Investigative Journalism

dimples06

Is investigative journalism still alive in our media? Or have journalists become too lazy too do all the research?

What topics do you feel would make a good investigative piece?

Morlar

dimples06 wrote: »

Is investigative journalism still alive in our media? Or have journalists become too lazy too do all the research?

What topics do you feel would make a good investigative piece?

I am pretty sure this exact thread crops up here from time to time.

The main area I think is under-reported or under-investigated are council politics. This seems to be a closed book. Local papers re-print press releases weekly but local govt is all but overlooked by national media. Some councils have the budget of small multinational, employ thousands and Directly affect the quality of life of EVERYONE in their catchment area yet the national media rarely if ever hold them up to any kind of scrutiny. The last piece of investigative reporting I saw involved the shannon flooding and the complete clusterfúck of a mess involving different parties who all had mildly overlapping responsibilities but no actual accountability or meaningful responsibility. The expenses scandal of last year would be another. It is not dead in this country but it is not as vibrant and pervasive as it should be in my view.

flogen

dimples06 wrote: »

Is investigative journalism still alive in our media? Or have journalists become too lazy too do all the research?

What topics do you feel would make a good investigative piece?

Investigative journalism in Ireland is extremely rare but it's not because of laziness.

The main problem is a lack of funding - an investigative piece requires a media outlet to take their best reporter(s) out of the daily news cycle for an extended period of time, it requires a lot of money (their pay plus expenses) and the end result is not a guarantee.

The way things are at the moment media companies aren't willing to take the risk and incur this kind of cost.

My own opinion is that it's short-term thinking and a long-term investment in investigative journalism would be very beneficial to reader/viewership after a while - far more than chasing the news cycle alone is.

Elmo

flogen wrote: »

The main problem is a lack of funding - an investigative piece requires a media outlet to take their best reporter(s) out of the daily news cycle for an extended period of time, it requires a lot of money (their pay plus expenses) and the end result is not a guarantee.

Why not pay a few reporters to go out looking for pictures of non-entities while their best journalist can go out to investigate stories.

What I find in newspapers is endless press release from the government (or companies) with "additional" coverage coming from the opinions of columnists.

jdivision

it doesn't work that way. the costs involved in investigative journalism, even where it involves FoIs can be huge. There's also a misconception about how much journalists earn - the expenses would pay for other journalists. as for the non-entities, people buy those papers, therefore the perception is that's what they want. The Sindo, S World, Mail on sunday, NoTW and The Star are probably best known for it and all sell strongly.
Personally I got quoted E4k to get some documents about complaints made to a particular state body about something. No guarantee there'll be anything in it, no way would I be given that money "just in case"

Elmo

jdivision wrote: »

it doesn't work that way. the costs involved in investigative journalism, even where it involves FoIs can be huge.

Well maybe forget about FoIs, for example what about the banking crisis. Try FoIing a bank before the government became shareholders. FoIs don't extend to organisations not owned by the government.

There's also a misconception about how much journalists earn - the expenses would pay for other journalists.

Well how much do they earn?

as for the non-entities, people buy those papers, therefore the perception is that's what they want. The Sindo, S World, Mail on sunday, NoTW and The Star are probably best known for it and all sell strongly.

Sell, sell, sell. How much does a photo go for? How much for a photo of Eamon Lissis' Mistress?

Personally I got quoted E4k to get some documents about complaints made to a particular state body about something. No guarantee there'll be anything in it, no way would I be given that money "just in case"

Perhaps you should start looking at something small within that organisation and then if that FoI turns something up make a case to your editors.

Elmo

My last post might have seemed quite sarcastic in tone or badly written but I was hoping that someone could explain each of the issues that I raised. apologies for the tone.

Freddie_Turnill

dimples06 wrote: »

Is investigative journalism still alive in our media? Or have journalists become too lazy too do all the research?

What topics do you feel would make a good investigative piece?

Here's a good piece of "investigative reporting" from the "Sunday Tribune"

http://www.tribune.ie/article/2009/apr/05/the-curious-case-of-pamela-izevbekhai/

"The curious case of Pamela Izevbekhai

She became a cause célèbre due to her campaign against female genital mutilation. Then the authorities rumbled her story. Now it seems inevitable that Pamela Izevbekahi will be deported.
Ali Bracken reports"


This Investigative Reporters most important finding is asking questions about a case of another supposedly "investigative reporter" who it seems is more a "investigative mis-reporter" Philip Boucher-Hayes.

"Philip Boucher-Hayes is the RTÉ broadcaster who conducted the radio interview. Boucher-Hayes has sworn an affidavit supporting Izevbekhai's claims for her legal case.
He said through a spokeswoman last week: "In 2005, I rang international directory enquiries and got a number for the hospital in which Dr Unokanjo works. I rang the hospital and was put through to the person whose interview was aired."
A phone number for Isioma hospital in Lagos was not available from international directory enquiries when contacted on several occasions this week.
The address on the fake document gives a fake address and phone number for the hospital. The hospital's actual address is 11 James Robertson Street, Surulere, Lagos.

In his sworn affidavit, Boucher Hayes said that when he telephoned Dr Unokanjo back some time later, he alleged to have been visited by a Nigerian army captain who threatened him for speaking publicly in support of Pamela Izevbekhai. Boucher Hayes was unavailable for comment.

I wrote in a different thread:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=64197538#post64197538

"It's one thing to be fooled, or more accurately in this case blinded, because of "advocacy (rather than investigative) journalism" but it's another case entirely to assert that you did things like "independently contacting" the hospital by "international telephone directories" when you currently cannot contact that hospital in Lagos by this means, as per above attempt by the "Sunday Tribune". His supposed method of contacting Isioma hospital in Lagos cannot be replicated.

Boucher Hayes interviewed a phony and claims to have been given a telephone number by international telephone directories which amazingly took him to the phone number of this phony doctor for his interview "verifying" Pamela Izevbekhai's story thus enabling him to disclaim responsibility for being thus fooled. How convenient."

All "investigative journalism" is targeted and is by its nature promoting a particular social/political/economic position and agenda but as in the case of Boucher Hayes he is so onside with the message of his brand of "Advocacy journalism" that professional standards are not adhered to.

It becomes more important to him and those who support his agenda to concoct the right kind of emotionally targeted message than to check out the source independently and when he is found out that he has been made a fool of and used both his ego and political position cannot allow him to accept that.

He seeks refuge in excuses: somehow International Directory Enquires" gives him a telephone # of someone who "verifies" Pamela Izevbekhai's story!
And when he phones the same guy again, he's been "intimidated" into denying the initial story by an Army Captain.

Real investigative reporting can be a risky if not a fatal business, think Veronica Guerin and as the much maligned Kevin Myers points out

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/kevin-myers-our-heroic-media-are-not-going-after-gerry-adams-as-they-would--do-a-catholic-prelate-2022523.html

that queasy feeling in the stomach when we recognise where danger lurks is still alive and well, (which is one way to put it) and living in Ireland.

Elmo

Kevin Myers is a columnist, I wouldn't consider him an Investigatory journalist.

said a source.

added the source.

said a source

Other sources

said a garda source

Interesting item on Newswipe over the week about naming sources.

6mins 22secs into the you tube clip.

Also lets not get off topic about specific news items and try to keep general with other examples.

Freddie_Turnill

I didn't actually say that KM was an "investigative reporter" but just gave the link to his column which outlined why he thought that "investigative journalists" are giving a child molester/rapist a free pass when, had he been someone who did not have such heavy connections, would, how should we put it delicately, have received somewhat different treatment both by the media and by the paramilitaries.

SlabMurphy

I remember Vincent Browns McGill as been the only worthwhile investigative journalism publication in Ireland with journalists such as Gene Kerrigan etc. Saying that, the Pheonix does have some nuggets from time to time.

Elmo

I still think we haven't really got real answers for the original question:-

Is investigative journalism still alive in our media? Or have journalists become too lazy too do all the research?

And these two questions lead into the other questions that I have raised: -

1. Can journalist/editor hide behind the cost of FoI?
2. Are journalist too lazy too make a case for the cost of an FoI when it is needed?

And then there are question of sources:-

1. When should they be named?
2. Who should know the names of sources and
3. can the be verified as genuine sources?

What topics do you feel would make a good investigative piece?

I feel a good report will provide the audience/reader with knowledge of events leading up to the report. Background.

During the report that the journalists show a good knowledge of the facts and the subject. That they do not air on the side of opinion or bias.

That it reports something new to added to the news already available.

And that sources are shown to be quality, who aren't providing opinion but are providing new facts. A source can't always be named for anonymity reason, but the journalist should have no fear in stating why they are not naming their source.

Source not named should be verified by a line at the bottom of the report stating that the Editors of the newspaper have verified the unnamed source and are happy that they are being truthful and honest. If an editor can't do that for legal reasons then there are far more questions to be asked before the report is published.

jdivision

Elmo wrote: »

Well maybe forget about FoIs, for example what about the banking crisis. Try FoIing a bank before the government became shareholders. FoIs don't extend to organisations not owned by the government. .

you mean like this?
http://www.tribune.ie/news/article/2009/feb/22/when-anglo-official-willie-mcateer-told-patrick-ne/
There's been a huge amount of reporting into the banks, a lot of it investigative. What papers do you read out of interest?
There's a general belief that if journalists ask questions the banks will answer them. In fact they usually refuse to comment at all or give any guidance. Even then some organisations lie. I'm currently trying to prove a certain retired chief executive told his staff to lie to me about something that I later proved had happened. The organisation is being a pain about it so it could be mid-year by the time i get it confirmed.

In terms of other lies The Sunday Business Post a few years ago broke a story about Eircom charging customers for equipment that wasn't even used in phones anymore. The company denied it even though the newspaper had evidence. It was true of course and the charge it imposed has since been dropped. This was one of the articles after Eircom finally fessed up. The bits towards the bottom are actually more important, just story had moved on
http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2004/10/10/story954610833.asp

This is not huge stuff but what I'm trying to get at is that even when you have documents you can't always run them. And even when you want to you can face an injunction.

Elmo wrote: »

Well how much do they earn? .

Takes a number of years to be made staff. In paper I work for it's E30k when you finally get made staff. After six years in my old job I was on E36k and I was regularly breaking front page stories. There's about 150 graduates coming out every year, it's a small pool with a lot of fish trying to make a living out of it. Once when still a freelance I spent a week in a newspaper office, wrote a pile of stories but only one got published so I got paid E70 for the week's work.

Elmo wrote: »

Sell, sell, sell. How much does a photo go for? How much for a photo of Eamon Lissis' Mistress?.

Not many papers would buy it. But I'd imagine about a grand to one of the tabloids. Most photographers get paid about E70-E85 a job.

Elmo wrote: »

Perhaps you should start looking at something small within that organisation and then if that FoI turns something up make a case to your editors.

Well that seems to be what happened with the Tribune and John O'Donoghue. But the Govt tried to stymie them at every approach.

jdivision

Often it's not the editor saying no to the FOI, it's the financial controller or chief executive. The bean counters have too much influence when they don't understand how an editorial process works. Ken Foxe who broke the O'Donoghue stuff has a blog which outlines a lot of the difficulties that people go through in order to get stuff
http://www.kenfoxe.com/
Most of the interesting stuff is further down.

Elmo wrote: »

And then there are question of sources:-

1. When should they be named?
2. Who should know the names of sources and
3. can the be verified as genuine sources?

Ireland is unusual because so many people refuse to go on the record on anything, even when it's not controversial. People don't want to be seen to be talking to the meedjia. Hence, off the record in Ireland is different to off the record in America - there OTR means nothing can be used, here it means source will not be named. Nearly everybody opens with "don't quote me on this" or " it didn't come from me right?" which means you can't name them
Most section editors will know the sources - they can hear the conversations. However even then if it's controversial the lawyers will occasionally step in and ask will the source say it in court. If they don't then sometimes things get removed.
Anybody whose sources aren't genuine will get caught out in the end. Their rep will suffer. That said, sometimes the timing of things changes. I wrote recently about some arrests planned, if they don't happen will I be accused of making it up? I didn't and the editor knows the source but will people outside ask questions. I hope not, the source has given us stuff before and it's been true.
As for making sure sources are genuine, I mean the red tops obviously make up some of the quotes but I don't think broadsheets do. Having said that the political guys say "government sources" too often when it's just the Department's PR man.

Elmo wrote: »

I feel a good report will provide the audience/reader with knowledge of events leading up to the report. Background.

So you want features? Unfortunately features don't sell newspapers, front pages and habit do.

Elmo

jdivision wrote: »

Often it's not the editor saying no to the FOI, it's the financial controller or chief executive. The bean counters have too much influence when they don't understand how an editorial process works. Ken Foxe who broke the O'Donoghue stuff has a blog which outlines a lot of the difficulties that people go through in order to get stuff
http://www.kenfoxe.com/
Most of the interesting stuff is further down.

Yeah your previous post seems to suggest that I had thought of a reply but decided against posting it.

Ireland is unusual because so many people refuse to go on the record on anything, even when it's not controversial. People don't want to be seen to be talking to the meedjia. Hence, off the record in Ireland is different to off the record in America - there OTR means nothing can be used, here it means source will not be named. Nearly everybody opens with "don't quote me on this" or " it didn't come from me right?" which means you can't name them
Most section editors will know the sources - they can hear the conversations. However even then if it's controversial the lawyers will occasionally step in and ask will the source say it in court. If they don't then sometimes things get removed.
Anybody whose sources aren't genuine will get caught out in the end. Their rep will suffer. That said, sometimes the timing of things changes. I wrote recently about some arrests planned, if they don't happen will I be accused of making it up? I didn't and the editor knows the source but will people outside ask questions. I hope not, the source has given us stuff before and it's been true.
As for making sure sources are genuine, I mean the red tops obviously make up some of the quotes but I don't think broadsheets do. Having said that the political guys say "government sources" too often when it's just the Department's PR man.

I was pointing out the number of times that in the article from the tribune that a source was quoted and the Newswipe item about naming source, and why do sources not want to be named, do they have a personnel agenda?

So you want features? Unfortunately features don't sell newspapers, front pages and habit do

No I just want to be able to see that a Journalist or a Reporter really understands his/her subject. Having read many reports in areas that I am interested in I am surprised by the number of mistakes made by Journalists, which gives me the impression that newspapers are often telling yarns, which causes me some distrust with the media.

jdivision

Elmo wrote: »

the Newswipe item about naming source, and why do sources not want to be named, do they have a personnel agenda?

.

Watched the Newswipe thing there. Interesting points. It is a cultural thing and was intensified when it came out about the NY Times and Washington Times being lied to by their reporters - I don't think there's been a case like that in Ireland although Senan Maloney of the Mail recently claimed to have had an interview with Brian Lenihan which didn't happen. Says it all about the Mail really. On the other hand, one of the American newswires recently launched a new policy in Ireland and UK allowing use of anonymous sources once they are made known to the editor. It is an acknowledgment of the different cultures. As for agendas, of course the sources do, your responsibility is to separate the fact from the spin.
Perhaps what should be known, which doesn't seem to have been pointed out that by the journalist, is off the record only holds if the source tells the truth. If they lie then they're fair game in terms of naming. And to be honest anything Scotland Yard said would need to be extensively checked, they've been lying for years and years. At least in ireland the fact the Garda press office is bloody terrible means you have to go and talk to the cops themselves, many of whom talk knowing the dangers to their career. That was one of the things that pissed me off in recent years, McDowell introduced that legislation after it came out his son had been beaten up. He had a clear conflict of interest.
As an aside, the two responses was because I replied to your first post in reply to mine and didn't see the second one til after.

iamskippy

Elmo wrote: »

do they have a personnel agenda?.

There are always agendas in journalism. Local papers re run press releases cos they do not want to question the establishment too much. Radio stations give air time to people who are buying ads and dress it up as an 'interview' to get public interest. They only quote the people who ring in to agree with them.Then there are radio 'journalists' who interview councillors and have a sideline doing junkets teaching the councillors what to say in an interview.
An interesting book on agenda is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Journalist_and_the_Murderer

Elmo

I understand that people have personnel agendas but they should be named and put their main to such agendas.

For example The Sun ran with this after the Hillsborough Disaster

from Wikipedia:-

A quotation, attributed to an unnamed policeman, claimed a dead girl had been 'abused', and that Liverpool fans were 'openly urinating on us and the bodies of the dead'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillsborough_Disaster#The_Sun_newspaper_controversy

jdivision

Yeah but the Sun made that up, hence the fact nobody in Liverpool buys it. Big difference between somebody making it up and an unattributed source.

iamskippy

jdivision wrote: »

Yeah but the Sun made that up, hence the fact nobody in Liverpool buys it.

literally nobody totally blacklisted in Liverpool

Elmo

jdivision wrote: »

Yeah but the Sun made that up, hence the fact nobody in Liverpool buys it. Big difference between somebody making it up and an unattributed source.

Did they or did they not speak to a number of officers who made up these things. Again the example in Newswipe points out that the investigation into the murder of the South American Student in the London Tube shows that the Police did make up allot of what was reported in the News.

From wikipedia

MacKenzie explained his reporting in 1993. Talking to a House of Commons National Heritage Select Committee, he said "I regret Hillsborough. It was a fundamental mistake. The mistake was I believed what an MP said. It was a Tory MP. If he had not said it and the chief superintendent (David Duckenfield) had not agreed with it, we would not have gone with it."

I don't see why the Tory MP hasn't been named at this stage.

Sorry for quoting Wikipedia, only heard about this story because I just watch A Cracker episode entitled "To be a Somebody"

Nobody should buy The Sun. I couldn't believe anyone would print something like that it is vile.

dimples06

it was on the news that no freedom of information requests are being put through at the minute! That may slow down the already slow procedure of investigative journalism!
what do you think the top five issues in Ireland at the moment that should be investigated?

Elmo

dimples06 wrote: »

it was on the news that no freedom of information requests are being put through at the minute! That may slow down the already slow procedure of investigative journalism!

FoI only relates to Semi-state bodies and government agencies. Not all of which are on a work to rule.

IJ cannot just be about FoI.

dimples06

ya i totally agree but most of the corruption revealed by IJ concerns government.

Even with FOI the price some of the requests amount to prevent a freelance journalist getting their hands on the information because it wouldnt make them any money!
apart from FOI what resources are most useful in IJ, do we just search for a whistleblower who probably wont go on the record?

Freddie_Turnill

Elmo wrote: »

FoI only relates to Semi-state bodies and government agencies. Not all of which are on a work to rule.

IJ cannot just be about FoI.

I agree.
IJ into State/Semi-State/Quango type bureaucracies and the functionaries which operate within them though hard work and time consuming is at least a relatively safe seam for the individual or team to mine but the corruption and power surrounding the State is but one area.
Beyond that is a uncertain fate which is likely to give few rewards but much by way of high tension plus the need for wariness born of the necessity to develop survival skills in avoiding the physical reactions and the application of mental pressure of those who you upset. Many people whose activities are worth investigating are the very people who feel least, if at all, bound by the normal rules and codes of civil society.

As an illustration of just how far you can go to be a great investigative journalist is the late Robert I Friedman who suffered much for his inquisitive and conscientious methods of information gathering but gained precious little recognition during his life and even less after it despite breaking and pursuing several stories with huge impacts, eg, like that of the effects that the arrival in the US of the "Red Mafia" of ex-Soviet Jewish criminals was having on the scale of organised US crime like car insurance fraud (He was a Jew himself but that did not stop him identifying the perpetrators as such).

http://www.villagevoice.com/2002-07-09/news/inconvenient-truth/1

Inconvenient Truth
Robert I. Friedman, Investigative Journalist
By Dan Bischoff Tuesday, Jul 9 2002

"Investigative journalist Robert I. Friedman, whose uncompromising reporting provoked lawsuits and death threats throughout his career, died July 2 at Columbia-Presbyterian hospital in Manhattan at age 51. The immediate cause of death was cardiac arrest, but it was really his dedication: Robbie's heart condition stemmed from a rare disease he contracted in 1995 on assignment for Vanity Fair in the Bombay slums."
VF did not publish his work after all that but it was published in "The Nation"

If you freelance you can write but your work can go unpublished and you don't get paid.

You don't get the recognition:

http://fij.org/news/sifry.php
Robert I. Friedman tribute at screening of "The Day My God Died"
"Robbie often felt that he didn't get the recognition that he deserved"

You can finish up getting diseases that finish you off:

"For all we know, this is where he caught the illness that ultimately killed him, seven years later, hyper-eosiniphilic syndrome, a rare blood disease that apparently is not uncommon in India."

How much easier it is to be a State-sponsored investigative journalist of the Philip Boucher-Hayes variety where he knows that the who and what he is "investigating" has been carefully selected according to his peer-group's PC agenda so that there will be no bite-back comeback from the target and even if you get completely fooled, as he did in the Pamela Izevbekhai case, there is no downside to his career which just carries on as if nothing has happened to discredit and derail it.
A bit like in Britain where the BBC like to spend time and money "undercover" against safe targets like the BNP recording remarks for the purpose of sending those they oppose to jail for speechcrime but then can be counted to leave the Islamists well alone so well attuned to the requirements of the multi-cult that they are.
It requires a fearlessness to cope with the controversy and fallout which an IJ can set in motion, especially if you are a freelance, as his/her subject's reaction cannot be controlled or necessarily accurately forecast and the reward is much more likely to finish up a la Veronica Guerin rather than ascending to the fame of a Bernstein and Woodward (although they themselves were only let loose on Nixon as the pursuit of his destruction accorded with the political agenda of the Washington Post)