The Globe and Mail - 13.03.2020

FRIDAY,MARCH13,2020| THEGLOBEANDMAILO A

OPINION

M

edical health effects of
COVID-19 are not the on-
ly thing we need to be
worried about. The virus is
spreading online, and one only
needs to look at the empty toilet
paper shelves in the local super-
market and tumbling market to
see the real-life consequences of
a social-media panic taking
shape.
In a crisis, accurate informa-
tion from credible sources is a
key factor in a successful out-

come. But who arbitrates what

sources are credible, and what in-

formation is accurate?

The world has been tested by

pandemics before, yet never in a

time where tweets, posts and

TikToks spread “news” to the

masses. What influences public

opinion has changed. Despite the

best efforts of institutions, their

ability to control the message, or

at least shape the narrative, may

have been superseded by social-

media platforms.

COVID-19 calls for a “Tylenol

moment” from our leaders and

institutions. Tylenol’s response

in the 1980s to tainted packaging,

which was recalled, became a

gold standard for crisis manage-

ment, featuring a mixture of

swift corporate action and even-

tual government regulation.

These were actions that were eas-

ily communicated to a society

that got its news from TV and

newspapers.

But in today’s fractured media

environment, is a “Tylenol mo-

ment” even possible?

Social-media platforms have

made strides, but their actions

may not be enough. Twitter and

Facebook have committed to

banning ads with inaccurate in-

formation, and Google is direct-

ing search terms to verified pub-

lic-health sites. Nevertheless,

these services are still being ma-

nipulated.

Content that is interesting per-

forms on social media. Facts are

vital, but not interesting. Specu-

lation and sensational copy be-

get clicks and shares. With orga-

nized and weaponized trolls,

misinformation can seem like

the currency of the internet.

Government is responding,

but it’s a monumental challenge.

France attempted to dispel a ru-

mour that cocaine cures the cor-

onavirus, just as countries

around the world have tried to

put a stop to stories about lo-

tions, potions and powders that,

according to your aunt’s most re-

cently shared post on Facebook,

might just offer some protection.

To add to the mess, one phe-

nomenon all social-media plat-

forms are grappling with is “dark

social”: messages shared in pri-

vate groups, WhatsApp or mess-

engers. This is how most memes

are shared, especially in younger

demographic circles. It is also

where some of the wildest theo-

ries and misinformation are

spreading. Given privacy con-

cerns, social platforms do not

censor this material.

Even information that is not

intentionally misleading or mali-

cious can pose a problem. When

accounts from Italy’s hospital

front lines reach our feeds faster

than local public-health updates,

how do institutions shape, let

alone control, a narrative?

The answer: Institutions must

not only fight with sanitizer, but

also for those precious few inch-

es of screen space on your

phones. They must also fight

what the World Health Organiza-

tion calls the “infodemic.”

What caused the infodemic?

There are the usual suspects: al-

gorithms, trolls and disinforma-

tion campaigns. But fundamen-

tally, the traditional authority

given to institutionsin govern-

ment, the media and medicine

are on trial here. Long before cor-

onavirus misinformation, anti-

vaccine advocates found a home

on social media. People mostly

trust government institutions,

but their messages are often

drowned out by louder opinions

or blatant misinformation.

Those who think we can fight

back with press releases, podium

statements and white lab coats

will see themselves outgunned.

Institutions must take the fight

against misinformation to the

place it lives: online.

Unsung heroes can rise up. A

savvy doctor who connects and

gets a big following. Or, perhaps

our hero will be Kylie Jenner,

who shows us all how to wash

our hands. For social platforms,

it’s not just getting rid of fake

news or amplifying credible

sources. It’s making sure users

understand the source and mak-

ing sure sources with reliable in-

formation outnumber bad ac-

tors.

It isn’t all bad news: Social

media can also be a force for

good. Globally, videos of viral

“hand washing” dances have

emerged that work to engage

young people. Those who have

mastered social platforms may

not be traditional centres of in-

fluence, but they play important

roles in the global response and

must be harnessed.

To fight COVID-19, we’ll need

to win the battle for people’s

screens.

Amidapandemic,wemustfightan‘infodemic’

Misinformationabout

COVID-19isspreading,

andgovernmentswill

struggletocontainit

LINDSAYFINNERAN-GINGRAS
DENNISMATTHEWS

OPINION

LindsayFinneran-Gingrasand
DennisMatthewsaredigital
communicationsexpertswhoare
vice-presidentsatthepublic-relations
firmsHillandKnowltonand
EnterpriseCanada.

A

nnounced with such
promise and amid great
fanfare, the prospective
agreement reached between Ot-
tawa, B.C. and Wet’suwet’en
hereditary chiefs lives on much
shakier ground today.
Though details of the pro-
posed pact have yet to be re-
leased, there are enough worry-
ing signs emanating from the
Wet’suwet’en Nation to conclude
that the chiefs who originally re-
ached the deal on March 1 with
federal Indigenous Relations
Minister Carolyn Bennett and
her provincial counterpart, Scott
Fraser, have not received any-
thing resembling a hero’s wel-
come from those in their com-
munities.
“The degree of satisfaction is
not what we expected,” Frank
Alec, a Wet’suwet’en leader
whose hereditary name is Chief
Woos, said recently.
To anyone with even passing
knowledge of the incredibly
complex workings of the Wet’su-
wet’en governing structure, this
will not have come as a shock.
The conflict that exists among its
five clans and 13 family sub-
groups over the Coastal GasLink
pipeline project should have
served as a caution for those
greeting the preliminary tri-par-
ty agreement with unreserved
elation.
That turmoil was underlined
in the Supreme Court of British
Columbia’s late-December ver-
dict, granting an interlocutory
injunction against the hereditary
chiefs and other opponents of
the pipeline project. In the judg-
ment, the court said there was
profound disagreements among

the Wet’suwet’en people, “as to

whether traditional hereditary

governance protocols have or

have not been followed, whether

hereditary governance is appro-

priate for decision making that

impacts the entire Wet’suwet’en

nation ...”

That clash that the court refer-

enced is now playing out, as

hereditary chiefs opposed to the

pipeline project attempt to get

the deal ratified by a majority of

their people. And it is not going

well.

Not surprisingly, elected band

council chiefs of the Wet’suwe-

t’en Nation are insisting on hav-

ing a voice in the matter. They

overwhelmingly support the

pipeline project. Others have

complained that communica-

tion from the hereditary chiefs

who agreed to the tentative pact

has been non-existent. Theresa

Tait-Day, a former Wet’suwet’en

hereditary leader, told a House

of Commons committee meeting

this week that the pipeline pro-

ject has been “hijacked” by the

five hereditary chiefs. She said

the broader Wet’suwet’en com-

munity would not be “dictated

to by a group of five guys.”

Of course, this all runs counter

to the academic view that in Wet-

’suwet’en territory, rules are es-

tablished by the ancient feast

system and presided over by

hereditary chiefs, who are com-

pelled to uphold the law. But it is

also self-evident that not

everyone, and most importantly

not many Wet’suwet’en, sub-

scribes to this version of their

history.

The deal reached between the

two levels of government and

the hereditary chiefs is said to

address matters left over from

the landmark Supreme Court of

Canada decision of 1997, known

as Delgamuukw v. British Colum-

bia, which affirmed the Wet’su-

wet’en’s rights to their land. But

the court put the onus on the

Wet’suwet’en andgovernment to

reach a deal on what the bound-

aries of that territory look like.

That work was started, but was

ultimately abandoned amid dis-

sension and acrimony.

Now we can see why.

To some extent, this issue

highlights why treaties in B.C.

have been so hard to hammer

out. In many cases, it’s been diffi-

cult for a consensus to be reac-

hed among various First Nations.

Some of that can be put down to

power struggles inside the com-

munities themselves, and some

of it can be put down to differ-

ences of opinion on what a par-

ticular First Nation’s future

should look like. There are some,

in fact, that aren’t anxious to cut

ties with Ottawa and begin an in-

dependent existence.

These complicated questions

are not going to be decided any

time soon. Ottawa, B.C. and First

Nations in B.C. that have not

signed treaties – which is the vast

majority – are likely to be hag-

gling over land, money and

rights 30 years from now. And

what that means for resource de-

velopment in British Columbia is

not good.

It means more uncertainty.

And depending on where you

stand, this could be dreadful

news, or the best thing you’ve

heard in a long time. The lique-

fied natural gas project at the

centre of the Wet’suwet’en dis-

pute could well be the last such

endeavour the province sees.

If, in fact, it goes ahead.

Despite all the regularly hur-

dles that LNG Canada had to

clear to get the go-ahead for this

undertaking, there is still anoth-

er. Coastal GasLink is still facing

a challenge to the extension of

the Environmental Assessment

Certificate it received.

In Canada, the road to re-

source development is a forever

bumpy one.

WhytheproposedWet’suwet’endealmaybefallingapart

FrankAlec,whoisalsoknownasChiefWoos,hishereditaryname,speakstoreportersalongsideministers

CarolynBennett,left,andScottFraser,centre,earlierthismonth.JONATHANHAYWARD/THECANADIANPRESS

GARY
MASON

OPINION

A

few days after the crash of
Malaysia Airlines Flight 17
on July 17, 2014, I was wip-
ing tears from my eyes as I
watched footage from CBC News
showing a cortège of black funer-
al cars in procession carrying the
remains of some of the 298 vic-
tims.
A mix of sadness and relief
overwhelmed me at that mo-
ment: Finally the bodies were in
a place where they’d be treated
with dignity. It was a long, long
way from a few days earlier
when those very same bodies lay
exposed in a sunflower field in
rebel-held eastern Ukraine after
plummeting some 10 kilometres

from the heavens.

Earlier this week, the MH17 sa-

ga was pushed further to com-

pletion when, after an agonizing

wait of almost six years, dozens

of relatives of the victims filed

into a secure courtroom near

Schiphol Airport in Amsterdam

• oddly just a stone’s throw away
  from the runway used by the
  doomed airplane to begin its
  long journey to Kuala Lumpur –
  for the start of a criminal trial
  similar to the Lockerbie proceed-
  ings in 2000.
  On trial now are one Ukrai-
  nian and three Russian nationals
  charged by Dutch prosecutors
  with mass murder and the
  downing of a civilian airliner.
  “Many people have waited a
  long time for this day,” the pre-
  siding judge said at the opening
  of Day One – shortly before an
  18-minute pause to allow the
  reading out of the names of the
  298 victims.
  With the proceedings expect-
  ed to last well into 2021, the wait
  for closure and justice to be
  served will continue for quite

some time. And with Russia re-

fusing to extradite the four sus-

pects, it’s unlikely any of them

would ever spend a day behind

bars, if convicted. As much as

that frustrates the relatives, pros-

ecutors insisted that the men are

not immune from prosecution.

“Someone who appears un-

touchable today may face a court

tomorrow,” the Dutch team said.

The four men are being tried

in absentia but one of them –

Oleg Pulatov, a former lieuten-

ant-colonel in the Russian armed

forces and who’s accused of be-

ing part of the chain of com-

mand responsible for the firing

of the Russian-made BUK missile

that downed MH17 – is being rep-

resented by Dutch defence coun-

sel.

My strong suspicion is the

Russiangovernment chose one

of the suspects as a proxy to put

forth its own debunked theories

and specious arguments, and is

likely footing the bill for the law-

yers. Indeed, they wasted no

time, arguing on Day One that

Ukraine’s “remarkable” decision

not to entirely close the airspace

above eastern Ukraine at the

time contributed to the crash.

The defence team also ques-

tioned Ukraine’s membership on

the joint investigation team,

which gathered the evidence for

the trial.

The Dutch-led investigation

actually did an incredible job

collecting evidence, especially

considering the area where MH

crashed is an active conflict

zone. What is more, many of the

witnesses who have provided

testimony have been threatened

and intimidated, requiring spe-

cial security arrangements and

for their identities to be hidden.

Russia has never admitted to

the firing of the BUK missile that

downed MH17. Probably the

Kremlin, already under the

weight of heavy sanctions for the

forced annexation of Crimea and

the occupation of the Donbas re-

gion of Ukraine, sees no upside

in admitting guilt. At least in the

case of the January, 2020, crash

of Ukraine International Airlines

Flight 752 (which had 57 Cana-

dians citizens and 29 permanent

residents aboard), the Iranian re-

gime brought itself to say it had

mistakenly fired a Russian-made

missile into the plane.

With the possibility of Russia

bankrolling the defence teams of

other MH17 defendants and in-

troducing more counterargu-

ments and evidence – no matter

how flimsy – the criminal trial

may last years and interest in the

outcome could wane.

The world averting its gaze

from this search for justice is the

worst thing that could possibly

happen. Think of it this way: If

the perpetrators of the downing

of MH17 are not brought to jus-

tice, what’s to prevent another

group of armed thugs from aim-

ing their weapons at a civilian

airliner?

A decisive judgment and

harsh sentence out of the Dutch

court can serve as a deterrent to

non-state actors. Those of us

who are air travellers or have

loved ones who fly have a vested

interest in our skies being kept

safe.

MICHAELBOCIURKIW

OPINION

Formerspokesmanforthe
OrganizationforSecurityand
Co-operationinEurope,anda
formermemberofthefirstteamof
internationalobserverstoreachthe
MH17crashsite

Forthesakeofairsafety,wemustcareabouttheMH17murdertrial

NEWS |