I'm here to talk to you about a new way of doing journalism. Some people call this "citizen journalism," other people call it "collaborative journalism." But really, it kind of means this: for the journalists, people like me, it means accepting that you can't know everything, and allowing other people, through technology, to be your eyes and your ears. And for people like you, for other members of the public, it can mean not just being the passive consumers of news, but also coproducing news. And I believe this can be a really empowering process. It can enable ordinary people to hold powerful organizations to account.
我来这里是想和你们谈谈 一种做新闻的新方法。 有人称之为 “公民新闻”, 其他人称之为 “合作新闻”。 但实际上,它的意思是: 对像我这样的记者来说, 这意味着接受你不知道一切事情, 允许别人,通过技术手段 成为你的眼睛和你的耳朵。 而对像你这样的人, 对其他公众成员, 这意味着不只是被动消费新闻, 但也共同制作新闻。 我相信这是一个真正赋权过程。 它让普通人有能力能够 让有权势的组织负起责任。
So I'm going to explain this to you today with two cases, two stories that I've investigated. And they both involve controversial deaths. And in both cases, the authorities put out an official version of events, which was somewhat misleading. We were able to tell an alternative truth utilizing new technology, utilizing social media, particularly Twitter. Essentially, what I'm talking about here is, as I said, citizen journalism.
所以,我今天打算用两个案例来解释, 这两个我参与调查的案例。 它们都涉及到有争议性的死亡。 在这两个例子中, 官方公布了事件的官方说法, 多少带有误导性。 我们则能够利用新技术, 使用社交媒体,尤其是推特, 说出另一个事实。 本质上,我现在谈论的是公民新闻。
So, to take the first case: this is Ian Tomlinson, the man in the foreground. He was a newspaper vendor from London, and on the 1st of April 2009, he died at the G20 protests in London. Now, he had been -- he wasn't a protester, he'd been trying to find his way home from work through the demonstrations. But he didn't get home. He had an encounter with a man behind him, and as you can see, the man behind him has covered his face with a balaclava. And, in fact, he wasn't showing his badge numbers. But I can tell you now, he was PC Simon Harwood, a police officer with London's Metropolitan Police Force. In fact, he belonged to the elite territorial support group. Now, moments after this image was shot, Harwood struck Tomlinson with a baton, and he pushed him to ground, and Tomlinson died moments later.
那么,来说第一个案例: 这是伊恩 · 汤姆林森 (Ian Tomlinson)前面的那个人。 他是来自伦敦的报纸销售人员, 2009 年 4 月 1 日, 他死于伦敦的 G20 抗议活动。 他原本不是抗议者之一, 他本来是下班回家, 试图穿过示威游行。 但他没能回到家。 他遭遇了身后这个人, 正如你所看到的,他身后的那个人 用巴拉克拉瓦帽遮住了脸。 事实上,他没有出示他的徽章号码。 但我现在可以告诉你, 他叫 PC 西蒙 · 哈伍德(Simon Harwood), 他是伦敦警察厅的一名警察。 事实上,他隶属精英级地区支援组。 在这张照片拍摄后不久, 哈伍德用警棍打汤姆林森, 把他打倒在地, 随后,汤姆林森就死去了。
But that wasn't the story the police wanted us to tell. Initially, through official statements and off-the-record briefings, they said that Ian Tomlinson had died of natural causes. They said that there had been no contact with the police, that there were no marks on his body. In fact, they said that when police tried to resuscitate him, the police medics were impeded from doing so, because protesters were throwing missiles, believed to be bottles, at police. And the result of that were stories like this. I show you this slide, because this was the newspaper that Ian Tomlinson had been selling for 20 years of his life. And if any news organization had an obligation to properly forensically analyze what had been going on, it was the Evening Standard newspaper. But they, like everyone else -- including my news organization -- were misled by the official version of events put out by police. But you can see here, the bottles that were supposedly being thrown at police were turned into bricks by the time they reached this edition of the newspaper. So we were suspicious, and we wanted to see if there was more to the story. We needed to find those protesters you see in the image, but, of course, they had vanished by the time we started investigating. So how do you find the witnesses? This is, for me, where it got really interesting. We turned to the internet.
但这不是警察希望我们讲的故事。 最初,通过官方声明和非正式简报, 他们说伊恩 · 汤姆林森是自然死亡的。 他们说没有跟警察发生接触, 他身上没有伤痕。 事实上,他们说当 警察试图救活他的时候, 警察的医护人员被阻碍了, 因为抗议者向警察 投掷东西,据报道是瓶子。 结果就是这样的故事。 我给你们展示这张幻灯片, 因为这是伊恩 · 汤姆林森卖了 20 年的报纸。 如果任何新闻机构有义务 对发生的事情进行 合理的法医学分析, 那应该是《伦敦标准晚报》。 但他们,跟其他人一样—— 包括我所在的新闻组织—— 被警方发布的官方声明误导了。 但你可以从这里看到, 这些被认为是扔向警察的瓶子, 但当他们到达这一版报纸时, 瓶子却变成了砖头。 所以我们怀疑, 我们想要看看后面 是不是有更多的故事。 我们需要找到你在照片 中看到的这些示威者, 但,当然,当我们开始调查时, 他们已经消失了。 那么你该如何找到见证人? 对我来说,这是真正有趣的地方。 我们借助了互联网。
This is Twitter; you've heard a lot about it today. Essentially, for me, when I began investigating this case, I was completely new to this; I'd signed up two days earlier. I discovered that Twitter was a microblogging site. It enabled me to send out short, 140-character messages. Also, an amazing search facility. But it was a social arena in which other people were gathering with a common motive. And in this case, independently of journalists, people themselves were interrogating exactly what had happened to Ian Tomlinson in his last 30 minutes of life. Individuals like these two guys. They went to Ian Tomlinson's aid after he collapsed. They phoned the ambulance. They didn't see any bottles, they didn't see any bricks. So they were concerned that the stories weren't quite as accurate as police were claiming them to be. And again, through social media, we started encountering individuals with material like this: photographs, evidence. Now, this does not show the attack on Ian Tomlinson, but he appears to be in some distress. Was he drunk? Did he fall over? Did this have anything to do with the police officers next to him? Here he appears to be talking to them. For us, this was enough to investigate further, to dig deeper. The result was putting out stories ourselves.
这是推特;你几天听到很多它的消息。 基本上,当我开始调查这个案子时, 我完全是菜鸟;我刚注册两天。 我发现推特是个微博客网站。 它可以让我发送 简短的、140 字的消息。 另外,还有一个非常棒的搜索功能。 但它还是一个聚集共同动机的人 的社交平台。 在这个案例中,独立记者, 那些在质问伊恩 · 汤姆林森 生命最后 30 分钟 到底发生了什么事的人。 像这样的两个人, 伊恩 · 汤姆林森倒下后,他们去帮忙。 他们打电话叫救护车。 他们没有看到任何瓶子, 他们没有看到任何砖块。 所以他们担心这些警察声称的报道 不够准确, 再次,通过社交媒体,我们开始遇到 一些有这样材料的人:照片,证据。 现在,这看不出 对伊恩 · 汤姆林森攻击的迹象, 但他似乎有些不安。 他喝醉了吗?他跌倒了吗? 他和他旁边的警察有什么关系吗? 他似乎在和他们谈话。 对我们来说,这已经足够 进一步调查,进一步挖掘了。 结果就是我们自己发表了一些故事。
One of the most amazing things about the internet is: the information that people put out is freely available to anyone, as we all know. That doesn't just go for citizen journalists, or for people putting out messages on Facebook or Twitter. That goes for journalists themselves, people like me. As long as your news is the right side of a paywall, i.e, it's free, anybody can access it. And stories like these, which were questioning the official version of events, which were skeptical in tone, allowed people to realize that we had questions ourselves. They were online magnets. Individuals with material that could help us were drawn toward us by some kind of gravitational force. And after six days, we had managed to track down around 20 witnesses. We've plotted them here on the map.
互联网最神奇的一个事情是: 人们发布的信息对一切人免费, 正如我们所知。 这不仅对于公民记者, 或对在脸书,或推特上发消息的人。 对于记者自己也是如此, 像我这样的记者。 只要你的新闻在付费墙的右边, 比如是免费的, 任何人都可以获取它。 像这些故事, 在质疑警察官方说法的故事, 带着怀疑的语气, 让我们意识到我们有疑问。 他们是网络的磁铁。 那些拥有可以帮助到 我们的材料的人们 被某种引力吸引到我们这来。 在六天后,我们设法 找到了大约 20 位目击者。 我们已经在地图上标出来了。
This is the scene of Ian Tomlinson's death, the Bank of England in London. And each of these witnesses that we plotted on the map, you could click on these small bullet points, and you could hear what they had to say, see their photographic image and at times, see their videographic images as well. But still, at this stage, with witnesses telling us that they'd seen police attack Ian Tomlinson before his death, still, police refused to accept that. There was no official investigation into his death.
这是伊恩 · 汤姆林森死亡的场景, 伦敦的英国银行。 每个目击者都被标注在图片上, 你可以点击这些小点, 你就可以听到他们说什么, 看他们拍的照片, 有时,也可以看到他们的视频图像。 但是,在这个阶段, 目击者告诉我们, 他们看到警察在他死前袭击了 伊恩 · 汤姆林森, 然而,警察拒绝承认这点。 官方没有对他的死因展开调查。
And then something changed. I got an email from an investment fund manager in New York. On the day of Ian Tomlinson's death, he'd been in London on business, and he'd taken out his digital camera, and he'd recorded this.
然后事情发生了变化, 我收到纽约的一位 投资基金经理的电子邮件。 伊恩 · 汤姆林森去世那天, 他在伦敦出差, 他掏出了他的数码相机, 而他拍到了这个。
(Video) Narrator: This is the crowd at G20 protest on April the 1st, around 7:20pm. They were on Cornhill, near the Bank of England. This footage will form the basis of a police investigation into the death of this man. Ian Tomlinson was walking through this area, attempting to get home from work.
旁白:这是 4 月 1 号, 下午 7 点 20 分, G20 会议抗议的人群。 他们在英格兰银行附近的康希尔。 这段录像将成为警方调查 这名男子死亡的根据。 伊恩 · 汤姆林森走过这个区域 试图下班回家。
(People yelling)
(人群喊叫声)
We've slowed down the footage to show how it poses serious questions about police conduct. Ian Tomlinson had his back to riot officers and dog handlers and was walking away from them. He had his hands in his pockets. Here the riot officer appears to strike Tomlinson's leg area with a baton. He then lunges at Tomlinson from behind. Tomlinson is propelled forward and hits the floor.
我们放慢录像的速度, 以显示它是如何对警察的行为 提出严正的质疑。 伊恩 · 汤姆林森 背对着防暴警察和警犬, 正从他们身边走开。 他把手插在口袋里。 在这里,防暴警察似乎用警棍 击中了汤姆林森的腿部。 然后他从后面冲向汤姆林森。 汤姆林森被向前推,撞到了地板上。
(People yelling)
(人群喊叫声)
Paul Lewis: OK. So, shocking stuff. That video wasn't playing too well, but I remember when I first watched the video for myself, I'd been in touch with this investment fund manager in New York, and I had become obsessed with this story. I had spoken to so many people who said they had seen this happen, and the guy on the other end of the phone was saying, "Look, the video shows it." I didn't want to believe him until I saw it for myself. It was two o'clock in the morning, I was there with an IT guy -- the video wasn't coming. Finally, it landed, and I clicked on it. And I realized: this is really something quite significant. Within 15 hours, we put it on our website. The first thing police did was they came to our office -- senior officers came to our office -- and asked us to take the video down. We said no. It would have been too late, anyway, because it had traveled around the world. And the officer in that film, in two days' time, will appear before an inquest jury in London, and they have the power to decide that Ian Tomlinson was unlawfully killed.
保罗·刘易斯:所以,真是令人震惊。 那个视频播放得不太好, 但我记得当我第一次看到这视频时, 我和纽约这位投资经理联系过, 我被这个故事迷住了。 我和许多人交谈过,他们说 他们看到了这种情况的发生, 在电话那端的哥们说: “看,视频已经证明了。” 我不想相信他, 直到我亲自看到视频。 那是凌晨两点, 我跟技术人员一起—— 视频还没发过来。 最后,视频收到了,我打开它。 我意识到,这真是非常重要的东西。 在 15 个小时内, 我们把它放到我们网站上。 警察做的第一件事是 来到我们办公室—— 高级警官来到我们办公室—— 要求我们撤掉视频。 我们拒绝了。 这已经晚了,不管怎样, 因为它已经全球传开了。 在视频中的警察,在两天后, 将在伦敦出庭接受陪审团的质询, 他们有权判定 伊恩 · 汤姆林森被非法杀害。
So that's the first case; I said two cases today. The second case is this man. Now, like Ian Tomlinson, he was a father, he lived in London. But he was a political refugee from Angola. And six months ago, the British government decided they wanted to return him to Angola; he was a failed asylum seeker. So they booked him a seat on an airline, a flight from Heathrow. Now, the official version of events, the official explanation, of Jimmy Mubenga's death was simply that he'd taken ill. He'd become unwell on the flight, the plane had returned to Heathrow, and then he was transferred to hospital and pronounced dead.
所以这是第一个案例, 我今天说两个案例。 第二个案例是这个人。 和伊恩 · 汤姆林森一样, 他也是个父亲,住在伦敦。 但他是来自安哥拉的政治难民。 六个月前,英国政府决定 他们要把他遣返回安哥拉; 他是个失败的避难者。 于是他们给他订了个航班, 从希思罗机场起飞的航班。 官方对事件的版本,官方对 吉米 · 穆本加 (Jimmy Mubenga)之死的解释, 只是他病了。 他在飞机上感到不适, 飞机已返回希思罗机场, 然后他被送往医院途中宣布死亡。
Now, what actually happened to Jimmy Mubenga, the story we were able to tell, my colleague Mathew Taylor and I, was that, actually, three security guards began trying to restrain him in his seat; when was resisting his deportation, they were restraining him in his seat. They placed him in a dangerous hold. It keeps detainees quiet, and he was making a lot of noise. But it can also lead to positional asphyxia, a form of suffocation. So you have to imagine: there were other passengers on the plane, and they could hear him saying, "I can't breathe! I can't breathe! They're killing me!" And then he stopped breathing. So how did we find these passengers? In the case of Ian Tomlinson, the witnesses were still in London. But these passengers, many of them, had returned to Angola. How were we going to find them?
吉米·穆本加到底发生了什么, 我和我的同事马修 · 泰勒 (Mathew Taylor)的故事版本是, 其实是三个保安试图把他控制在 他的座位上; 当他拒绝被驱逐出境时, 他们把他控制在他的座位上。 他们把他置于危险的境地。 它让被拘留者保持安静, 他制造了很多噪音。 但也可能导致体位性窒息, 窒息的一种形式。 所以你得想象: 飞机上还有其他乘客, 他们可以听到他说什么, “我不能呼吸,我不能呼吸, 他们要杀了我!” 然后他停止了呼吸。 那么我们是怎么找到这些乘客? 在伊恩·汤姆林森一案中, 证人仍在伦敦。 但这些乘客,很多人已经回到安哥拉。 我们将如何找到他们?
Again, we turned to the internet. We wrote, as I said before, stories -- they're online magnets. The tone of some these stories, journalism professors might frown upon because they were skeptical; they were asking questions, perhaps speculative, maybe the kind of things journalists shouldn't do. But we needed to do it, and we needed to use Twitter also. Here I'm saying an Angolan man dies on a flight. This story could be big; a level of speculation. This next tweet says, "Please RT." That means "please retweet," please pass down the chain. And one of the fascinating things about Twitter is that the pattern of flow of information is unlike anything we've ever seen before. We don't really understand it, but once you let go of a piece of information, it travels like wind. You can't determine where it ends up. But strangely, tweets have an uncanny ability to reach their intended destination. And in this case, it was this man. He says, "I was also there on the BA77" -- that's the flight number -- "And the man was begging for help, and I now feel so guilty that I did nothing."
再次,我们通过互联网。 我写下,如早前所说, 写下故事——他们是线上的磁铁。 新闻学教授可能会对 这些报道的语气感到不悦, 因为他们感到怀疑; 他们在问问题,也许是推测性的, 也许这是记者不该做的事情。 但我们需要去做, 我们也需要使用推特。 这里我说一个安哥拉人死在机上。 这个故事可能很大; 带一定程度的猜测。 下一条推特说,“请 RT。” 意思是 “请转发”,请把线索传下去。 推特最吸引人的地方是 信息流动的模式 跟我们以前见过的都不同。 我们并不真正理解它, 但一旦你放飞某些信息, 它像风一样流行。 你无法决定它在哪里停止。 但奇怪的是, 推特有一种不可思议的能力, 可以到达预期的地方。 在这个案例中,是这个人。 他说:“我也在 BA77 航班上”—— 这是航班编号—— “那人正在祈求帮助, 现在我感到很内疚, 当时我没做任何事情。”
This was Michael. He was on an Angolan oil field when he sent me this tweet. I was in my office in London. He had concerns about what happened on the flight. He'd gone onto his laptop, he typed in the flight number. He had encountered that tweet, he had encountered our stories. He realized we had an intention to tell a different version of events; we were skeptical. And he contacted me. And this is what Michael said.
这是迈克尔。 他给我发这条推特的时候 正在安哥拉油田。 我在伦敦的办公室。 他担心飞机上发生的事情。 他打开笔记本电脑,输入航班编号。 他看到了那条推特, 他看到了我们写的故事。 他意识到我们想说出 事件的不同版本; 我们在怀疑。 于是他联系我。 这是迈克尔说的。
(Audio) Michael: I'm pretty sure it'll turn out to be asphyxiation. The last thing we heard the man saying was he couldn't breathe. And you've got three security guards, each one of them looked like 100-kilo plus, bearing down on him, holding him down -- from what I could see, below the seats. What I saw was the three men trying to pull him down below the seats. And all I could see was his head sticking up above the seats, and he was hollering out, you know, "Help me!" He just kept saying, "Help me! Help me!" And then he disappeared below the seats. And you could see the three security guards sitting on top of him from there. For the rest of my life, I'm always going to have that in the back of my mind. Could I have done something? That's going to bother me every time I lay down to go to sleep now. Wow; I didn't get involved because I was scared I might get kicked off the flight and lose my job. If it takes three men to hold a man down, to put him on a flight, one the public is on, that's excessive. OK? If the man died, that right there is excessive.
(声音)迈克尔:我很确定会是窒息。 我们听到他说的最后 一句话是他无法呼吸。 有三个保安, 每个看起来都有 100 公斤重, 把他压下去,按住他下去 ——从我这边看的话, 压到座位下。 我看到的是三个人试图 把他压到座位下面。 我所能看到的只是 他的头从座位上伸出来, 他大喊:“救我!” 他不停再说,“救救我,救救我!” 然后他消失在座位中。 从那里你可以看到 三个保安坐在他身上。 我的余生, 我总是会把它记在脑子里。 我要是能做点什么吗? 现在我每次躺下的时候, 这都会烦恼我。 我没有做点什么, 因为我担心我可能会 被赶下飞机,丢掉工作。 如果一个人被三个人按倒, 把他推上飞机, 在众目睽睽之下, 这太过分了。 对把? 如果这个人死了, 这就太过了。
PL: So that was his interpretation of what had happened on the flight. And Michael was actually one of five witnesses that we eventually managed to track down, most of them, as I said, through the internet, through social media. We could actually place them on the plane, so you could see exactly where they were sat. And I should say at this stage that one really important dimension to all of this for journalists who utilize social media and who utilize citizen journalism is making sure we get our facts correct. Verification is absolutely essential. So in the case of the Ian Tomlinson witnesses, I got them to return to the scene of the death and physically walk me through and tell me exactly what they had seen. That was absolutely essential. In the case of Mubenga, we couldn't do that, but they could send us their boarding passes. And we could interrogate what they were saying and ensure it was consistent with what other passengers were saying, too. The danger in all of this for journalists -- for all of us -- is that we're victims of hoaxes, or that there's deliberate misinformation fed into the public domain. So we have to be careful.
这就是他对飞机上 发生的事情的解释。 迈克尔实际是我们最终 能够找到的五位目击者之一, 他们大部分人,如我所说, 是通过互联网、 通过社交媒体联系上的。 我们把他们放在飞机上, 这样你就能切实看到他们坐在哪里。 在这个舞台上我要说的是 对于使用社交媒体, 使用公民记者的记者来说, 一个真正重要的点是 确保我们得到事实的真相。 验证是绝对必要的。 所以在伊恩·汤姆林森的案例中, 我让他们回到死亡现场, 亲自带我走过 并告诉我他们到底看到了什么。 这是绝对必要的。 在穆本加的例子中, 我们无法那样做, 但他们可以发给我们他们的登机牌。 我们可以询问他们说的, 并确保与其他乘客一致。 对一切记者的危险—— 对我们所有人—— 在于我们是骗局的受害者, 还是在故意向公众提供错误信息? 所以我们得小心。
But nobody can deny the power of citizen journalism. When a plane crashes into the Hudson two years ago, and the world finds out about this because a man is on a nearby ferry, and he takes out his iPhone and photographs the image of the plane and sends it around the world -- that's how most people found out initially, in the early minutes and hours, about the plane in the Hudson River.
但没人能够否认公民新闻但力量。 两年前,一架飞机坠入哈德逊河, 这个世界之所以知道是因为 一个人在附近的渡船上, 他拿出他的 iPhone 拍下了飞机的照片 并发布到全世界—— 大多数人在最初的几分钟 和几个小时里,都是这样发现 哈德逊河上的那架飞机的。
Now, think of the two biggest news stories of the year. We had the Japanese earthquake and the tsunami. Cast your mind's eye back to the images that you saw on your television screens. They were boats left five miles inland. They were houses being moved along, as if in the sea. Water lifting up inside people's living rooms, supermarkets shaking -- these were images shot by citizen journalists and instantly shared on the internet.
如今,想想两大年度新闻。 我们经历了日本地震和海啸。 让你的思绪回到你在电视上 看到的画面。 这些被抛在内陆两英里的船。 这些被移动的房子, 就像在大海中一样。 水在人们的客厅里升起, 超市在摇晃—— 这些照片都是公民记者拍摄的, 并立刻被分享到网上。
And the other big story of the year: the political crisis, the political earthquake in the Middle East. And it doesn't matter if it was Egypt or Libya or Syria or Yemen. Individuals have managed to overcome the repressive restrictions in those regimes by recording their environment and telling their own stories on the internet. Again, always very difficult to verify, but potentially, a huge layer of accountability. This image -- and I could have shown you any, actually; YouTube is full of them -- This image is of an apparently unarmed protester in Bahrain. And he's being shot by security forces. It doesn't matter if the individual being mistreated, possibly even killed, is in Bahrain or in London. But citizen journalism and this technology has inserted a new layer of accountability into our world, and I think that's a good thing.
另一个年度大新闻是:政治危机, 中东的政治地震。 不管是埃及、利比亚、 叙利亚还是也门并不重要。 个人设法克服了这些政权中的 压制性限制, 通过记录下他们的周遭 并在互联网上讲述他们自己的故事。 再次,证实总是很难, 但是一个潜在的、巨大的责任层。 这些照片——实际上 我可以给你看任何一张; 油管上到处都是—— 这张照片显示的是巴林 一名手无寸铁的抗议者。 他被安保势力击毙了。 个人是否收到虐待,是否被杀掉 发生在巴林还是伦敦 并不重要。 但是公民新闻和这项技术 为我们的世界增加了一层新的责任, 我想这是好事。
So to conclude: the theme of the conference, "Why not?" -- I think for journalists, it's quite simple, really. I mean, why not utilize this technology, which massively broadens the boundaries of what's possible, accept that many of the things that happen in our world now go recorded, and we can obtain that information through social media? That's new for journalists.
因此,总结一下:会议的 主题,“为什么不呢?”-—— 我想对记者而言,这非常简单,真的。 我意思是,为什么不使用这个技术呢, 这极大地拓宽了可能性的边界, 接受世界上发生的 许多事情都被记录下来, 以及我们可以通过社交媒体 获取这些信息。 这对于记者来说是新的。
The stories I showed you, I don't think we would have been able to investigate 10 years ago, possibly even five years ago. I think there's a very good argument to say that the two deaths, the death of Ian Tomlinson and the death of Jimmy Mubenga, we still today wouldn't know exactly what had happened in those cases. And "Why not?" for people like yourselves? Well, I think that's very simple, too. If you encounter something that you believe is problematic, that disturbs you, that concerns you, an injustice of some kind, something that just doesn't feel quite right, then why not witness it, record it and share it? That process of witnessing, recording and sharing is journalism.
我给你们看的这些故事, 我不认为 10 年前,甚至 5 年前 我们能够去调查。 我认为有一个很好的理由 来说明这两起死亡事件, 伊恩·汤姆林森 和吉米·穆本加的死, 时至今日,我们仍不知道 这些案件中究竟发生了什么。 “为什么不呢? ”对于你们自己来讲? 我认为这也非常简单。 如果你遇到你认为有问题的事情, 那些使你不安, 使你担心,某种不公正 那些就是感觉不对劲的事情, 为什么不见证它, 记录它,分享它呢? 见证、记录和分享的过程就是新闻。
And we can all do it. Thank you.
而我们全都能做。谢谢。