Let's Look Into That

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?