Skip to content

Sydney Writers Festival 2018, Live-streaming (Session 1)

May 6, 2018

May is such a busy month for birthdays and anniversaries in the Gums world that I hardly ever get to the Sydney Writers Festival, even though it is not much more than 3 hours drive away. I was consequently thrilled to discover that this year the National Library of Australia, Canberra, would be one of its live-streaming sites (#AWFLiveAndLocal) – and I was determined to support it (as well as attend because I wanted to). Overall, some 15 sessions were streamed over three days to around 35 sites.

This year’s theme is “The year of power”, one which is close to the revived Canberra Writers Festival theme of the last two years, “Politics, Power, Passion”.

Conflicting Narratives, Friday 4 May, 3pm

Panel: Ben Taub, Alexis Okewo, Alec Luhn, Ben Doherty (MC)

Sydney Writers Festival 2018This session was billed as being about “the role of storytellers in a time of ongoing conflict, terrorism and refugee crises.” The panelists, for those of you who don’t know them, were New Yorker writer, Alexis Okewo, who has written about extremism in Africa in her book A moonless, starless sky; the Moscow-based reporter for The Telegraph, Alec Luhn; and another New Yorker writer, Ben Laub, who writes about Syria and the jihadi movement in Europe. The moderator, Ben Doherty, writes for The Guardian.

The discussion started with Ben asking each panelist about his or her recent work. Okewo spoke about the moral complexities faced by people in extreme societies, arguing that the decisions they have to make aren’t simple. Individuals often aren’t all-victim or all-perpetrator and can be forced to commit violence. She talked about the aftermath, about how you live after terrible things (which made me think of Aminatta Forna’s The hired man, my review).

Taub talked about Syria, and how the Rome Statute is clear about what you can and can’t do in conflict. The problem is, however, that Syria isn’t a member of the International Criminal Court (ICC), and that while there is “no ambiguity in international law”, Russia “protects Syria” at the UN Security Council. He noted that although there are currently geopolitical obstacles to pursuing accountability, this doesn’t mean you can’t collect evidence for later.

Luhn clearly confronts similar problems, asking how do you resolve problems when countries don’t agree on fundamentals. It’s more than simply “trying to beat the Russians at their disinformation game.”

Discussion then moved on to processes, such how journalists do their research in such tricky regions. They all agreed that journalists’ main job is to find reliable/trustworthy sources, and that there is a lot of newsworthy material out there “if you know the right people.” Okewo spoke of the difficulty of getting into the remote regions, for example, where Boko Haram is operating. Obtaining good information is particularly difficult in places where “the government is broken” and “resistant to being transparent.” The narrative regarding Boko Haram, for example, tends to be that it didn’t happen, but is a political plot.

Laub talked about the need to use trusted sources, some of which can come via NGOs. However, he did comment that the narrative you get can be “true but not the whole story”.

Related to this, and scattered throughout the conversation, were discussions about what readers can trust. Luhn, in particular, emphasised the importance of teaching media literacy. (My friend and I felt that this is something that’s surely always been taught. Of course, the environment in which we apply assessment techniques keeps changing, but the principles remain the same.) Responding to a question during the Q&A about what readers can trust, Luhn (I think) said that the best thing is to read widely because each media form/outlet has pluses and minuses. It comes back to media literacy, and understanding different outlets.

Another questioner from the Q&A wondered whether it would be possible to have a rating system for journalists, like we have for, say, Uber drivers. MC Doherty was not convinced about this. He wondered who would make the assessment, and worried that ratings could affect freedom of speech. Luhn pondered an organisation like UK’s OFSTED. He also said, though, that we need to trust the professional standards of the traditional newsroom and non-profit journalism centres.

Luhn, I think, quoted Churchill’s “A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.”

From here, the discussion moved on to journalists’ safety, an issue of critical importance if we are going to get reporting from the ground. Alexis, the only woman on the panel, had quite a different spin on this: women journalists, she said, can be threatened by their own sources. They must trust that the people they are reporting with won’t hurt them. She also talked about dealing with vigilantes, about writing on people who are doing admirable but also disturbing things! You can’t fully trust them.

Luhn commented that it’s important not to work alone but journalists are increasingly are doing just this. He mentioned the Rory Peck Trust and the “hostile environment” training they offer freelance journalists. (The things you learn!)

Laub, I think, talked about relying on locals – drivers etc. What happens after you leave can be problematic, he said, because these people can face retribution for working with foreign media. Journalists need to continue the relationship after they leave. On the other hand, people, such as your fixers, can turn on you.

The session ended with quite an engaged Q&A, some of which I’ve included above. It ranged from questions about journalism itself – including one asking for advice for young writers – to questions about the regions the journalists are working in and the causes of the problems those regions are facing. The panel talked about Russia’s troll factory, and the future of Syria for example, but I’m going to close here!

It was inspiring to hear this bunch of engaged – and brave – young journalists talk about their work and their profession.

PS: I apologise if I’ve wrongly ascribed the speaker. I mostly captured the speaker’s name, but I slipped up a couple of times.

12 Comments leave one →
  1. May 6, 2018 8:39 pm

    *Snap!* We’ve both reported on festivals today:)
    The session you went to is one I would have gone to (yes, the SWF is all too hard for me too) though it’s probably not one where I’d buy the books. Do you find this, that the journalism sessions tend to be really interesting but you don’t particularly want to read more about it?

    • May 6, 2018 8:40 pm

      Yes, mostly, Lisa, though I did buy the book by Alexis Okewo. Will I find time to read it? (I haven’t seen your post yet as I’ve been too busy writing this! Will check it later …)

      • May 6, 2018 8:56 pm

        I bought Sara Dowse’s book today. I ordered it from the library when we talked about it before but it came in along with a whole lot of other books, all at the same time, and because it’s such a long book, I had to send it back unread. Will I get time to read it? I hope so!

        • May 6, 2018 10:49 pm

          I hope so too — it covers such a fascinating history, and something that Sara Dowse is passionate about.

  2. May 6, 2018 8:55 pm

    Now that news media owners are so open about pushing agendas I don’t believe you can trust what you read anywhere. At least not without spending time getting to know individual journalists, and I guess, from there, networks of same.

    • May 6, 2018 11:08 pm

      That’s the message really – read diverse sources. Perhaps it’s better that it’s more open? Do you think it’s really very different in fact? I’m not sure that it is.

  3. May 7, 2018 12:05 am

    This is such a wonderful way of allowing people to feel involved in a live event when they’re unable to make it to the actual venue. Somehow, it’s never quite the same watching something at a later date. Excellent reporting, Sue!

    • May 7, 2018 1:52 am

      Thanks Paula, it is. I agree totally. I know many of them have been put on the website later to watch in the privacy of one’s own home, but there was something about driving to a venue and watching/listening with others. (Also, it’s easy to procrastinate and not get around to it if you know it’s available online!) And, there was a bit of a buzz in the library foyer before and after the sessions I attended.

  4. May 7, 2018 7:29 am

    I agree that one must read journalistic news widely though I don’t find too much difference between the better outlets. I dislike the entertainment format of news that seems to be rampant with some media. I dont think the SWF is streaming anywhere is Tasmania. My feiend is attending seven sessions in Port MacQuarie. I think we’ve been left off the map but I may be wrong.

    • May 7, 2018 8:04 am

      Hi Pam, I just looked it up and it was – but in Launceston. This is the fourth year they’ve (SWF Imran) done it, starting with just ten sites the first year. I think State Theatre has done it.

      Yes, I agree re entertainment format, of much of the news.

  5. Meg permalink
    May 7, 2018 7:11 pm

    Hi Sue, I was at the Clunes Book Festival,on Saturday. Unfortunately Richard Flanagan was booked out so I only bought books! I do agree it is always better to read more than one review or reporting of any incident or report..

    • May 7, 2018 10:46 pm

      Oh, lucky you Meg. I’ll get there one day. A shame you missed Flanagan, but “only” buying books is a fair consolation isn’t it?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: