Panama Papers
CC Attribution - ShareAlike 3.0 Germany:
You are free to use, adapt and copy, distribute and transmit the work or content in adapted or unchanged form for any legal purpose as long as the work is attributed to the author in the manner specified by the author or licensor and the work or content is shared also in adapted form only under the conditions of this
Hoppenstedt, Max
Avila, Renata
Obermaier, Frederik
The Panama Papers not only shed light onto a secretive system of tax havens and hidden money, but also sparked a debate about how a leak of this size and scope should be reported on. Even before a public relations crisis broke out for politicians using the services of Mossack Fonseca, strong sentiments of scepticism and criticism emerged about the work of the ICIJ and publishing outlets. Could the treatment of the data be biased? Why was Putin featured prominently in the documents while US politicians were absent? Should the 2,7 Terabyte even be published altogether? In the age of digital media, where every user is also broadcaster, the means of publication themselves quickly turn into a topic of hot debate. Which practical ethics should whistleblowing and journalism apply today to ensure that the public is served and informed best? How should investigative reporters react to the feedback of its readers? And how can we make sure a leak’s revelations don’t get lost along the way?
 As I said, it's about Panama Leaks and I want to get on stage. Max Hoppenstedt, he's chief editor of Motherboard. Renata Avila, campaign lead at the Web We Want Foundation. And last but not least, Frederik Obermeier, one of the main journalists at SET dealing with Panama Leaks. The stage is yours. Thank you. Hello, everyone. I want to say briefly in the very beginning thank you to Republica for letting us do this panel and squeezing it in on very short notice as the Panama Papers are actually still pretty current. So thank you to the program team and to everyone and congrats to a fantastic Republica 10 actually as well. Yeah, with me on stage, Renata and Frederik and I think everyone is aware what we're actually talking about with the Panama Papers and we only have 30 minutes. So I want to dive right into asking you about this and then hopefully we'll have 10 to 15 minutes to take questions from you, the audience. Yeah, so Frederik, the leak or the publication of the Panama Papers is only four or five weeks. When you look back at it and you've been working on it for over a year from what I understand, are you content with the impact? What do you make of the global reactions? To be honest, I was a little bit surprised by the impact because as we researched into the data for over a year, it was like at some points we lost the contact to reality in a way because we always counted this story who is going to research that. And in the end, it was us speaking what are you do have this head of state, you found that head of state work great but seeing now what this worldwide investigation led to that's great that we see that there is a international debate or global debate about text evasion about this shadow world of offshore. And but at the same time, for us, it's still important to focus on our on the running investigations because I mean we are still digging into the data. I suppose there are still great stories hidden in this treasure trove, and we have to find them. So for us, the workers on. I think apart from the political ramifications that spilled out in the hours and days afterwards we had a sort of interesting situation that just hours after the release and the publication there was a big debate starting on the on some sort of meter level about the way this should be publicized. So there was a lot of people from in Germany, Sarah Wagen Knecht to prominent bloggers or, yeah, like new journalists that use YouTube to all sorts of Internet commentaries and voices in media and some media as well that actually were kind of not happy with with the reporting and we're complaining that something was hidden from them or hold back and I've just found it astonishing that the same people that would complain about something being hidden from this secret shadow forces or whatever that that high things were complaining about an investigation that actually shed light on one of the biggest secret of the world. What what did you make of that? I mean that was an interesting situation for us as well because we thought that there may be discussions but not that fast because I mean we thought that people would first step speak about what's hidden in there and about the revelations but we recognize now that there was a parallel debate about the way of publication and I mean that's good so it's always good to reflect what we have done and we should change something in the future and but for us what we have learned about it that we have to communicate very openly and explain what we have done and why we have done and why we have not done something so for us that was interesting but it was a learning process as well. Renata your reaction just I think hours after the publication on that Sunday evening of the Panama Papers was I remember a tweet from you that read something like full docs or it didn't happen. What what what what did you what did you mean by that and why would you say that. My reaction was a mix I mean I come from Guatemala and it is basically Panama is the main place where all the not even the not even the politicians but the whole elite of Central America hires their wealth. Central America is one of the regions in the world with the highest inequality the systemic problems of corruption and so on so for me hearing at the Panama Papers I was super excited you know because the whole region has is in this process of we setting up anti corruption institution by the United Nations that has really like we had we have a president in the prison and the vice president in the prison and around 50 top officers in the prison but somehow the private sector is still quite protected and we know that they the government doesn't act in isolation they do these kind of dealings so it was a big kind of hope for the the the activists citizens engage in this process in all the countries so then when we saw nothing and we saw and we saw that the documents were just glimpses of at what was going on. Especially in my community of lawyers and human rights lawyers who we are quite familiar with what kind of documents and we which kind of information we could found in those papers if we had access to the whole database like for example dates dates when coinciding with certain events happening inside the country. Matching the travels the public travels of some public officers with with the documents that we have. The fake people that they put and they forced to sign the documents you know at their offices how would you have to go there's so many layers of secrecy that having full access not to the database it was a way to understand a systemic problem and how to tackle it by dismantling this complex complex net. So I saw it that we went like. 2008 2009 times of journalism and it was it was not it was we perceived many of people like me perceive that it was a journalist not trusting the intelligence and the ability of people to do amazing things for the public good like. Even if that is personal knowledge is superior to the knowledge of a bunch of journalists. So when you when you're saying like publish the docs are you calling for a publication to the like full public for example WikiLeaks style or are you calling for a publication to. To certain groups to lawyers for example to deal with the with these with these documents or what what would your preference be you have someone on stage you could maybe. Obviously my preference will be publication the way that by the way journalistic organization I thought that we had left behind well behind the debate of whether journalism WikiLeaks journalism or is not I mean it is and it was it wasn't disputed and was like actually that was one of the points. That made me really uncomfortable about the press release we are journalists not like WikiLeaks it was like what anyway but yeah the way that this organization had handle. Data and actually the way that you can play with different releases in the public interest and combine them I have done it myself with a little. The cables released by WikiLeaks and documents released by the Global Intelligence files and all the documents so that's when the situation gets really interesting because we are talking about situations that are connected with each other you know and only this ability to play. I mean now we have the computing ability to get to to arrive to conclusions and to get the bad guys to the place they deserve like faster but with drip drop we cannot achieve that and we miss a big opportunity. 2016 is actually sees the 10th year since the founding of WikiLeaks astonishingly enough and I think we've seen many different ways leaks and whistleblowing can be reported and are reported and the strategies. The way the documents are handled from from cable gate to collateral damage to Snowden leak and to things like Swiss leaks and stuff that the research of a bond has been working on from and the answer to its title Frederick what would you say there is a. Is there a crisis in investigative journalism is there a resurrection is it has it always been like this is traditional media picking up to outlets like WikiLeaks. No I think at the moment we learned that apart from WikiLeaks who by the way do a great job and I like that you what they're doing but I think in the last years we have seen. Alternatives to WikiLeaks because I mean 10 years ago WikiLeaks has had a unique selling point was at a time when investigative journalists. Had to learn their lessons for example regarding encryption and stuff like that and WikiLeaks really was great and is great on that point but now we see. The whistleblowers and sources to have the possibility to choose what to do they can go to WikiLeaks they can do I mean there are heaps heaps of. Media houses who have encrypted ways of communication or ways of dropping information or even people that are going to NGOs like Greenpeace and dropping material there so for a whistleblower I think it's a great time and great. Great because they can choose where to go and what fits their needs and for example what fits their needs of regarding. I think it's a great time to talk about the security of the source and the source has to be protected I mean during this investigations there have been so many people worldwide revealed that may have an interest of doing harm to the source. So for us it's the most important thing at the moment to protect the source and this has nothing to do with a feeling of superiority for example just this in this week's I see a J in Switzerland thinking about whom to involve in this project to open it up because there are. Many countries in the world that have not really reported to that extent that they should be but for us the risk of exposing the source may be unintentionally by putting all of the data into the public that is too high and I mean for us there's a responsibility because. We don't want our whistleblower in prison or even worse that I mean we have seen certain whistleblowers that are in prison now and so I do understand the wish of the source to stay anonymous and at the same time or doing so protecting his life. Well I just want to respond that the publication of whole database can be done in a way that it at the same time serves two purposes I mean there are ways to actually. To. Not only anonymize this the source with anonymize the range of the periods of time out there first document last document that might indicate the first login and last login of the person if that was the way that it was acquired. But I do agree I disagree with you and I agree with you in this flourishing of maybe I will be really happy today that we can do is not needed anymore do you know and all these brilliant people can move to the next innovative thing. But it is still a need I need. We could so obviously as we have seen how media is pressured. All of the word to censor and protect the powerful you know. If you look at the recent history I mean many media have been in the spot like at covering up companies corrupt companies are covering up powerful people injunction injunctions and all these kind of mechanisms. But the thing that worries me the most I mean you say that you're very concerned with your source about your source. All media say that they are very concerned about the source. I mean even the Guardian said that they were very concerned about snow then at the moment of the of the release and there's no institutionalized mechanisms to protect sources. I mean it took Amnesty International years years to to include and support Chelsea money. It took I mean it all the human rights organizations froze with snow then I mean that's actually I am part of the advisory board of Corash Foundation we had to put together this foundation because no one was daring to help him. I mean now everyone is praising him you know at that moment was an absolute paralysis and inability to react and really protect the source. I mean that's the reality in the in the West I imagine in Africa in Africa and in Latin America many many times it will be it will pay with the life. So I hope that this creates some awareness that we need robust publication as long as we have robust mechanisms to protect sources. A good source protection like the one that Corash Foundation is trying to set up will lead to more robust and fearless publication. I think. Did you want to say it. I mean for us we thought a lot about this topic and there are several points that were very important for us. We spoke with dozens of experts on a tea experts and experts on the in this offshore business and they actually told us you cannot 100 percent guarantee that if you publish this documents that there is no hint in there that may lead to the source. And what is more important or at the same time important for us is I mean the source gave it to us for a journalistic purpose and the source as far as we know is well aware that there exists something like WikiLeaks. So we to a certain extent also have to respect what the source has given the material to us obviously because it wanted to us to work on it and wanted for example in this case I suppose journalists working on this that had experience in that area. I mean all these documents there it's not like you will have a look at the document and you really understand at first what at first glance what is in there. I think we only have 10 minutes left so I actually want to give everyone in the audience the chance to to ask question that will be handheld microphones. I mean if you don't have a question I would have some more questions but I assume that's one back there. Thank you. Thank you very much. From the UK you guys managed to force our Prime Minister and the Chancellor to publish their tax returns but they didn't publish them all they just published a summary of their tax returns. So thank you. And I understand what you said about you cannot release WikiLeaks style and I understand people will be doing their best to track down the source. When is the next release of information because in the UK what happened was this hit the press really hard suddenly everyone is telling you about their tax returns. We find that certain members of political parties have resigned certain members of political parties have used tax havens. So then what happened was there was a media cover thing around the opposition party being anti Semitic and then that wiped it all out of the headlines. I'd like this to come back. So when would you be releasing your next data. Is it is it coordinated or is it just going to happen by bits and pieces or what. At the moment nearly all project partners are still working on the material and of course we speak about what we found and we share our findings and in some cases we decide if some of the media partners want to go on the same day. But there's no rule for that at the moment so everybody can go for it. If the Guardian finds something in the data we would expect them to share with all the other partners that are findings but there is no rule that they have to stick to a certain publication date because this first date of publication that was the third of April was only important for us to prevent all of the partners to get into a certain race of scoops because we wanted to work in a big group and not without the fear that one of the partners may go may publish first so we are that's the reason why we agreed on a on a date to go out together to prevent this run. But I can if I I know for example from the Guardian that they are working on many stories that suit that you're starting we are also working on dozens of stories at the moment that are based on the Panama Papers. And there will be articles published in the next days and weeks but there's no fixed date where we can say OK on July the first that will this be out. There's nothing like that. That's a question over here. Hi. I would like to ask Granata actually what would you say should be the role of mainstream journalism so to say because for sure you need mainstream media to report about these issues but then you always have this problem that was pretty obvious here. The journalists of course like to kind of protect their profession so they will never publish everything because then their job would be kind of superfluous. But what like what would you imagine what could be the the ideal role of John Liss and yeah I mean I mean not being a journalist myself. What I can see is I mean I see a superior value value and it is a value of the right to know of the people. And that is the value that that's the fundamental value that together with the freedom of the press should be exercised. We are seeing with this release for example 99 percent even more than 99 percent of the information that will never. Will never be published somehow. It's unclear. There's no warranties that this information will be published. So the role of then and some of the countries there will be there's not not even not even a partner if I think of my country Guatemala. We might never hear about this. And so it is it is a balance. You know it is protecting the source exclusivity of the news outlets the economy the economy of the news and the really flawed model on how journalism gets gets funded. And at the same time they write to know of the people globally you know on on a truth that only 400 journalists have access to and that they can decide with a bias and a specific agenda what to do with them. I think that the role of the media more and more will will radically change in the near future because it is not exempted from the institutional crisis that all our current institutions are facing. And I think that the role of the mainstream media right now is to examine itself reinvent itself and and and challenge the limits not. Impose themselves even more constraints that the constraints that they already have and be supportive of each other instead of. Yeah. Instead of embracing the culture of secrecy that is what we are fighting against. I wanted to ask you another question actually Frederick when when we look at the the sentiment of criticism against media and against. I mean interestingly enough the release of the Panama Papers comes at a time where there's a lack of trust into media organizations or Dwyane Link Trust that's most prominently associated with this kind of horrible term. Lügenpresse in Deutschland in Germany and also there's the funding crisis which is another thing and would you say the way that the ICIJ and your organization approach this leak was actually trying to trying to combat that and putting it on different shoulders and stuff. How do you see the role of investigative journalism actually in the debate around Dwyane Link Trust in media organizations. I mean we learned in the last years that it's being more and more important to explain what we do. For example, I mean we already tried for us. It was little steps what we've done now and have done Facebook live sessions, Reddit sessions. We wrote hundreds of emails to readers explaining stuff going to a conference like this. And I think for example if I think about Reddit we wouldn't have done that two years ago. But it was important to explain our work and to explain our readers why we have chosen for example not to publish everything and why this protection of the sources is so important for us. And at the same time we can learn of this discussion. For example one lesson we learned is that in these days we are trying to publish more data on the stories we already released. It's like we already did it, published documents regarding these stories. But we will do more on that. But it takes some time and for us it wasn't the same time we had to explain our readers that we think that it's very important to address their questions. But at the same time it's also important that we can go on with our work. It's like digging into something. So that's something where we had to find the balance. I don't know if we have found it. But I do understand readers that want to answer us. But we also have to ask them for some time. And we will try to answer as much questions as possible. But at the same time we want to do our work. And the work is at the first hand investigative journalism. So that's a way of finding the balance. Obviously it's very important to address questions like that and rebuilding the trust in conventional media. I think we have time for one last question. And whoever that person is I would just ask you politely to be really brief. Because we're running out of time and there's more great panels. Very short. When we look at what I want to go on the lessons learned that means there is a structural corruption. When I look at Germany I can't get the information of the companies who owned by who. That means I have to pay I think three euro or four euro to get this company registrations. When I look to other countries I don't get the information at all. In the UK there is open corporates but I look at the tax havens. This information I think it's not available. I think we should learn the lesson to publish all this information. And for example there are so many companies in UK who are houses who are bought by foreign countries. Other countries too. So I should just say it's not possible that a corporation in Panama can buy a house in UK. What's about this lesson we have to learn. I mean from a German perspective regarding such data there's been leaked to us. We have a certain restriction that we cannot publish everything because there are restrictions due to the German presser. So we are only allowed to publish things that are of public interest and stuff like that. But what the ICIJ is doing next week is they actually are going to release a database with the kind of metadata of the Panama Papers. And that is for example information that can be found in some countries in the company registry but in some countries not. So there is this first step of building up a database without losing the possibility to protect the source. Because it will be the metadata and I think it's important because it will be an important tool for investigators, for NGOs, for lawyers. But still we couldn't do it from due to German law but ICIJ is doing it and I personally think it's a good idea. But they also will not be able to release the original documents because there again we are at the point of protection of the source. And I hope that, I mean for us, we do that, I mean for me it's like too hard speaking in my body because I do understand that people would like to see all the original documents. But for me it would be personally, it would be a catastrophe if we release something that may lead to the exposure of the source and in the worst case even to some harm to the source. So for me it's hard but for me the life of the source is more important. For me it's really, really hard to trust 400 media outlets having access to these kind of documents and then claim that what you are trying to do is to protect the source. I mean it is hard to believe, it is hard to believe that it will be a perfect circle of trust of 400 journalists working on this. It's really hard because I have experienced the flood, even unintentionally, even small negligence, one mistake, you know. So I do not take that argument of source protection but regardless I think that one of the very important tools that journalists need is open data. That's key and that's a fight that citizens can help to and pushing for the release of that key data that should be public and that should be free. I mean journalists in Guatemala were trying to access the corporate databases. It was so expensive that the limited budget that they already have for the few little investigative journalism that takes place there, they couldn't afford. I mean it is unacceptable that journalists have to pay for information that should be in the public domain. We need more information, we need more data that we can cross reference and I think that is one important lesson. And the second important lesson we need, as I said again, support courage foundation and invite the creation of similar foundations everywhere to protect sources. Thank you Renata, thank you Frederic, thank you everyone for being here. Unfortunately we have to finish the discussion now as the next panel is coming up but I guess from what I understand there will be more publications, there will be more debates around that. You can see our Twitter handles there, tweet at us, we can debate on Twitter, we can debate here at Republica and yeah, thank you for being here. Thanks to both of you. Thank you.
 As I said, it's about Panama Leaks and I want to get on stage.  Max Hoppenstedt, he's chief editor of Motherboard. Renata Avila, campaign lead at the Web We Want Foundation.  And last but not least, Frederik Obermeier, one of the main journalists at SET dealing with Panama Leaks.  The stage is yours.  Thank you.  Hello, everyone. I want to say briefly in the very beginning thank you to Republica for letting us do this panel and squeezing it in on very short notice as the Panama Papers are actually still pretty current.  So thank you to the program team and to everyone and congrats to a fantastic Republica 10 actually as well.  Yeah, with me on stage, Renata and Frederik and I think everyone is aware what we're actually talking about with the Panama Papers and we only have 30 minutes.  So I want to dive right into asking you about this and then hopefully we'll have 10 to 15 minutes to take questions from you, the audience.  Yeah, so Frederik, the leak or the publication of the Panama Papers is only four or five weeks. When you look back at it and you've been working on it for over a year from what I understand, are you content with the impact?  What do you make of the global reactions?  To be honest, I was a little bit surprised by the impact because as we researched into the data for over a year, it was like at some points we lost the contact to reality in a way because we always counted this story who is going to research that.  And in the end, it was us speaking what are you do have this head of state, you found that head of state work great but seeing now what this worldwide investigation led to that's great that we see that there is a international debate or global debate about text evasion about this shadow world of offshore.  And but at the same time, for us, it's still important to focus on our on the running investigations because I mean we are still digging into the data.  I suppose there are still great stories hidden in this treasure trove, and we have to find them. So for us, the workers on.  I think apart from the political ramifications that spilled out in the hours and days afterwards we had a sort of interesting situation that just hours after the release and the publication there was a big debate starting on the on some sort of meter level about the way this should be publicized.  So there was a lot of people from in Germany, Sarah Wagen Knecht to prominent bloggers or, yeah, like new journalists that use YouTube to all sorts of Internet commentaries and voices in media and some media as well that actually were kind of not happy with with the reporting and we're  complaining that something was hidden from them or hold back and I've just found it astonishing that the same people that would complain about something being hidden from this secret shadow forces or whatever that that high things were complaining about an investigation that actually shed light on one of the biggest secret of  the world. What what did you make of that? I mean that was an interesting situation for us as well because we thought that there may be discussions but not that fast because I mean we thought that people would first step speak about what's hidden in there and about the  revelations but we recognize now that there was a parallel debate about the way of publication and I mean that's good so it's always good to reflect what we have done and we should change something in the future and but for us what we have learned about it that we have to communicate very openly and  explain what we have done and why we have done and why we have not done something so for us that was interesting but it was a learning process as well.  Renata your reaction just I think hours after the publication on that Sunday evening of the Panama Papers was I remember a tweet from you that read something like full docs or it didn't happen.  What what what what did you what did you mean by that and why would you say that.  My reaction was a mix I mean I come from Guatemala and it is basically Panama is the main place where all the not even the not even the politicians but the whole elite of Central America hires their wealth.  Central America is one of the regions in the world with the highest inequality the systemic problems of corruption and so on so for me hearing at the Panama Papers I was super excited you know because the whole region has is in this process of we setting up  anti corruption institution by the United Nations that has really like we had we have a president in the prison and the vice president in the prison and around 50 top officers in the prison but somehow the private sector is still quite protected and we know that they the government doesn't act in isolation they do these kind of dealings so it was a big kind of hope for the  the the activists citizens engage in this process in all the countries so then when we saw nothing and we saw and we saw that the documents were just glimpses of at what was going on.  Especially in my community of lawyers and human rights lawyers who we are quite familiar with what kind of documents and we which kind of information we could found in those papers if we had access to the whole database like for example dates dates when coinciding with certain events happening inside the country.  Matching the travels the public travels of some public officers with with the documents that we have.  The fake people that they put and they forced to sign the documents you know at their offices how would you have to go there's so many layers of secrecy that having full access not to the database it was a way to understand a systemic problem and how to tackle it by dismantling this complex complex net.  So I saw it that we went like.  2008 2009 times of journalism and it was it was not it was we perceived many of people like me perceive that it was a journalist not trusting the intelligence and the ability of people to do amazing things for the public good like.  Even if that is personal knowledge is superior to the knowledge of a bunch of journalists.  So when you when you're saying like publish the docs are you calling for a publication to the like full public for example WikiLeaks style or are you calling for a publication to.  To certain groups to lawyers for example to deal with the with these with these documents or what what would your preference be you have someone on stage you could maybe.  Obviously my preference will be publication the way that by the way journalistic organization I thought that we had left behind well behind the debate of whether journalism WikiLeaks journalism or is not I mean it is and it was it wasn't disputed and was like actually that was one of the points.  That made me really uncomfortable about the press release we are journalists not like WikiLeaks it was like what anyway but yeah the way that this organization had handle.  Data and actually the way that you can play with different releases in the public interest and combine them I have done it myself with a little.  The cables released by WikiLeaks and documents released by the Global Intelligence files and all the documents so that's when the situation gets really interesting because we are talking about situations that are connected with each other you know and only this ability to play.  I mean now we have the computing ability to get to to arrive to conclusions and to get the bad guys to the place they deserve like faster but with drip drop we cannot achieve that and we miss a big opportunity.  2016 is actually sees the 10th year since the founding of WikiLeaks astonishingly enough and I think we've seen many different ways leaks and whistleblowing can be reported and are reported and the strategies.  The way the documents are handled from from cable gate to collateral damage to Snowden leak and to things like Swiss leaks and stuff that the research of a bond has been working on from and the answer to its title Frederick what would you say there is a.  Is there a crisis in investigative journalism is there a resurrection is it has it always been like this is traditional media picking up to outlets like WikiLeaks.  No I think at the moment we learned that apart from WikiLeaks who by the way do a great job and I like that you what they're doing but I think in the last years we have seen.  Alternatives to WikiLeaks because I mean 10 years ago WikiLeaks has had a unique selling point was at a time when investigative journalists.  Had to learn their lessons for example regarding encryption and stuff like that and WikiLeaks really was great and is great on that point but now we see.  The whistleblowers and sources to have the possibility to choose what to do they can go to WikiLeaks they can do I mean there are heaps heaps of.  Media houses who have encrypted ways of communication or ways of dropping information or even people that are going to NGOs like Greenpeace and dropping material there so for a whistleblower I think it's a great time and great.  Great because they can choose where to go and what fits their needs and for example what fits their needs of regarding.  I think it's a great time to talk about the security of the source and the source has to be protected I mean during this investigations there have been so many people worldwide revealed that may have an interest of doing harm to the source.  So for us it's the most important thing at the moment to protect the source and this has nothing to do with a feeling of superiority for example just this in this week's I see a J in Switzerland thinking about whom to involve in this project to open it up because there are.  Many countries in the world that have not really reported to that extent that they should be but for us the risk of exposing the source may be unintentionally by putting all of the data into the public that is too high and I mean for us there's a responsibility because.  We don't want our whistleblower in prison or even worse that I mean we have seen certain whistleblowers that are in prison now and so I do understand the wish of the source to stay anonymous and at the same time or doing so protecting his life.  Well I just want to respond that the publication of whole database can be done in a way that it at the same time serves two purposes I mean there are ways to actually.  To. Not only anonymize this the source with anonymize the range of the periods of time out there first document last document that might indicate the first login and last login of the person if that was the way that it was acquired.  But I do agree I disagree with you and I agree with you in this flourishing of maybe I will be really happy today that we can do is not needed anymore do you know and all these brilliant people can move to the next innovative thing.  But it is still a need I need. We could so obviously as we have seen how media is pressured. All of the word to censor and protect the powerful you know.  If you look at the recent history I mean many media have been in the spot like at covering up companies corrupt companies are covering up powerful people injunction injunctions and all these kind of mechanisms.  But the thing that worries me the most I mean you say that you're very concerned with your source about your source. All media say that they are very concerned about the source.  I mean even the Guardian said that they were very concerned about snow then at the moment of the of the release and there's no institutionalized mechanisms to protect sources.  I mean it took Amnesty International years years to to include and support Chelsea money.  It took I mean it all the human rights organizations froze with snow then I mean that's actually I am part of the advisory board of Corash Foundation we had to put together this foundation because no one was daring to help him.  I mean now everyone is praising him you know at that moment was an absolute paralysis and inability to react and really protect the source.  I mean that's the reality in the in the West I imagine in Africa in Africa and in Latin America many many times it will be it will pay with the life.  So I hope that this creates some awareness that we need robust publication as long as we have robust mechanisms to protect sources.  A good source protection like the one that Corash Foundation is trying to set up will lead to more robust and fearless publication.  I think.  Did you want to say it.  I mean for us we thought a lot about this topic and there are several points that were very important for us.  We spoke with dozens of experts on a tea experts and experts on the in this offshore business and they actually told us you cannot 100 percent guarantee that if you publish this documents that there is no hint in there that may lead to the source.  And what is more important or at the same time important for us is I mean the source gave it to us for a journalistic purpose and the source as far as we know is well aware that there exists something like WikiLeaks.  So we to a certain extent also have to respect what the source has given the material to us obviously because it wanted to us to work on it and wanted for example in this case I suppose journalists working on this that had experience in that area.  I mean all these documents there it's not like you will have a look at the document and you really understand at first what at first glance what is in there.  I think we only have 10 minutes left so I actually want to give everyone in the audience the chance to to ask question that will be handheld microphones.  I mean if you don't have a question I would have some more questions but I assume that's one back there.  Thank you.  Thank you very much. From the UK you guys managed to force our Prime Minister and the Chancellor to publish their tax returns but they didn't publish them all they just published a summary of their tax returns.  So thank you.  And I understand what you said about you cannot release WikiLeaks style and I understand people will be doing their best to track down the source.  When is the next release of information because in the UK what happened was this hit the press really hard suddenly everyone is telling you about their tax returns.  We find that certain members of political parties have resigned certain members of political parties have used tax havens.  So then what happened was there was a media cover thing around the opposition party being anti Semitic and then that wiped it all out of the headlines.  I'd like this to come back.  So when would you be releasing your next data.  Is it is it coordinated or is it just going to happen by bits and pieces or what.  At the moment nearly all project partners are still working on the material and of course we speak about what we found and we share our findings and in some cases we decide if some of the media partners want to go on the same day.  But there's no rule for that at the moment so everybody can go for it.  If the Guardian finds something in the data we would expect them to share with all the other partners that are findings but there is no rule that they have to stick to a certain publication date because this first date of publication that was the third of April was only important for us to prevent all of the partners to get into a certain race of scoops because we wanted to work in a big group  and not without the fear that one of the partners may go may publish first so we are that's the reason why we agreed on a on a date to go out together to prevent this run.  But I can if I I know for example from the Guardian that they are working on many stories that suit that you're starting we are also working on dozens of stories at the moment that are based on the Panama Papers.  And there will be articles published in the next days and weeks but there's no fixed date where we can say OK on July the first that will this be out.  There's nothing like that.  That's a question over here.  Hi.  I would like to ask Granata actually what would you say should be the role of mainstream journalism so to say because for sure you need mainstream media to report about these issues but then you always have this problem that was pretty obvious here.  The journalists of course like to kind of protect their profession so they will never publish everything because then their job would be kind of superfluous.  But what like what would you imagine what could be the the ideal role of John Liss and yeah I mean I mean not being a journalist myself.  What I can see is I mean I see a superior value value and it is a value of the right to know of the people.  And that is the value that that's the fundamental value that together with the freedom of the press should be exercised.  We are seeing with this release for example 99 percent even more than 99 percent of the information that will never.  Will never be published somehow.  It's unclear. There's no warranties that this information will be published. So the role of then and some of the countries there will be there's not not even not even a partner if I think of my country Guatemala.  We might never hear about this.  And so it is it is a balance. You know it is protecting the source exclusivity of the news outlets the economy the economy of the news and the really flawed model on how journalism gets gets funded.  And at the same time they write to know of the people globally you know on on a truth that only 400 journalists have access to and that they can decide with a bias and a specific agenda what to do with them.  I think that the role of the media more and more will will radically change in the near future because it is not exempted from the institutional crisis that all our current institutions are facing.  And I think that the role of the mainstream media right now is to examine itself reinvent itself and and and challenge the limits not.  Impose themselves even more constraints that the constraints that they already have and be supportive of each other instead of.  Yeah. Instead of embracing the culture of secrecy that is what we are fighting against.  I wanted to ask you another question actually Frederick when when we look at the the sentiment of criticism against media and against.  I mean interestingly enough the release of the Panama Papers comes at a time where there's a lack of trust into media organizations or Dwyane Link Trust that's most prominently associated with this kind of horrible term.  Lügenpresse in Deutschland in Germany and also there's the funding crisis which is another thing and would you say the way that the ICIJ and your organization approach this leak was actually trying to trying to combat that and putting it on different shoulders and stuff.  How do you see the role of investigative journalism actually in the debate around Dwyane Link Trust in media organizations.  I mean we learned in the last years that it's being more and more important to explain what we do.  For example, I mean we already tried for us.  It was little steps what we've done now and have done Facebook live sessions, Reddit sessions.  We wrote hundreds of emails to readers explaining stuff going to a conference like this.  And I think for example if I think about Reddit we wouldn't have done that two years ago.  But it was important to explain our work and to explain our readers why we have chosen for example not to publish everything and why this protection of the sources is so important for us.  And at the same time we can learn of this discussion. For example one lesson we learned is that in these days we are trying to publish more data on the stories we already released.  It's like we already did it, published documents regarding these stories.  But we will do more on that.  But it takes some time and for us it wasn't the same time we had to explain our readers that we think that it's very important to address their questions.  But at the same time it's also important that we can go on with our work. It's like digging into something.  So that's something where we had to find the balance. I don't know if we have found it.  But I do understand readers that want to answer us. But we also have to ask them for some time.  And we will try to answer as much questions as possible. But at the same time we want to do our work.  And the work is at the first hand investigative journalism.  So that's a way of finding the balance.  Obviously it's very important to address questions like that and rebuilding the trust in conventional media.  I think we have time for one last question. And whoever that person is I would just ask you politely to be really brief.  Because we're running out of time and there's more great panels.  Very short. When we look at what I want to go on the lessons learned that means there is a structural corruption.  When I look at Germany I can't get the information of the companies who owned by who.  That means I have to pay I think three euro or four euro to get this company registrations.  When I look to other countries I don't get the information at all.  In the UK there is open corporates but I look at the tax havens. This information I think it's not available.  I think we should learn the lesson to publish all this information.  And for example there are so many companies in UK who are houses who are bought by foreign countries.  Other countries too. So I should just say it's not possible that a corporation in Panama can buy a house in UK.  What's about this lesson we have to learn.  I mean from a German perspective regarding such data there's been leaked to us.  We have a certain restriction that we cannot publish everything because there are restrictions due to the German presser.  So we are only allowed to publish things that are of public interest and stuff like that.  But what the ICIJ is doing next week is they actually are going to release a database with the kind of metadata of the Panama Papers.  And that is for example information that can be found in some countries in the company registry but in some countries not.  So there is this first step of building up a database without losing the possibility to protect the source.  Because it will be the metadata and I think it's important because it will be an important tool for investigators, for NGOs, for lawyers.  But still we couldn't do it from due to German law but ICIJ is doing it and I personally think it's a good idea.  But they also will not be able to release the original documents because there again we are at the point of protection of the source.  And I hope that, I mean for us, we do that, I mean for me it's like too hard speaking in my body because I do understand that people would like to see all the original documents.  But for me it would be personally, it would be a catastrophe if we release something that may lead to the exposure of the source and in the worst case even to some harm to the source.  So for me it's hard but for me the life of the source is more important.  For me it's really, really hard to trust 400 media outlets having access to these kind of documents and then claim that what you are trying to do is to protect the source.  I mean it is hard to believe, it is hard to believe that it will be a perfect circle of trust of 400 journalists working on this.  It's really hard because I have experienced the flood, even unintentionally, even small negligence, one mistake, you know.  So I do not take that argument of source protection but regardless I think that one of the very important tools that journalists need is open data.  That's key and that's a fight that citizens can help to and pushing for the release of that key data that should be public and that should be free.  I mean journalists in Guatemala were trying to access the corporate databases.  It was so expensive that the limited budget that they already have for the few little investigative journalism that takes place there, they couldn't afford.  I mean it is unacceptable that journalists have to pay for information that should be in the public domain.  We need more information, we need more data that we can cross reference and I think that is one important lesson.  And the second important lesson we need, as I said again, support courage foundation and invite the creation of similar foundations everywhere to protect sources.  Thank you Renata, thank you Frederic, thank you everyone for being here.  Unfortunately we have to finish the discussion now as the next panel is coming up but I guess from what I understand there will be more publications, there will be more debates around that.  You can see our Twitter handles there, tweet at us, we can debate on Twitter, we can debate here at Republica and yeah, thank you for being here.  Thanks to both of you.  Thank you.
re_publica_2016___Panama_Papers__Investigative_Journalism__the__Lugenpresse____the_age_of_Big_Leaks_0_203.png re_publica_2016___Panama_Papers__Investigative_Journalism__the__Lugenpresse____the_age_of_Big_Leaks_204_1475.png re_publica_2016___Panama_Papers__Investigative_Journalism__the__Lugenpresse____the_age_of_Big_Leaks_1476_1835.png re_publica_2016___Panama_Papers__Investigative_Journalism__the__Lugenpresse____the_age_of_Big_Leaks_1836_2027.png re_publica_2016___Panama_Papers__Investigative_Journalism__the__Lugenpresse____the_age_of_Big_Leaks_2028_3203.png re_publica_2016___Panama_Papers__Investigative_Journalism__the__Lugenpresse____the_age_of_Big_Leaks_3204_3359.png re_publica_2016___Panama_Papers__Investigative_Journalism__the__Lugenpresse____the_age_of_Big_Leaks_3360_4139.png re_publica_2016___Panama_Papers__Investigative_Journalism__the__Lugenpresse____the_age_of_Big_Leaks_4140_5759.png re_publica_2016___Panama_Papers__Investigative_Journalism__the__Lugenpresse____the_age_of_Big_Leaks_5760_6683.png re_publica_2016___Panama_Papers__Investigative_Journalism__the__Lugenpresse____the_age_of_Big_Leaks_6684_6839.png re_publica_2016___Panama_Papers__Investigative_Journalism__the__Lugenpresse____the_age_of_Big_Leaks_6840_10619.png re_publica_2016___Panama_Papers__Investigative_Journalism__the__Lugenpresse____the_age_of_Big_Leaks_10620_11075.png re_publica_2016___Panama_Papers__Investigative_Journalism__the__Lugenpresse____the_age_of_Big_Leaks_11076_11447.png re_publica_2016___Panama_Papers__Investigative_Journalism__the__Lugenpresse____the_age_of_Big_Leaks_11448_11567.png re_publica_2016___Panama_Papers__Investigative_Journalism__the__Lugenpresse____the_age_of_Big_Leaks_11568_11675.png re_publica_2016___Panama_Papers__Investigative_Journalism__the__Lugenpresse____the_age_of_Big_Leaks_11676_12263.png re_publica_2016___Panama_Papers__Investigative_Journalism__the__Lugenpresse____the_age_of_Big_Leaks_12264_16919.png re_publica_2016___Panama_Papers__Investigative_Journalism__the__Lugenpresse____the_age_of_Big_Leaks_16920_17051.png re_publica_2016___Panama_Papers__Investigative_Journalism__the__Lugenpresse____the_age_of_Big_Leaks_17052_17519.png re_publica_2016___Panama_Papers__Investigative_Journalism__the__Lugenpresse____the_age_of_Big_Leaks_17520_19751.png re_publica_2016___Panama_Papers__Investigative_Journalism__the__Lugenpresse____the_age_of_Big_Leaks_19752_20351.png re_publica_2016___Panama_Papers__Investigative_Journalism__the__Lugenpresse____the_age_of_Big_Leaks_20352_20843.png re_publica_2016___Panama_Papers__Investigative_Journalism__the__Lugenpresse____the_age_of_Big_Leaks_20844_20915.png re_publica_2016___Panama_Papers__Investigative_Journalism__the__Lugenpresse____the_age_of_Big_Leaks_20916_21683.png re_publica_2016___Panama_Papers__Investigative_Journalism__the__Lugenpresse____the_age_of_Big_Leaks_21684_24863.png re_publica_2016___Panama_Papers__Investigative_Journalism__the__Lugenpresse____the_age_of_Big_Leaks_24864_25679.png re_publica_2016___Panama_Papers__Investigative_Journalism__the__Lugenpresse____the_age_of_Big_Leaks_25680_25787.png re_publica_2016___Panama_Papers__Investigative_Journalism__the__Lugenpresse____the_age_of_Big_Leaks_25788_29363.png re_publica_2016___Panama_Papers__Investigative_Journalism__the__Lugenpresse____the_age_of_Big_Leaks_29364_37151.png re_publica_2016___Panama_Papers__Investigative_Journalism__the__Lugenpresse____the_age_of_Big_Leaks_37152_38783.png re_publica_2016___Panama_Papers__Investigative_Journalism__the__Lugenpresse____the_age_of_Big_Leaks_38784_39707.png re_publica_2016___Panama_Papers__Investigative_Journalism__the__Lugenpresse____the_age_of_Big_Leaks_39708_40391.png re_publica_2016___Panama_Papers__Investigative_Journalism__the__Lugenpresse____the_age_of_Big_Leaks_40392_42083.png re_publica_2016___Panama_Papers__Investigative_Journalism__the__Lugenpresse____the_age_of_Big_Leaks_42084_42335.png re_publica_2016___Panama_Papers__Investigative_Journalism__the__Lugenpresse____the_age_of_Big_Leaks_42336_42743.png re_publica_2016___Panama_Papers__Investigative_Journalism__the__Lugenpresse____the_age_of_Big_Leaks_42744_43247.png re_publica_2016___Panama_Papers__Investigative_Journalism__the__Lugenpresse____the_age_of_Big_Leaks_43248_43835.png re_publica_2016___Panama_Papers__Investigative_Journalism__the__Lugenpresse____the_age_of_Big_Leaks_43836_44075.png re_publica_2016___Panama_Papers__Investigative_Journalism__the__Lugenpresse____the_age_of_Big_Leaks_44076_47375.png