One detail from the Human Rights Watch investigation into the Kramatorsk train station bombing was particularly striking: Alina Kovalenko realising her mother had been killed not through an official phone call, but because she saw her photo circulating online. That moment shows a new reality of war today that I believe we are still not used to entirely. Evidence and trauma surface on social media before institutions can confirm what has happened. The timelines have changed, and so did the consequences.
Across the readings, the recurring theme is how open-source methods are reshaping both journalism and accountability. The Listening Post described Syria as the “world’s first YouTube conflict,” where researchers sifted through millions of videos to geolocate chemical attacks or reconstruct bombings. The Syrian Archive, for instance, catalogued more than 2 million videos and used tools like Google Earth to confirm the location of chlorine barrel bomb strikes. Forensic Architecture went further, building 3D models of prisons based only on survivors’ memories and acoustics. This is particularly relevant in my opinion, allowing human testimony and digital tools to be combined when cameras aren’t permitted inside. It also reminded me of some similar works I read this summer while reporting from Greece, where the inhumane conditions that European governments kept migrants in inside refugee camps were exposed, something one would not automatically expect from “progressive” countries.
The Ukraine case studies show this process at scale. HRW and SITU Research examined 200 videos and satellite imagery from Kramatorsk to demonstrate that a Tochka-U missile carrying cluster munitions came from Russian-controlled territory. Meanwhile, Ukrainian OSINT groups like DeepStateUA monitor Telegram channels around the clock, creating interactive maps that the Ministry of Defence itself uses to track troop movements. In general, the line between professional intelligence work and citizen research has blurred.
But open-source work doesn’t simply exist in a vacuum, as it has to fit in the larger media environment. The FT essay on “tech lords and populists” points out how digital platforms tilt the balance of power, empowering both grassroots investigators and authoritarian leaders who flood the same channels with disinformation. The Bellingcat documentary makes the same point in practice: Eliot Higgins and his colleagues pieced together who shot down MH17 using only online traces, but the evidence still faced skepticism, especially among audiences primed to distrust anything contradicting Moscow’s narrative. Proof alone doesn’t settle debate when publics are fragmented.
What stands out to me is less the technology than the discipline. Open-source work is not about being first, but about being able to demonstrate a pattern that holds up under scrutiny. In that sense, open-source journalism feels like a response to two crises at once: the crisis of press freedom, where traditional reporters are barred from the field, and the crisis of trust, where governments and media outlets are no longer assumed credible by default. The tools matter, but what matters more is the persistence behind them. Even in a saturated information space, the innovation of the craft still makes it possible to establish facts. The harder question is whether people, and policymakers, are willing to act on them.
Questions for AfD
- Migrants make up a large share of Berlin’s service and care workforce. How would AfD address labor shortages if the party also seeks to significantly reduce immigration?
- Since the beginning, AfD has presented itself as “the people against elites.” But as AfD has now gained significant influence and institutional power, do you see AfD undergoing a transformation? What does that mean for your identity as a party?
- What does successful integration look like to you and what factors do you think determine it? Can you share examples where you think it has worked well in Berlin?
