Judgment calls and journalistic ethics
On where my information comes from, and how I decide what to share publicly
CN: Online harassment, reference to violence
I’ve been questioned multiple times over the last few weeks about why I do the kind of reporting I do on migrant workers’ experiences, and I’ve also received questions about the veracity of my claims, the photos I share, etc.
My efforts have also come under more scrutiny since some political leaders have said both directly and indirectly that voices like mine are counter-productive and their comments have also blurred the lines between counter-narratives shared in good faith, and malicious attempt to spread false information, even incite violence.
While many friends and strangers have reached out to say that they find my reporting valuable and extended a lot of solidarity, I’ve also, unsurprisingly, become the target of hate campaigns, including sexist and racist attacks. Among these messages was one telling me to kill myself. All of them claim I am spreading fake news. These attacks have increased since Minister Shanmugam's comments about fake reports of poor quality food.
While I don’t believe I can do anything to quell the vitriol from trolls, I do want to engage with some of the questions that have come up, so that those who come across my writing can have a better understanding of what values and practices inform it. As I realise my writing has some influence on how people are viewing this situation, I also feel I have a responsibility to be publicly accountable and provide some context.
I’ll attempt to tackle these questions through a series of posts over the next few days.
For now, I’ll start by explaining where my information comes from, and how I decide what to share publicly.
My information is usually from sources who, for fear of persecution and tightening censorship in an already hostile environment, cannot share their accounts and perspectives on the current crisis directly. This could be migrant workers, NGOs, experts in various capacities or others working on the frontlines. I face fewer restrictions in sharing this information, because I am not working for any organisation at the moment and so am able to operate relatively freely, making my own decisions about risks and consequences to speaking up.
When I receive a report, I do my best to triangulate it with other sources and my own understanding of the situation formed over years of reading, writing, volunteering, and building relationships in the migrant workers’ rights space. For example, if I receive a report from a worker about the food situation in his dorm, I ask a series of follow-up questions to get more details, usually over a phone call (which helps me verify that they are, in fact, a worker). This is to further my own understanding and also so that anything I say about the situation is as specific as possible. I ask if they can share pictures/videos (if it’s safe for them to take them), dates, time, what exactly is the issue, how longstanding it is, has the worker tried to give feedback, what was the response, etc. I also try to cross-check this information with other workers in that dorm or with NGOs.
Most importantly (to me), I ask what the worker wants me to do with this information, because I see my role as safeguarding their agency. If they want it to be reported privately, I do that. If they want it to be shared publicly, I do that. The pictures and stories I’ve shared are a fraction of the ones I’ve come across, and a lot of thought goes into deciding if we should share it.
Ultimately, I make a judgment call about the truth of the matter, based on my understanding of the climate within which these workers are speaking up.
I am not typically worried that workers are not telling the truth about a personal experience, because the risks to them speaking up are so great (they don’t know, for example, if I am going to get them into trouble, and if what they say turns out to be untrue, it will ultimately work against them by losing trust/relationships) that for them to do it nevertheless, it must not only be true, it must have some gravity and urgency. I also can’t really conceive of what they would stand to gain from telling a lie.
What I worry about, rather, is bad actors posing as workers, feeding me false information to share publicly so that they can then call it out as false and thereby discredit workers’ narratives, me and my reporting (and a phone call or scrolling through their social media usually helps to reassure me that this is not the case).
My process is similar when the information comes from community organisations, experts or others on the frontline, but a bit simpler because I don’t worry about impostors, since these tend to be people I already have a relationship with, or who are trusted friends of trusted friends.
There are different considerations in every case, and for each we have to ask, are workers best served by providing feedback through private channels, drawing public attention to the case, or directing resources to the workers on our own? And often, the answer is in a combination of these actions. It doesn’t have to be either/or. It can be all, and there are factors like safety, urgency, permissions (e.g. in some cases, we’re not allowed to deliver items to the workers), necessity, and what will produce the best outcome for the workers in this situation and also for other workers who may be in similar situations.
Ultimately, there is always the possibility that there are inaccuracies/missing information in anyone’s reporting of a situation, especially in a climate where access to information is inhibited in many ways. If inaccuracies are pointed out, privately or publicly, I correct it. And where I’m not very sure of what I’m sharing/wasn’t able to verify it but still think it’s important to share because the matter has some urgency, or so that we are discussing/asking questions about the issue, I preface and end my post saying so. Typically, I share less information than I have, because some details might expose my sources. A while ago, I shared a post about the testing/isolation practices in dorms, prefacing that there may be inaccuracies. These impressions were later confirmed publicly by official sources.
When I make a report about an issue on the ground (publicly or privately), I monitor the situation by keeping in touch with the workers, and if/when there are improvements, I report on that too.
The questions people have asked of me are good - I’m glad there are efforts to hold activists accountable for the stories we put out. I only hope that you are also asking the same questions of reports in the mainstream media and those that are put out directly by various ministries. I hope that the questions that are asked of critical reports from the ground are also asked of celebratory/pacifying reports, whether they are from the government or NGOs. If you question whether pictures of terrible food are falsified/outdated, please also question if pictures of excellent food are. Media literacy is crucial, and one of the factors in being media literate is understanding our sources - what is their power, what’s their history of reporting, what are their affiliations, agendas and interests, who are they interested in protecting?
When making sense of claims made by the government/NGOs/media/activists/migrant workers, especially when they are competing, some questions that I think are clarifying are:
1) Are workers more likely to tell the unvarnished truth about their difficulties to social workers/activists they have a longstanding relationship with, or to politicians/people in power?
2) Are workers more likely to tell the unvarnished truth to NGOs who have shown themselves to be willing to be critical of the state and advocate on workers’ behalf even when it is risky, or to NGOs who toe the government line?
3) Are workers more likely to censor themselves when they are named (as they have been in some reports) or when their identities are protected?
4) Would this government put out, support or at least unreservedly acknowledge accounts of things not looking good on the ground, even if they were to be true? Is that their style? Has our government historically been honest in acknowledging migrant workers’ difficulties? Have they typically been transparent or apologetic about instances where they are wrong/have failed/fallen short (not just pertaining to this issue, but in any area)? Do they have a reputation for being humble/open to fair criticism? Have they created a climate where journalists, marginalised communities, activists and experts who disagree with official narratives are free to speak?
And finally, it is a false dichotomy to think that if the government’s accounts of all that is going well on the ground is true, then the accounts from activists/NGOs of problems that persist are false. These realities co-exist. The government may be covering a lot of ground, and yet workers continue to fall through the gaps. Their testimonies are not meant to negate or undermine the efforts of volunteers and their painstaking efforts to provide food and other forms of care for migrant workers; they are meant to draw attention to the fact that the problems are far more deep reaching and maybe cannot be resolved merely through goodwill from charities and volunteers. That maybe workers have to be actively engaged in decision-making too, and have proper channels to give feedback without fear of censure. I typically post their accounts because they’ve tried to give feedback about their conditions and have been ignored, scolded and silenced by employers or dorm operators, or haven't heard back/had their complaint taken seriously and feel helpless.
There is space for stories about all the good work happening on the ground, and also for the stories of workers who continue to suffer from poor nutrition and other difficulties.
If anyone has further questions about my process, feel free to ask me in the comments and I will do my best to answer them (as long as I don't have to compromise my sources to do so).