Some investigative reports are excellent, and have made a major contribution to the cause of holding public officials accountable. Others range from the so-so to the completely dodgy. To help tell one from the other, here is a readers’ guide to the good, the bad and the ugly of investigative journalism.
The first question readers should ask is: What’s the point? Exactly what is being alleged and is it really a problem? Sometimes, reports simply hint darkly at misbehaviour and, when you look closely, there’s nothing there.
The word ”corruption” is often used to describe misbehaviour by public officials — but it’s really too wide and woolly to be of much use. In fact, there is a major difference between fraud and nepotism; between flouting procedures and bribery. Reports should make it clear what kind of misbehaviour is being exposed.
Where reports identify rules being broken, that’s a good sign. Recently, the Mail & Guardian reported that companies linked to the African National Congress Youth League had benefited from a land sale in Cape Town.
The report said standard procurement procedures were flouted. It also left readers in no doubt as to how the companies benefited — the land was sold at substantially discounted prices — and explained how the companies fitted into the youth league.
All of these connections needed to be spelled out to establish the substance of the alleged misbehaviour: an ANC-dominated council was accused of flouting procedure to benefit companies linked to its own youth league. (The council has since suspended the deal pending an investigation.)
Often, the allegation of misconduct hinges on claims that a public official unduly benefited a relative or friend: in cases of this kind, reports should spell out the connection clearly. There’s a big difference between a businessman getting a multimillion-rand contract from his wife, the minister, and a middle-ranking official buying an office stapler from his third cousin twice removed. Size matters, too.
There is a genre of reporting that records the business activities of the elite without necessarily alleging misconduct. There is legitimate public interest here, but it’s relatively unexplored outside the business pages.
An area to look at closely is the evidence presented. Does it actually prove the allegation? What kind of evidence is it? There is a big difference between documentary proof and a statement by a disgruntled participant.
Good investigative reports clearly show what evidence they have, and ensure that different and independent sources corroborate the important elements of the story.
The chain of evidence needs to be set out clearly, even when it is quite technical. A company’s ownership structures can be very complex, for instance. Turning these details into a diagram is good practice: it often allows for greater precision and makes the narrative less dense. Timelines are another useful way of making a complex set of issues more manageable.
The credibility of a report often rests on the source of the information and readers do well to look very closely at the sources used. Sometimes, sources are anonymous for good reason. But reports with named sources are always more credible.
Journalists are fond of saying that every source has an agenda. That is probably true, but that agenda must be factored into the handling of the story.
Late last year, the United States network CBS and its anchor Dan Rather were badly suckered in a story that claimed President George Bush — then fighting for re-election — had been given preferential treatment during his national service, helping him avoid serving in Vietnam.
Within hours of the report airing, allegations surfaced that the documents CBS used had been forged. CBS initially stood by the report, but was later forced to apologise on the grounds that it ”could not authenticate” the documents. It turned out that the person who had supplied the documents had been running a long and bitter campaign against Bush, and had lied about where he had obtained them.
An exhaustive investigation could not conclusively establish whether the documents were forged, and there are many who still believe them to be genuine. But the source was compromised: he’d lied, and he had an agenda.
In South Africa, the classic example of journalists paying too little attention to the agenda of a source was the publication of allegations that Bulelani Ngcuka, then national director of public prosecutions, had been an apartheid spy. In the end, the story turned out to be empty, and driven by a political agenda.
It’s true that sources always have interests in the story: that’s why journalists need to find and produce corroborating evidence.
Finally, transparency is a virtue. It’s a very good sign if journalists are prepared to disclose the methods they used to gather their evidence.
Wild, unsubstantiated allegations can do as much damage to media reputations as to those of individuals reported on. Good investigative journalism, on the other hand, is very valuable, but it does take time, care and resources.