The Free Amina Hoax, discovered to be Thomas (Tom) J MacMaster.

Thanks in large part to the work of Ali Abunimah and Benjamin Doherty, Andy Carvin, Liz Henry, and Jillian York, the Gay Girl in Damascus is no more.  But how do we move on?

In a brilliant and comprehensive post, Ethan Zuckerman rightly suggests that trust in citizen sources will be damaged, particularly those bloggers who hide their identities because they live in repressive regimes.  Those fighting hardest to get media out of countries like Syria will be badly hit. Regimes are able to once again portray citizen media as fabricated lies peddled by foreigners.  And activists promoting campaigns online will have to work doubly hard to win support.

But perhaps skepticism is a healthy thing. Perhaps we have needed a good dose of it for a while now.  What would be a positive outcome of increased skepticism about citizen media?

One thing that big media could do almost immediately is publish a nutritional guide to any article that relies substantially on citizen or unverified sources.  This could be published at the top of the article, and should contain two things: a statement of how confident the media outlet is of the source’s authenticity and the efforts that have been taken so far to establish that level of confidence.

This could take the form of a checklist that over time could evolve into a easily recognisable nutritional guide to news content, replete with little emblems or colour coding.

I imagine two checklists. First, the level of confidence:

1. We are working to verify this source but cannot assume it is authentic at this time
2. We have some reason to believe this source is authentic
3. We have strong reasons to believe this source is authentic
4. We have independently verified this source

Any source that is junk should be called out, but more importantly articles based on its output should be retracted or updated to remove the source.

Second, you need a checklist for steps taken to verify the citizen source:

1. Content Cross-referenced with other citizen media from same location and date
2. Email contact established with the source
3. Internet phone contact established with the source
4. Mobile phone contact established with the source
5. Video contact established with the source
6. Partner media outlet has met this source face-to-face
7. We have met this source face-to-face

Perhaps email contact or cross-referencing produces ‘We are working to verify this source but cannot assume it is authentic at this time’; perhaps a combination of email and internet phone contact produces ‘We have some reason to believe this source is authentic’; perhaps mobile or video contact produces ‘We have strong reasons to believe this source is authentic’; and face-to-face contact produces ‘We have independently verified this source’.

Often other news organisations provide some cover of credibility for a source. So when A Gay Girl in Damascus was covered by big media, it took off.   That’s why this nutritional check list should really evolve into a Media Sources Database, which the big media share (hence item 6. in the list above).

Imagine if all citizen sources appearing in articles published online by the top media outlets presented a link to a media sources database with all the key information regarding the authenticity of the source. For example, any description of communications sustained with that source by any of the big media.  This information could be made readily accessible in a javascript popup on the dynamic link to the source.

Taking steps to authenticate sources is as important as ever – perhaps more so now that sources can self-publish under so many different guises.  Big media could do more to represent to their audiences the level of confidence they have in that source and the steps taken to establish that level of confidence. Better still, they could share that information and make it readily available across multiple international audiences for the betterment of digital journalism.

Al Arabiya television channel has been fined for deciding not to broadcast an interview. Courtesy Mr T. in DC.

It’s the daily trade of the television output editor, chopping what doesn’t meet the grade to maintain the daily news agenda in a time sensitive schedule.

But now an Arabic language channel in the Gulf might have to rethink its editorial chain of command after a court in Dubai slapped down a $27,000 fine for not broadcasting an interview it recorded with a Saud royal.

The decision inflicted ‘emotional, moral and social damage on the prince’s status as a royal,’ according to his lawyer.

Judge Ahmad Eisa of Dubai’s appeal court agreed, ruling that Al Arabiya had ‘breached the nobility and morality of journalism’ in refusing to air the interview with Prince Dr Saif Al Islam Bin Saud Bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud.

The Prince, who sought five times the level of compensation ordered by the court, was upset that Al Arabiya failed to broadcast the interview despite having advertised it on air, according to Gulf News.

The channel had flown Prince Dr Saif Al Islam to Dubai especially to record the piece.

Al Arabiya countered that it had full rights to the interview and so could choose when to air it.

Menassat - the Beirut-based independent news source and media watchdog which closed this week

The Beirut-based news outfit Menassat has closed after its Dutch backers Free Voice withdrew funding support.

The closure brings to an end two years of quality journalism at Menassat which built a reputation for monitoring and investigating Arab media news.

In a statement posted on its website, Menassat’s staff said they were given less than 24 hours notice of the closure.

‘Our reporters were given no notice of this impending closure,’ the statement read.

‘For this, we are deeply sorry. We hope to work with you again soon.’

On Friday a visit to the news outfit’s website  produced only a holding page stating in English and Arabic: ‘Menassat is currently under maintenance. We should be back shortly.’

In a press release, media development organization Free Voice said: ‘ There are no reasons for Free Voice to terminate its efforts with regard to content.

‘We highly value the dedication and work of the editorial team and they have furthermore always enjoyed full editorial freedom.’

‘The Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs has provided – through Free Voice – the initial funding until August 1st 2008.

‘It was agreed upon that efforts would made from Beirut to be financially independent after this date.

‘Because this had not been successful, Free Voice has decided to provide, from its own means, additional funds for a number of times under the agreement that additional funds would be actively sought for from Beirut.

‘Sadly, Free Voice has to acknowledge that these have not been secured and Free Voice is now forced to terminate its support, in line with these agreements.’

Despite staff perceptions of a rapid demise, funding concerns existed at Menassat for some months.

In May, staff staged a protest at the delayed payment of their salaries.

Reporters also spoke of working on a ’shoestring’ budget.

When Free Voice responded to staff demands, they in turn requested the outfit take steps to improve its editorial output over a three month period, according to Layal Haddad writing in the Lebanese Al-Akhbar.

Managing director Lina Sahab achieved strong progress with more varied editorial content and up to 4,000 hits per day.

But these successes were not enough to secure the financial future of a promising alternative media source.

The closure has already sparked conspiracy theories, but reporters were more frank.

One reporter, Rita Barotta, wrote: ”The question that haunts my conscience today is: Why do the Lebanese always believe that the solutions to their problems must come from abroad?’

‘Why assume that the basic requirement to launch a unique media platform is the presence of an external financier to support it?’