Close Menu
FSNN | Free Speech News NetworkFSNN | Free Speech News Network
  • Home
  • News
    • Politics
    • Legal & Courts
    • Tech & Big Tech
    • Campus & Education
    • Media & Culture
    • Global Free Speech
  • Opinions
    • Debates
  • Video/Live
  • Community
  • Freedom Index
  • About
    • Mission
    • Contact
    • Support
Trending

Jewish Community Center’s Lawsuit Against “Goyim Defense League” Can Go Forward

39 minutes ago

CPJ urges Morocco to end press surveillance following Amnesty report 

50 minutes ago

NEAR Intents hit by $3.8M exploit, pauses cross-chain services in latest crypto hack

56 minutes ago
Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram
Facebook X (Twitter) Discord Telegram
FSNN | Free Speech News NetworkFSNN | Free Speech News Network
Market Data Newsletter
Thursday, October 1
  • Home
  • News
    • Politics
    • Legal & Courts
    • Tech & Big Tech
    • Campus & Education
    • Media & Culture
    • Global Free Speech
  • Opinions
    • Debates
  • Video/Live
  • Community
  • Freedom Index
  • About
    • Mission
    • Contact
    • Support
FSNN | Free Speech News NetworkFSNN | Free Speech News Network
Home»News»Global Free Speech»‘Life goes on without you’: Q&A with Ukrainian journalist Vladyslav Yesypenko
Global Free Speech

‘Life goes on without you’: Q&A with Ukrainian journalist Vladyslav Yesypenko

News RoomBy News Room10 months agoNo Comments7 Mins Read2 Views
Share Facebook Twitter Pinterest Copy Link LinkedIn Tumblr Email VKontakte Telegram
‘Life goes on without you’: Q&A with Ukrainian journalist Vladyslav Yesypenko
Share
Facebook Twitter Pinterest Email Copy Link

Listen to the article

0:00
0:00

Key Takeaways

Playback Speed

Select a Voice

Captured by Russian security services and sentenced on false charges, Ukrainian journalist Vladyslav Yesypenko spent over four years in a Russian prison, enduring torture while trying to maintain his sanity and physical strength. 

Yesypenko, who covered Ukraine’s Russian-occupied Crimea for the U.S. Congress-funded Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), was released in June. He was first detained by Russian authorities in March 2021. Since his release, Yesypenko has been actively advocating for the release of many other Ukrainians languishing in Russian jails. 

Russia is currently holding 28 journalists behind bars, according to CPJ’s research. Twelve of them are Ukrainians. Journalist Viktoria Roshchina, who reported from the occupied territories after Russia started the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, was killed in Russian captivity in 2024. 

Seven out of the 12 Ukrainians are ethnic Crimean Tatar journalists who reported on human rights violations after Russia occupied and annexed the Crimean Peninsula in March 2014. They are serving lengthy prison sentences on anti-state charges.

CPJ’s Gulnoza Said spoke to Yesypenko on several occasions in Prague and New York in recent weeks about what having international support meant to him while he was imprisoned, and how his life has changed since his release. This interview was edited for length and clarity. 

Can you tell us the circumstances of your arrest in 2021 and conviction in 2022? 

Before my arrest, I was traveling to Crimea to cover various political, social, and other events and to do vox-pop with local people. I also contributed to RFE/RL’s investigative reporting about Western companies that continued working in Crimea even though it was illegally occupied by Russia. 

In March 2021, I was on assignment when I was stopped by FSB [Russian security service] officers. They planted a grenade in my car and accused me of possessing and transporting explosive ammunition. It was clearly fabricated. They took me to the basement of some building and tortured me with electrocution and beat me for more than 24 hours. They attached electric wires to my ears, forcing me to confess that I was spying for Ukraine. 

I was convicted in August 2022 for crimes I didn’t commit. 

In those circumstances, when you are tortured, all you want is for it to end. I could think of nothing but how to survive it. So, if the conviction meant the end of the torture, I was ready to be convicted. I didn’t want to die. That’s the main thought you have when you cannot stand the pain anymore. I was thinking about my daughter, my wife, and everybody else I love.  

What else helped you in captivity?

I used to do sambo and judo [martial arts] when I was younger. I didn’t have time to exercise or do martial arts before my imprisonment. But when I was captured, I realized that I must stay alive, be as healthy and fit as I could — for my family, friends, colleagues, and everyone who was fighting for my freedom. I needed to stay fit and strong to be able to fight for the freedom of other prisoners who became my friends in captivity. A physically strong body gives you strength of mind and spirit. I knew that as a former athlete. So, I knew that this was my way to not lose sanity in captivity. 

Aside from that, at some point when I was behind bars, I learned that people were protesting my imprisonment. My wife sent me photographs of people demanding my release and holding posters with my photo. It came as a surprise, because when you have no contact with the outside world, it’s easy to think that everyone forgot about you. My wife, Kateryna, became my biggest advocate. I know she was in touch with you from the beginning and that you advocated for my release, providing financial assistance to cover legal aid.

It gave me a lot of courage when I was behind bars to learn that so many people were supporting me and other political prisoners.

Your time in captivity was a horrific experience, but I’m happy you survived it. 

I did. But look at Viktoria Roshchina. Russian prison authorities killed her through torture. She was a hero because she decided to report from the occupied territories when Russia launched a full-fledged war on Ukraine. She took a risk, traveling there. Her body was returned to her family with multiple parts missing — her brain, her eyeballs, her larynx. Medical experts say that those body parts help identify whether a person was suffocated, which she [probably] was. When I was at her burial, I realized that capturing and killing Ukrainian journalists has become a goal [for the Russians] in itself. The press insignia on a journalist’s vest or helmet is a target for Russian forces, for their drones that let them see who is being targeted, who is in the crosshairs. 

[CPJ emailed the pretrial detention center No. 3 in Kizel, in Russia’s Perm Krai administrative territory, where Roshchina died, for comments on the circumstances of her death, but did not receive any response.]

What has been the hardest thing since your release? 

I would say two things: first, to realize that life continued while I was in captivity. My daughter grew so much. My wife and daughter have their own routine. They got used to living without me. One thing every prisoner should know is that it takes time to adjust to a new life, and that life goes on without you; you will not have the same life once you are out. 

The second is the work I have been doing. I am a reporter. I was never trained to speak in public. Look at me now. Here I am in New York, giving a speech at UN headquarters, at Columbia University. I’m meeting with CPJ. These are the things I never imagined doing. I still struggle to speak in public on such big podiums because I feel responsible for those who remain behind bars and are deprived of the right to speak for themselves. Being their voice and advocate is a very important job and responsibility.

You are working hard to advocate for justice in Roshchina’s case and the cases of your RFE/RL colleagues who remain in captivity, and for many other Ukrainians imprisoned unjustly.

Yes, I believe this is my duty now. I try to make people aware of the plight of my colleagues Nika Novak, jailed in Russia, and Farid Mehralizada, jailed in Azerbaijan, for working for RFE/RL. I also speak about my former cellmates — Ukrainian political prisoners, patriots of Ukraine — who died in Russian captivity because they were tortured or didn’t receive the medical help they needed. 

Do you have hope that more Ukrainians will be released? What are your thoughts on the war?

When I speak in public, many people approach me afterward and express empathy and support. Sometimes, they are ready to donate to help other Ukrainians in captivity. I’m very thankful to them. 

In terms of the war, many ask: “What can we do?” Honestly, this is not the question I would like to hear. This question was okay to ask in 2022 when Russia launched a full-fledged war against Ukraine. By now, the international community should have had a plan and mechanisms in place to stop Russia, stop the war, and free all political prisoners. In a few months, we’ll mark four years since this war started and 12 years since Russia occupied and annexed Crimea. We’re a very large, multimillion-person community of good people, but we can’t stop one man who decided he can wage an unprovoked war against civilized people?

Is there anything you would like to add?

I wanted to thank you, CPJ, and other international organizations, my colleagues at RFE/RL and the governments of Ukraine and the United States. It’s because of you all that I’m free. Let’s continue working together to make sure that everyone who is unjustly jailed is freed. Let’s stand together against the kind of aggression that kills not just people but freedom of speech and media. We rely on you for this.   

Read the full article here

Fact Checker

Verify the accuracy of this article using AI-powered analysis and real-time sources.

Get Your Fact Check Report

Enter your email to receive detailed fact-checking analysis

5 free reports remaining

Continue with Full Access

You've used your 5 free reports. Sign up for unlimited access!

Already have an account? Sign in here

Share. Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr Email Telegram Copy Link
News Room
  • Website
  • Facebook
  • X (Twitter)
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn

The FSNN News Room is the voice of our in-house journalists, editors, and researchers. We deliver timely, unbiased reporting at the crossroads of finance, cryptocurrency, and global politics, providing clear, fact-driven analysis free from agendas.

Related Articles

Global Free Speech

CPJ urges Morocco to end press surveillance following Amnesty report 

50 minutes ago
Global Free Speech

          As news broke that 84,270 people, including more than 32,000 children, had been affected by Nepal’s catastrophic floods, one visual offered something the world desperately needed in the moment: hope. The video shows a little girl, buried under thick mud, being is rescued by Nepal’s emergency teams. Instinctively, the viewer roots for her as rescuers carry her to safety, wrapping her shivering body in a red shawl. But the most moving moment of the video comes towards the end. The girl is sitting motionless in a relief camp, an officer feeding her warm soup. As the camera lingers on her face, a faint smile almost begins to show. It is the kind of image that can offer the viewer respite from the horrors of a humanitarian crisis. The video rapidly spread rapidly across all social media platforms, with commentators calling it a miracle. Of sorts. In fact, it was an AI miracle. Agence France-Presse (AFP) Fact Check’s investigation led them to an India-based creator, who admitted creating the video with the help of AI-generative tools. His justification was disarmingly straightforward: emotionally engaging visuals perform well online. This was just one of the many digitally-manufactured “miracles” put into social media heavy rotation during the floods. Another clip, showing a bridge collapsing into floodwaters swallowing vehicles and human lives, seemed to have been lifted straight out of a Roland Emmerich disaster film. The video racked up more than 2 million views on X before it was debunked as AI-generated by Factly. What made this social media post stand out for me was the identity of one of the people sharing it – an experienced news editor. The post, still pinned on his X profile and with more than 2 million views, suggests that even experienced newsroom decision-makers could be fooled by synthetic disaster footage – or, worse still, be untroubled about the veracity of such videos. Both videos incorporate the visual language of short films, but were not released in cinemas or on Netflix. They surfaced on Facebook, X and Instagram, even as emergency teams continued to search for the thousands of people that went missing after a glacial collapse triggered devastating floods in Nepal and Tibet on August 26. Even as survivors photographed authentic eyewitness footage, synthetic visuals emerged alongside them. The floods became one of the first major climate disasters in South Asia where documentation and fabrication coexisted in the same visual ecosystem.     Screenshot of debunked Nepal floods footage “During earlier disasters, our primary challenge was identifying old footage, establishing where a video was recorded and determining whether it was being presented in the correct context,” Saurabh Shukla told Index. Shukla is founder and editor-in-chief of NewsMobile, an India-based independent media organisation that debunks AI-related deepfakes and focuses on verified information. “The biggest difference today is the sheer speed at which fabricated and misleading visuals entered the information ecosystem,” Shukla said. “With generative AI, we now have an additional challenge – determining whether the event depicted in a video ever happened in the first place.” This has fed into a media environment where unverified visuals are disseminated faster than the verified facts reported by journalists. “Speed without verification can amplify confusion, while verification without timely reporting can leave an information vacuum,” Shukla said. “The challenge for newsrooms is to strike the right balance between being fast and being accurate.” The first images of rescue missions in secluded mountainous regions almost always come from locals, and thus forming the spine of disaster reporting. These inevitably blurry and shaky recordings do not have the polished quality of professional news reporting, but do carry something far more consequential: the credibility that comes with eyewitness documentation. These images often shape the core of the collective memory of a tragedy. But in an age of visual manipulation and trickery, that presumption of authenticity no longer holds. Factly conducted 30 fact-checks into coverage of the Nepal floods; fully one-third involved AI-generated visuals. “Beyond checking the location, source, and context of a visual, we also had to establish whether the visual itself was authentic,” Akshay Kumar Appani, lead fact checker and researcher at Factly, told Index. “During breaking disasters, old AI-generated visuals can spread rapidly while being presented as current footage. This makes it harder for journalists to establish the truth. The visual of the miracle child perfectly captured this dilemma. It was designed to evoke an emotional reaction; but it also looked like the kind of footage that journalists hope to find during crisis reporting. The video was vertically filmed. The camera movement was wobbly. The lighting was grainy. The muffled background sound felt believable. The video presented none of the glaring distortions that once made AI interventions easy to spot. Fabricated videos, today, can be produced to mimic the aesthetics of authentic citizen journalism. It was for this precise reason that the floods presented journalists with a crisis that went beyond recognising AI-generated images: they were increasingly obliged to verify whether the footage reaching them was genuine in the first place. Screenshot of video debunked by Factly Newsmobile’s verification process increasingly involves examining individual frames, conducting reverse-image searches, analysing visual inconsistencies and using AI-detection tools where appropriate. “However, detection tools are only one part of the process. We still need corroboration,” Shukla said. “We cannot rely solely on automated detection tools,” Sumit Dubey, South Asia digital verification editor for AFP’s Fact Check vertical, told Index. Fact-checking, he explained, requires going beyond automated outputs: tracing the original source, examining context, verifying metadata, looking for corroborating evidence and, where possible, speaking to relevant sources. “Automated tools are useful indicators, but fact-checking cannot be outsourced to a button,” Dubey said. The proliferation of synthetic media output in the wake of natural disasters is not new. It’s the sophistication of the output that has changed. For years, much of the public conversation around AI manipulation centred on faces: celebrity deepfakes, altered political speeches and fabricated portraits. The Nepal floods flipped that narrative. Almost every fabricated clip featured rivers, glaciers, collapsing hillsides, dams, flooded valleys or stranded animals. “AI-generated environmental content poses a different problem: [the] tells are failures of physics rather than anatomy,” Mahsa Alimardani told Index. Alimardani is associate director for technology threats and opportunities at Witness, a global organisation helping people use video and technology to protect and defend human rights This explains why the Nepal videos were so plausible. The miracle girl video wasn’t believable just because of her facial expressions. It was convincing because the sludge moved convincingly, because the choreography resembled actual emergency rescues, because the emotional tonality seemed genuine. “Most post-hoc detection tools were designed for content featuring physical characteristics, and they currently struggle significantly with environmental and disaster content,” Bruna Martins dos Santos – policy and advocacy manager, Witness Technology Threats and Opportunities – told Index. “Journalists might also struggle because many tools have limited capabilities to identify synthetic content generated elsewhere,” she said. Another emerging trend is the increasingly complicated role of Big Tech itself in detecting and labelling fake generative-AI content. Some of the clearest AI verdicts came from detection tools built by the very same companies whose models created the same fakes. Three weeks after the US state of California and the EU mandated the requirement for greater transparency with respect to AI-generated content, Witness and Indicator tested thirteen major AI providers. They found that seven had no public detector at all. “The capability to identify synthetic content partly existed. The governance around it did not,” Alimardani said. When both authentic and synthetic content circulate in disaster situations, the biggest challenge that journalists face is that of establishing truth amidst widespread public uncertainty and doubt. According to Martins dos Santos, “Journalists and local fact-checkers can face immense time pressure, often wasting scarce resources re-detecting the same recycled disaster footage across multiple platforms and languages.” The greatest danger emerging from Nepal may not be that people believed the fake videos. It may be that they have begun to doubt the real ones. Shukla’s concern is that people may stop trusting visual evidence altogether. “Imagine a situation where genuine footage of a disaster emerges, but people dismiss it as AI-generated. Facts become secondary to perception.” Within days of the floods, even authentic CCTV footage from the Gyirong border was being perceived as AI-generated, prompting fact-checkers to establish that the scenes it depicted were real. This exposed a troubling issue: even authentic visuals can no longer be taken at face value. Martins dos Santos told Index that the phenomenon has a name: “Liar’s dividend”, whereby the mere existence of convincing synthetic content allows bad actors to dismiss genuine, damaging evidence as fake simply by claiming it was AI-generated. This means that genuine footage is no longer accorded credibility immediately; it may first be perceived with suspicion. “This means a video may look completely authentic and still be fabricated. Conversely, genuine footage can contain compression artefacts that make it appear suspicious,” Shukla warned. Appani, for his part, noted that synthetic media doesn’t merely affect verification in real time. It also reshapes collective memory. “Widely circulated synthetic or recycled footage may eventually be remembered as genuine imagery from the disaster. Generative-AI could therefore affect not only how disasters are verified in real-time, but also how they are documented and remembered in the future.”The Nepal floods left destruction in its wake, and also a warning for journalists covering climatic disaster. The defining challenge of disaster reporting is no longer capturing the first image, but establishing which image the world can trust. In Shukla’s words: “For fact-checkers, the challenge is not just determining whether a video is real. It is establishing whether it actually belongs to the event it claims to depict.” READ MORE

2 hours ago
Global Free Speech

CPJ, partners call on Malta to ensure broad consultation on draft media reform bill 

4 hours ago
Global Free Speech

Hong Kong journalist Tang Ho-wing arrested in latest sedition case

20 hours ago
Global Free Speech

Taliban shut down 3rd Shiite-centered media outlet in 4 months in Afghanistan

22 hours ago
Global Free Speech

Iran sentences 2 journalists as media crackdown widens

23 hours ago
Add A Comment

Comments are closed.

Editors Picks

CPJ urges Morocco to end press surveillance following Amnesty report 

50 minutes ago

NEAR Intents hit by $3.8M exploit, pauses cross-chain services in latest crypto hack

56 minutes ago

Stablecoins Can Drain From Banks And Nations At Lightning Speed

57 minutes ago

Citi Lifts 12-Month Bitcoin Target to $113K, Ethereum to $3K

58 minutes ago
Latest Posts

Will Texas Turn Blue?

2 hours ago

          As news broke that 84,270 people, including more than 32,000 children, had been affected by Nepal’s catastrophic floods, one visual offered something the world desperately needed in the moment: hope. The video shows a little girl, buried under thick mud, being is rescued by Nepal’s emergency teams. Instinctively, the viewer roots for her as rescuers carry her to safety, wrapping her shivering body in a red shawl. But the most moving moment of the video comes towards the end. The girl is sitting motionless in a relief camp, an officer feeding her warm soup. As the camera lingers on her face, a faint smile almost begins to show. It is the kind of image that can offer the viewer respite from the horrors of a humanitarian crisis. The video rapidly spread rapidly across all social media platforms, with commentators calling it a miracle. Of sorts. In fact, it was an AI miracle. Agence France-Presse (AFP) Fact Check’s investigation led them to an India-based creator, who admitted creating the video with the help of AI-generative tools. His justification was disarmingly straightforward: emotionally engaging visuals perform well online. This was just one of the many digitally-manufactured “miracles” put into social media heavy rotation during the floods. Another clip, showing a bridge collapsing into floodwaters swallowing vehicles and human lives, seemed to have been lifted straight out of a Roland Emmerich disaster film. The video racked up more than 2 million views on X before it was debunked as AI-generated by Factly. What made this social media post stand out for me was the identity of one of the people sharing it – an experienced news editor. The post, still pinned on his X profile and with more than 2 million views, suggests that even experienced newsroom decision-makers could be fooled by synthetic disaster footage – or, worse still, be untroubled about the veracity of such videos. Both videos incorporate the visual language of short films, but were not released in cinemas or on Netflix. They surfaced on Facebook, X and Instagram, even as emergency teams continued to search for the thousands of people that went missing after a glacial collapse triggered devastating floods in Nepal and Tibet on August 26. Even as survivors photographed authentic eyewitness footage, synthetic visuals emerged alongside them. The floods became one of the first major climate disasters in South Asia where documentation and fabrication coexisted in the same visual ecosystem.     Screenshot of debunked Nepal floods footage “During earlier disasters, our primary challenge was identifying old footage, establishing where a video was recorded and determining whether it was being presented in the correct context,” Saurabh Shukla told Index. Shukla is founder and editor-in-chief of NewsMobile, an India-based independent media organisation that debunks AI-related deepfakes and focuses on verified information. “The biggest difference today is the sheer speed at which fabricated and misleading visuals entered the information ecosystem,” Shukla said. “With generative AI, we now have an additional challenge – determining whether the event depicted in a video ever happened in the first place.” This has fed into a media environment where unverified visuals are disseminated faster than the verified facts reported by journalists. “Speed without verification can amplify confusion, while verification without timely reporting can leave an information vacuum,” Shukla said. “The challenge for newsrooms is to strike the right balance between being fast and being accurate.” The first images of rescue missions in secluded mountainous regions almost always come from locals, and thus forming the spine of disaster reporting. These inevitably blurry and shaky recordings do not have the polished quality of professional news reporting, but do carry something far more consequential: the credibility that comes with eyewitness documentation. These images often shape the core of the collective memory of a tragedy. But in an age of visual manipulation and trickery, that presumption of authenticity no longer holds. Factly conducted 30 fact-checks into coverage of the Nepal floods; fully one-third involved AI-generated visuals. “Beyond checking the location, source, and context of a visual, we also had to establish whether the visual itself was authentic,” Akshay Kumar Appani, lead fact checker and researcher at Factly, told Index. “During breaking disasters, old AI-generated visuals can spread rapidly while being presented as current footage. This makes it harder for journalists to establish the truth. The visual of the miracle child perfectly captured this dilemma. It was designed to evoke an emotional reaction; but it also looked like the kind of footage that journalists hope to find during crisis reporting. The video was vertically filmed. The camera movement was wobbly. The lighting was grainy. The muffled background sound felt believable. The video presented none of the glaring distortions that once made AI interventions easy to spot. Fabricated videos, today, can be produced to mimic the aesthetics of authentic citizen journalism. It was for this precise reason that the floods presented journalists with a crisis that went beyond recognising AI-generated images: they were increasingly obliged to verify whether the footage reaching them was genuine in the first place. Screenshot of video debunked by Factly Newsmobile’s verification process increasingly involves examining individual frames, conducting reverse-image searches, analysing visual inconsistencies and using AI-detection tools where appropriate. “However, detection tools are only one part of the process. We still need corroboration,” Shukla said. “We cannot rely solely on automated detection tools,” Sumit Dubey, South Asia digital verification editor for AFP’s Fact Check vertical, told Index. Fact-checking, he explained, requires going beyond automated outputs: tracing the original source, examining context, verifying metadata, looking for corroborating evidence and, where possible, speaking to relevant sources. “Automated tools are useful indicators, but fact-checking cannot be outsourced to a button,” Dubey said. The proliferation of synthetic media output in the wake of natural disasters is not new. It’s the sophistication of the output that has changed. For years, much of the public conversation around AI manipulation centred on faces: celebrity deepfakes, altered political speeches and fabricated portraits. The Nepal floods flipped that narrative. Almost every fabricated clip featured rivers, glaciers, collapsing hillsides, dams, flooded valleys or stranded animals. “AI-generated environmental content poses a different problem: [the] tells are failures of physics rather than anatomy,” Mahsa Alimardani told Index. Alimardani is associate director for technology threats and opportunities at Witness, a global organisation helping people use video and technology to protect and defend human rights This explains why the Nepal videos were so plausible. The miracle girl video wasn’t believable just because of her facial expressions. It was convincing because the sludge moved convincingly, because the choreography resembled actual emergency rescues, because the emotional tonality seemed genuine. “Most post-hoc detection tools were designed for content featuring physical characteristics, and they currently struggle significantly with environmental and disaster content,” Bruna Martins dos Santos – policy and advocacy manager, Witness Technology Threats and Opportunities – told Index. “Journalists might also struggle because many tools have limited capabilities to identify synthetic content generated elsewhere,” she said. Another emerging trend is the increasingly complicated role of Big Tech itself in detecting and labelling fake generative-AI content. Some of the clearest AI verdicts came from detection tools built by the very same companies whose models created the same fakes. Three weeks after the US state of California and the EU mandated the requirement for greater transparency with respect to AI-generated content, Witness and Indicator tested thirteen major AI providers. They found that seven had no public detector at all. “The capability to identify synthetic content partly existed. The governance around it did not,” Alimardani said. When both authentic and synthetic content circulate in disaster situations, the biggest challenge that journalists face is that of establishing truth amidst widespread public uncertainty and doubt. According to Martins dos Santos, “Journalists and local fact-checkers can face immense time pressure, often wasting scarce resources re-detecting the same recycled disaster footage across multiple platforms and languages.” The greatest danger emerging from Nepal may not be that people believed the fake videos. It may be that they have begun to doubt the real ones. Shukla’s concern is that people may stop trusting visual evidence altogether. “Imagine a situation where genuine footage of a disaster emerges, but people dismiss it as AI-generated. Facts become secondary to perception.” Within days of the floods, even authentic CCTV footage from the Gyirong border was being perceived as AI-generated, prompting fact-checkers to establish that the scenes it depicted were real. This exposed a troubling issue: even authentic visuals can no longer be taken at face value. Martins dos Santos told Index that the phenomenon has a name: “Liar’s dividend”, whereby the mere existence of convincing synthetic content allows bad actors to dismiss genuine, damaging evidence as fake simply by claiming it was AI-generated. This means that genuine footage is no longer accorded credibility immediately; it may first be perceived with suspicion. “This means a video may look completely authentic and still be fabricated. Conversely, genuine footage can contain compression artefacts that make it appear suspicious,” Shukla warned. Appani, for his part, noted that synthetic media doesn’t merely affect verification in real time. It also reshapes collective memory. “Widely circulated synthetic or recycled footage may eventually be remembered as genuine imagery from the disaster. Generative-AI could therefore affect not only how disasters are verified in real-time, but also how they are documented and remembered in the future.”The Nepal floods left destruction in its wake, and also a warning for journalists covering climatic disaster. The defining challenge of disaster reporting is no longer capturing the first image, but establishing which image the world can trust. In Shukla’s words: “For fact-checkers, the challenge is not just determining whether a video is real. It is establishing whether it actually belongs to the event it claims to depict.” READ MORE

2 hours ago

Illinois agrees to six-month delay of crypto tax as industry continues court battle

2 hours ago

Subscribe to News

Get the latest news and updates directly to your inbox.

At FSNN – Free Speech News Network, we deliver unfiltered reporting and in-depth analysis on the stories that matter most. From breaking headlines to global perspectives, our mission is to keep you informed, empowered, and connected.

FSNN.net is owned and operated by GlobalBoost Media
, an independent media organization dedicated to advancing transparency, free expression, and factual journalism across the digital landscape.

Facebook X (Twitter) Discord Telegram
Latest News

Jewish Community Center’s Lawsuit Against “Goyim Defense League” Can Go Forward

39 minutes ago

CPJ urges Morocco to end press surveillance following Amnesty report 

50 minutes ago

NEAR Intents hit by $3.8M exploit, pauses cross-chain services in latest crypto hack

56 minutes ago

Subscribe to Updates

Get the latest news and updates directly to your inbox.

© 2026 GlobalBoost Media. All Rights Reserved.
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Our Authors
  • Contact

Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.

🍪

Cookies

We and our selected partners wish to use cookies to collect information about you for functional purposes and statistical marketing. You may not give us your consent for certain purposes by selecting an option and you can withdraw your consent at any time via the cookie icon.

Cookie Preferences

Manage Cookies

Cookies are small text that can be used by websites to make the user experience more efficient. The law states that we may store cookies on your device if they are strictly necessary for the operation of this site. For all other types of cookies, we need your permission. This site uses various types of cookies. Some cookies are placed by third party services that appear on our pages.

Your permission applies to the following domains:

  • https://fsnn.net
Necessary
Necessary cookies help make a website usable by enabling basic functions like page navigation and access to secure areas of the website. The website cannot function properly without these cookies.
Statistic
Statistic cookies help website owners to understand how visitors interact with websites by collecting and reporting information anonymously.
Preferences
Preference cookies enable a website to remember information that changes the way the website behaves or looks, like your preferred language or the region that you are in.
Marketing
Marketing cookies are used to track visitors across websites. The intention is to display ads that are relevant and engaging for the individual user and thereby more valuable for publishers and third party advertisers.