investigative journalism – Media Matters

I’ve been asking students in the Media & Society class to think about the future of newspapers/journalism/truth…in an age of smart phones and social media. As suspected, few read a newspaper and most get their news from their phones. That’s to be expected and there are many reasons why newspapers are fading into obscurity. But I’m constantly reminded that news reporting and journalism can not, and must not, die alongside newspapers. Here’s why…

Wondering about the future of journalism…

Without journalists we wouldn’t know that celebrities and wealthy business executives were involved in a scam to get their kids into elite universities. Fake test scores, made-up athletic achievements, and even photoshopped pictures of these kids were used to bribe coaches and administrators, and in so doing deprive worthy students of their seat at the table.

Without journalists we wouldn’t know what happened when a group of kids from a Catholic high school were confronted by a group of Black Hebrew Israelites and Native American protesters on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. We might have heard a rumor or one person’s interpretation of what happened, but we wouldn’t have found out how it really went down.

Without journalists we wouldn’t know that Michael Jackson and R. Kelly have dark pasts and that swirling allegations of child sexual abuse may finally be brought to light and justice may finally be served.

Without journalists we wouldn’t know about the opioid epidemic, the risk that black mothers face in childbirth, and the horrific rise of teen suicide among Native Americans.

Without journalists we would only know what people in power want us to know…and that is a recipe for…disaster/dictatorship/destruction.

But we’re in a strange place where we know that we need journalists and journalism, but we can’t figure out how to pay for it. We’ve been free-riding on the backs of legacy media systems that are failing…and the rising role of digital platforms like Google and Facebook has not held out much reason for hope. But one thing is certain…we need to figure it out soon, or we’re going to pay a much steeper price in the future. If you think gaining knowledge is expensive, wait until you see how much ignorance costs!

Recent concerns about government prosecution of “leakers” and journalists has reignited a conversation about the limits of 1st Amendment protection for journalists and sources. Journalists sometimes become recipients of very sensitive information that may have implications for national security. At the same time they feel an obligation to protect the identity of whistle-blowers to ensure the free flow of important information. Some are calling for a federal “shield law” that will provide additional protection for sources, and for the journalists who report on the information they provide.

This dilemma involves very difficult situations where the intersection of national security concerns and “the public’s right to know” appear to be in conflict. Recent news out of Washington has been focused on the government going after the phone records of AP reporters and investigating Fox News reporter James Rosen. Many have viewed these actions as prosecution of the act of journalism which will have a chilling effect on future whistle blowers and other sources. While it can be argued that much of this hand-wringing is really politically motivated, there are plenty of examples of attempts to control information by both Republican and Democratic administrations.

In February of 2013 Pvt. Bradley Manning plead guilty to 10 of 22 charges for his part in the release of what has been called the “biggest leak of classified material in U.S. history.” Manning uploaded the classified documents from the Iraq war to Wikileaks after failing to get a response from the New York Times or the Washington Post. (See earlier blog post on Manning and Wikileaks)

What Wikileaks founder Julian Assange had attempted to do as a “radical transparency activist” is now going mainstream with the release of Strongbox. The New Yorker magazine has launched Strongbox as a way to provide a greater level of security and anonymity to sources who may fear reprisal if their identity were to be revealed. According to the Strongbox website,

Strongbox is designed to be accessed only through a “hidden service” on the Tor anonymity network, which is set up to conceal both your online and physical location from us and to offer full end-to-end encryption for your communications with us. This provides a higher level of security and anonymity in your communication with us than afforded by standard e-mail or unencrypted Web forms.

At least one problem remains. Typically a journalist needs to independently verify the veracity of information received from a source, and this level of anonymity may make that difficult if not impossible. But it is one more tool in the arsenal of investigative journalists who are committed to rooting out corruption and wrong-doing at the highest levels of government and industry.

Video resources:

All the President’s Men

All the President’s Men Revisited

We Steal Secrets (trailer)

Tag: investigative journalism

Without Journalists

From Wikileaks to Strongbox