“We all work in closing spaces around the world where journalism is becoming more and more difficult.”

The challenges of reporting on places and conflicts forgotten by the mainstream media were laid bare on Tuesday 19 January, as the Frontline Club hosted an in-depth discussion on the professionalisation of citizen journalism.

Trevor Snapp, director of programs at Nuba Reports, chaired a discussion that ranged from the increasingly savvy media strategies employed by governments, to the dangers faced by emboldened eyewitnesses looking for a big payout.

‘eyewitness media could be used not just for news, but as evidence in court’ -great event last night @frontlineclub pic.twitter.com/i1jCfjLIrs

— eyeWitness project (@eyewitnessorg) January 20, 2016

Snapp explained that the need for such a panel came about “because of the reality that the world is increasingly difficult to do journalism in” – and pointed to countries such as “Yemen, Libya, many parts of China, many parts of India, many parts of Pakistan and many parts of Iran” as examples of this.

Jacqueline Geis, chief operating officer of Videre est Credere, found one solution to the challenges faced by citizen journalists who are working to document governmental abuses.

“Governments are becoming increasingly creative in their targeting of civil society, by including new codicils and amendments into press laws (…) People that are committing these crimes and atrocities are getting smart to when Western media shows up and when they don’t show up.”

Geis continued: “You see this a lot in election cycles: that people that want to manipulate election cycles are not doing it three months before the election, they’re doing it two years before that election happens (…) So having the continuous presence on the ground makes a valuable difference in telling the complete side of the story.”

John D McHugh, award-winning photojournalist, filmmaker and co-founder of Verifeye Media, agreed on the importance of eyewitness accounts. He likewise shared in Geis‘ optimism for the potential benefits of citizen journalism, as opposed to more traditional forms of journalism: “The closed space, the budgets, the restrictions and the authorities that close these spaces can be opened up in other ways.”

Chavala Madlena, a freelance journalist and producer, agreed that more traditional practices of journalism could be restrictive. While trying to tell “a nuanced story, like children growing up in drone-affected areas in Yemen and what that does to them long term,” she was certain that there “must be a better way (…) than just sending in a crew and doing interviews.”

Madlena‘s solution was to give cameras to Yemenis to document their experiences. Not only did this prove cost-effective, but it also brought back very different results to what a crew of video journalists could have achieved. She said the experience has “reshaped my thinking about making documentaries going forward.”

Thant Sin, a regular contributor to the citizen media website Global Voices, spoke of the “dark side of this new citizen media: there’s a lot of rumours and misinformation spreading around the net. People start believing whatever they see on the internet.”

Snapp commented that this need for authenticity and verification is one reason that citizen journalists should not be seen as an alternative to professional journalists. “The job of a professional journalist is still very much there (…) It’s about working together now and not seeing each other as threats.”

“There are things that algorithms can’t do, and that’s build relationships and trust with people” – @chavalamadlena #frontlineclub

— Alastair Reid (@ajreid) January 19, 2016

In a fitting conclusion, McHugh captured the energy of the discussion: “Eyewitness journalism is not the future of journalism – it’s the now.”

With shrinking editorial budgets, greater risks and lack of access it is becoming increasingly difficult for established media outlets to offer a full picture of events. Can citizen journalists fill the void?

A few organisations are working to address this reality: Nuba Reports mentors and trains filmmakers in Sudan’s conflict zones. Organisations such as Syria Deeply and Tehran Bureau aggregate and report from hard-to-access areas using a dedicated network on the ground. The human rights organisation Videre trains oppressed communities to document abuses and violations on camera.

Everyday there are even more places and stories that foreign correspondents cannot access. While the outside perspective they bring is critical, local insights are equally valuable. This discussion will bring together a few key players working on new models of foreign reporting to address the issues of verification and bias, and of which technology is working and which isn’t. They will discuss the challenges faced and delve into what the future of this new reporting holds.

Chaired by Trevor Snapp, the director of programs at Nuba Reports, a media startup in Sudan pioneering ways to tell stories of life amidst war. Over the last decade he has covered stories around the world, producing documentaries for Al Jazeera and VICE, and reporting for NPR and Newsweek. His photographs have been featured in The New York Times and The Guardian amongst others.

The panel:

John D McHugh is the co-founder of Verifeye Media, a technology driven visual news agency that represents freelance journalists and accidental eyewitnesses, delivering verified eyewitness media from the centre of a story to newsrooms, in real-time. McHugh is an award winning photojournalist and filmmaker with extensive knowledge of foreign reporting, especially from conflict zones.

Basia Cummings is a commissioning editor on the Guardian’s world networks, focused on in-depth coverage of under-reported regions, including Africa, North Korea and the post-Soviet states

Jacqueline Geis is the chief operating officer of Videre est Credere, an organisation that equips activists in hard-to-access areas with the cameras, technology, and support to visually document human rights violations safely and effectively.

Thant Sin is currently studying for a master’s degree in Media in Development at the School of Oriental Studies in London. He is a regular contributor to the citizen media website, Global Voices, and covers the latest events in Myanmar. Before beginning his studies in London, Sin worked in the development sector in Myanmar – travelling the country to work with displaced peoples.

Photo: Nuba Reports. Videojournalist Ahmad Khatir interviews an elderly farmer about an injury she sustained during a government bombing attack in the Nuba mountains of Sudan.

On 28 January at the Frontline Club, a panel chaired by CBS News correspondent Elizabeth Palmer discussed the possible start of a new chapter for Iran following the election of Hassan Rouhani as president. Rouhani is not only in favour with the Supreme Leader and political hardliners but also backed by reformists, due to his running mandate “moderation and wisdom”.

Elizabeth Palmer, Shashank Joshi and Kelly Golnoush Niknejad discuss change in Iran

Palmer started by asking the panel if there had been change for the good since the election of Rouhani?

British-Iranian Emmy award-winning foreign affairs journalist, Ramita Navai said:

“He is the man who can change things, he’s a real insider. . . . He really knows how to negotiate the hardliners. . . . He’s also of course in favour with the big man . . . the supreme leader.”

Kelly Golnoush Niknejad, founder and editor-in-chief of the award-winning Tehran Bureau, hosted by The Guardian said:

“The initial optimism that came with Rouhani’s win is definitely wearing off. When he released a group of prominent political prisoners before his UN trip hope went up that he was going to free [former presidential candidates Mehdi] Karoubi and [Mir Hossein] Mousavi and his wife [from house arrest] and when he didn’t do that . . . they were hoping that would legitimise an election they had taken part of.”

Packed house for tonight's Iran debate as our panel discusses the changes we have seen in the country pic.twitter.com/8JuPBJPuYW

— Frontline Club (@frontlineclub) January 28, 2014

Shashank Joshi, a research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), said that the nuclear deal, which was implemented on 20 January, would be the start of Iran becoming more economically viable internationally, but it is not the end:

“The so called ‘Joint Plan of Action’ . . . it was the biggest breakthrough for 10 years in the nuclear dispute. . . . [But] going from an interim deal to a final deal is very, very hard. . . . The one thing that unites those who hate the deal and those who love the deal is that both have a propensity to see this as the thin end of a wedge to a bigger rapprochement. . . . [Rouhani’s] mandate is to ease reconciliation for economic reasons, economic renewal, it is not a mandate for unconditional friendship with the west.”

@shashj on converging strategic interests btwn the West and #Iran: "Iran never easy to deal with even with mutual interests" @frontlineclub

— Julia Macfarlane (@juliamacfarlane) January 28, 2014

Iran’s success depends on economic success but the west has a dilemma. Former British ambassador to Iran (2002–06) Sir Richard Dalton said:

“The outside world . . . has got a genuine dilemma because the Iranian regime is not one which one would want to see strengthened. One would want to see aspects of the way it treats its own people and the way it behaves in the region weakened, frankly. . . . But at the same time, non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and above all ensuring that the Iranian programme will not be misused in future is such a high priority issue that there are certain features that are going together with a solution which include boosting Iran’s growth rate. . . . In justification, an Iran that is prospering is an Iran that is more likely to reform long term.”

How much domestic pressure is there for the government to affect change, Palmer asked. Arron Reza Merat of the Economist Intelligence Unit said:

“Your question presupposes that there is a strong . . . democratic apparatus to press politicians to do anything and in Iran . . . the elite run Iran, the elections though do have some democratic elements in them are really just changing fractions within the original systems.”

An audience member asked whether the reformists have any hope in having an effect on the system. Merat said that there was hope in Rouhani’s relationship with the Supreme Leader and political hardliners:

“The one hope I think that the reformists have is that they’ve got a reformist-backed president who has the support of not only the reformists but the hardliners and this hasn’t happened since [former president Akbar Hashemi] Rafsanjani’s first term [in 1989]. . . . Ever since then Iran has been utterly polarised . . . nothing happens in Iran unless you have both sides on board.”

Sir Richard Dalton, Arron Reza Merat and Elizabeth Palmer discuss change in Iran

A final question from the audience asked what would be the significance of having Mousavi and Karoubi released? Dalton said:

“From my perspective I can’t imagine the streets of Tehran would be filled with people supporting them the day they came out. People are a lot more practical than that at the moment.”

Navai said:

“It is symbolic. It will signal that Rouhani has the power to change, the power to release them. . . . They are still perceived as a threat . . . it’s a fear apparently that if they do release them that the reformists, however dormant they are, will be strengthened before the parliamentary elections [in 2016] and of course the hardliners are very keen that Rouhani doesn’t gain ground in the parliamentary elections.”

Watch or listen back here: