Steve Coll, dean of the Graduate School of Journalism at Columbia University and former Managing Editor of The Washington Post , is an inspiring journalism teacher. He is, in a sense, the inheritor of Ben Bradlee’s tradition of brave and meaningful journalism. A veteran of South Asian affairs and an expert on Pakistan, his insights into the journalism of the subcontinent is a well-wisher’s assessment of both its strengths and weaknesses. Last month, when he gave me some of the recent publications of his school’s Tow Center for Digital Journalism, I did not fully grasp the deficit in technological competence of our journalism. I, as a journalist who uses Google platforms for my communication, was thrown off guard when those publications talked about algorithmic accountability reporting, sensors and journalism and user-generated content.
Encrypted channels The full import of those publications and the type of new capacity building programmes in J-schools like Columbia Journalism School emerged in stark relief when I read his article in The New Yorker , “How Edward Snowden Changed Journalism” (October 21, 2014) where he argued that though it was evident for some time before Snowden surfaced that the best practices in investigative reporting and source protection needed to change, it was Snowden’s diligence that helped to establish new requirements for meaningful investigative journalism. According to Coll, “one of the least remarked upon aspects of the Snowden matter is that he has influenced journalistic practice for the better by his example as a source” and he cites Snowden’s insistence on communicating with The Guardian ’s Greenwald only through encrypted channels as an important moment.
“Snowden has now provided a highly visible example of how, in a very high-stakes situation, encryption can, at a minimum, create time and space for independent journalistic decision-making about what to publish and why. Snowden did not ask to have his identity protected for more than a few days — he seemed to think it wouldn’t work for longer than that, and he also seemed to want to reveal himself to the public. Yet the steps he took to protect his data and his communications with journalists made it possible for TheGuardian and the Post to publish their initial stories and bring Snowden to global attention. It took an inside expert with his life and liberty at stake to prove how much encryption and related security measures matter,” wrote Steve Coll.
Sharpening technological skills One of the obvious facts is that journalists are not naturally inclined to embrace new technology and the inherent Luddite in each of the scribe is legendary. Nearly 25 years ago, when the traditional typewriter gave way to the computer in newsrooms, many of my senior colleagues struggled to make the transition. Reporters who spend sleepless nights chasing their sources and stories do not have the same energy and enthusiasm when it comes to acquiring new technological skills. They do invest in sharpening their domain knowledge and skills enhancement but technology was always seen as peripheral to their work, and at best, they recognise its onward march only as a supplementary development to their vocation, and not as a transformative disruption.
Communicating with people who are in sensitive positions, people who are vulnerable, people who stake their life and liberty for the sake of bringing out the truth and people who may be subjected to close surveillance are a natural part of a journalist’s job routine. Many committed journalists strive to always protect their sources, enhance their understanding by talking to academics, and cross verify their data with experts. This in reality means they are putting out a substantial quantum of sensitive details and data in open cyberspace that could be leaked, or trapped and watched by powerful and vested interests without any form of data protection cover. This unsecured form of communication, apart from harming the source who has already taken a risk, may actually end up revealing the process of investigation and alert the wrongdoers first, and halt the investigation in its tracks.
One of the areas where India has made substantial progress is in Information Technology. But, there seems to be no major cross- fertilization of competence between the Indian IT sector and the Indian media in terms of secure communication and encryption technologies. The digital revolution, according to Coll, that gave rise to surveillance and sources like Snowden also disrupted incumbent newspapers and undermined their business models leading to shrinkage in training budgets. “In such an unstable economic and audience environment, source protection and the integrity of independent reporting fell on some newsrooms’ priority lists,” Coll observed.
Working it within CSR The financial health of the news media industry in India is not much different from its western counterparts. But, the recently enacted Companies Act that requires corporates to spend 2 per cent of their profits on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) initiatives may actually provide a step in addressing this issue. If the IT majors can take up the cause of capacity building for journalists under their CSR activities, especially on cyber security and digital platforms, then it may turn out to be an investment in public good. Safe and secure communication lines will not only protect whistle-blowers, but also provide journalists the necessary time to complete the investigation process without the fear of surveillance and cyber leakages. This will also help me move from Google platforms towards a more secure online communication method.
> readerseditor@thehindu.co.in
