Why is the legacy media still afraid of OSINT and fact checking?

As global uncertainty and instability in the new year continues to rise, now more than ever there is a pressing need for proactive fact-checking as news is shared. Especially in the context of increasingly volatile circumstances that are quickly evolving, like the UK's military preparations for major conflict, or the threat of a US invasion of Greenland, require that people are well informed and kept up to date with the details.

When it comes to reporting scoops that may challenge government narratives, like military activities, legacy media has been underreporting stories that alternative media has been covering.

After two years of Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza, open source tools to geolocate videos, track flights, check government statements, and other forms of preliminary verification technologies have been brought into investigations and reporting to help with accountability. But while more people are being trained to use these tools, legacy media reporting is often behind the curve in implementing real-time fact-checking in their own reporting.

One of the most crucial parts about open source intelligence (OSINT) is that it is literally that - open source, meaning people can access it if they go looking. It may be difficult to find or harder to interpret, but the information is there and available to anyone. This begs the question, why isn’t it a core journalism skill?

Combination reporting that integrates fact-checking into stories will not only be more accurate, it will bring people more confidence in the news they are digesting. This is especially important in cases where on-the-ground reporting is blocked, restricted, or dangerous.

It can also be used to verify and compare online claims with testimonies and reports from the ground.

In the case of reports on the UK conducting spy flights over Gaza for Israel, well-known flight tracking sites like radarbox and Flightradar24 are both available for this crucial work. If another outlet wants to pick it up for their story, all the information can be verified and used in their reporting.

This type of tracking isn’t limited to just Gaza either, it can be used to observe how the UK positions itself in support of its allies anywhere.

If any random person is able to access such data, it isn’t too much to think that we can expect more from legacy media on this front. Some of these basic tools should be something their journalists are trained to actively implement.

The BBC, instead of regularly integrating OSINT into their reporting – defence and conflict content in particular – depends on BBC Verify, a department dedicated to fact-checking that publishes its own investigations.

Certainly, the departments with designated fact-checkers do important work. Their investigations uncover more information about stories that were reported on in the past, and refute claims by military or government officials. Other times they debunk misinformation that is circulating online and give live verification updates of events. This points to the fact that the skills are clearly there, and so is the need for it.

With propaganda, narratives, misinformation and disinformation campaigns and an endless cycle of breaking news, it makes sense to put more effort into integrating what should be considered basic skills into everyday reporting to get it right the first time. Whilst we’ve moved into a time where the internet is filled with more tools than previously imaginable to source information, this also means a pivot in how reporting incorporates them.

Reporting each claim as fact without due diligence in the form of open source research when the tools are there isn’t responsible or accurate for audiences. Resistance to integrating proactive fact-checking into the news by legacy media could, in worst cases, further the spread of misinformation or advance insidious agendas. It puts more of a burden on audiences who feel they can’t trust what is being reported.

Investigations using OSINT, fact-checking, and verifications do take time, which doesn’t lend itself well to the environment of fast-paced breaking news. However, if journalists or news desks were expected to be familiar with the available open source tools in their fields to back up their reporting, it would save a lot of retroactive work for the verification teams and raise the standard for reporting.

In the UK, some incredible reporting has come out of alternative media, using open source tools to challenge government’s narratives. Breaking away from the traditional avenues of reporting will lead to more accuracy and will put less of a burden of sorting fact from fiction, on the reader. This is especially useful in cases of human rights abuses and actions that may be in violation of international law.

In journalism, it could be following up on a lead that turns into a bigger story, for example using tools for maritime vessel tracking, which has been used to monitor the transport of military cargo for Israel or following US military flights landing in the UK as tensions rise over Greenland. This can be easily done by legacy media using publicly available avenues.

The tools are there for anyone to use and OSINT skills should be encouraged as a way of checking the work that is being done. We have seen it work for alternative media and for individuals. Times are changing and how audiences receive and verify information is too.

It is less important how quickly the news is reported if validity is not prioritised. The standard for accuracy and accountability in media is higher than it has been because the need for checks and balances is far greater. Legacy media outlets are at risk of falling behind without an integration of open source data and tools into their reporting.

Alysia Grapek is an editor, fact-checker, and open-source intelligence investigator specialising in the Middle East and geolocation.

Have questions or comments? Email us at: editorial-english@alaraby.co.uk

Opinions expressed in this article remain those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The New Arab, its editorial board or staff.