Investigative
journalism is the form of journalism whereby a specific topic is examined in
great depth, usually those of crime, political corruption and corporate misconduct.
Ross Coulthart’s quote sums up my thoughts exactly:
“Isn’t all journalism meant to involve
questioning investigation of facts and opinions presented to us?”
And Lord
Northcliffe answers the question so well
“… what somebody somewhere wants to
suppress; all the rest is just advertising.”
So, what do
you need to have to be an investigative journalist? Simply you need an “in”… or
more precisely, five “in’s”. You need to be intelligent, informed, intuitive, inside and invest yourself
in the story. Really, they’re all quite self-explanatory. Intelligent as you
need to think about the issues, who’s involved, and the logical outcomes.
Informed as you need to be in the know and what has happened in the past (or what
may happen before it has from insight). Intuitive so that you pick up on things
others might not and use that gut feeling. Inside so that you know what’s
happening as a primary source, and not second hand and invest, your time, money
and efforts to get to the bottom of the story.
Alright, so
let’s look at the deeper definitions and purpose of investigative journalism.
In our lecture four aspects were identified.
1.
Critical and thorough Journalism – the key is
active intervention; the journalists are active participants and are thorough
and make a substantial effort in obtaining the story and its facts
2.
Custodians of conscience – the key is exposure;
civic vice is exposed for society to respond
3.
To provide a voice for those without one and
hold the powerful to account – the key is public interest; to bring about
social justice by giving a voice to the voiceless and power to the powerless
4.
Fourth branch of govt/”watchdog”/Fourth estate –
a.
Fourth branch of govt as journalists allow free
flows of information necessary for the functioning democracy by bringing
accountability to the judiciary, executive and legislative branches. This is
especially prevalent in view of QLD no longer having a senate and also the mass
majority in the lower house (only house, more like it) from the latest
election.
b.
“Watchdog” as they again create accountability
for public personalities and institutions whose functions impact social and
political life. The question though, can they be held to much account in a “one
paper town” like Brisbane… In view of online news being so prevalent, I don’t
see why not!
c.
Fourth Estate as journalists represent those
without power to balance the power of the government. Interesting to note that
the other estates, in order in which they were presented and constructed
according to the French social constructs of ancient times, were religion, the
monarch and the people. In my mind, the fourth estate is really the joining
factor which keep the other estates informed or bring sheltered/manipulated
from the other estates (especially in view of media’s agenda setting)
To achieve
this, you have to be prepared to get out there and search for the information
(shoes leather journalism). You have to stand back and look at the big picture,
while taking nothing for granted. You must question and be critical, however,
there’s a distinct difference between being cynical and sceptical in obtaining
a story and information; as an investigative journalist you want to be the
latter. This is where it leads us back to our previous week’s lecture once
again – CUT THROUGH THE AGENDA! Easier said than done. Even when we try and bypass
specific media outlets inert biases and agendas, as individuals we all have inherent
biases. Simply because we become journalists, it doesn’t mean these individual
agendas are suppressed.
Agendas aside,
let’s look at some of the big trailblazers of history. W.T. Stead wrote about
the white slave trade and prostitution in the Maiden Tribute of Modern Babylon
campaign. The result of this was the raising of the age of consent from 12 to
16 – let’s not judge too quickly, back then girls got married off while in
their teens!
Bob Woodward
and Carl Bernstein brought to light the “Watergate” scandal, whereby the Nixon
administration was caught for conducting illegal acts such as bugging political
opponent’s offices and harassment of political/activist groups. The story was
brought was picked up by the two reporters after a break-in at the Watergate
Complex in Washington, which resulted in the resignation of Nixon. The movie
representation of the Watergate scandal (All the President’s Men) is a
fantastic representation of investigative journalism; before internet and
information was kept in hard copies only!
Let’s fast
forward to today. We examined the example of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks.
While I, myself, would not classify his information dumping as journalism, the
information which he obtained (somewhat illegally) has allowed for true
investigative journalism into political topics. Quite frankly, the information
itself would not have made such an impact if governments made such an issue
over it. The glorification/demonization of Assange’s action made WikiLeaks
major news. It wasn’t until the Apache helicopter attack in Iraq that WikiLeaks
became front page news, and with that it brought media and journalistic attention;
only because of that has some sort of social justice come about.
While it’s
not exceptionally prominent amongst the vast array of news stories every day,
investigative journalism can still be found in sites such as The Global Mail,
Crikey and Australian Story.
So how do we
investigate? The old saying goes:
If your
mother says she loves you, check it out
Basically
this just means you always have check your facts – never assume anything! This
also means be wary of your sources. Whistle blowers have a reason for coming
out and sharing their story, with important information comes much risk and responsibility;
the advice to journalists is to expect whistle blowers to be or go crazy.
The most
straightforward ways of collecting information is to conduct numerous interviews,
make observations, obtain/view documents, attend briefings and use leaks to
your advantage, but if it alright to trespass and steal information? Surely, viewing
it from a utilitarian standpoint, if the outcome is better for the greater
society then it’s allowed… but sadly no, we still have to follow the rules if
we want to be ethical journalists. The bottom line is, does what you were told,
what you saw and what was recorded line up? If the answer is no, then get
investigating!
As I’ve mentioned
in other posts, the increase of online and new media changes the face of
journalism. We want up-to-date news; as it happens. With this comes less time
for investigative journalists to do their jobs. Saying that, the Four Corners’
report on cattle export was one of the biggest news stories last year and it
was a piece of investigative journalism. Furthermore, the PR effect is also
having an effect. With churnalism rates extremely high in some publications, it
shows a lack of questioning and research into information and even the sources
from which it’s obtained. This again puts a damper on investigative journalism
in society.
As we
progress further into the technology age I can’t help but wonder if the news
stories we will be exposed to will be primary agenda ridden and full of PR.
With less time for even the consumers of news to sit and question what we see,
the more likely it is we take in information without thinking. Despite the
numerous and varying outlets of information we can access in the palm of our
hands, we still just stick to the good ‘ol news sites that we visit every day,
and sometimes even zone our when the pyramid of information starts to taper
into the less interesting. If consumers do this, why are journalists even going
to bother searching for the hidden truths in the political, criminal and
corporate webs of deception?
