How can you fact-check international conflicts and crises?

In today world fact checking is far more difficult than old days since tools to manipulation data have advanced by information technology and AI. In old days fact checking was costly, time consuming and limited but credibility and validation of fact could be evaluated and cross checked and it was less conditradict and ethical standards observed.

In the post-truth age of viral social media, every ‘breaking incident’ of a security / safety nature is sadly only ever 5 tweets (x’s?) away from claims of a terror attack, false flag operation, or finger pointing to a demographic. Sources of both the incident / claim, and the responses to these, should be evaluated for their reliability and information credibility. In practice, a good approach to this (particular for those new to the field of intelligence, security, crisis management etc.) is to use the NATO Admirality Code / System.

In my experience the more diverse the sources, the more authentic the information. If you can verify that the sources are disconnected then you’ve hit gold

It’s not easy but it’s worth trying to triple source information. In some instances you may rely on a source like Bellincat because they will certainly have done the background checking. On some occasions, even accidentally, you might be a source but think carefully about what you’ve seen/heard. Your own evidence is not necessarily the truth, so at least try to back it up. And be careful even when relying on official sources - the UN, for example - as they can often have an undeclared agenda.

To be honest, in the virtual world we live in today, not only conflict but each piece of information coming towards us shall be identified, confirmed, and double-checked. No one can tell the truth in the first stance since the world is going wrong lately.

If it’s too good to be true - or too bad to be true - it’s probably not. Seek out other perspectives. Use structured analytical techniques, such as analysis of competing hypothesis (ACH) and devils advocacy. For those new to the field, seek out reports on the same incident from multiple sources. One of my favourite exercises with new starters is to compare media reporting on an incident from multiple channels, both local and international, left and right of the media lens. For example the live blogs on current conflicts include (but are not limited to): BBC, Guardian, Telegraph, Sky, Fox, CNN. Al Jazeera, Al Arabiya, SCMP, RT, France24, AP News etc.

In my experience, people fall down the hole of looking for the facts that fit their situation and ignore the red flags or triggers, sometimes too late. Check and double check and stick to facts not opinions.

Fact Check Upon professional teamworking provides great security to a reader. Individuals capacity to research the source is limited, controlled, mostly by pretendful foreign-agents, who systemically interfere the target before the report. Diversified receivers of the message is one way to understand; such as military coming back from the mission, repeatedly subjected to destructive- experiment- used words home- less, -suicidal, -PTS. Everything displaced across the borders, broken timeline: before the crime-time, without professional signature, happened too fast. Or, children, data assessment showing youngest citizens >involved< into prearrangement by the group of adults.Or, generation after generation, subjected to alcoholic🔬addictions.

Context shapes content. Understanding how we got to the current situation, and whose competing interests are in play, will enable you to judge the strength of the material you're trying to confirm. It also will point you to likely next steps. In Africa, a weak understanding of the interplay of culture, history, politics, geography, and economics can undercut your ability to make sense of the facts on the ground.

Another critical consideration is context. International disputes often involve complex historical, cultural, and geopolitical factors. As a result, accurate fact-checking requires a comprehensive understanding of the historical backdrop and regional dynamics surrounding a crisis. This involves being aware of the potential influence of external players and power relations on the story. Moreover, fact-checkers must be aware of the difficulties involved with misinformation and propaganda. In some cases, opposing parties deliberately spread misleading information to further their interests. Analyzing the structure and tone of news coverage and identifying propaganda tendencies can help provide a more accurate assessment of the situation.

Intelligence is about managing uncertainty where you must and mitigating it when you can. It matters little whether that management of uncertainty serves benign or malign regimes, state or substate actors, governments or corporations-the process of knowing remains the same. Intelligence reporting is never self-explanatory and is NEVER completely trustworthy. It arises from conditions of acute uncertainty, which typically result from active denial and deception efforts of those about whom intelligence practitioner would like to know.

All sound advice. On occasion you can go further and where appropriate apply statistical analysis. It’s good when you can to show that an observation could be spurious, that data quality is poor, that you can measure the degree of reliability of data. If done well, this is a source of taking risk adjusted decisions, of focusing on what may actually be important.

Know the context. Events do not happen in a vacuum. If an event or incident is unusual, the bar to confirm it should be higher. Knowing past precedents, actors and their intentions/capabilities is one of the key aspects often missing from vetting processes. You should be able to answer the question: Does this make sense given the context?

During a crisis, social media plays a crucial role in disseminating information, but it also increases the spread of misinformation. Fact-checkers must be skilled at navigating social media networks, identifying trustworthy user-generated content, and distinguishing between legitimate and malicious accounts. It is critical to collaborate with experts in relevant fields. International conflicts often involve complex geopolitical, military, and socioeconomic issues requiring specialized knowledge. Engaging with subject matter experts, analysts, and academics can provide significant insights and contribute to a more thorough fact-checking process.

Verifying the content is a critical step in fact-checking international conflicts and crises. It enhances the accuracy and reliability of information by cross-referencing with multiple reliable sources and fact-checking organizations. This process helps confirm the authenticity of details, contributing to a more credible and nuanced understanding of complex global events.

Fact-checking international conflicts and crises is a multidimensional undertaking that needs critical thinking, contextual understanding, and collaboration with several sources. Given the ever-changing nature of global events, fact-checkers must be agile, astute, and committed to maintaining information integrity in the face of uncertainty and complexity.

I agree, with the statement, the information you have gained is as only good as the people you share it with. Keeping control of information leakage is another monster that has to be thought through.

Reporting culture, each report has timeless value; Global security is independent of the recipient of the report, since the Internet mission: sharing information🛰️ timely, timestamp ℹ️ verified source, signature ⚖️. Discontinued communication: prearanged for adjusting selection of receptor:: cumulative attack against professional::mimicking collaboration: identity theft🔚.

Evaluating the impact is a crucial aspect of fact-checking international conflicts and crises. This step involves assessing how the information may influence public perception, policy decisions, or the overall narrative. By understanding the potential consequences, fact-checkers can prioritize claims that have significant implications, contribute to informed discourse, and address misinformation that could exacerbate tensions or misguide responses to complex global situations.

Rule number one- Protect your sources. Under NO CIRCUMSTANCES reveal your Humint sources. Rule number two- Never ever volunteer the information you do not need to share. Remember that the article you are fact-checking is part of someone else’s Narrative. It will likely be part of a Narrative Warfare. Identify who is running the narrative, who is paying for that particular narrative. Constantly check yourself against confirmation bias. Trust your instincts. Don’t be afraid to walk away at any stage of your investigation. Cut the loses and move on. Some battles are not worth fighting.

Education matters Citation quality is greatly improved with technology, databases, access ♿ to scientific research. Early education should provide knowledge and training in reporting culture, and citation quality. Where education was subjected to political interests, of a very short relevance; Citation quality never existed (!). In addition, mentoring, and ▫️professional guidance depending on ▫️individual bravery to support the student, and not to become scrutinized by the System(🔚). Such self-sufficient systems: heavily dependent on democracy and financial support for developing nations, where system without basic knowledge takes all advantages of life. Missing citation activity: prearanged for avoiding responsibility in any case.

Citing sources is integral to effective fact-checking in international conflicts and crises. It enhances transparency, allowing others to independently verify information. By providing clear references, fact-checkers contribute to the credibility of their assessments, fostering trust and accountability in the dissemination of accurate information amid complex global events.

When using a partisan or state-owned source, give more credence to items that are bad news for their bias. If a state-backed outlet is admitting facts that embarrass the state, they're more likely to be reliable, and may indicate an even more unfavorable narrative reported elsewhere is true.

In my experience, triangulating the information by using multiple sources between national and local news outlets is an efficient way to get the most accurate updates and to try to formulate an objective conclusion. An event that is still fresh will likely produce multiple versions of reporting. Thus, waiting a bit until the dust settles and sourcing using a blend of local and national media will likely get you the best and most accurate depiction in conflict situations.

You have always bear in mind that many facts and factoids will be embedded artificially by a hostile party. When you encounter thousands of facts all apparently relevant to the issue, keep the main picture in mind. Don’t get bogged down into the quagmire or real but irrelevant factoids. Ask yourself constantly: Why? Who benefits most? Is the outcome of the event as it had been predicted? Is there anything that just doesn’t sit right in your reading of the event? Don’t try to ignore that internal voice. Then step aside from it. Do something else. Come back and ask one more time “Who benefited most?”

In my experience there is no one truth in politics. Each side will have its own vision of truth because as quantum reasoning teaches us, a thing is changed by being observed. I try to, I hope, find the truth in both and pray that diplomacy prevails rather than the sword.

A lot of the time information comes from people and sources you do t expect. Many time I have overheard a conversation between two people and then checked it out only to find that, the info is correct but not widely known, but has been the piece I had. Web looking for but not known.