How Can Journalists Verify Reporting on the Ongoing War in Ukraine?

Russian operatives were pumping out disinformation about Ukraine on a regular basis even before President Vladimir Putin ordered his forces to invade the country, creating the largest humanitarian crisis Europe has seen in decades.

Given the violence on the ground – thousands have died as of this writing, with the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) estimating that “Russia may have lost 25 percent of its initial attacking force” in just four weeks of combat – it can be especially difficult for journalists to verify reports.

But it is incumbent on journalists to do so, especially when much of their work requires them to parse through propaganda. How can journalists obtain the full picture, or something close to it, as they report from war zones, where circumstances can change hour to hour, let alone day to day?

Recently, The New York Times offered a short and sweet explainer on how their teams verify reporting on the ongoing war.

“We trust our correspondents on the ground, first and foremost. In situations where they cannot be physically present, we work to obtain reliable, first-hand information about events, interviewing witnesses throughout the region,” the Times noted. “We strive to see through the fog of propaganda and misinformation that emanates from governments on both sides of the conflict.”

The tips the newspaper shared are a boon to any journalist seeking to make sense of the conflict, and these tools are transferable to other situations that have the misfortune to be impacted by the horrors of war.

USING SOCIAL MEDIA

“Some of the richest sources of information come from witnesses who use social media to share videos, photos and reports of what’s happening in their communities,” the newspaper observes. 

But whether the information that is shared can be trusted is the real question. The newspaper’s Visual Investigations team spends time vetting hundreds of videos to determine whether they are accurate or simply misrepresentations of what is happening on the ground.

The team relies on the use of publicly available information and more traditional reporting to confirm that video and images have not been manipulated or faked. The team looks through social media networks like Facebook, Twitter, and Telegram, searching for keywords and locations to verify images of the war. About 75 percent of the information the Visual Investigations team has been able to verify comes from Telegram, which is particularly popular in Russia and in Eastern Europe.

CONFIRMING THAT FOOTAGE IS CURRENT

The Visual Investigations team runs still images through Google Images or the Russian search engine Yandex, which is the second-largest search engine on the Internet in Russian, with a market share of more than 42 percent. Reverse image search, which allows a user to search for images using an image as the starting point, rather than a written or spoken search query, will show if any of this material has appeared online before.

“Having some familiarity with important buildings, uniform insignia or even the artillery being fired can also help when trying to figure out whether a video is authentic,” the Times observes, pointing out that the team has taken note of specific markers on Russian military vehicles to determine if images of them are images taken during the current conflict. For instance, Russian forces have marked their vehicles with a Z or V, which indicates that vehicles with these markers are being used in the current conflict and are not from 2014, when Russia annexed Crimea.

Should the Visual Investigations team determine that footage is fake, it alerts other staff members and “posts comments on social channels to warn users that the content is unreliable.”

VERIFYING DATES AND LOCATIONS

To verify dates and locations, the Visual Investigations team compares landmarks as well as matching structural damage with satellite imagery as well as other photos and videos.

Perusing satellite imagery and social media posts comes in handy here. Satellite imagery can be pulled using Google Earth, allowing the team to see cities and landscapes from various angles. Satellite imagery can also be acquired from private space-imaging companies as well as websites that provide satellite images collected by intergovernmental organizations. While some of these resources might have older images, they still give the team the opportunity to establish where something was filmed “so that we can confirm or poke holes in what’s being alleged,” says Haley Willis, a reporter for Visual Investigations.

Willis acknowledges that determining “when something was filmed is much more difficult,” particularly when the situation is evolving every single day.

To verify a precise time, the Visual Investigations team uses the app SunCalc, which shows sun movement and sunlight phases during a given day at a given location. Willis points out that “Matching the image to CCTV and security-camera footage can also help, since that footage includes a date and time stamp, although those time stamps are not always 100 percent accurate.”

WHAT HAPPENS ONCE ALL THIS INFORMATION IS VERIFIED?

Once all this information is verified, the Visual Investigations team updates the newspaper’s live blog on the war and uses the footage to inform their own reporting.

REPORTING ON CASUALTIES AND MILITARY PROGRESS

Reporting on casualties is a much different affair, and the Times notes that it avoids repeating government claims because both sides of the conflict “will routinely inflate military casualty counts for their opponents and downplay their own to maintain morale.”

The New York Times relies on “objective casualty counts” from organizations like the United Nations as well as other third-party organizations that are tracking the war. For journalists on the ground, local mayors, governors, and police officials tend to provide more reliable counts than those at the top of the government hierarchy, who have more of an incentive to propagandize. Local hospitals are credible sources to determine the number of wounded people who have been admitted after attacks and can also inform reporters when there is particularly heavy fighting in urban areas.

Regarding military progress, the Times again points out that it is not wise to rely solely on top government officials without “clear evidence and independent verification.” The newspaper, no stranger to covering scores of wars and other conflicts, observes that a government can claim that “a city has been captured or troops have surrendered, in a bid to hurt morale and manipulate the opposition to give up or withdraw.”