With the public outrage over phone hacking, the spectacle
of Leveson, and the furore over The Sun’s printing nude pictures of Prince Harry,
there has been some debate of the role of the press in the UK, and whether investigative
journalism is now in terminal decline.
Traditionally it has been the job of reporters to
question those who hold positions of power, and to hold them to account on
behalf of society. This role as a
watchdog has been cherished by journalists since the origins of newspapers, and
reporters were described as ‘the Fourth Estate of power and the most important
of them all, by Edmund Burke in the Eighteenth Century.
Investigative journalism fulfils an important social
function, providing the public with the factual information about the
institutions of power that govern their lives. Without journalists providing this otherwise
unobtainable information, citizens would not be able to make rational economic
or electoral decisions. Investigative journalism
can be best defined as acting in the public interest; detecting or exposing
crime, or serious impropriety; protecting public health and safety; preventing
the public from being misled; and protecting the freedom of expression itself.
Investigative journalism is in decline in the
British media, especially on television, which was for many decades a world
leader in this form of reporting, with programmes such as World in Action,
Panorama and The Cook Report. However
the decline in ratings for current affairs generally has led to fewer resources
and opportunities for investigative journalism, and led to replacement
programmes which critics have dubbed ‘investigative journalism lite’.
Since the 1980s, there has been an increased
emphasis placed on the profitability of news outlets. This has had a profound effect on
investigative journalism, as in the past reporters sought stories which were
newsworthy in their own right and this dictated whether a story was thoroughly
investigated. Now journalism serves the
market place, and it is market concerns that control the content and operations
of reporters. Investigative journalism
is expensive, and many outlets have shunned this type of reporting in favour of
less costly and populist news stories.
This shift has had a negative effect on reporting and
stark consequences for democratic society, as journalists neglect the watchdog
role of the news media, instead concentrating on the commercial concerns of their
organisation.
Journalists are under immense time and financial
constraints. Time and efficiency are
vital in modern investigative journalism; a reporter may have a brilliant
investigation, but if all the information cannot be gathered and translated
into copy for a financially viable cost, it is not likely to be approved by
management. The Guardian’s Nick Davies suggests
that the economic constraints are now so severe that the modern reporter cannot
possibly meet the journalistic standards of accuracy or the truth seeking
imperative, and that most journalists today are reduced to simply regurgitating
press releases or public relations ‘spin’.
The convergence of media in recent times has created
a climate of confusion for news organisations.
They are struggling to understand how to adapt to the changing requirements
of their consumers, and which strategies to adopt as new technologies offer a
variety of different platforms for disseminating news. This has led to different divisions of media
conglomerates competing against each other in some instances, and when one
platform becomes a profitable forum for content, it is adopted by traditionally
different media types. Therefore a news
consumer is likely to find a newspaper, for example, will have a web-site which
will not only carry text from their publication, but videos which were once the
preserve of broadcasters.
The internet has become the ‘go to point’ to find
information, for the public as well as reporters. This has had a massive effect on journalism
in general, and to a certain extent has removed the power as a gatekeeper that
was once the preserve of news organisations.
It is now possible for those who wish to disseminate information to the
public, to do so using web based distribution, thereby bypassing the filtering
of the gatekeepers. The internet has had
some positive effects on investigative journalism, notably in providing
information for, or to base investigations on.
The emergence of sites like Wiki-Leaks has meant that previously hidden
information has become more readily accessible, and on the surface might appear
to threaten traditional reporting.
However, the site’s creators have realised that the volume and crude
nature of the data they hold is difficult to interpret, and they have formed
partnerships with traditional media organisations, to utilise
the skills of investigative journalism to process the information and create
accessible stories for public consumption.
Investigative journalism has led to some of the most
important news stories in modern times and has proved the fourth estate title
claimed by journalists is still valid, even if such stories are less
frequent. Perhaps the most famous
investigative story is that of the Watergate scandal, a story which has become
so well known that the ‘gate’ suffix is often added to large exposes ever
since. Another more recent example of
the value of investigative journalism is the MPs expenses scandal, which
culminated in the publication of embarrassing and in some cases illegal claims
made by British members of parliament in The Daily Telegraph during the summer
of 2009.
Journalism is a job which has responsibilities; to
provide the public with information, to verify the truth of that information,
and to hold the powerful to account.
These responsibilities are essential to maintain a functioning
democratic society. As Watergate and the
MPs expenses scandal highlight, there is a constant necessity for journalists
to seek and expose those who abuse positions of power; however investigations on
the scale of Watergate would be unlikely today, and the MPs expenses were pursued
by an individual campaigner.
Investigative journalism is expensive, but it is definitely not a luxury. It is vital to safeguard our political and civic society, and is the only line of defence against the erosion of democratic institutions; its decline should cause great concern. It may be that the internet may eventually compensates for this decline, but it will still need investigative journalists to make wider society aware of corruption, and to fulfil the watchdog obligations of the media.