Investigative Reporting

Investigative reporting is distinctive in that it publicizes information about wrongdoing that affects the public interest. Denunciations result from the work of reporters rather than from information leaked to newsrooms.

While investigative journalism used to be associated with lone reporters working on their own with little, if any, support from their news organizations, recent examples attest that teamwork is fundamental. Differing kinds of expertise are needed to produce well-documented and comprehensive stories. Reporters, editors, legal specialists, statistical analysts, librarians, and news researchers are needed to collaborate on investigations. Knowledge of public information access laws is crucial to find what information is potentially available under "freedom of information" laws, and what legal problems might arise when damaging information is published. New technologies are extremely valuable to find facts and to make reporters familiar with the complexities of any given story. Thanks to the computerization of government records and the availability of extraordinary amounts of information online, computer-assisted reporting (CAR) is of great assistance.

Democracy and Investigative Journalism

Investigative journalism matters because of its many contributions to democratic governance. Its role can be understood in keeping with the Fourth Estate model of the press. According to this model, the press should make government accountable by publishing information about matters of public interest even if such information reveals abuses or crimes perpetrated by those in authority. From this perspective, investigative reporting is one of the most important contributions that the press makes to democracy. It is linked to the logic of checks and balances in democratic systems. It provides a valuable mechanism for monitoring the performance of democratic institutions as they are most broadly defined to include governmental bodies, civic organizations and publicly held corporations.

The centrality of the media in contemporary democracies makes political elites sensitive to news, particularly to "bad" news that often causes a public commotion. The publication of news about political and economic wrongdoing can trigger congressional and judicial investigations.

In cases when government institutions fail to conduct further inquiries, or investigations are plagued with problems and suspicions, journalism can contribute to accountability by monitoring the functioning of these institutions. It can examine how well these institutions actually fulfill their constitutional mandate to govern responsibly in the face of press reports that reveal dysfunction, dishonesty, or wrongdoing in government and society. At minimum, investigative reporting retains important agenda-setting powers to remind citizens and political elites about the existence of certain issues. There are no guarantees, however, that continuous press attention will result in congressional and judicial actions to investigate and prosecute those responsible for wrongdoing.

Investigative journalism also contributes to democracy by nurturing an informed citizenry. Information is a vital resource to empower a vigilant public that ultimately holds government accountable through voting and participation. With the ascent of media-centered politics in contemporary democracies, the media have eclipsed other social institutions as the main source of information about issues and processes that affect citizens' lives.

Public access

Access to public records and laws ensuring that public business will be conducted in open sessions are indispensable to the work of an investigative journalist. When prior censorship or defamation laws loom on the horizon, news organizations are unlikely to take up controversial subjects because of potentially expensive lawsuits. Consequently, democracies must meet certain requirements for investigative journalism to be effective and to provide diverse and comprehensive information.

Definition:

The standard definition of investigative reporting, as agreed upon by such bodies as

The Society for Professional Journalists and Investigative Reporters and Editors is this:

The information reported has to be of importance to the public.

The information has to be original work.

The reportage has to uncover something not previously known that someone is trying to keep hidden.

Investigative journalism is when reporters deeply investigate a topic of interest, often involving crime, political corruption, or some other scandal.

De Burgh (2000) states  "An investigative journalist is a man or woman whose profession it is to discover the truth and to identify lapses from it in whatever media may be available. The act of doing this generally is called investigative journalism and is distinct from apparently similar work done by police, lawyers, auditors and regulatory bodies in that it is not limited as to target, not legally founded and closely connected to publicity".

An investigative journalist may spend a considerable period researching and preparing a report, sometimes months or years, whereas a typical daily or weekly news reporter writes items concerning immediately available news. Most investigative journalism is done by newspapers, wire services and freelance journalists. An investigative journalist's final report may take the form of an exposé.

There is no more important contribution that we can make to society than strong, publicly-spirited investigative journalism.

– Tony Burman, editor-in-chief of CBC News

The Ethics of Investigative Journalism

Every team of investigative reporters pursues a story under different circumstances, so creating an all-purpose ethical rulebook is problematic, though certain standards have become generally accepted. The legal implications of reporters' actions are, by far, more clear-cut than ethical issues. Ethics, instead, deals with how to distinguish between right and wrong, with philosophical principles used to justify a particular course of action. Any decision can be judged ethical, depending on what ethical framework is used to justify it, and what values are prioritized. What journalists and editors need to determine is who will benefit as a result of the reporting.

If journalism is committed to democratic accountability, then the question that needs to be asked is whether the public benefits as a result of investigative reports. Whose interest does investigative journalism serve by publishing a given story? Does the press fulfill its social responsibility in revealing wrongdoing? Whose interests are being affected? Whose rights are being invaded? Is the issue at stake a matter of legitimate public interest? Or is individual privacy being invaded when no crucial public issue is at stake?

Most discussions about ethics in investigative journalism have focused on methodology, namely, is any method valid to reveal wrongdoing? Is deception legitimate when journalists aim to tell the truth? Is any method justifiable no matter the working conditions and the difficulties in getting information? Can television reporters use hidden cameras to get a story? Can journalists use false identities to gain access to information?

On this point, an important factor to consider is that the public seems less willing than journalists to accept any method to reveal wrongdoing. Surveys show that the public is suspicious of invasion of privacy, no matter the public relevance of a story. The public generally seems less inclined to accept that journalists should use any method to get a story. Such an attitude is significantly revealing in times when, in many countries, the credibility of the press is low. The press needs to be trustworthy in the eyes of the public. That is its main capital, but too often its actions further undermine its credibility. Therefore, the fact that citizens generally believe that journalists would get any story at any cost needs to be an important consideration. Exposes that rely on questionable methods to get information can further diminish the legitimacy and public standing of the reporting and the journalists.

Ethical issues are not limited to methods. Corruption is also another important ethical issue in investigative journalism. Corruption includes a variety of practices, ranging from journalists who accept bribes, or quash exposes, or pay sources for information. The harm to private citizens that might result from what's reported also needs to be considered. Issues of privacy usually come to the forefront, as investigative journalism often walks a fine line between the right to privacy and the public's right to know. It is usually assumed that privacy applies differently to public figures than to average citizens.

There are no easy, ready-made answers to ethical issues. Codes of ethics, despite some merits, do not offer clear-cut solutions that can be applied in all cases. Most analysts agree that journalists must remain sensitive to issues such as fairness, balance, and accuracy. Reporters continuously need to ask ethical questions throughout different stages of the investigations, and be ready to justify their decisions to their editors, colleagues, and the public. They need to be sensitive to whose interests are being affected, and operate according to professional standards.

Some of the means reporters can use for their fact-finding:

* studying neglected sources, such as archives, phone records, address books, tax records and license records
talking to neighbors
* using subscription research sources such as LexisNexis
anonymous sources (for example whistleblowers)
going undercover
Investigative journalism can be contrasted with analytical reporting. According to De Burgh (2000) analytical journalism takes the data available and reconfigures it, helping us to ask questions about the situation or statement or see it in a different way, whereas investigative journalists go further and also want to know whether the situation presented to us is the reality.

Consequences

Some of the potential consequences for the subjects of successful investigative journalism include:

indictment and conviction
loss of job
loss of professional accreditation
payment of fines
loss of personal and professional reputation
domino consequences for family members/associates involved in unrelated criminal acts discovered through the process of investigation
Consequences for society as a whole include:

revision of institutional policies
changes in the law
Professional references.
In The Reporter’s Handbook: An Investigator’s Guide to Documents and Techniques, Steve Weinberg defined investigative journalism as:

Reporting, through one’s own initiative and work product, matters of importance to readers, viewers or listeners. In many cases, the subjects of the reporting wish the matters under scrutiny to remain undisclosed.

India and investigative journalism

India has witnessed series of investigations carried out separately by the press and media. We rejoice at the robustness of our democracy. We celebrate the vibrancy of the sparkling free press of India. But we know that the constitutional instruments to make the establishment accountable are weakening or failing. The parallel democratic institutions, which are supposed to nourish these instruments, are not fully evolved. Leave alone the ordinary citizen, neither our political leaders nor the academicians and intellectuals have fully cultivated a democratic mindset and culture which should involve transparency, professional commitment and accountability. To that extent, our democracy is fragile and -- to use an unpleasant word -- underdeveloped.

The importance of the “organic” relationship, as described by Walter Lippman, between a healthy democracy and the free press must be considered. One cannot sustain without the other. Indian media is so intoxicated with its so-called freedom (freest press in the world, one might say) that it fails to understand that it is also equally underdeveloped and fragile, that freedom carries certain grave responsibilities and that as upholder of democratic values and freedom (not just another profit-making industry) it has some specific obligations and duties towards the society. It is so obsessed with itself that it does not realize that it is throwing to winds its credibility, respectability and power by not attending to its basic obligations.

The so-called investigative reporting in India in the Bofors case, Fodder scam, Best Bakery Case, Jain Diary Case, Petrol Pumps largesse scandal and even Satyendra Dubey’s murder case have been either rankly partisan political exercises or half-hearted attempts to show off the fearlessness of those media units. Has anyone followed Satyendra Dubey’s case to the end? Who are the murderers? Are they arrested? Who leaked Satyendra’s confidential letter from the PMO? Is that person booked? And the mafia contractors of the Golden Quadrilateral? Was the Godhra riot victims given proper justice? Has the government forgotten the lingering plight of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy victims? Has any paper or channel pursued them? One remembers the sensation caused by Arun Shourie’s series of ‘investigative’ stories on the then chief minister AR Antulay of Maharashtra in early 1980’s.Recently, we have the Jessica lal case remanded by the supreme court, and in the state the Rizwanur case, the Nandigram massacre _in fact all incomplete information that are so sensational that become news demand the reporters’ continuous investigation.

For investigative reporting to flourish, what is required is: an independent and pluralistic media which is fearless, committed to democracy, universal human values, journalists with commitment who can identify problems and have the grit, perseverance, patience and skills to do research and owners and editors professionally non-partisan and without vested interests.

Political expedience

Bofors, St.Kitts, Fodder Scam, Satyendra Dubey -- none of these stories were followed thoroughly and with the rigour that investigative journalism demands. The pursuit was half-hearted; the stories tapered off occasionally, but were revived vigorously whenever a political occasion demanded.

No doubt, there have been laudable attempts at exposing some major scandals at local or state levels. But, often, the exposure is made in one sensational burst and then the press loses interest. The story tapers off or is not followed at all. Clearly, the Indian media has not nourished the discipline of classic investigative reporting. The political, economic and social scenario of India is so complex and rotten and the media’s credibility, despite its enormous power, is so low that even conscientious bureaucrats do not dare to blow the whistle. One whistle-blower who dared was murdered. And the press has nearly forgotten him.

What investigative reporting really needs!

For investigative reporting to flourish, what is required is: an independent and pluralistic media which is fearless, committed to democracy, universal human values, journalists with commitment who can identify problems and have the grit, perseverance, patience and skills to do research and owners and editors professionally non-partisan and without vested interests.

We have a fantastically free press, so free that it does not have a professional self-regulatory mechanism to monitor fundamental ethics of the press. Not even the journalists’ associations, which are more interested in begging for more perks from the government and corporate bodies than in the health of their own profession. Many journalists may have the aptitude and skills for investigative journalism. But their owners and editors do not have the will, even if they have the resources, to encourage them. The owners and the editors too have multiple vested interests -- in political parties, individual leaders, corporate bodies and so on.

Indian bureaucracy, notorious for its red-tapism, does not easily part with even ordinary information, never mind the information acts on the book, and, as mentioned earlier, those who really want expose the malefascence do not trust the press.

Why sting operations?

In such circumstances, what does a restless committed journalist do? He takes a hidden camera with him and broadcasts countrywide bulletins of responsible people accepting bribes. If documents, receipts, accounts, papers or files are not forthcoming as proof, here’s how the journalist furnishes the proof. Live on screen. Tarun Tejpal and Tehelka’s sting operation and subsequent imitations by others have raised a hornet’s nest questioning the ethical propriety of this kind of journalism. It is a positive outcome indeed. At last, ethics in journalism is being discussed, albeit half-heartedly.

How credible is the media?

 We do not seem have culture and discipline to carry effective investigative journalism. The press is losing credibility because of its blatant partisanship and rank commercialism. So take the camera and expose. Never mind, it is one-time exposure of a part. But the proof is there, clearly visible on the screen to make an impact on the minds of the people. The Dehli based schoolteacher’s allegation against the tv journalists can be taken under consideration ,where there are possible chances of preparing a false sting operation. This will at least shake the people and those who are concerned out of their slumber. No, this is not investigative journalism. But it is the sting. An occasional sting operation made with professional commitment may serve the cause for the time being. But that is no alternative to investigative journalism.

To build its credibility and ensure its freedom under democracy, the media in India will have to turn to serious investigative reporting.  The good news is that press is shaking of the age old shackles of inhibitions and intending to carry on responsible investigative reporting to provide the public its greatest power-the strength of decision making.

SOME OPINIONS THAT CHALLENGE INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM

According to Lord Scarman, investigative journalism has proved its social value and he does not wish to put any curb on it, other than”…the curbs I have mentioned on the right of physical privacy, to which I attach great importance. The other curb I would impose is respect for criminal law.

There are matters which really should be left to the police to investigate and investigative journalists should keep out of it. If ,in the course of investigation, the journalists come across matters which have a strong criminal flavour ,Scarman thinks, their immediate duty is to go to the police and put the facts in front of them and ask the police whether they think it would be appropriate for the newspaper investigation to continue or whether they should put up the shutters. He tactfully adds on that he would not regulate this by law.”Of course, investigative journalism is very much subject  to the risks of contempt of the court in some circumstances. They have got to watch out for what is subjudice  and for what might prejudice a necessary criminal prosecution.”, he remarks.

                                                                                                         11/26/2007 12:30:58 AM