Investigative Reporting: Chapters 4, 5, & 7

by Kevin Clang

The process of investigative reporting has become both simpler and more complicated with the emergence of the internet.  With online records and archives, any public information can be easily found with the click of a mouse if the reporter knows where to look.  E-mail allows a reporter to stay in touch with important sources across great distances.  With all of this convenience, however, the line between what is ethical and what is not becomes grayer every day.  It is the job of the journalist to decide what is ethical and what is not.

When one considers a big story like the collapse of Enron just a few years ago, it is crazy to think just how far technology has come since then.  Back in the archaic days of 2001, most organizations did not have public records archived online for anyone to view.  Back then the press had to rely on a few brave whistle blowers (a practice admittedly still employed today).  It was up to the reporters to decide which information the whistle blowers gave them would be ethical to print and which they should leave out in order to protect their source.
Enron was eventually found guilty of obstruction of justice after it was discovered that they destroyed documents related to their audit.  Now evidence like this is much harder to get rid of.  What was true then is still true now, however.  Before a reporter digs into any investigative report they must ask themselves “does this matter?” and “can the potential harm to an individual or company be justified because it benefits society?”  If the answers are yes, then a reporter has license to continue.  It is always important to investigate both sides of any story, being sure to at least offer to interview the accused.

Today a reporter would be able to go even more in depth into a story like Enron.  A quick search of any newspaper’s online archives will bring up any story the paper has ever printed on the company, which could be useful if trying to find specific numbers or quotes.  While most of a company’s accounting numbers are kept secret, a reporter should be able to find quarterly profit announcements, government tax returns or stock prices.  Surveys are also much easier to issue and analyze today, giving the average person a voice.  A survey can be quickly administered online, and when complete one can analyze votes by any variety of demographics, including race and income.

One thing that will always stay the same is the process one uses to interview a potential source.  A reporter always needs to be honest and forthright with their source, telling them exactly what they plan to do with the information the source has.  The journalist must do their homework before the interview, finding exactly what questions to ask so that they don’t waste time.  They must make their source feel comfortable, no matter what the source’s opinion of the press is.  They must understand the motivation of the source to speak to the press as well, and how it might fit into their story.

Investigative Reporting – Chapters 1-3

by Kevin Clang

Contrary to popular belief, stories do not just fall into the laps of journalists. Yes, sometimes a catastrophic national event occurs and causes everyone to stop what they are doing in order to cover it, but more often than not it is the journalist’s job to go out and find their own stories.

There are stories everywhere around us, from somewhere as obvious as the police station to somewhere as inconspicuous as a supermarket. It is up to the journalist to do the investigative reporting: realize the story, find people to talk to, ask them the tough questions, and finally scope the location out. Nobody else is going to do the work for them; the journalist must put in the hours.

The classic example of modern investigative reporting is and will likely forever remain Watergate, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein of the Washington Post uncovering a Presidential cover-up of break-ins at the Watergate Hotel. The two reporters were the only two to recognize that something was odd about the crime and decided to probe deeper than everyone else.

In doing so, they found “Deep Throat,” a disgruntled government worker who knew privileged information that greatly aided the two reporters in their investigation. With his information, the two compiled their story largely from records and documents that were available to the public, things like meeting minutes and budget reports, things that anyone could take out and look at. Some did, for sure, but Woodward and Bernstein were the only two people to put all of the information together and uncover the epic story.

As the book states, the two reporter’s work towards uncovering Watergate began long before a bunch of crooks broke into hotel rooms. Bob Woodward spent his time working for a couple of small to medium sized newspapers in Maryland and D.C. suburbs, before landing a job at the Washington Post. He worked his way up the ladder by assigning himself to investigate small local scandals, such as a butcher selling fatty meat to customers. These stories not only made the Post notice him, they also provided Woodward with the investigative reporting tools he would need to sufficiently report on the Watergate break-ins and thus change our country forever.

Today we have much more tools available at our disposal than Woodward and Bernstein ever did. Many public records can now be found online, saving the time and hassle it takes to drive down to a public office and check papers out. Primary sources can easily be kept in touch with using e-mail, whereas before a reporter may often fall out of touch with a source after his story is done with.

This also makes it much easier to follow up a story with new information and insight. Articles are archived and cataloged online where they can be easily searched. Sources from all over the world, from newscasts to newspaper stories to blogs, are available at the click of a mouse, giving us nearly limitless access to information. What used to take years to research is now readily available.

While all of this technology makes the job more convenient, it does not make it any easier to do. An investigative reporter will still have to have a keen eye and ask themselves the questions “how should the system work, how well is the system working, and who is benefiting and who is suffering because of the way the system works” if they ever want to uncover the next Watergate. They still need to do their time with small issues at small papers, putting in several sleepless nights if they ever want to work their way up to the big leagues.