The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - How To Spot Fake Footage In The Ukraine War

Episode Date: March 3, 2022

It's the Thursday edition of The Bridge and that means your turn through the Bridge Mailbag.  Lots of comments on Ukraine, the Media and Covid. But we start with some tips on how to spot fake or misleading footage about the war.

And hello there, Peter Vansbridge here. You are just moments away from the latest episode of The Bridge. How to spot fake or misleading footage about the Ukraine war? That's one question we're going to answer on this Thursday, Mailbag Edition of The Bridge. And welcome from Stratford, Ontario. Yes, I'm Peter Mansbridge. This is Thursday. That does mean the mailbag and lots of emails coming into the bridge mailbag in the last few days from you asking questions or just making comments about some of the big issues of the day and i'm going to get to those letters in just one moment i did want to mention this i saw this in the pbs news hours online edition and it's um it's worth keeping

in mind especially right now because you're seeing a lot of things on television, you're seeing pictures in newspapers and online, and the question often comes up, is that real? Should I believe that? Is that really what happened? Well, those are good questions to be asking, and there actually are ways for you to challenge what you're witnessing what you're seeing to ensure that it's right and so that's what this article was all about it's headlined how to spot fake or misleading footage on social media to put their side of the story or what they claim is their side of the story out. Some of us simply call it propaganda because it's torqued in a special way to try and make them look good, the other side look bad, them look like they're winning, the other side look like they're losing. So these are some of the points, and there are lots of different ones.

I'm just going to highlight a couple. Because when you look at that photo, claiming it was from a certain thing, you've got to check to make sure, was it really from that moment or was it from a different time or place? And you'll see that. You see that happening. Or they've staged an event, or they've shot it in a particular way to make it look like there are far more people there than actually were there.

Far more tanks there than actually were there. Far more tanks there than actually were there. They've photoshopped things in and out of the picture. And there are ways, now sometimes you've got to have pretty sophisticated equipment, but there are ways to find that out. So in this article, they have a little section, you know, what can I do about it? Here's the answer. You can attempt to fact-check images for yourself

rather than taking them at face value. One way of doing that, this sounds complicated, but it's actually perhaps not as complicated as you might at first think. This post in the Telegram, the British paper, claims that Polish-speaking saboteurs attacked a sewage facility in an attempt to place a tank of chlorine for a false flag attack. But the video's metadata, the details about how and when the video was created, showed it was filmed days before the alleged date of the incident. To check metadata for yourself, you can download the file and use software such as Adobe Photoshop or Bridge to examine it.

And I warned you, this gets a little complicated, but it's all doable, especially for somebody who understands how to use their computer. Online metadata viewers also exist that allow you to check by using the image's web link. Consult a fact-checking resource. Australian Associated Press, Agence France-Presse, AFB, and Bellingcat maintain fact-checks their teams have performed.

Okay, that's the kind of complicated area of all this. Search more boldly, it says, or broadly. If old content is being recycled and repurposed, you may be able to find the same footage used elsewhere. You can use Google Images or TinEye to reverse image search a picture and see where else it appears online. But be aware that simple edits,

such as reversing the left-right orientation of an image, can fool search engines and make them think the flipped image is new. Look for inconsistencies. Does the purported time of day match the direction of light you would expect at that time? Do watches or clocks visible in the image correspond to the alleged timeline claimed? You can also compare other data points, such as politician schedules or verified sightings, Google Earth vision or Google Maps imagery, to try and triangulate claims and see whether the details are consistent. So some of those are simple, others a little more complicated, right? Two other quick

things. Do you know where, when, and why the photo or video was made? Do you know who made it? And whether what you're looking at is the original version? Ultimately, if you're in doubt, don't share or replete claims that haven't been published by a reputable source such as an international news organization. And consider using some of these principles when deciding which sources to trust. Some things to keep in mind. And the other thing you should keep in mind, I mean, those are all for an individual. News organizations do this, or at least should be in mind. I mean, those are all for an individual. News organizations do this, or at least should be doing this, every time they've got material in their hands that they don't know,

you know, that they didn't shoot themselves. They authenticate where it came from, or at least they should. And there are strict rules in place, policy guidelines in place, at most major news organizations to ensure that's what happens. Because lots of people are trying to manipulate you at a time like this. There's lots on the line. The same thing can happen in peacetime. There are organizations, businesses at times, governments certainly, that are trying to manipulate the message.

And you've got to ensure you stay on top of it as a news organization and as a citizen to ensure you're not being manipulated. Okay, let's get into some letters. Once again, I get lots of letters. I don't run them all. I do read them all. And I'll take certain selections, sometimes just a sentence or two, from a letter to run it.

And, you know, I get hundreds of letters a week. You know, if I get 20 or 30 on the program on Thursdays, I feel pretty good about that. Lots of questions and lots of comments mainly about the situation in Ukraine. Scott Foster writes from Ottawa, As much as I'm afraid to look, I wonder about the future world order. What will it be like? Where will Canada fit? I think these are important questions because perhaps we should have known what was about to happen here.

But for the most part, we didn't. And here in Canada, we were consumed by the, you know, the truckers thing. And this sort of came at first a lot of people out of the blue and then suddenly, bingo, we're up to, you know, eight on the DEFCON rating. But this Scotch question is a good one. What is the future world order once we get past this? And where is Canada going to fit in to that future world order? Alan Mills writes from Bowen island british columbia just heard that this conflict could result in 40 million ukrainian refugees

well the country only has 41 million people to start with then a million are already fled the country but there are going to be millions of Ukrainian refugees. The West has control, says Allen, over a trillion dollars of Russia's assets. Well, they'd like to have control over it right now. They're trying. This equates to around $200 a day for the next three years for each refugee to spend on food and lodging, if you go with that $40 million figure.

It would certainly incentivize the oligarchs to end this conflict quickly as they watch their bank accounts being slowly whittled away. That is going to have an impact, but slowly may be the key word. Although you see some things that have already been starting to happen, right? Most of these oligarchs have these huge yachts, and yachts really not, I mean, these things look as big as the Titanic, some of them, they're huge. huge yachts and you know my yachts really not i mean these things look as big as the titanic some of them they're huge and you know the the the germans seized one of them that was uh

harbored in germany turns out putin has one putin of course is probably the richest oligarch although he's got his money hidden away in all kinds of different ways. But he has a big, huge, one of those huge yachts. It was in Germany, but he pulled it out of Germany just before the situation in Ukraine took off.

A fair number of these yachts are on their way to countries with no extradition orders. So they're heading off into the Indian Ocean. But that's Alan's point. Mary Lou Algar from New Hamburg, Ontario. I'm wondering if you or a guest could advise Canadians on the best way they can help the Ukrainians. A few donation sites are

mentioned online and some mention donation matching. It would be great to have some expert guidance on the safest and best way to donate monetarily. Here's how I answer this question. It comes up every time there's a situation like this. You've got to do your own research to be convinced that you think the money you are donating will go to the right place. There are a number of different ways you can do that right now, and everybody has to make a personal decision, and I suggest that that's what you do. I think it's great that you're thinking in those terms. You know, so have I. I've chosen, and I'm not, you know, I'm just telling you what I did. I've chosen the Red Cross because of this matching situation.

The Canadian government is matching donations in some areas. But as Bruce and I have told you before, we also have a partnership in a restaurant in Ottawa, and we're trying to start a situation, hopefully it'll start tonight, where there's a special dish being made that's of a Ukrainian nature. we want to give the proceeds of that order, it's going to go in a donation, and Bruce and I and a couple of the other partners are going to match that donation. And then hopefully the Canadian government is going to match the total as well. So we're looking forward to, you know,

helping out in that way. But we'll do that in conjunction with the Canadian Red Cross. But as I said, there are a number of different organizations and you should check on those and you should do your own research to feel comfortable about where that money is going. John Mullen from Dartmouth, Nova Scotia This invasion has a different chilling feeling to it

It seems like the tip of an iceberg With a Russia-China axis That is going to try to push the Western powers Into a box over the coming years You know something is different And 9-11 like When it's hard to tell the difference between a Fox and a CNN newscast.

I don't know whether I agree with you on that. Although, as I've always said, in actual news reporting, Fox does tend to keep to a news philosophy. But 99% of that channel is opinion. does tend to keep to a news philosophy, but 99% of that channel is opinion. And that ain't like CNN or any of the others at all. But actually, there's some very good news journalists, daily news journalists at Fox.

Not so fancy, and I don't have anything good to say at all about their opinion, people who are doing cartwheels now trying to get out of what they were saying a week ago. Lana Burlock from Calgary, Alberta. I have a question about the safety of reporters in war zones. I've always wondered about this, and seeing the reports coming out of Ukraine reminds me of it again. For example, Margaret Evans is reporting,

good friend of mine, fantastic CBC foreign correspondent, is reporting from Kiev while attacks are happening on that city. How does Margaret know where the safe areas are from which to report? I would appreciate if you would provide some context about how correspondents such as Margaret stay safe and comment on how much personal risk they're taking by reporting from war zones. When you're in a war zone, nowhere is necessarily safe. And we have, unfortunately, a history of journalists who have been seriously wounded, injured, or killed trying to cover wars. Margaret is super smart.

She's, you know, what's that saying? She's been in this rodeo before many times. And the super smart part is, you know, you're very careful about the risks you take. But know we're safe when you're in a war, the middle of a war zone. So we, you know, if you want to know a little more, earlier this week on Tuesday, I had Brian Stewart, good friend, colleague, great war correspondent, talking about this very issue. So that was on Thursday's podcast, so you can find that. Go back and get that one. Cindy Kilpatrick from Alberta.

Ukraine is getting some very intense coverage and rightly so. Was I too busy to notice equivalent coverage of other invasions? Or is this one garnering more attention? It's definitely garnering a lot of attention. One of the things about situations like this for the international media is access. If you can get access, Situations like this for the international media is access. If you can get access, you have a much better chance of, A, telling the story and committing your news organization to extensive coverage.

That's certainly what Ukraine is getting. But, you know, I can point to lots of other situations in the last 20, 30 years that have had equal coverage, at least in the early days. A challenging thing about a story like this is the longer it goes on, will the attention still be as great? And will the news organizations be willing to spend the enormous amount of money it takes to cover something like this? Or will they start pulling people out of some of these areas, not just for safety issues, but for financial issues? But access is so important, and right now, Ukraine wants as many journalists in as they can to tell their story.

Moscow is still allowing Western journalists to report from Moscow, and watch carefully to see how long that lasts, and what conditions start to be placed on Western journalists if any. But yes, you're right, it's getting a lot of attention. Annie Trepanier from Montreal. I'll be brief. I think we're cowards and poor allies.

And when I say we, I mean NATO countries. Ukraine is not a NATO member. That is painfully clear, but it is a NATO associate and ally and was a NATO candidate. And it is partly because they are close to NATO that they are being invaded right now. And we are not willing to defend them properly. We do not send

troops, no boots on the ground to help our ally defend their land. Therefore, we are cowards. We are letting our ally alone to defend itself. Yes, there are no boots on the ground from the allies but to suggest

they're not helping at all would be wrong because they're spending billions of dollars in moving materials into Ukraine and trying to help out on the refugee situation. The whole issue around boots on the ground and defending in a shooting war is a controversial one and a challenging one to deal with. You know the NATO, you're right, they're not NATO members. Should they be? That whole question is going to come up again. But too late for this moment, it seems.

The concern, of course, is if NATO gets involved, we're going to head straight towards World War III and the use of nuclear weapons. Yes, could that happen? I suppose it could happen. Is it likely to happen? Most experts don't think so, but you know what? Most experts didn't think we were going to get to this point either. Robert Bjarnason.

The world needs a strong, conspiracy-free United States to lead the democracies of the world. Thank goodness we aren't dealing with Trumpian lies and inaction at this time. Alternative facts on a local and global scale are detrimental to the cause of freedom and fairness. Catherine Clark writes from Mississauga, I don't think that the conflict in Ukraine will end easily. Putin is self-centered and sees himself as a strong warrior fighting for the glory of Mother Russia. He's already in too deep to pull out now and save face. I wonder if the supporters of the truck convoys in Canada

have figured out what it means to be free in light of Ukraine. They can come to talk to me about rights and freedoms as a Canadian when others in the world are not fighting and dying for theirs. That may be the best point at which to take our quick break as we come back on some letters that were still being written

about that trucker's convoy. And we'll hear what you have to say on that. I should make one other mention. I had a couple of letters this week about terminology and how we determine whether we call it a war or a conflict or an invasion or an occupation, a fight, a battle. What is it?

Well, I guess technically it's a war when both sides or at least one side declare it's a war. There have been some indications that the Russians at some point declared it a war, but Putin says it's a military operation, a special operation in Ukraine. The Ukrainians are resisting the word war. As observers, you know, listen, the way I look at it,

you can call it whatever you want, people are dying. Bombs are being dropped. Citizens are armed. They're out on the front lines. It's Ukraine versus Russia and Belarus. I think all the terminology applies, and I don't think there's any special decision that has to be made there. I think we all know what we see.

What it is is what it is. Okay, we're going to take a quick break. When we come back, we'll do a little trucker's talk. Hello there, Peter Mansbridge, back in Stratford, Ontario. And you're listening to The Bridge, the Thursday episode on channel 167, Sirius XM Canada, Canada Talks. Or on your favorite podcast platform. And wherever you're listening from, we're glad you're with us.

Back to the mailbag and some of your comments about the stories of the past few weeks. We dealt a lot with Ukraine in the first segment of the broadcast today, and now we're going to move into some of your comments that still are around about the convoy. Doesn't that seem like a long time ago now? And how it consumed us? Anyway, this one is from Lorna Grouch. She's in Saskatchewan, I think. Let me just check this. I'm going to flip the page over.

She's in Lousland, Saskatchewan. She's formerly from Wilkie. I know Wilkie. I don't know Lousland. I used to live in Saskatchewan. All right. Lorna writes a very long letter. I'm just going to read a short portion of it. Here we go. I hung my head in shame as I saw a convoy leader from Swift Current, my own province, with a fondness for Confederateederate flags in his office, which he lies

are just pieces of cloth. I hung my head in shame as prairie farmers used their farm implements to block border crossings or in attempts to ram RCMP officers and cruisers. This was some prairie farmers, right? Not all of them. My father farmed all his life and would never have done such a thing. I hung my head in shame as a person in the crowd at the news briefing given by the RCMP superintendent

in Cootes, Alberta, giving an account of the arrest and the seizure of a weapons cache. Hung my head as he or she was accused of fabricating her report because this person had read an account to the contrary on social media. When did people lose respect for the members here to protect our public safety? When did they grow to distrust them so much? Who has the gall to accuse this member of lying

after she and her team just put their lives on line, successfully carrying out their duties? I loved her response to the accusation, stating she only deals in facts. I'm also weary of hearing others bash our Canadian journalists. Seeing what they were subjected to last month makes me appreciate them all the more. I think they're very brave. Blaine Pauling writes, I was recently watching Question Period in the UK Parliament and I found it embarrassing because it makes Canada's parliamentary debate look like a grade six debating club and that's being generous. That's not to say that the Brits don't have their share of partisanship, acrimony, and

nonsense, but they nevertheless have at least some substantive debate rather than empty, brainless talking points. I have no idea what I can do as a Canadian. I can vote, I can write my MP, talk to my community, but when all parties offer nothing else than different kinds of poison, where can we go? More than ever, we need to put aside this petty nonsense and actually engage with each other on our way forward. But I see no evidence that any of our political leaders intend to play anything except the politics of division. I haven't even addressed the horror show on social media.

Blaine, you're going to get a lot of support for those comments. Including from me. I've made that point more than a few times. Watching the British Parliament is a lesson in thoughtful discussion. Not all the time. They have their weak moments too, as you mentioned. But pretty much jerry mize i think it's mize from prince george bc well i certainly don't agree with your reporting on some issues in canada you

seem to be a hypocrite first the two flags that were seen at the trucker rally in ottawa two people with two flags and they were run out of the protest less than an hour in by the truckers. There were a lot more than just two offensive flags, a lot more. And it took a lot longer than an hour. Those people were hanging around for quite a bit. Same for the guy dancing on the unknown soldier's grave. Actually, it was a woman.

It was in the video, and there was more than one person. Gone once someone noticed what they were doing. Well, they did eventually get rid of them that day. They were like the flag wavers on the first day, the offensive, racist flag wavers on the first day, the offensive racist flag wavers. Yet yourself and your panel went straight to the protests, calling it racist and bigoted. And now I hear your panel criticizing the New York paper for reporting the arrest at gunpoint with pictures to prove what they were saying.

No, the pictures did not prove that. And the New York paper has since rewritten their story. So, so much for that. However, Jerry, I hear you in terms of your sense that everything was torqued against you because of some of the actions on the first day. And some others on following days. They did not help your cause.

I'm not sure what your cause was, because nobody would properly answer that question through the whole protest. When they had the few news conferences they had, they didn't take questions. Also, I find it funny, all your letters read on the air are against the protest and how awful everyone there were, yet I don't hear anything from the other side. Look in the mirror, because you are far from unbiased in your reporting.

Hey, Jerry, I just read your letter. Jesse Thomas from Nova Scotia. I really enjoyed your recent podcast talking with Jerry Butts and James Moore. That was a very popular podcast, by the way. If you haven't listened to it, you should pull it back up. It was on like two weeks ago.

I am a liberal, lowercase l, which I only disclose to you to echo the level of political change happening in Canada, as discussed on the podcast, and pertinent to the growing number of liberals who have been recently disenfranchised by Liberal Party leadership. I agree with Jerry's point that as people search for meaning once supplied by religion and true community and now make politics the home of their value system, we quickly reach an untenable polarization in the body politic. Yet I do feel there is a growing voice in the desert, to ironically use a religious term, from a non-partisan base interested in truth

that holds a complex and varying view on this matter. Jesse suggests that I reach out to some, I don't agree with his list of people who he says are non-partisan because they aren't, but there are non-partisan voices out there and we should reach out and correct about that. This one's from Stephen Lowe from Maitland, Nova Scotia. From our earliest days when our ancestors sat around the fire

telling tales of the hunt, how food was found when it was scarce, or how chance encounters with mammoths or saber-toothed tigers went, humans shared stories with one another for good purpose. We shared stories because they were how we passed on information about survival and how we dealt with challenging or dangerous situations. In our modern world, we've replaced the glow of a fire with the glow of a TV or computer monitor or screen, or the glow of a radio's electronic display or radio dial. But the activity is the same. We listen to a storyteller, a news anchor, or a reporter, who tells us, the listeners, collectively known as the audience, about some conflict or situation that was overcome or it wasn't. The media is all about retaining audience because the audience is

a market for advertisers and advertisers pay money to media outlets for access to that audience. And media needs that money to keep doing what it does. Consequently, as they say, if it bleeds, it leads, because the audience needs to be engaged to be retained. At least that's my theory and reasoning. What do you think? Yeah, I think you made a lot of good points. I love your analogy between our earliest days and our today days, I always resist when I hear this, if it bleeds, it leads, thing because it just, it simply isn't true. If you knew how much stuff we saw every day in television or in print,

looking at pictures that come in and probably again right now in Ukraine. If we thought that showing butchered bodies was going to get us viewers, believe me, that's not the case. We see pictures every day that are of shocking clarity in terms of what happens to our fellow humans

in different situations, whether that's conflict or natural disaster. And those pictures don't run. Occasionally, we'll show something to underline

just how cruel the world can be. But that's not to gain viewers. It turns viewers off. But it can also be arguably the point made that it's important to tell the story sometimes in its most graphic form. But that's very rare.

Most of the time, if it bleeds, not only does it not lead, it doesn't even make it on the air. But am I also saying at the same time that we don't sometimes fall into the trap of looking for images or discussions that are clickbait. I'd be lying if I said that we never do that. And when I say we, I'm talking about the collective we in the media. That does happen. But that's what good editors and good journalists are supposed to

do, is to challenge that when it happens. To make sure that there's a legitimate journalistic reason for showing or describing or using whatever material we have.

Okay, a couple more before we go for this week's Your Turn. This comes from David Clark in Barrie, Ontario. It's been a while since I last sent you an email, but I feel strongly the bridge should continue to devote Monday to COVID discussions with epidemiologists. It has been so refreshing to hear facts to help offset all of the disinformation we hear from politicians across the country who are not experts. I'm 74 years old with some heart issues,

and I'd rather base decisions on my health risks during this pandemic on expert information. For the same reason, if I have to have heart surgery, I wouldn't be looking for a politician to give me advice or do the operation. So glad the bridge is doing so well. Thank you, David. Appreciate that. Appreciate your comments. Okay.

You know, it's rare that I write back to a listener because I simply get so much mail. Excuse me. Sometimes, sometimes I do. And we're going to end today with an exchange I had with Sean Cleary. It's in Toronto. I'm a new listener to the podcast and really enjoying it so far. Just listened to Monday's podcast, which included a segment with Science Sam. Samantha, you mean? Doctor. On the future of masking in society. She made some solid points on the effect on immune compromised individuals

and those still living in fear of COVID-19. However, there was one group I found to be completely overlooked by both of you, school-aged children. I should say we've done shows on this, on school-aged children, masking vaccines before, but you're quite correct,

Sean, we didn't mention it on Monday. While I have more patients writing this out and wearing, if masks, wearing masks if asked to i worry about the long-term damage this is doing to our children we're now at the point of the pandemic where we can attend a sold-out sports event or concert dine and drink without a vaccination passport but our kids will still be forced to mask up and we know that they aren't the mass virus spreading group we once thought of them to be. I feel as though they've been through enough these past few years that of any group, it's time to let them breathe some fresh air and just be kids again.

If we may have the choice to mask or not soon, why not them as well? Thanks again for this podcast. Happy I stumbled upon it. Welcome aboard, Sean. Glad to have you with us. I did decide to write back to Sean because I appreciated his comments very much. So let me just close out today by reading you what I wrote to him. Hi, Sean. Thanks so much for this note, and I always appreciate hearing feedback

and pushing topics forward like this. I get a lot of letters from parents, and while I hear you on kids needing to be kids, I also hear the flip side from parents that are very worried about the lifting of restrictions. I'm still unclear on where things stand in total, but there is a sense from some doctors that some of the decisions to lift restrictions are not necessarily based on science, but on business. Some are relieved that we can still protect our kids in school and should for a bit longer. Today in Saskatchewan, this was yesterday. Today in Saskatchewan, there are rising COVID cases and hospitalizations and emergency room visits in kids under five.

Keep in mind as well that there's no vaccine option for those under five. Another point of contention and that the vaccination rates for kids 5 to 11 it's still very low perhaps this is part of what they're taking into consideration but again i'm no expert i don't envy parents of young kids these days it seems there are no good choices. But you raise a good point. And I think it may be worth an episode soon. Thanks for listening to Sean.

And thank you all for listening. I love Thursdays. I love hearing your thoughts and your concerns. And as I said before, this is just a part of the mail I get every week. Tomorrow, Friday, Good Talk. Chantelle Hebert and Bruce Anderson will be here.

As always, lots to talk about. And do that we will. This has been The Bridge, the Your Turn edition. I'm Peter Mansbridge. Thanks so much for listening. We'll talk to you again in 24 hours.