Investigative Journalism in the Arab World

Issues and Challenges

Saba Bebawi

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781137461049
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Journalism
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

This is the first book that looks into the state and role of investigate journalism in the Arab world. It explores the vital role the media could potentially play in informing and empowering society, to assist in opening up the communicative space in a region where this has previously been taboo.

1

The Rise of Investigative Journalism Globally and in the Arab World

Generally speaking, the historic evolvement of investigative reporting has not been systematic, nor has it developed in a regular and routine form. In fact, its emergence can be better characterised as chaotic and dispersed, where its successes in achieving change and making an impact have been occasional. Therefore, the evolution of investigative journalism does not translate into a continuous historical narrative; rather, it can be described as a cyclical evolution that is dependent on particular circumstances and conditions that relate to the media institution; the journalist; and the political, economic, and social conditions at the time. This cyclical evolution can be noted not only at a global level but also in the Arab narrative. This chapter will outline both a global and Arab understanding of the rise of investigative reporting, particularly focusing on developing countries, which have many commonalities with the Arab scenario. First, however, it is necessary to outline what is meant by investigative journalism.

Various terms have emerged that refer to the practice of investigative journalism, which include muckraking, watchdog journalism, and accountability reporting. In Arabic the term that is used is ‘tahqeeq istiqsa’ee’, which refers to an investigative report. This is different from the term ‘tahqeeq’ on its own, which means ‘investigation’, and which is commonly used to refer to feature forms of reporting (Article 19, 2007). In the Story-Based Inquiry: A Manual for Investigative Journalists used by Arab training journalists, investigative reporting is defined as ‘exposing to the public matters that are concealed – either deliberately by someone in a position of power, or accidentally, behind a chaotic mass of facts and circumstances that obscure understanding. It requires using both secret and open sources and documents’ (Hunter et al., 2011: 7). This definition outlines a methodological approach, which distinguishes it from daily forms of reporting through the continuous searching of open sources, secret sources and documents. Another methodological difference between daily reporting and investigative journalism, and which is also a defining factor between the two forms, is that of in-depth reporting, as noted in the definition provided by the Dutch-Flemish Association for Investigative Journalism (VVOJ), who define investigative reporting as ‘critical and in depth journalism’ (VVOJ, 2011). It can be noted, therefore, that investigative reporting entails more vigorous research than conventional daily reporting, where ‘[i]nvestigative journalism does not just happen; it is not just a matter of journalists following their “natural instincts”. Investigative journalism has to be organized, resourced and protected. It depends on trained journalists, supportive editors and a substantial budget’ (Street, 2011: 193).

Going through the criteria for the Pulitzer Prize for investigative reporting, William C. Gaines (2008) suggests how a definition of investigative reporting could be derived. The criteria for the investigative reporting stream award include the need to:

• reveal information that someone is trying to hide or that otherwise would not have been known,

• are a matter of importance to the public well-being,

• are the work product of the reporter rather than a leak from a government agency investigation,

• expose a waste of tax money caused by mismanagement or corruption in government, dangerous conditions posing safety hazards or fraudulent conduct in the private sector that preys on the consumer (Gaines, 2008: 2–3).

With the exclusion of the last criterion, which is limited to topics that concern the prize itself, the first three criteria highlight the main distinguishing factors when defining investigative reporting. Revealing information that is not known is an important factor in an investigative report, as it brings to light issues of concern to the public that need to be known. Robert Green regards investigative journalism as ‘reporting, [primarily] through one’s own work product and initiative, matters of importance which some persons or organizations wish to keep secret’ (cited in Ullmann, 1995: 2). Investigative journalism can be defined, therefore, as a form of journalism that seeks to uncover a ‘secret’ – that is, something which someone or some entity wishes to keep unknown to the public.

One way of understanding investigative reporting is by clarifying what it is not. Hugo de Burgh (2008) states that investigative reporting is distinct from similar kinds of work conducted by other bodies like the police, lawyers, auditors, and regulatory bodies. Investigative journalism differs from such work ‘in that it is not limited as to target, not legally founded and usually earns money for media publishers’ (de Burgh, 2008: 10). By the same token, de Burgh emphasises the need to distinguish it from ‘dissenting journalism’, especially since both forms of journalism often tend to be connected in their focus on addressing issues of public interest. Burgh argues that investigative reporting differs from ‘dissenting journalism’ in that there is a need to go beyond merely disagreeing with authority to investigating it (de Burgh, 2008: 11).

The ‘moral impetus’ is another distinguishing driver for investigative journalism, where there is an ‘urge to get at the truth and to clarify the difference between right and wrong’ (de Burgh, 2008: 15). This is an important characteristic of investigative reporting, which assumes that there is a standard and clear set of morals shared with its audience, and that investigative reporting sets out to uncover when these morals have been violated. de Burgh clarifies this where he states that ‘[u]sually investigative journalists appeal to our existing standards of morality, standards they know that they can rely upon being held by people they know will be shocked by their violation’ (de Burgh, 2008: 16).

Another important distinction between investigative reporting and daily news reporting, as outlined by de Burgh, is the news agenda. The daily news agenda is structured around a set of taught values of ‘newsworthiness’, which include timing, proximity, prominence, significance, and human interest. Daily news reporting, therefore, derives its news agenda from current events that occur locally and around the world, and are prioritised according to values of ‘newsworthiness’; yet investigative journalism sets its own news agenda. In essence, news journalists report on the events presented to them, whereas ‘investigative journalism picks and chooses according to its own definition of significance’ (de Burgh, 2008: 14). This ‘significance’ for investigative journalists circulates around stories of victimisation, where a villain is to blame (de Burgh, 2008: 15) usually.

All these characteristics, when put together, provide an understanding of how investigative reporting is different from daily forms of reporting. Although the opening quote in this book insinuates that all forms of reporting should be investigative, with the aim of stressing the importance of in-depth well-researched journalism, investigative reporting still differs from daily conventional reporting for the reasons discussed in this section. Investigative journalism, which is used interchangeably with the term ‘investigative reporting’ in this book, is defined as a branch of journalism practice which seeks to uncover important and crucial happenings and occurrences that cannot be ignored or undermined, and seeks to uncover a ‘secret’ – something which someone or some entity wishes to keep unknown to the public. Accordingly, investigative reporting becomes a knowledge-building tool that informs the public and exposes those who are hiding a ‘secret’. Here, I suggest the term ‘impact journalism’ as a defining factor and requirement for investigative journalism, as I go on to discuss later in the closing chapter, where I argue that investigative journalism should aim to achieve change, and, in turn, impact, beyond merely informing the public.

The historical emergence of investigative journalism

Investigative journalism is not only specific to recent times, as there have been examples of Ancient Egyptians producing news reports on papyrus, reporting, for example, on butchers selling meat that had not been inspected by those responsible at the markets. There have also been examples in China by 700 AD, where the government would send out investigators to report on issues such as economic and social conditions, in addition to the opinions of the people (de Burgh, 2008: 32–33). In the 1700s in Europe, journalism slowly emerged as a distinct form of news reporting from that of literary works, as printers needed, for economic reasons, to ‘produce and sell ephemera since books often took a long time to shift and thus tied up their capital in stock’ (de Burgh, 2008: 35). Readership, in turn, slowly began to expand, where ‘[t]he intellectual and cultural revolution in Europe was both a function of and the stimulus for publishing’ (de Burgh, 2008: 35). Nevertheless, literary writing based on real events continued to develop and flourish. De Burgh (2008) gives the example of Charles Dickens, who was a journalist before becoming a novelist, by writing about the living conditions of the ordinary people. There was also Emile Zola (1840–1902), who would visit slums and make observations about their conditions and publish them. Such works made way for what became known as ‘documentary realism’, which, de Burgh argues, was the first form of investigative journalism. He states that ‘[i]f method defines the investigative journalist then arguably the documentary realists were the first investigative journalists’ (de Burgh, 2008: 41). Accordingly, forms of investigative reporting began to appear in Europe, the UK, and the US.

Mark Feldstein (2006) outlines a ‘muckraking model’ that classifies the historical evolvement of investigative reporting into four categories. These four categories reflect how the evolution of investigative reporting has not been consistent, as its historical emergence can be better described as fluctuating in cycles. Indeed, reading through various accounts of historical cases of investigative reporting (Aucoin, 2006; de Burgh, 2008), it can be noted where contextual political, economic, social and journalistic factors have impacted the practice of investigative reporting. Based on demand and supply, Feldstein’s (2006) muckraking model explains these periods and can be understood as follows. In Category 1, there is both demand and supply for muckraking, and as a result this category includes prominent periods of investigative reporting, which occurred ‘in the 1760s and 1770s, before and during the American Revolution; 1902 to 1912, during the heyday of the original muckrakers; and in the 1960s and 1970s during Vietnam and Watergate’ (Feldstein, 2006: 10). These periods were all characterised by political turmoil due to oppressive colonialism, and economic turmoil as a result of the Industrial Revolution, in addition to social turmoil caused by a war that was unpopular (referring here to the Vietnam war). These factors led to what Feldstein sees as a ‘public demand for investigative reporting’; and new technologies that became prominent at the time, such as the printing press, national magazines, and television, all of which contributed to an increase in the supply of investigative journalism (Feldstein, 2006: 10). In Category 2, however, slightly different from the first category, the demand is high for investigative reporting, yet the supply is low. Feldstein explains that ‘[t]his is what occurred during the Populist and New Deal eras, when economic dislocation and political foment was acute but mainstream media outlets, facing little journalistic competition, offered scant criticism of the status quo’ (Feldstein, 2006: 10). In contrast to this, in Category 3, the supply of investigative journalism is high, but the demand is not, where ‘new technologies of cable/satellite TV and Internet Web sites provide a kind of pseudo-muckraking, where titillation is more common than substantive public service journalism’ (Feldstein, 2006: 10). Feldstein notes that this period corresponds with the 1830s, during which the ‘Penny Press’ emerged, focusing on sensationalist reporting of ‘crime and high society’ (Feldstein, 2006: 10). Finally, Category 4 has both low supply and low demand for investigative reporting during the middle of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries (Feldstein, 2006: 10). This fourth category, labelled the ‘Dark Ages’ by Feldstein, is seen by many to be applicable to the state of investigative journalism today. The current decline of investigative journalism is noted by Street where he states that ‘[m]ore recently, writers have argued that we are now witnessing the decline, and even the death of investigative journalism’ (Street, 2011: 193). He argues that ‘the heyday of the 1960s and 1970s, when newspapers and television programmes exposed the Thalidomide and Watergate scandals, when miscarriages of justice were pursued and resulted in the release of the innocent, is now past’ (Street, 2011: 193–194).

Others, however, argue that investigative journalism has recently witnessed an awakening through the emergence of the internet and practices such as blogging. Websites such as Wikileaks are examples that have ‘led some to ask whether a new era of investigative journalism is emerging’ (Street, 2011: 194). Yet, as stated in the Pulitzer Prize criteria for investigative reporting outlined at the start of this chapter, investigative journalism should not only consist of ‘leaks’, but should involve the actual compilation of an investigation by a reporter. Accordingly, modern-day leaks need to be developed into investigations, checking on sources and facts, in order for them to be considered investigative journalism. Yet this is not to say that technologies that override gatekeeping and facilitate easier research and sourcing have not made investigative reporting more possible. Having said this, in mainstream media, investigative units are being closed down due to limited resources and funding, and their operation in many parts of the world cannot be justified in an environment of fast, competing news production processes. Street (2011) comments on this:

If there has been a decline in investigative journalism, it is highly unlikely that the explanation for it lies in the fact politicians are now less corrupt than they used to be. An explanation for the decline in investigative journalism has to be sought elsewhere. We need to look to the impact of changing social attitudes, increasing competition and so on.

(Street, 2011: 195)

At a time when investigative journalism is facing a bleak future in most Western countries, the developing world has been experiencing a rise in investigative reporting to counter the dominance of state control and expose corruption. Although there are some commonalities in regard to the overall narrative of the limitations and challenges to investigative reporting around the world, there remain some variations that are dependent on contextual circumstances. In turn, investigative journalism is understood and practised differently, and is therefore ‘context specific’ (Street, 2011: 194). For example, in China the practice of investigative journalism does not necessarily reflect the practice experienced in Western countries, as Street explains:

Because of the degree of political control exercised over the media, there is a clientelist relationship between politician and journalist, and as a result investigative journalism, as with other forms of journalism in China, remains subservient to its political masters.

(Street, 2011: 194)

Having said this, there have been attempts in Asia to develop investigative reporting. The Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ), for example, was established in 1989 and is now regarded as a model for other investigative centres in the region, especially since it is one of the earliest training organisations. It receives nearly a third of its annual budget from the Ford Foundation, and has published over a thousand investigative reports and over a thousand other stories in major Philippine newspapers and magazines, in addition to five full-length documentaries and a number of documentaries for television. In addition, the PCIJ organises training courses for journalism trainers and also for various news organisations in the Philippines and Southeast Asia. Between 1990 and 2012, the organisation held over 120 training courses for journalists, journalism trainers, and students in the Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, Burma, Cambodia, Vietnam, Japan, and Papua New Guinea, in addition to other countries in Southeast Asia, the Pacific Islands, and the South African subcontinent (PCIJ, 24 February 2015).

Another example of the development of investigative reporting in Asia is the Korea Center for Investigative Journalism (KCIJ), based in Seoul, which is the first non-profit online investigative reporting organisation in South Korea. Launched by veteran broadcast journalists, the centre publishes its investigations through an online news website called Newstapa. The centre was established at the start of 2012 by a small group of journalists ‘who felt the need for an independent news organisation not subject to the kind of political pressure used against investigative journalism at the country’s major media outlets’ (Kaplan, 9 April 2014). KCIJ consists of a total of 30 reporters, producers, multimedia staff and administrative staff, and relies for its funding on donations and memberships (Kaplan, 9 April 2014).

Other examples include Transparency International Sri Lanka (TISL), which was established at the end of 2002 and is active in addressing corruption in Sri Lanka. Its mission is ‘to contribute to increase understanding of corruption, strengthen anti-corruption structures and processes and to appreciate upholding of integrity’ (TISL, 23 February 2015). Although it is not solely focused on the development of investigative reporting, it is active in holding workshops to train journalists in investigative reporting skills. TISL has published its own investigative reporting training book called the IJ Toolkit. Other workshops are also held ‘to equip officials of provincial government offices and community based organizations with knowledge and skills to contribute to a more accountable public service, this includes Training of Trainers (TOT)’ (TISL, 23 February 2015).

In other parts of the world, such as South America, the tradition of investigative reporting has historically been practised in ‘marginal, nonmainstream publications during democratic periods, and to underground, clandestine outlets during dictatorial regimes’ (Waisbord, 2000: xiii). However, in recent times, investigative journalism has become more mainstream, ‘making strides in media organizations that traditionally sacrificed the denunciation of power abuses for economic benefits and political tranquillity’ (Waisbord, 2000: xiii). Silvio Waisbord provides examples of this in dailies such as the influential Brazilian newspaper Folha de São Paulo and the Argentinian Clarín, in addition to the emergence of investigative units in newspapers such as the Columbian El Tiempo and the Peruvian El Comercio and La República (Waisbord, 2000: xiii). Yet, despite this positive ou...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Tables
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction
• 1. The Rise of Investigative Journalism Globally and in the Arab World
• 2. Investigative Journalism Training
• 3. Investigative Journalism Practice
• 4. Regulatory Frameworks and Freedom of Information
• 5. Issues and Challenges
• 6. The Way Forward
• References
• Index