spinofflive
Image: Livestream
Image: Livestream

SocietyMarch 3, 2022

When misinformation spreads like fire

Image: Livestream
Image: Livestream

How one Facebook livestream comment about the parliament lawn fires led to a brand new truth for protest supporters.

Viewers watching the Facebook livestream from protest influencer Chantelle Baker yesterday afternoon (March 2) got to witness misinformation unfolding in real time as a fire within the protest camp changed – according to Baker, and in the space of 10 minutes – from a fire started by “six guys” to a fire started by the police.

At around 3.40pm Baker, streaming live on Facebook from the protest, was alerted to thick black smoke rising from among the tents on parliament’s lawn. “Shit, they’re burning stuff,” she exclaimed. “What kind of idiots would start a fire around all these tents?!”

A burning tent seen on one of many livestreams from parliament

About a minute later Baker wondered aloud, of people she’d seen running around near the fire: “Were those people instigators, because they were covered in masks?”

Among the comments on her stream many were concluding, with no evidence, that the police were behind it, and any instigators were probably working for them. “[There] were plenty of instigators within the protest, the police probably knew this fire was happening,” opined Amanda in one comment.

“Police obviously sent some of their own in to cause trouble the wankers,” suggested Tony. 

Two minutes after the fire began, Baker saw people among the protest throwing more flammable items onto the fire. “These idiots in the corner,” Baker narrated as we saw items flying from the crowd into the growing inferno. “There’s some big angry people in this corner and they’ve started that, and they keep chucking stuff onto it!”

By this point it seemed clear that Baker had drawn the obvious conclusion from what was playing out in front of her – people within the protest crowd had started a fire and were stoking it.

At 3.45pm a new commenter, Ben, posted new and specific information about the start of the fire: “Cops pushed over generator over ignited nylon tent”.

A Facebook comment from Chantelle Baker’s livestream

The comment scrolled by without Baker noticing. “I think we need to go and film the guys that are doing this,” she said.

Only 38 seconds later, a new specific claim arrived in the chat from another commenter, Dan. “Police knocked over a gas cooker caught live on conserve media,” he wrote, referencing another Facebook livestream (I checked the stream in question, it caught no such thing). 

This one had escaped Baker’s notice too, and a moment later she summarised the situation: “There was a group of six guys, they started a fire, and now everything’s going up, oh my god.”

Barely three minutes after it was first posted, Baker saw Ben’s comment and read it out loud to her more than 18,000 viewers. “Cops started it, they pushed over a generator it caught a tent on fire,” she announced. “Wow.”

A minute later, talking to a friend at the protest, Baker repeated the claim. From this point on, the reality, as far as Baker was concerned, is that police started the fire.

The initial fire as seen from parliament’s balcony with police lines well removed from the starting point (Image: Justin Giovannetti)

Some in the comments weren’t so sure. Jordan wrote, “a generator isn’t gonna set something on fire by being pushed over, and the police line wasn’t past the tent that caught fire”. Both seemingly accurate points, but they did nothing to shift the new truth.

A couple of minutes later Baker came across a TV news crew among the tents and shouted out, “mainstream media, you started this! It was your propaganda that caused this!”

She repeated her new truth. “You realise the police pushed over a generator that set a tent on fire?” she shouted at the camera crew. “I hope you guys get that. I hope you don’t say it was the protesters when it was the police that caused this fire!”

There were close to 20,000 people watching Baker’s livestream at that moment. Baker, her viewers and, soon, the participants in countless Telegram and Facebook groups, were convinced: the police had started the fire. All from one comment on a Facebook livestream.

A collage of Telegram posts about the fire’s origin

Other footage of the protest from the time doesn’t support Baker’s version of events. Wider angles, such as those from media outlets watching from parliament’s balcony, show the police line well away from the spot where and when the fire started.

Closer views of the initial fire confirm this, showing police lines holding about 10 metres away from the tent where the fire begins. While it’s not clear in videos which individuals started the first fire, it is clear that they were from among the protesters themselves.

Baker was given ample opportunity to challenge her assumptions when, moments later, she came across a freshly lit fire among tents elsewhere in the camp. There were no cops or tipped generators in sight.

She was filming as a protester picked up a burning cardboard box from the fire and hurled it into another nearby tent. “This is what you get for not listening to the people!” said the arsonist as he gleefully spread the inferno. Chants from others nearby seemed supportive: “burn it all down!”

Frames from Chantelle Baker’s livestream as a protester throws a flaming box into a tent

Despite what Baker had just witnessed, her faith in the “police started it” narrative appeared unshaken. “Yes, we can confirm the police started the fire, they’ve got it all on record,” Baker said a while later in reply to a query in her comments. She would “confirm” this “fact” many more times during her livestream.  

This one huge piece of misinformation, based on a single comment from a Facebook user apparently unknown to Baker, became an established “fact” to protest supporters and spread like wildfire among commenters, posters, livestreamers and even in person at the protest.


Follow The Spinoff’s politics podcast Gone By Lunchtime on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or your favourite podcast provider.

Keep going!
Protesters in Madrid, Spain, on February 24, 2022 (Photo: Marcos del Mazo/LightRocket via Getty Images, additional design by Tina Tiller)
Protesters in Madrid, Spain, on February 24, 2022 (Photo: Marcos del Mazo/LightRocket via Getty Images, additional design by Tina Tiller)

SocietyMarch 3, 2022

War against Ukraine, not conflict in the Ukraine: Why the language we use matters

Protesters in Madrid, Spain, on February 24, 2022 (Photo: Marcos del Mazo/LightRocket via Getty Images, additional design by Tina Tiller)
Protesters in Madrid, Spain, on February 24, 2022 (Photo: Marcos del Mazo/LightRocket via Getty Images, additional design by Tina Tiller)

Russia is the aggressor; Ukraine the victim. Our choice of words should reflect that, writes NZ-based Ukrainian-American linguistics professor Corrine Seals.

Words are powerful. That’s the reason why speeches are given to encourage troops before battle and teams before games. Words have also assisted the current president of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, in rallying support for Ukraine from around the world and in turning world leaders’ expressions of “concern” into action.

Word choice, and even choice of language, matters in all contexts because of the meaning words carry.

When we call the current events in Ukraine a “crisis”, “conflict”, or “war”, each word carries with it a particular meaning. When Russia illegally occupied Crimea in 2014, Russia officially violated Article 2 of the 1949 Geneva Convention and entered into an act of war. Likewise, when Russia entered Ukraine with troops and artillery without provocation on February 24, Russia invaded Ukraine and initiated war against the entire country.

Yet, a number of countries around the world such as China, India and (until recently) Turkey have avoided the terms “invasion” and “war”. Why?

Calling something a “war” linguistically and philosophically implies there is a political aggressor from the outside. This is markedly different from calling the same event “crisis”, which implies that the problem originates from within the country receiving the impact. Furthermore, if you call that same event a “conflict”, you imply that there is equal responsibility between the two parties involved.

When the Russian invasion of Ukraine is called a “conflict” it removes direct responsibility from Russia as the aggressor and instead assigns equal responsibility to Ukraine and Russia. Even more serious, calling the current war against Ukraine by Russia a “crisis” implies that it is primarily Ukraine’s responsibility to resolve these issues. Insisting on the terms “invasion” and “war” assigns responsibility to Russia as the aggressor on Ukrainian soil.

Ukrainians arrive by train at Przemysl, Poland, near Ukraine’s western border on February 28, 2022 (Photo: Omar Marques/Getty Images)

The significance of meaning behind terminology is why Ukrainians around the world have pushed for the current events to be referred to as “war” and “invasion”, not “conflict” or “crisis”. This insistence has picked up media attention when certain countries have avoided the correct terminology or have outright rejected it. For instance, at present, Russia’s allies China and India have continued to avoid any language of responsibility towards Russia. Instead, China’s assistant foreign minister Hua Chunying made headlines for refusing to use any language condemning Russia or to answer any questions on the issue, instead deflecting to discussions about the United States. Other Chinese officials have repeatedly used the neutral terms “Russia’s operation” and the “current situation”. Likewise, India’s prime minister Narendra Modi has called for “an immediate cessation of violence” which, like the term “conflict”, removes direct responsibility from Russia.

Interestingly, Turkey recently had a change of heart when it comes to terminology. Until a few days ago, Turkish president Recep Tayyip Ergodan was willing to condemn Russia’s actions against Ukraine but not to use the word “war”. Instead, Erdogan referred to Russia’s actions as a “heavy blow to regional peace and stability” and a “military operation”. However, on Sunday, Ergodan changed his terminology, instead referring to the Russian invasion as “war”. The power of words can be seen directly here, as this particular shift in terminology now allows Turkey to enact the articles of the 1936 Montreux Convention, limiting Russia’s access to the Dardanelles and Bosphorus straits, which Russia is using to invade Ukraine.

For Ukrainians, the issue of terminology goes beyond the invasion being referred to as a “war” or a “conflict”. The current spotlight on language has allowed Ukrainians to point out other similar faux pas that people around the world tend to make every day regarding Ukraine, which is a sovereign nation with a history independent of Russia going back thousands of years.

First, when referring to the country of Ukraine, there is no “the”. It is not “the Ukraine”; it is “Ukraine”. Referring to “the Ukraine” is like saying “the New Zealand”. The misplaced article at the beginning (“the”) is left over from Soviet times and is how Ukraine is referred to in Russian grammar, not in Ukrainian. Ukrainian and Russian are not the same language. They come from the same language family (similar to English and German both being Germanic), but Ukrainian is its own language with a history going back to the 17th century (the same as modern English) and has over 45 million speakers.

Additionally, the capital of Ukraine is Kyiv (pronounced often in English as KEEV), not Kiev (pronounced as KEY-ev). “Kyiv” is how the capital’s name is spelled following Ukrainian transliteration, while “Kiev” is how it’s spelled following Russian transliteration. While everyone should refer to Ukrainian norms when discussing Ukrainian language issues anyway, right now is an especially good time to learn.