“Investigative reporting’s roots were firmly established in the very first periodicals, in the earliest notions of the meaning of a free press and the First Amendment, and in the motivation of journalists throughout the profession’s history. These roots are so strong, they form a fundamental principle: journalists must serve as an independent monitor of power” (Kovach & Rosenstiel 140). For many years, journalism’s role as a watchdog has furthered along democracy and freedom. When journalism first started out, one of the largest roles it played was being a watchdog on those in power. It was journalism that helped citizens discover that their leaders were abusing power and that they are not under absolute rule.
There are 3 types of investigative reporting: original, interpretative, and reporting on investigations.
“Original investigative reporting involves reporters themselves uncovering and documenting activities that have been previously unknown to the public” (Kovach & Rosenstiel 145). Original investigative reporting is similar to police work and official public investigations. This involves searching through public records, doing undercover work, monitoring of activities, and much more. Original investigative reporting uncovers information not gathered by others in order to inform the public of events or circumstances that might affect their lives. An example of original investigative reporting is when Marcus Stern and Jerry Kammer of the San Diego Union-Tribune led an investigation about Congressman Randy “Duke” Cunningham. Stern noticed some relationships between Cunningham’s travel and style of living. Stern along with Kammer searched through campaign contributions from defense contractors. There, they found financial exchanges that led to bribery. This led to the resignation and criminal conviction charges of Cunningham (Marcus Stern, “Cunningham Defends Deal with Defense Firm’s Owner,” June 12, 2005).
Interpretative investigative reporting is similar to original interpretative reporting in the fact that they both use the same methods of investigation but interpretative investigative reporting takes the interpretation to a different level. “Interpretative reporting develops as the result of careful thought and analysis of an idea as well as dogged pursuit of facts to bring together information in a new, more complete context that provides deeper public understanding” (Kovach & Rosenstiel 146). An example of interpretative investigative reporting is when a team of reporters for the New York Times published a ten-part series about social class by taking demographic and socioeconomic data. With their research, they published articles concluding that “class - defined as a combination of income, education, wealth and occupation – influences destiny in a society that likes to think of itself as a land of unbounded opportunity” (New York Times, “Class Matters – Social Class in the United States of America,” May-June 2005).
Reporting on investigations is reporting that “develops from the discovery or leak of information from an official investigation already under way or in preparation by others, usually government agencies” (Kovach & Rosenstiel 147). In other words, it is a type of reporting that happens after an investigation takes place. Information is then released through anonymous sources leaking information or discovery through the investigation. An example of reporting of investigations is when Richard Jewell was assumed to have planted a bomb at the 1996 Atlanta Olympics. The information was leaked through anonymous leaks from police and FBI sources. After the investigation, it proved to be false.
While investigative reporting continues to be an integral part of journalism, the watchdog role has weakened over the years. Investigative reporting started out revealing abuses of power in: education, economics, foreign affairs, the military, national security, politics, and social welfare. Those areas affected the most people and it is where the majority of everyone’s money is spent. However, a study in 1997 revealed that more than half the stories in investigative reporting now are focused on lifestyle, behavior, consumerism, health, or celebrity entertainment (Project for Excellence in Journalism, “Changing Definitions of News: A Look at the Mainstream Press over 20 Years,” March 6, 1998, 3). While most of the reporting seems to be original investigative work, it’s not. In fact, most of it is “stunted.” They come from TV news consultants who offer stations the scripts, the shots, the experts to the interview, or the interviews already on tape, staged to generate ratings for sweeps periods. While shows like Dateline, 20/20, and 60 Minutes do provide some investigation in their shows, their purpose is entertainment and to do good programming.
Here’s a link to a clip from Saturday Night Live doing a parody on Dateline. Although it is poking fun at the show, it illustrates that those “investigative reporting” shows have focused more on good programming rather than being a watchdog and an independent power.
· Journalism has been the watchdog for centuries with various methods of investigative reporting.
· However, journalism’s role as a watchdog has continued to change over the years due to entertainment shows who claim to be doing investigative reporting.
No comments:
Post a Comment