Pilger, who had mostly lived in Britain since the early 1960s, had worked for Reuters, Britain’s left-wing Daily Mirror and commercial channel ITV’s former investigative programme World In Action.

In 1979, the ITV film “Year Zero: The Silent Death Of Cambodia” revealed the extent of the Khmer Rouge’s crimes, and Pilger won an International Academy of Television Arts and Sciences award for his 1990s follow-up ITV documentary “Cambodia: The Betrayal”.

Pilger also made the 1974 documentary for ITV called “Thalidomide: The Ninety-Eight We Forgot”, about the campaign for compensation for children after concerns were raised about birth defects when expectant mothers took the drug.

He received Bafta’s Richard Dimbleby Award for factual reporting in 1991.

“It is with great sadness the family of John Pilger announce he died yesterday 30 December 2023 in London aged 84,” it posted on X.

“His journalism and documentaries were celebrated around the world, but to his family he was simply the most amazing and loved Dad, Grandad and partner. Rest In Peace.”

Kevin Lygo, managing director of media and entertainment at ITV, called Pilger a “giant of campaigning journalism”.

He had always “eschewed comfortable consensus” in favour of a “platform for dissenting voices over 50 years”, he said.

Pilger also campaigned for the release of WikiLeaks founder Assange, who has been embroiled in a lengthy battle against extradition to the United States, and put up the cost of his bail.

Former Pink Floyd musician Roger Waters paid tribute, calling him a “friend” and a “great man”.

– ‘Truth to power’ –

On X, WikiLeaks called Pilger a “ferocious speaker of truth to power, whom in later years tirelessly advocated for the release and vindication of Julian Assange”.

During his career, Pilger made a series of remarks criticising American and British foreign policy, and the treatment of Indigenous Australians.

Former leader of Britain’s Labour Party Jeremy Corbyn wrote on X that he had given “a voice to the unheard and the occupied: in Australia, Cambodia, Vietnam, Chile, Iraq, East Timor, Palestine and beyond. Thank you for your bravery in pursuit of the truth — it will never be forgotten”.

Pilger had also expressed controversial views on Russia and its President Vladimir Putin.

In 2018, Pilger called the attempted murder of former Russian spy Sergei Skripal, his daughter Yulia and an ex-police officer in the UK were a “carefully constructed drama” in an interview with Russia Today (RT).

The UK Government and Scotland Yard believe members of a Russian military intelligence squad carried out the attack in southwestern England.

Pilger told RT: “This is a carefully constructed drama as part of the propaganda campaign that has been building now for several years in order to justify the actions of NATO (the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation), Britain and the United States towards Russia. That’s a fact.”

In 2014, in The Guardian, he also said that “Putin is the only leader to condemn the rise of fascism in 21st-century Europe”, and last year called in The South China Morning Post for scepticism on the reporting about the invasion of Ukraine by Russia.

His most recent documentaries included “The Coming War On China”, broadcast in 2016 on ITV.

The post Campaigning journalist John Pilger dies aged 84 appeared first on Digital Journal.

In a world flooded with the rapid dissemination of information across a diverse range of media platforms, Channel 8 is pioneering a unique approach to broadcasting in three vital languages: English, Kurdish, and Arabic. The channel is being seen as a trailblazer in the news broadcasting space, as it sets itself apart from other outlets in several ways. The primary variance between Channel 8 and other traditional networks is the seamless way in which they are integrating serious reporting with entertainment, effectively sculpting the infotainment landscape.

As a groundbreaking outlet for unbiased reporting, Channel 8’s approach allows them to drive at the heart of global events in a way that caters to the curious, the critical, and everyone in between. The network is ingeniously blending journalism and entertainment by adopting an approach that acknowledges the evolving inclinations of modern audiences seeking appealing entertainment and informative content. Channel 8’s realm of infotainment is a remedy for a world where attention spans are rapidly diminishing, as it aims to ensure that consuming the vital news you need to know doesn’t feel like a monotonous chore. Instead, the network creates a genuinely immersive experience that reverberates with viewers of diverse interests and backgrounds, bringing the latest news in politics, business, sports, health, technology, weather, innovation, culture, and entertainment.

By broadcasting in English, Kurdish, and Arabic, Channel 8 underscores its commitment to global reach and inclusivity, bringing vital information to audiences who might otherwise be omitted due to language barriers. The network’s devotion to linguistic diversity exemplifies the interconnectedness of world events and their dedication to spreading crucial, unbiased reporting around the globe. Individuals across assorted regions will no longer be marginalized as Channel 8’s multi-language approach ensures reliable access to accurate reporting and up-to-date information consistently.

However, the network’s adeptness at gelling staunch journalism with entertainment is at the core of their innovative channel. This means they genuinely realize there is no need to deliver all the news in a dry, typically detached manner. At Channel 8, their vision shows that they understand that interesting storytelling techniques, dynamic reporting styles, and captivating visuals can uphold journalistic integrity while still gripping the viewers’ attention. The infotainment championed by Channel 8 transcends demographic boundaries and invites diverse perspectives, appealing to a broader spectrum of viewers than traditional news outlets.

When considering the type of information to expect from Channel 8, it’s crucial to understand their mission to provide the most unbiased reporting possible. Additionally, the channel provides much more than flashy headlines, as audiences can expect to see a commitment to diving deep into the nuances of global events. The network looks to accommodate all viewers, whether they are searching to critically analyze geopolitical implications or are simply curious about a current event. The versatility of Channel 8 ensures that its viewers are adequately informed, entertained, and, above all, empowered with unbiased truth to better engage with the world around them. This unparalleled revolution of news consumption promotes a more informed and engaged society, fostering critical thinking and a wider appreciation of global affairs.

The post Where news meets nuance: Channel 8’s tri-lingual infotainment hub appeared first on Digital Journal.

News Corp Australia runs 3000 articles a week in “hyperlocal” (niche regional) news media. These articles are oversighted by journalists, now called “data journalists”.

Meh.

This is where writers are supposed to fearlessly agree with themselves and say it’s not the same thing as A-grade journalism, etc. ad nauseam. NO. I’m not going to knock the overall quality of the AI content. It’s reasonable. It’s not flashy or very expressive on its own, but it does the job.

Most things in the news aren’t A-grade journalism. They don’t need to be brilliant, just factual and properly spelled. This stuff isn’t exactly portfolio material for journalists, either. It could be written by a toaster for all anyone cares.

This is where the other alleged argument kicks in about removing drudgery from journalism. It’ll never happen. Consider the subject. News about Homo Sapiens tends to suffer qualitatively by association with that fun-filled cotton bud of fun, Homo Sapiens.

OK, so what IS the problem?

There are multiple quality controls on the information. Editorial positions are whatever they are, as usual. It’s an automated version of the same old informational meat grinder, right?

No. Letting the AI equivalent of the Babes in the Wood out into cyberspace has long since shown a few actual serious risks. Never mind the conspiracy theory racket and banal hysteria. It’s totally dependent on whatever mishmash of data is available.

The problem is where AI sources its information. It has the capability to process so much information of whatever quality. About 5% of all data entered is wrong in some form, remember? Between the disinformation industry and inexcusable inefficient Couldn’t Care Less R Us Search Engines, AI-driven or not, is a large, unworkable, and totally untrustworthy credibility gap.

Your news has another quality control. You. Your knowledge base has to deal with the information, disregard, read, and process, this potential slop. AI isn’t doing a very good job of that itself. This is a Bing search for example AI journalism. It repeats the very same headline 6 times, from very different sources, including MSN and Sky. With identical sub-heads. Not impressive.   

Well, so what, you ask? That’s a lot of utterly useless, repetitive, very off-putting search results, is what. You can see the inefficiencies built in to a very simple search with three search terms which are totally unambiguous.

The search extrapolated and contextualized the search, which would be OK, except that result wasn’t what I was looking for at all. I didn’t need Encyclopedia Britannica. I  just wanted examples of AI journalism. I did NOT want Prophecies from the Great Bot. The context became wrong automatically.

This is also an absolute baseline function for searching anything, let alone a large language database. Never mind the nitpicking about search filters, etc. That IS how people generally search. Simple terminology, on topic. Is that incomprehensible? Apparently, it is.

One look at that lot, and I couldn’t be bothered looking anymore. The results already look very wrong, even if they’re packed with wholesome enriching informational goodies. They weren’t. The repetitive ones were also very brief with a few links.

You can see how “search irrelevance creep” might be a problem as this mess evolves. The absolute rock bottom line here is that AI can’t and shouldn’t do some things. It’s a technological toddler out of its depth at the moment.  

The working state of any reliable tech is the result of fixing the bugs. If you want to use AI for journalism, be aware of these issues at the baseline.

… Which leads to this additional gem of wisdom – If you want insights, you need people.

_____________________________________________________________

Disclaimer
The opinions expressed in this Op-Ed are those of the author. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of the Digital Journal or its members.

The post Op-Ed: ‘AI journalism,’ ‘data journalism,’ whatever — Automated news, pros, and cons appeared first on Digital Journal.

Biden has also said he in the midst of developing an executive order around artificial intelligence, although his Administration has not yet released a timeline.

But how will this impact the risks of AI bias and discrimination?

According to Nitzan Shaer, co-Founder and CEO of WEVO, those who are concerned about such societal issues must remain vigilant. This includes the way by which news is collected and delivered, especially by large language models.

Shaer warns Digital Journal that “The promise of AI holds deep ramifications for the consumer internet, and the experience we have every day in an increasingly AI-driven world. While these developments recognize the potential of AI, the commitments also highlight the importance of reliable and responsible user testing, in order to address bias and discrimination.”

Acknowledging some of the positives from the technological wave, Shaer notes: “AI’s transformative impact on our daily lives is all but inevitable.”

That said, caution is still needed. Here Shaer recommends: “We must embrace responsible use of the technology by prioritizing safeguards and guardrails to maximize its potential while mitigating risks.”

Drawing on a Google development, Shaer cites: “For instance, Alphabet’s new tool to help journalists is validation for widely accepted forecasts that AI could generate the majority of the Internet’s content within a decade.”

At risk here are journalistic ethics and integrity. Shaer continues: “Given this explosion it is crucial we remain vigilant about vetting information produced by AI for accuracy and relevancy and always put the end user first, prioritizing their experience while minimizing bias.”

Speaking of his own contribution to the field, Shaer states howe he combines “AI-driven insights with human intelligence to provide unbiased feedback that cuts through the noise and resonates with target audiences, while avoiding the negative consequences of letting untested AI determine user experience.”

WEVO has launched its new third-generation UX research, allowing users to vet AI generated content and experiences exponentially faster with AI technology.

The post Should we be trusting AI to deliver us the news? appeared first on Digital Journal.

The company’s CEO Wasim Khaled has provided some recent trends pertaining to misinformation / disinformation stories to Digital Journal. Khaled is a member of the Social Intelligence Lab and the U.S. Department of State’s Global Engagement Center.

In the past, Khaled has consulted and advised government agencies and Fortune 500 companies on the risks and mitigation of the escalating information warfare. Khaled’s examples are:

Pro-Moscow voices tried to steer Ohio train disaster debate

A new AP report highlights the spread of misleading claims by anonymous pro-Russian accounts started soon after a train derailed and spilled toxic chemicals in Ohio last month by using Twitter’s new verification system to expand their reach.

Khaled says this illustrates how any event that gains attention can become the next supernode of misinformation, conspiracies and geopolitical attacks on any brand, person or policy.

The U.S. Threatening Ban of TikTok if Chinese Owners Don’t Sell Stakes

The head of the National Security Agency told Congress he is concerned about TikTok being used for foreign influence operations. This introduces concerns that TikTok could be used for sophisticated disinformation campaigns by threat actors or as a political football as well as previous campaigns the team has already tracked.

OpenAI’sCEO cautions AI like ChatGPT could cause disinformation

OpenAI’s CEO told ABC News that regulators and society must be involved with artificial intelligence technology as large learning models like ChatGPT could be used for large-scale disinformation. Who controls the narrative?

Khaled says that Blackbird.AI’s RAV3N is a Generative AI tool that harnesses large language models to counteract and accelerate an understanding of the manipulated information ecosystem to give teams and analysts a fighting chance against threat actors–actively tracks disinformation campaigns and can comment on how artificial intelligence is playing a bigger role.

Misinformation targeting Black voters is rising

Russian operatives continue to use social media to deter Black Americans from voting in addition to planting subtly racist content to incite conflict between ethnicities. These campaigns become even more prevalent closer to election time.

Silicon Valley Bank

The bank, which served nearly half of all U.S. venture-backed startups, will now go down in U.S. history as the second-largest bank collapse–putting future startups at a disadvantage. Wasim is available to discuss how this event has opened a clear attack vector for threat actors to impact financial institutions and a country’s entire economy via an online narrative driven bank run.

The post US news today: Is disinformation on the rise? appeared first on Digital Journal.

But many commentators believe journalism is on the cusp of a revolution where mastery of algorithms and AI tools that generate content will be a key battleground.

The technology news site CNET perhaps heralded the way forward when it quietly deployed an AI program last year to write some of its listicles.

It was later forced to issue several corrections after another news site noticed that the bot had made mistakes, some of them serious.

But CNET’s parent company later announced job cuts that included editorial staff — though executives denied AI was behind the layoffs.

The German publishing behemoth Axel Springer, owner of Politico and German tabloid Bild among other titles, has been less coy.

“Artificial intelligence has the potential to make independent journalism better than it ever was –- or simply replace it,” the group’s boss Mathias Doepfner told staff last month.

Hailing bots like ChatGPT as a “revolution” for the industry, he announced a restructuring that would see “significant reductions” in production and proofreading.

Both companies are pushing AI as a tool to support journalists, and can point to recent developments in the industry.

– ‘Glorified word processor’ –

For the past decade, media organisations have been increasingly using automation for routine work like searching for patterns in economic data or reporting on company results.

Outlets with an online presence have obsessed over “search engine optimisation”, which involves using keywords in a headline to get favoured by the Google or Facebook algorithms and get a story seen by the most eyeballs.

And some have developed their own algorithms to see which stories play best with their audiences and allow them to better target content and advertising — the same tools that turned Google and Facebook into global juggernauts.

Alex Connock, author of “Media Management and Artificial Intelligence”, says that mastery of these AI tools will help decide which media companies survive and which ones fail in the coming years.

And the use of content creation tools will see some people lose their jobs, he said, but not in the realms of analytical or high-end reporting.

“In the specific case of the more mechanistic end of journalism — sports reports, financial results — I do think that AI tools are replacing, and likely increasingly to replace, human delivery,” he said.

Not all analysts agree on that point.

Mike Wooldridge of Oxford University reckons ChatGPT, for example, is more like a “glorified word processor” and journalists should not be worried.

“This technology will replace journalists in the same way that spreadsheets replaced mathematicians — in other words, I don’t think it will,” he told a recent event held by the Science Media Centre.

He nonetheless suggested that mundane tasks could be replaced — putting him on the same page as Connock.

– ‘Test the robots’ –

French journalists Jean Rognetta and Maurice de Rambuteau are digging further into the question of how ready AI is to take over from journalists.

They publish a newsletter called “Qant” written and illustrated using AI tools.

Last month, they showed off a 250-page report written by AI detailing the main trends of the CES technology show in Las Vegas.

Rognetta said they wanted to “test the robots, to push them to the limit”.

They quickly found the limit.

The AI struggled to identify the main trends at CES and could not produce a summary worthy of a journalist. It also pilfered wholesale from Wikipedia.

The authors found that they needed to intervene constantly to keep the process on track, so while the programs helped save some time, they were not yet fit to replace real journalists.

Journalists are “afflicted with the syndrome of the great technological replacement, but I don’t believe in it”, Rognetta said.

“The robots alone are just not capable of producing articles. There is still a part of journalistic work that cannot be delegated.”

The post How AI ‘revolution’ is shaking up journalism appeared first on Digital Journal.

The BBC, which marks its centenary next month, said its international services needed to make savings of £28.5 million ($31 million) as part of wider reductions of £500 million, which unions blamed on the UK government.

In July the broadcaster detailed plans to merge BBC World News television and its domestic UK equivalent into a single channel to launch in April next year.

BBC World Service — one of the UK’s most recognisable global brands — currently operates in 41 languages around the world with a weekly audience of some 364 million people.

But the corporation said audience habits were changing and more people were accessing news online, which along with a freeze on BBC funding and increased operating costs meant a move to “digital-first” made financial sense.

“Today’s proposals entail a net total of around 382 post closures,” the public service broadcaster said in an online statement.

Eleven language services — Azerbaijani, Brasil, Marathi, Mundo, Punjabi, Russian, Serbian, Sinhala, Thai, Turkish, and Vietnamese — are already digital only.

Under the restructuring plans they will be joined by seven more: Chinese, Gujarati, Igbo, Indonesian, Pidgin, Urdu and Yoruba.

Radio services in Arabic, Persian, Kyrgyz, Hindi, Bengali, Chinese, Indonesian, Tamil and Urdu will stop, if the proposals are approved by staff and unions.

No language services will close, the broadcaster insisted, although some production will move out of London and schedules would change.

The Thai service will move to Bangkok, the Korean service to Seoul and the Bangla service to Dhaka.

The “Focus on Africa” television bulletin will be broadcast from Nairobi, it added.

BBC World Service director Liliane Landor said there was a “compelling case” for expanding digital services, as audiences had more than doubled since 2018.

“The way audiences are accessing news and content is changing and the challenge of reaching and engaging people around the world with quality, trusted journalism is growing,” she added.

– Government criticised –

The head of the broadcasting union Bectu, Philippa Childs, said they were disappointed at the proposed changes.

“While we recognise the BBC must adapt to meet the challenges of a changing media landscape, once again it is workers who are hit by the government’s poorly judged political decisions,” she said.

The government’s freezing of the licence fee which pays for BBC World Service had created the funding squeeze and the need for cuts, she added.

Bectu will push for staff to be redeployed where possible and to ensure it “mitigates the needs for any compulsory redundancies”, Childs said.

BBC World Service is funded out of the UK licence fee — currently £159 for a colour TV and payable by every household with a television set.

The BBC has faced repeated claims from right-wingers since the UK’s divisive Brexit referendum in 2016 of political bias, and pushing a “woke”, London-centric liberal agenda.

But it has faced similar accusations of political bias in favour of the right from the left.

The government announced a freeze on the licence fee in January, in what was seen by critics as an attempt to save the then-prime minister Boris Johnson’s job.

At the time Johnson was facing mounting claims of wrongdoing in office, which ultimately forced him to resign.

Ministers claimed the funding model needed to be revised because of technological changes, including the uptake of streaming services, as well as increases in the cost of living.

Opposition parties however said the monthly payments — equivalent to some £13.13 — were small change compared to energy bill increases totalling thousands of pounds a year.

The culture secretary at the time, Johnson loyalist Nadine Dorries, had previously accused the BBC of “tokenism” in diversity hiring and elitist “group think” but denied wanting to dismantle the corporation.

The post BBC to cut hundreds of jobs at World Service appeared first on Digital Journal.

While this makes each of us vulnerable should a malicious actor obtain data that can be attributed to us (especially what is referred to as personally indefinable data, since this enables someone to attempt an impersonation). However, some in society, it appears, are more vulnerable than others.

But who is especially at risk to bad actors when it comes to cybersecurity? 

Digital Journal heard from Casey Allen (who leads the Information Technology team at Concentric) in relation to new information and data analysis whereby cybersecurity risks have been connected to occupations or lifestyle.

While everyone is vulnerable, there are five types of people who probably should be extra wary. These are:

Journalists

Allen says: “Since 2021, threat groups have turned up their targeting of journalists to siphon data and credentials as well as to track them. Those at established media organizations are increasingly at risk from hackers, companies, or even governments, particularly where there is limited press freedom.”

Frequent Flyers

Here Allen notes: “For those who are always traveling, for work or fun, using public Wi-Fi will put you in harm’s way. Additionally, in certain countries, increased surveillance can pose an additional cyber risk.”

Influencers

According to Allen: “When you put everything online (even if you think you are protecting yourself) people can easily connect the dots. From your children’s first day of school photos to where you’ve marked yourself as checked in; online activity can expose more than you’d think.”

C-Suite

Allen comments: “When the public learns that you’re a top earner, your risk of being targeted increases exponentially. It’s important to educate yourself, and your company’s staff, on best practices to keep everyone secure.”

Crypto Players

Allen explains: “Since it’s still such new technology, crypto leaves significant room for vulnerabilities in the digital asset ecosystem.”

In providing this information, Allen adds a new way of looking at cyber vulnerability and with this the warning for certain people to be a bit more cautious.

The post New occupational hazard: Journalists are the most vulnerable to cyberattack appeared first on Digital Journal.

This topic fits well in relation to a well-argued editorial from Digital Journal’s Paul Wallis, titled “The parasitic ‘science’ of climate denial putting people at risk, again.”

By “bothsidesism,” this refers to attempts by some journalists to present both sides of an issue. For many subjects this may well be appropriate; however, to attempt to do so where most credible sources fall on one side simply leads to public confusion at best and disinformation at the worst.

This occurs because credence is given to a view that is not supported by the vast majority of scientific opinion, and the effect is to cause a sizable proportion of the general populace to doubt the scientific consensus. This can lead to undertaking negative behaviours, such as not bothering to recycle materials to altering voting attention towards right-wing climate change deniers.

Should journalists always seek to present two arguments, or should journalists seek to reflect what is majority opinion? This is a tricky area with social and political issues; it is less tricky when it comes to science. Of course, a single science paper should not be seen as the accepted viewpoint. Science is an iterative process, where one research study should build upon another until a consensus opinion is reached.

Once this position is reached, journalist should make clear what the accepted scientific opinion is. Otherwise any article on travel quoting flight times will need to be recalibrated to support the views of flat-earthers.

As well as climate change, another example was with the coronavirus, especially in the earlier days of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Looking at the U.S. population, Northwestern’s research finds that despite the argument that climate change is not human made being incontrovertibly disproven by science again and again, many U.S. citizens continue to believe that the global crisis is either not real, not of our making, or both.

The research shows this is in part because the news media providing climate change deniers a platform in the name of ‘balanced reporting’. The danger is that false-balance reporting can make people doubt the scientific consensus.

To demonstrate this, the researchers ran three experiments to test how people would respond when two positions about climate change were presented as equally valid perspectives. This was even though one side was based on scientific agreement and the other was not. Here, when both sides of an argument were presented, people tended to have lower estimates about scientific consensus and seem to be less likely to believe climate change is something to worry about. This was even when the scientific argument was presented with data and the counter-argument was only based on opinion.

As well as creating confusion, psychology provides an indication that many people have a tendency to prefer a more placating option, that is if someone is arguing that climate change is not something to worry about, no matter how little evidence there is for this, some people will take the cognitive route that it is easier not to worry.

Another psychological issue is that a large proportion of people think anything they can easily recall is likely to be true. Hence, if false or misleading information is easier to grasp or has the winning soundbite, then people are more likely to recall it and think that it is ‘true’.

Northwestern’s School of Education and Social Policy research appears in the Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition. The paper is titled “When fairness is flawed: Effects of false balance reporting and weight-of-evidence statements on beliefs and perceptions of climate change.”

The post Climate change and the fallacy of ‘bothsidesism’ appeared first on Digital Journal.

Last December the newspaper exposed cover-ups of what it called thousands of civilian deaths caused by US forces during the 20-year war, deeply embarrassing the US government.

Citing internal US documents, the report said the US military had advertised its ability to pinpoint targets to avoid civilians, using high-tech surveillance and closely-controlled drones.

But in many cases it misidentified targets, killing innocent villagers and children.

“That coverage was and still is not comfortable, not easy and not simple to address,” said Pentagon spokesman John Kirby.

“We knew that we weren’t always as transparent about those mistakes as we should have been,” he told reporters.

“It made us ask ourselves some new difficult questions of our own, even as it forced us to answer these difficult questions,” he said.

“That’s what a free press at its very best does. It holds us to account,” Kirby said.

The Pulitzer committee that awarded the prize Monday cited the Times for “courageous and relentless reporting that  exposed the vast civilian toll of US-led airstrikes” in Afghanistan.

Kirby contrasted the Pentagon’s long-delayed admission of the problems with Russia’s actions in Ukraine.

“We’re not afraid to admit that we take it seriously, and that we want to do better — unlike Russia, unlike the unmitigated violence and destruction that they’re causing on the people of Ukraine, without care, without acknowledgement,” he said.

“No investigations, no transparency, no effort to even not cause civilian harm, much less the war crimes that their soldiers are committing on the ground,” he said of the Russian forces.

“When you ask us tough questions, we answer them,” he said of the US media.

“You’re not seeing any of that from the Russian Ministry of Defense,” he said.

The post Pentagon lauds reporting on US military killing civilians appeared first on Digital Journal.