Talk:Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project

منظمة مكافحة الجريمة المنظمة والفساد

يعد مشروع الإبلاغ عن الجريمة المنظمة والفساد ، الذي تأسس في عام 2006 ، اتحادًا من مراكز التحقيق ووسائل الإعلام والصحفيين العاملين في أوروبا الشرقية والقوقاز وآسيا الوسطى وأمريكا الوسطى. OCCRP هي منظمة استقصائية للإبلاغ متخصصة في الجريمة المنظمة والفساد.

المؤسِّس: بول رادو التأسيس: 2006 79.134.134.70 (talk) 18:17, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Mediapart

The investigative report by Mediapart needs to be included here, somehow. I disagree with recent attempts to reframe the entire article as some sort of bad faith CIA operation. There is a lot in that Mediareport piece that is clearly slanted. Nevertheless, the strictly factual and reliable information can be extracted and reported on in a separate section, concerning the Mediareport investigation. -- GreenC 16:32, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Agree. I earlier updated the Transparency International article to include a link to the OCCRP article in relation to the Global Anti-Corruption Consortium, and I tried to keep the text brief and factual while including a citation of the Mediapart report. Paul W (talk) 19:39, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I added the Mediapart report yesterday but @Thenightaway keeps reverting the edits without any discussion. I'll concede the discussion part since I myself didn't discuss about the edits but @Thenightaway didn't even provide a valid reason for reverting my edits. The Mediapart investigative report should be added. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 05:39, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with recent attempts to reframe the entire article as some sort of bad faith CIA operation.
— [[User:-- GreenC ]]

OCCRP for all practical purposes seems like a hitman for the US government according to the Mediapart investigation. I didn't make anything up in my edits. But still to support your argument maybe we could cite the OCCRP response that basically say that the whole investigation is the work of an disgruntled former employee. There also this Mediapart report on German public broadcaster NDR suspending it's collaboration. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 05:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

This strategy of attacking non-profits, based on their donor list, is very old. We see it on Wikipedia all the time because it's so cheap and easy to make insinuations of a conspiracy from their donor list. The same thing has been done to other non-profits, like Bellingcat, who investigate criminal organizations and states. The response from OCCRP says this report has no evidence of donor-advisement, something the organization has built-in safeguards to protect against. It really comes down to this simple question: are the donors also advising/directing the organization. It's a serious accusation that requires serious evidence. -- GreenC 06:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Afaict, the included information is factual, not an attack. It is a list of funders, the level of funding from USAID and a statement about the power that USAID has over appointments and investigations. Why wouldn't we include this information? I can't see that we have included any claim about this affecting OCCRP's reporting. Even though we have not drawn any conclusions from the funding, we have still included a statement from OCCRP that no government body has exerted editorial control over its reporting. Seems fair enough. Burrobert (talk) 08:08, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

There is a paragraph on this in the 'organization and funding' section. It covers the points you raise and is sufficient in my view. Thenightaway (talk) 15:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

No its not sufficient. A lot can be added from the Mediapart investigation to this article. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 18:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I myself thought about Mediapart report a lot. What I don't understand with regards to the supposed "safeguards" of OCCRP is what are they? Why OCCRP doesn't give any details about these safeguards like the least it(OCCRP) could do is give point by point how these safeguards work and the nature of safeguards. And also the person who is supposed to make sure that these safeguard work and is this person one of the "key appointment" that US government could veto or is it someone who is independent.

I'm all for judging their(OCCRP) investigations on their merit but one has to agree that OCCRP doesn't cover US and European countries who give these donations. There is some token reporting according to Mediapart it's 12 report on US and probably European country but that's such a miniscule amount.

Also OCCRP can't use the resources against US interest. 70% of OCCRP donation come from US and some European government. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 10:49, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

The US and Europe already have other robust corruption fighting institutions (FBI etc), the OCCRP typically focuses its resources on those countries that need help fighting corruption that otherwise do not have existing or strong corruption fighting institutions.

There is huge difference between donor-funded and donor-advised. If the report is saying OCCRP is secretly a donor-advised organization, it needs to provide evidence, because OCCRP is publicly not a donor-advised organization. The report is insinuating a secret relationship with its donors, without evidence, and which the OCCRP denies. As for OCCRP safeguards, you would think a legitimate neutral investigative report would have investigated this basic question. -- GreenC 16:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

The OCCRP board of directors includes Sue Gardner, former head of Wikipedia. I wonder... are OCCRP and Wikipedia in a conspiracy? Is Wikipedia an arm of the CIA? Am I a CIA agent? One can insinuate anything. It's called "assuming bad faith" based on <whatever> leading to insinuations and ultimately biased editing. -- GreenC 16:27, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I thought the goal of Wikipedia is to simply describe the events instead of analyzing them so who am I or you to assume bad faith or good faith it's irrelevant to this whole discussion.

If 70% of their funding comes from foreign Government then that needs to be mentioned. OCCRP is also obligated to follow some US law that require them to promote US interest it's mentioned in Mediapart investigation. It also needs to mentioned in their history that they were funded by some obscure drug fighting agency called INL in The US.

Regarding OCCRP beign a whiteknight that's against Corruption in countries where institutions are weak. Well I don't buy this line of thinking because what international law allows them to do these things like behave like an long arm of western institutions.

OCCRP isn't an UN institution whatever their intentions be and their nobel cause it needs to be stated that they are not some bunch of anti-establishment journalists running wild but an group of investigating journalists funded by foreign government.

I can't help but feel like had this been done by Russia or China we wouldn't be having this debate.

Maybe Wikipedia is run by CIA and maybe you are an CIA agent🤣🤣. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 18:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

The following factual content seems fairly important, especially given the scale of funding by the US regime. It is contained in the Mediapart article. Should it be included in the article?

Under the funding agreement, the funds cannot be used for investigations in the US. USAID also has veto powers over appointments of senior personnel at OCCRP through this funding agreement. Asked about these terms, OCCRP responded, "We are confident that no government or donor has exerted editorial control over the OCCRP reporting.”

Burrobert (talk) 04:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

⌛

Burrobert (talk) 04:27, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't see the MediaPart article as being reliable enough to report everything it says as factually true. -- GreenC 15:42, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

OCCRP:

• "In order to minimize conflicts of interest, we don’t report in a given country with money donated by that country, and instead draw on other sources of funding".
• "when we bid on certain types of U.S. government grants known as cooperative agreements, we are actually required to name who will be responsible for implementing the grant. This person or persons, referred to as the grant’s “key personnel,” ensures that the money we get is spent appropriately and that the work gets done ... If we win the grant and we want to later replace the people we have named on the application, we are required to find an equally well-qualified replacement for them, and the donor needs to agree that the replacement is qualified". Burrobert (talk) 07:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

"veto powers over appointments of senior personnel", is a lot different than the second bullet point. "the funds cannot be used for investigations in the US" is also a lot different than the first bullet point. Both are missing context, and both are essentially original research leading the reader to a conclusion. The fact is, OCCRP has safeguards in place to avoid COI problems. Its critics have spun that around into a negative. Imagine instead these safeguards did not exist. The USAID wants the OCCRP to investigate the FDA, who USAID is having a conflict. The USAID donates money to OCCRP so they will do its dirty work for them. That's why these safeguards exist, to prevent institutions within a country from investigating each other through a proxy OCCRP. Also the "qualified" replacement is just milktoast language that could mean they have appropriate professional qualifications, it doesn't mean broad sweeping powers to cherry pick whoever they want. -- GreenC 15:28, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

You have accepted the OCCRP's version at face value. There are in fact some important commonalities in both sides of the story:

• US money cannot/is not used for investigations about the US. The two sides differ on the reason, but the effect is the same. It's an important point given the level of funding by the US regime.
• When assessing applications for funding from the OCCRP, the US knows who has been assigned to the work, which is included as part of the application. The US also must approve any changes to the personnel used in an investigation. The Mediapart report says that the US has veto power and OCCRP says it doesn't.

When initially contacted for comment the OCCRP didn't deny these claims but merely said "We are confident that no government or donor has exerted editorial control over the OCCRP reporting”. Once the report was published, it appears that it was embarrassed into putting out a detailed statement. I don't see any reason to accept OCCRP's version over that of Mediapart. The best solution is to include both sides of the story. Burrobert (talk) 12:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

OCCRP and MediaPart are not equal peers when it comes to statements about OCCRP. The burden is on the accusatory. Anyone can make stuff up. OCCRP is going to be a target of attack by bad faith actors, because that's why they investigate, bad faith actors. It's the same thing we have seen with Bellingcat, who also investigate bad faith actors, and are constantly attacked as being controlled by a "US regime". And your word choice "US regime" reveals a bias - the word "regime" can be used neutrally, but your usage and context here is not neutral. -- GreenC 16:07, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

"Bad faith actors" is an invented red-herring. As far as I know, the OCCRP has not investigated German public broadcaster Norddeutscher Rundfunk, Mediapart, Il Fatto Quotidiano, Drop Site News or Reporters United. The wider story is in the section below. Burrobert (talk) 03:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah maybe not mention everything that the Mediapart article says but Wikipedia could mention some significant details that OCCRP is obligated to follow like that US law that's mentioned in Mediapart article. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 08:29, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Joint investigation into OCCRP

This is related to the Mediapart section above but is broader so I have decided to start a new section. The investigation into OCCRP was started in 2023 by the German public broadcaster Norddeutscher Rundfunk(NDR), which had a working relationship with the OCCRP. It then became a joint project of the independent French investigative outlet Mediapart, the Italian outlet Il Fatto Quotidiano, Drop Site News, and Reporters United in Greece. Under pressure from the OCCRP, NDR has not published its own version of the investigation but has suspended its partnership with the OCCRP. Here are some interesting items from the investigation[1][2][3][4][5]

• The level of US funding and the restrictions on how this money is used (mentioned in Mediapart section). The reports say that between 2014 and 2023, the US government provided 52 percent of the money actually spent by OCCRP.
• The influence that the US has on choice of personnel (also mentioned above)
• Initial funding for the OCCRP was from a grant from the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) at the U.S. State Department. Afaict we don't say anything about its set up funding so this would be a good addition to the page.
• While OCCRP has consistently disclosed that it accepts some money from governments, including the United States, the full extent of the financing has not previously been revealed.
• Both Drop Site news and Il Fatto Quotidiano contrast the US regime's attitude towards OCCRP with its attitude towards Wikileaks.
• USAID agency Administrator Samantha Power, who sits on the National Security Council, has openly referred to to OCCRP as their partner.
• The sources provide examples of the revolving door between OCCRP and the US state apparatus.
• The sources provide examples of US funding projects directed against its enemies such as grants for "Balancing the Russian media sphere" and uncovering and fighting corruption in Venezuela.
• Drew Sullivan attacked the investigation's reporters John Goetz, whom he called a possible "Russian asset", and Romanian freelance journalist Stefan Candea.

Burrobert (talk) 14:25, 15 December 2024 (UTC)