Investigative journalism, which was the topic discussed in yesterday's lecture on media law, is the 3rd agenda we can recognise - public agenda being the 1st and news agenda, reflecting the public agenda, being the 2nd - and can be envisaged as the more adventurous side of reporting, as it takes risks greater than those of ordinary news practices. Other ordinary news of the news agenda appears to be compliant with the general stream of information that is made legally available to the public (anything outside of the stated regulations of what a journalist can publish is a potential contempt of court or libel, for it is not permitted to be released under legislation).
A definition of investigative journalism, by Hugo de Burgh, explains the watchdog and bloodhound purposes of real investigative journalism - "it is not limited as to target, not legally founded and it is closely connected to publicity" - in effect, investigative journalism is about the discovery of truth and identification of any failures in media from respectfully including it. The prominence of journalists in the role of the 'fourth estate' is consolidated by successful cases in investigation.
Hugo de Burgh himself is a professor and Director of the China Media Centre at the University of Westminster, which is a rather unique department that focuses on the developments of media and journalism in what we know to be a highly totalitarian state. De Burgh highlights journalism in China: "It was a surprise to Western observers to find that the Chinese media (and investigative journalists in particular) are, despite limitations upon them, influencing public life today by introducing new and unconventional ideas, changing terms of reference, forcing the pace of reform, giving voice to concerns and calling attention to issues" - this is true of what journalism, investigative especially, is about.
Investigative journalism can target both lightweight and heavyweight elements of society in its reporting. But the 'classic investigations' tend towards the conduct of powerful government organisations, business corporations and the like. The textbook targets are usually petrochemical companies, arms manufacturers and pharmaceutical companies - this is because of their imperative status in society and the subsequent wealth and control they accrue. These formidable substructures in society profit from high revenues, extensive legal backing, and thus more 'leg room'. The rule of thumb in cases involving these typical examples of standards gone awry is that the worse an organisation is, the more press officers it has. Counter-misconduct strategies and campaigns are trademark retraction methods used by big players who have their slip-ups unearthed by investigative journalism. A particular example of this is Trafigura's recent story of toxic spillage, which circulated defiantly, despite the existence of a super-injunction against the press and damage-control campaigning aimed at appeasing the indignant parties.
Other important points to note are:
1) The gap between standards of proof - 'beyond a reasonable doubt'/'on the balance of probabilities' - investigative journalism can launch further appeal against the outcome of certain criminal cases, thus providing a form of unofficial justice, e.g. the Daily Mail's 'MURDERERS' article
2) Absence of malice - malice in an investigative report is harmful to the report's credibility
3) Reynolds Defence and the 10 point test (see previous notes on QP)
4) Good quality methods in processing information for investigative publications and ensuring a substantial level of 'public interest/concern' is included qualifies you for high QP defence
5) Protection of sources - confidentiality is key; you must take the identities of your sources to the grave
In order to do a good job, as the dominant tenet of journalism insists, you must be thorough and thoughtful. Without considering the consequences of crucial decisions, you could end up without any concrete legal defences, and after public concern there is little available to support you in a battle against libel and other feasible punishments for alleged journalistic 'impropriety'.
A definition of investigative journalism, by Hugo de Burgh, explains the watchdog and bloodhound purposes of real investigative journalism - "it is not limited as to target, not legally founded and it is closely connected to publicity" - in effect, investigative journalism is about the discovery of truth and identification of any failures in media from respectfully including it. The prominence of journalists in the role of the 'fourth estate' is consolidated by successful cases in investigation.
Hugo de Burgh himself is a professor and Director of the China Media Centre at the University of Westminster, which is a rather unique department that focuses on the developments of media and journalism in what we know to be a highly totalitarian state. De Burgh highlights journalism in China: "It was a surprise to Western observers to find that the Chinese media (and investigative journalists in particular) are, despite limitations upon them, influencing public life today by introducing new and unconventional ideas, changing terms of reference, forcing the pace of reform, giving voice to concerns and calling attention to issues" - this is true of what journalism, investigative especially, is about.
Investigative journalism can target both lightweight and heavyweight elements of society in its reporting. But the 'classic investigations' tend towards the conduct of powerful government organisations, business corporations and the like. The textbook targets are usually petrochemical companies, arms manufacturers and pharmaceutical companies - this is because of their imperative status in society and the subsequent wealth and control they accrue. These formidable substructures in society profit from high revenues, extensive legal backing, and thus more 'leg room'. The rule of thumb in cases involving these typical examples of standards gone awry is that the worse an organisation is, the more press officers it has. Counter-misconduct strategies and campaigns are trademark retraction methods used by big players who have their slip-ups unearthed by investigative journalism. A particular example of this is Trafigura's recent story of toxic spillage, which circulated defiantly, despite the existence of a super-injunction against the press and damage-control campaigning aimed at appeasing the indignant parties.
Other important points to note are:
1) The gap between standards of proof - 'beyond a reasonable doubt'/'on the balance of probabilities' - investigative journalism can launch further appeal against the outcome of certain criminal cases, thus providing a form of unofficial justice, e.g. the Daily Mail's 'MURDERERS' article
2) Absence of malice - malice in an investigative report is harmful to the report's credibility
3) Reynolds Defence and the 10 point test (see previous notes on QP)
4) Good quality methods in processing information for investigative publications and ensuring a substantial level of 'public interest/concern' is included qualifies you for high QP defence
5) Protection of sources - confidentiality is key; you must take the identities of your sources to the grave
In order to do a good job, as the dominant tenet of journalism insists, you must be thorough and thoughtful. Without considering the consequences of crucial decisions, you could end up without any concrete legal defences, and after public concern there is little available to support you in a battle against libel and other feasible punishments for alleged journalistic 'impropriety'.
No comments:
Post a Comment