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.
今天我來和大家談的, 是一種新聞的新方式。 有人稱之為「公民新聞」, 其他人稱之為「協作新聞」。 但其實它的意思就是: 對於像我這樣的新聞記者, 它意味著要接受 你不可能知道一切, 並讓其他人透過科技 成為你的眼睛和耳朵。 而對你們,其他的大眾成員, 它可能意味著,不要只當 被動的新聞消費者, 還要共同製作新聞。 我相信這可以成為 一個賦權的過程。 它讓一般人有能力, 能夠讓強大的組織承擔責任。
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,今天我要用兩個案例 來向大家解釋這個主題, 這兩個案例是我調查過的故事。 它們都涉及了有爭議性的死亡。 在兩個案例中,當權機關 都針對事件發佈了一個官方版本, 這個版本造成了誤導。 我們之所以能夠發現 另一種真相,靠的是新技術, 靠的是社交媒體,特別是推特。 基本上,我在這裡談的, 如我剛才提過的,是公民新聞。
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.
所以,先來談第一個案例: 在最明顯位置的這位, 是伊安湯姆林森。 他是倫敦的報攤小販, 2009 年 4 月 1 日,他在倫敦 G20(二十國集團)抗議中喪命。 他本來──他並不是抗議人士, 他本來是工作完要回家,在找路 穿過示威抗議。 但他沒回到家。 他遇到了他身後的那個人, 你們可以看見,他身後的那個人 用巴拉克拉法帽把臉蒙住。 事實上,他的警員編號也看不見。 但我現在可以告訴各位, 他就是 P.C. 賽門哈伍德, 他是倫敦警察廳的一位警員。 事實上,他隸屬 菁英級的地區支援課。 在這張照片被拍攝之後沒多久, 哈伍德用警棍攻擊湯姆林森, 把他推倒在地, 沒多久湯姆林森就死亡了。
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.
但警方要我們說的故事 並不是這樣的, 一開始,透過官方聲明 和非正式的簡報, 他們說伊安湯姆林森是自然死因。 他們說他和警方沒有接觸, 他的身體上沒有傷痕。 事實上,他們說當警方 打算他進行復甦術時, 警方醫療人員卻被阻礙了, 因為抗議者在對警方丟擲東西, 據報丟的是瓶子。 結果就是產生出這樣的故事。 我讓大家看一張投影片, 因為這就是伊安湯姆林森二十年來 一直在販售的報紙。 如果有任何一間新聞組織有義務 要妥善地對於 發生的狀況做法醫分析, 那就應該是「倫敦標準晚報」。 但他們和所有其他人一樣── 包括我自己的新聞組織── 都被警方發佈的 官方版本證據給誤導。 但在這裡你們可以看到, 應該是被丟向警方的瓶子, 變成了磚塊, 這是報紙的這個版本 所刊出的資訊。 所以我們起疑了, 我們想要知道這故事 是否還有其他內幕。 我們得要找到 圖片中的那些抗議者, 但,當然,當我們開始 調查時,他們都消失了。 所以,要如何找到證人? 對我來說,從這裡 就開始變得很有趣了。 我們轉向網際網路。
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.
這是推特;現在大家都對它很熟知。 基本上,對我來說, 當我開始調查這個案件時, 我完全是新手; 我是兩天前才註冊的。 我發現推特是個微型網誌網站。 它讓我能發送出 140 字元的短訊息, 另外,是種很驚人的搜尋工具。 但它是個社交場所, 其他人因為一個共同的動機 而聚集在這裡。 在這個案例中,和新聞記者無關, 人們自己開始質問, 伊安湯姆林森在他的人生 最後三十分鐘到底發生了什麼事。 就像這兩個人一樣。 當伊安湯姆林森倒下時, 他們兩人去幫助他。 他們打電話叫救護車。 他們沒有看見任何瓶子, 他們沒有看見任何磚塊。 所以他們很擔心, 這些故事並沒有警方 所聲稱的那麼正確。 再一次,透過社交媒體, 我們開始遇到 有這類素材的人:照片,證據。 這並沒有呈現出 對伊安湯姆林森的攻擊, 但他顯然是在痛苦當中。 他喝醉了嗎?他摔倒了嗎? 這和他旁邊的警員有關嗎? 這裡,他似乎在和他們說話。 對我們來說,光這樣就夠讓我們 更進一步去調查,探究得更深。 結果是我們自己來發佈故事。
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.
網路很了不起的其中一點就是: 大家發佈出來的資訊, 是任何人都可以免費取得的, 這我們都知道。 那不僅適用於公民記者, 或是在臉書或推特上發佈訊息的人。 那也適用於新聞記者本身, 像我這樣的人。 只要你的新聞是在付費牆 對的那一邊,即,它是免費的, 任何人都可以取得它。 像這樣的故事, 質疑官方對於事件之說詞的故事, 在調性上就是懷疑論的故事, 讓大家能了解到, 我們得要質疑我們自己。 它們是線上的磁鐵。 握有素材能協助我們的人, 被某種重力場吸引到我們這裡來。 在六天之後,我們得以 追蹤到大約 20 名目擊證人。 我們把他們畫在地圖上。
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.
這是伊安湯姆林森死亡的現場, 倫敦的英格蘭銀行。 我們在地圖上所畫的 每一位目擊證人, 你都可以點選這些小小的圓點, 就可以聽到他們的說詞, 看到他們的照片, 如果有的話,還可以看到影片。 但,仍然,在這個階段, 目擊證人告訴我們, 他們看到警方在伊安湯姆林森 死前攻擊他, 但警方仍然拒絕接受這一點。 他的死亡,沒有受到正式的調查。
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.
接著,改變發生了。 紐約的一位投資基金經理寫信給我。 伊安湯姆林森死亡的那一天, 他在倫敦出差, 他拿出了他的數位相機, 拍下了這一段影片。
(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.
(影片)旁白: 這是 G20 抗議的群眾, 時間是 4 月 1 日,大約 7:20pm。 他們在科恩希爾, 鄰近英格蘭銀行的地方。 這支影片將會成為警方調查的基礎, 查出這名男子的死因。 伊安湯姆林森走過這個區域, 他工作完打算要回家。
(People yelling)
(人吶喊)
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.
我們把這段影片的速度放慢, 來呈現出警方行為出現了嚴重的問題。 伊安湯姆林森背對著 陣暴警察和帶警犬的警員, 他走的方向是遠離他們。 他的雙手插在口袋裡。 這名陣暴警察顯然用警棍 攻擊了伊安湯姆林森的腿部。 接著他從湯姆林森的背後撲上去。 湯姆林森被推向前,撞到地板。
(People yelling)
(人群吶喊)
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.
保羅路易斯: 好。所以,很震驚的內容。 那支影片的品質沒有很好, 但我記得當我自己 初次看這支影片時, 我一直和這位紐約的 投資基金經理保持聯絡, 我一直對這個故事很著迷。 我和好多聲稱自己 看到這段經過的人談過, 而在電話另一端的這個人說: 「影片有拍出經過。」 我不想相信他,直到我自己看了。 那時是半夜兩點, 我和一名資訊人員在那裡── 影片沒有進來。 終於,影片到了,我點擊它。 我了解到:這真的是很重大的事。 在十五小時之內, 我們就把它發佈到我們的網站上。 警方做的第一件事情是, 他們到我們的辦公室來── 資深警官到我們的辦公室── 要求我們把影片拿下來。 我們說不。 反正也太遲了, 它已經傳到全世界。 而影片中的那位警員,在兩天後, 就要面對倫敦陪審團的審訊, 他們有權力判定伊安湯姆林森 是被不合法的方式殺害。
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.
這是第一個案例; 我說過今天有兩個案例。 第二個案例是這名男子。 和伊安湯姆林森一樣, 他是位住在倫敦的父親。 但他是來自安哥拉的政治難民。 六個月前,英國政府決定 要把他送回安哥拉; 他是位失敗的尋求政治避難者。 所以他們為他訂了一張機票, 從希斯洛機場起飛。 對於吉米穆班戈之死的 官方說法……官方解釋, 很簡單,就說他生病了。 他在飛機上不舒服, 飛機返回希斯洛機場, 接著他被送往醫院,並宣佈死亡。
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?
吉米穆班戈真正發生的狀況, 我的同事馬修泰勒和我, 我們能夠說出來的故事, 是他其實被三名安全人員強迫限制 不得離開座位; 他抗拒,不願被驅逐出境, 所以他們把他壓在座位上。 他們用一種危險的擒拿法壓制住他。 那種方式能讓被拘留者安靜, 而他製造了許多噪音。 但那也可能會造成體位性窒息, 那是一種窒息的形式。 所以,各位可以想像: 機上還有其他乘客, 他們可以聽見他說: 「我不能呼吸!我不能呼吸! 他們要殺了我!」 接著他就停止呼吸了。 我們是怎麼找到這些乘客的? 在伊安湯姆林森的案例中, 目擊證人還在倫敦。 但這些乘客當中 有許多已經返回安哥拉。 我們要如何找到他們?
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."
我們又再一次轉向網際網路。 我們寫故事,我之前說過── 它們就像磁鐵。 新聞教授看到 這些故事的論調可能會皺眉, 因為都是懷疑論的; 這些故事在問問題,也許還有揣測, 這些也許是新聞記者不該做的事。 但我們得要這麼做, 我們也得要用推特。 在這裡,我寫說 有名安哥拉男子死在飛機上。 故事可能會很大; 這是某種程度的推測。 下一則推特寫說:「請 RT。」 意思就是「請轉發」, 請繼續傳下去。 推特很棒的一點就是 資訊流的模式 完全是前所未見的。 我們其實不了解它, 但一旦你釋出了一則資訊, 它就會像風一樣散出去。 你無法決定它最後會到哪兒。 但,很奇怪的是, 推特推文有種神奇的能力, 可以到達到它們該去的目的地。 在這個案例中,就是這名男子。 他說:「我也在 BA77 上」── 那是班機號碼── 「而那名男子在求救, 我現在很有罪惡感, 我當時什麼都沒做。」
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.
那是麥可。 他發這則推文給我的時候, 人正在安哥拉的油田中。 我則在倫敦的辦公室裡。 他很關心那班機上發生了什麼事。 所以他打開筆電, 輸入了航班號碼。 他看到了那則推文, 他看到了我們的故事。 他了解到我們有打算 要說出不同版本的真相; 我們抱持懷疑。 他就聯絡了我。 以下是麥可說的。
(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.
(聲音)麥可: 我很確定結果是窒息。 我們聽到那名男子說的 最後一句話是他無法呼吸。 且有三名安全人員, 每一個看起來體重 都有一百公斤以上, 壓住他、按住他── 這是我能看到的, 從座位底下看到。 我看到的是,三名男子 試著把他從座位上拉下來。 我只能看到他的頭 在椅背以上的高度, 他在叫喊:『救我!』 他只是不斷地說: 『救我!救我!』 接著他就消失在椅背之下了。 從那裡可以看見 三名安全人員坐在他上面。 我在我的餘生, 都永遠不會忘記這件事。 我本來有沒有可能做什麼? 現在每當我要躺下睡覺時, 這個問題就會煩擾著我。 哇;我沒有插手, 因為我很怕我可能會被 趕下飛機,丟了我的工作。 如果需要三個男人 才能壓制住一個男人, 讓他上飛機, 且是有一般民眾的飛機, 那是很過份了。 好嗎? 如果這個人死了, 那真的是太過份了。
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.
保羅:所以,這是他對於 班機上所發生的事情的詮釋。 麥可是我們最後成功追蹤到 五名目擊證人之一, 如我先前提過的,大部分這些人, 都是透過網際網路、 透過社交媒體找到的。 我們可以把他們放在飛機上, 這樣你們就能看到他們當時的座位。 在這個階段, 這一切有一個非常重要的面向, 就是新聞記者如果要使用社交媒體 以及使用公民新聞, 就要能夠確保取得的事實是正確的。 驗證絕對是很必要的。 在伊安湯姆林森的案例中, 我讓目擊證人回到死亡現場, 實體帶我走過一遍事發經過, 並明確告訴我他們看到了什麼。 那是絕對必要的。 在穆班戈的案例中, 我們無法這麼做, 但他們可以把登機證寄給我們。 我們可以訊問他們說的內容, 確保他們的說詞和其他乘客一樣。 這一切當中,對新聞記者── 對我們所有人──危險在於, 我們是騙局的受害者, 或者,誤導的資訊 被故意釋放出來給大眾。 所以我們得要很小心。
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.
但沒有人能否認公民新聞的力量。 當兩年前,一架飛機 墜毀在休士頓時, 全世界會知道這件事,是因為 有一名男子在附近的渡輪上, 他拿出他的 iPhone, 拍下了飛機的影像, 發送到全世界── 在這架飛機墜入 休士頓河中的前幾分鐘、 幾小時,大部分人最初 是以這種方式知道這件事的。
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.
想想今年最大的兩則新聞。 我們有日本地震和海嘯。 回憶一下,當時你們在電視螢幕上 看到的影像。 有船隻跑到陸地上五英哩的地方。 有房子被移動了, 好像在海裡一樣。 水升起,灌入居民的客廳, 超市在晃動── 這些都是公民新聞記者 所拍下的影像, 馬上就在網際網路上分享。
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.
另一則年度大新聞:政治危機, 中東的政治地震。 不論是埃及、利比亞、 敘利亞,或葉門,都無所謂, 在那些政權之下, 許多個人都仍然想辦法 克服了壓迫性的限制, 記錄下他們的環境, 在網路上說出他們自己的故事。 同樣地,這也非常難驗證, 但潛在地來說, 有很大一層的責任在其中。 這張影像──我其實可以 給各位看任何一張影像; YouTube 上到處都是── 這張影像是巴林 一位明顯沒有武裝的抗議者。 他被保安部隊射殺。 不論這個人是受到不當的對待, 可能還被殺害, 不論是在巴林或在倫敦。 但,公民新聞和這項技術已經 在我們的世界中插入了 一層新的責任層面, 我認為這是好事。
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.
所以,結論是:大會的 主題「為什麼不?」── 我認為,對於新聞記者來說, 其實是很容易的。 我是指,為什麼不用這項技術, 它能大大地拓展可能性的界限, 為什麼不接受現在我們的世界中 很多發生的事情都被記錄下來了, 而我們可以透過社交媒體 取得那些資訊? 對新聞記者來說,那是新的。
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.
我剛剛跟各位分享的故事, 我想如果是十年前, 我們不可能做這樣的調查, 可能連五年前都不能。 我想,有很好的理由可以說, 這兩起死亡案件, 伊安湯姆林森之死 以及吉米穆班戈之死, 至今我們仍然無法知道 確實發生了什麼事。 對於像各位這樣的人, 「為什麼不呢?」 我想那也非常簡單。 如果你遇到了某件事, 是你覺得有問題的, 且它讓你煩心,讓你在意, 比如某種不公正的事, 感覺就是不太對勁的事, 那麼,為什麼不見證它、 記錄它,並分享它? 那種見證、記錄, 並分享的過程就是新聞。
And we can all do it. Thank you.
那是我們都可以做的。謝謝。