I don't want Rappler's current methods to become the standard for validating my work's quality or my news organization's integrity. Fact checking is important (though I have reservations), but the prevailing scheme is PRONE TO ERROR and OPEN TO ABUSE.
16) Then there’s conflict of interest: Rappler is a news organization whose fact checking mandate covers RIVAL news organizations. While all media practitioners fact check rivals' stories informally, Rappler's work impacts COMPETITORS' social media reach and revenues DIRECTLY.
17) There’s a strong undercurrent of animosity between Rappler and traditional media outfits. This is common and natural when young, less experienced idealists challenge older, experienced pragmatists for market share. But this tension aggravates Rappler's conflict of interest.
18) Surely Rappler wants to do good and means its rivals no harm. But could it harm competitors if its leaders suddenly evolve or have a change of heart down the road? Definitely. And in ways that rivals cannot presently match. Thus, their current system must NOT become the norm.
19) "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" the Roman poet Juvenal once said. "Who watches the watchers?" Well, we, as stakeholders, do. So let's not allow this fact checking scheme to become a monstrosity. It must be amended and guided in the right direction now, during its infancy.
20) As to what direction current fact checking efforts should take, I'm unsure. I personally feel it's best to let the free market decide the fate of media people, news organizations, and the quality and veracity of their output. Painful experience is the most potent teacher. END
