The great newspaper tradition of investigative journalism apparently began with WT Stead, editor of the Pall Mall Gazette, who decided to expose the trade in under age prostitutes by procuring one. Unfortunately this led to his prosecution so it was something of a pyrrhic victory from a journalistic point of view.
Subsequent examples of investigative journalism have been somewhat more successful and have resulted in those being investigated suffering more than the investigating journos. The obvious example would be the Watergate scandal, which ultimately led to the resignation of US President Richard Nixon.
Investigative journalism is essential if we are to preserve democratic values. Left to their own devices politicians will get up to all sorts of skullduggery and it’s up to honest hacks to catch them out and make them pay for their misdemeanors. Or so we are told. The greater truth is that investigative journalism is much better for newspaper sales than it is for upholding democracy.
Scandals sell and the front page news that Tony Yengeni is driving around in a cut price 4X4 thanks to dodgy friends in the armaments industry moves newspapers. Television programmes like Carte Blanche, Third Degree and Special Assignment regularly win awards because they go where no other journalists dare to tread. They may make exciting viewing, but do they make any difference?
Sometimes they do because they arouse public awareness on an issue, but generally the effect of investigative journalism in South Africa is to send the politicians running for their spin doctors. It’s a battle of resources and the government has considerably greater resources than the media, who only have one chance to get their message across.
For example, a story exposing some financial scam within parliament (you choose) takes time to put together. Sources have to be interviewed and reliable evidence has to be gathered before a newspaper will go to print or a television programme can be aired.
Although investigative journalism sounds glamorous I imagine the reality is rather different. Some informants may have axes to grind and their evidence might be highly suspect. Since much of the sensitive information has to be obtained secretly and gradually pieced together to make up the final picture, the business of investigative journalism involves a fair amount of mundane office work.
Finally, after three months of research, the article appears or the programme is shown. It’s talked about for a few days and then the government moves quickly to appoint their own people to investigate the findings and the story is no more. Once in a while a lackey may get sacked but generally speaking the scandal will be smothered by bureaucracy and will conveniently disappear from the public gaze. The much abused sub judice defence will be invoked should any nosy journalist want to ask further questions after the initial exposé.
Think of all the major political scandals of the past five years and ask yourself how many discredited politicians have lost their jobs, let alone gone to prison. Like the popular Survivor TV series, it seems as though immunity is always up for grabs.
Investigative journalism is costly because it ties good journalists up for weeks and even months while they investigate their stories. Bearing in mind there may be one or maybe two front page stories before the scandal slips onto the inner pages, it can hardly be said to be cost effective. Which is presumably why some newspapers prefer to invent stories masquerading as investigative journalism.
”Schoolgirls sell their bodies for textbooks” screams the headline, and naturally we buy the newspaper only to find that all names have been changed to protect the true identity of those involved. On top of that, the story has no by-line and is written by ”Our special correspondent”. Not a verifiable fact in sight, but it still sells newspapers.