Chris Horrie describes journalism as the conversion of information into money. In that respect, investigative journalism (IJ) is the finding or creation (as in cases of no actual evidence, common law qualified privilege etc.) of information to turn into cash.
The father of IJ is thought of as Émile Zola, an eminent writer in France in the 19th century who wrote of the aftermath of the Franco-Prussian war, which the French lost and the blame was put on the Jews for being traitors. Zola wrote that this was disgraceful and that France lost due to the corruption of its officers. After the French government tried to have him arrested, he fled to England, where he wrote his publication 'We Name the Guilty Men' which, used photographs to show pictures of the officers he found responsible for the botched war. Zola was eventually let off by the French, though the officers were never charged.
The pinnacle of IJ is thought of Harry Evans' (of the Sunday Times) insight team. A well funded group of journalists whose primary focus was to find the news. It was the insight team that uncovered the scandal of the thalidomide drug given to pregnant women to cope with morning sickness. The company that produced it had tested it on rats and had shown no side effects. But with humans, it caused the foetus not to develop properly, with missing or deformed limbs. The Sunday Times printed a story blaming the drugs for the widespread birth of deformed babies. The company denied this and sued, engaging in a lengthy legal battle. This was ended when the insight team produced a document in which the company admitted that thalidomide was the cause of the birth defects, presumably the document was found in a skip...
Investigative journalists are the people behind most of the biggest stories you hear about. In the famous case of the Birmingham 6. The IRA had set off bombs in birmingham, killing many people. As a result of the ensuing media frenzy which demanded that the police make some headway. The police, growing desperate, framed 6 men who, while not being models of society, were innocent of the charges. Granada TV's 'World in Action' unearthed proof of the fabrication of evidence which the police used to set up the men. Eventually leading to them being released.
This case links to the Innocence Project, which I will be a part of in later years of this course. The Innocence Project looks into possible false imprisonments and tries to find evidence that will get people who have been wrongfully arrested released. In the same manner as that of the Birmingham 6.
Subterfuge can be essential to the success of IJ. This would involve using hidden cameras and/or microphones. This is known in journalism jargon as a 'camera in the bag job', and can only be used if: it is in the public interest, you have acquired permission to do so from OfCom (or whichever regulatory body you refer to), and it is a last resort. Annoyingly you have to ask the obligatory question, "did you -insert verb here- 'X'". When they say no, it may be permissible to use subterfuge. It was by using subterfuge that the 'secret policeman' was able to be reported. A reporter went undercover for a year in a police training academy and exposed an officer-in-training as incredibly racist, even dressing up as a Ku Klux Klan member, saying that once he graduated, he would use his powers to harass black people.
An extremely high profile case that emphasised the importance of IJ's, not just as the probing eyes and ears of the public. They protected the world from the possibility of the most powerful person on Earth usurping his authority. I am, of course, talking about the Watergate scandal of US president, Richard Nixon. Nixon had criminals dig up incriminating information on his political rivals, as well as performing much dirtier acts in order to keep people from potentially getting in his way. Two journalists, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, discovered (in a skip) that Nixon had recorded tapes of his conversations, and of ordering these practices. After they were found and published, Nixon was forced to become the first president to ever resign from office.
Perhaps the most important factor to consider in IJ is the evidence gap. In a criminal case, the level of proof has to be beyond reasonable doubt. In a civil case, It is decided on the balance of probability i.e. It seems most likely that 'X' is the case. This is very important to remember as it can change the way that investigations can happen. The best example of this is when the police suspect someone of having committed a crime, and they have proof; but not enough to go to court with, as they would have to prove 'beyond reasonable doubt'. If the case were to fail, they would not be able to charge that person again, because of 'double jeopardy' laws, which mean that someone cannot be accused of the same crime twice (this is especially sensitive in the case of terrorism, either the acts of, or the glorification of. You can see at the moment how well the legal system has done with Abu Hamza). However, if the police were to give the information to a journalist, they could print the story, because, even if the subject were to sue, the evidence they had (while not proving beyond reasonable doubt) would show the balance of probability to be more likely that they had committed the crime. They would not need to show beyond reasonable doubt as it would be a libel case.
Finally, another useful tool for IJ's is the Reynold's defence as they will often not have much evidence for their claims. I have discussed the Reynold's defence in a previous blog, as well as some examples.
I did find it interesting to learn about the legality of secret recording in Britain, as I was under the impression that most of the time it was illegal. Indeed, in McNae's it says that many low ranking police officers are not sure. As well as in the case of photographing on public property. I suppose now I'm allowed to shout things like "I know my rights!" at nosy people telling me that I can't take a picture of a bridge when I'm in Madison County. Last time I go sightseeing there.
I just realised that Madison county is in America, and would therefore be subject to different laws than I have studied... bugger it.
No comments:
Post a Comment