Investigative journalism is distinct from ordinary news journalism. The latter is where it is simply the job of the journalist to go out, sit in a meeting or a court, Parliament or an award show and report back on what transpired. It is heavily dependant on a public agenda.
The former involves original/independent research and one story can sometimes take years to fully develop. There is no agenda, and the journalist originates the story themselves.
Many of the most famous news stories are the result of extensive investigative journalism. The Watergate scandal was uncovered by journalists, as were the terrible effects of thalidomide (and more to the point, the fact that Distillers apparently knew about this harmful link but chose to do nothing about it.) Harry Evans is responsible for showing the public the truth about thalidomide and is thought of almost as a hero. Without uncovering and publicising the case to the extent it was, the people affected may have had an even harder time at getting compensation for the disabilities that were inflicted on them.The Innocence Project is another branch of investigation. It attempts to review cases thrown out by appeals to see if there is a chance that the person/people in prison have been wrongly convicted.
The Birmingham Six are a good example of a miscarriage of justice - 6 Irish men (some of them with prior convictions) were pinned for an IRA attack on a pub in Birmingham in the 70s. Two appeals had previously been unsuccessful, but in 1991 (after 16 years in prison) the men were finally cleared of their convictions due to evidence of police fabrication and a decade later were even awarded compensation for their wrongful imprisonment. In 1985, journalist Chris Mullin had investigated the case for World In Action and broadcast of what he found cast the first serious doubts on the men's convictions. He could be attributed with getting the ball rolling in terms of the men's eventual absolution and exposing the police involved for the frauds that they were.
In criminal law, the standard of evidence must leave a jury 'beyond all reasonable doubt' that a defendant is guilty of the crime they've been charged with.
In civil law, the standard of evidence is only 'on the balance of probability.'
This means that if a newspaper wanted to comment on an inactive case (this is crucial, or else they risk contempt of court) and say that someone is guilty, then they can. This is exactly what the Daily Mail did in regards to Stephen Lawrence's killers - they investigated the case themselves and found that those five men were almost certainly responsible for the death of Lawrence, but a trial with a jury was looking unlikely. As bold as the headline looks, the only thing that the Mail are really opening themselves up to is a libel writ, and even then they would be able to win if they could prove that these men are probably murderers.
Subterfuge
'Camera in a bag.' It is key to investigative journalism as without it, there may be no other way to gather the evidence necessary for a proper story that would have a concrete justification defence should it go to court.
Subterfuge must be explicitly approved by the editor/commissioning body and can only be used if the story is without malice, in the public interest and there could be no other way to prove it (i.e., you couldn't just ring a policeman up and ask them if they're a massive racist and get an honest answer.)
Knowing this, Mark Daly decided to investigate alleged institutional racism in the ranks of police cadets in Manchester. He spent a total of 18 months applying for and working undercover, and it was during his time in the police training academy that he secured the most secret footage of his colleagues spouting racist things/behaving in a similar manner. His findings were broadcast on Panorama in 2003.
"We look to the police for protection, advice and security - it's for this reason I believe our investigation was justified"
- clear public interest defence.
So use of subterfuge must be:
The Birmingham Six are a good example of a miscarriage of justice - 6 Irish men (some of them with prior convictions) were pinned for an IRA attack on a pub in Birmingham in the 70s. Two appeals had previously been unsuccessful, but in 1991 (after 16 years in prison) the men were finally cleared of their convictions due to evidence of police fabrication and a decade later were even awarded compensation for their wrongful imprisonment. In 1985, journalist Chris Mullin had investigated the case for World In Action and broadcast of what he found cast the first serious doubts on the men's convictions. He could be attributed with getting the ball rolling in terms of the men's eventual absolution and exposing the police involved for the frauds that they were.
Exploiting the evidence gap
In criminal law, the standard of evidence must leave a jury 'beyond all reasonable doubt' that a defendant is guilty of the crime they've been charged with.In civil law, the standard of evidence is only 'on the balance of probability.'
This means that if a newspaper wanted to comment on an inactive case (this is crucial, or else they risk contempt of court) and say that someone is guilty, then they can. This is exactly what the Daily Mail did in regards to Stephen Lawrence's killers - they investigated the case themselves and found that those five men were almost certainly responsible for the death of Lawrence, but a trial with a jury was looking unlikely. As bold as the headline looks, the only thing that the Mail are really opening themselves up to is a libel writ, and even then they would be able to win if they could prove that these men are probably murderers.
Subterfuge
'Camera in a bag.' It is key to investigative journalism as without it, there may be no other way to gather the evidence necessary for a proper story that would have a concrete justification defence should it go to court.
Subterfuge must be explicitly approved by the editor/commissioning body and can only be used if the story is without malice, in the public interest and there could be no other way to prove it (i.e., you couldn't just ring a policeman up and ask them if they're a massive racist and get an honest answer.)
 |
| BBC News |
"We look to the police for protection, advice and security - it's for this reason I believe our investigation was justified"
- clear public interest defence.
So use of subterfuge must be:
- very much in the public interest
- without malice
- approved by the editor
- the only way to make a story viable
No comments:
Post a Comment