True muckraking journalism is on life support or dead. Let's not kid ourselves. The only situation we see where the news media goes after anyone is after the indictment. And even then it is usually kid gloves, wouldn't want to offend anyone, we might want something from them later.
1
This is just another editorial by another journalist desperately urging other journalists to do what they want to do instead of what they need to do.
-
Consider the federal tax code. There has been a lot of investigative journalism on the tax code since the 1986 reforms and everyone knows that the tax code has been repeatedly corrupted. But the voters have never done anything to stop their Congressmen and Senators from creating at least one new tax deduction for every lobbyist with enough money for many large campaign contributions to both parties. So the only positive accomplishment by the many investigative journalists was the money they earned for entertaining both politicians and voters with gotchas. Which is why they failed to communicate, They were entertaining their customers, and themselves, instead of educating voters. The voters became angry whenever they read about the tax code but their anger always faded away before any reforms could be enacted. This problem could be overcome with a Taxpayers Holiday if enough journalists wanted to communicate like a teacher instead of entertainer. But this will never happen because the journalists don't want to do it and they have convinced themselves that the problem can only be resolved by politicians exercising leadership. Too many journalists think their time is too valuable to wasted on the intellectual weaknesses of their customers.
-
Consider the federal tax code. There has been a lot of investigative journalism on the tax code since the 1986 reforms and everyone knows that the tax code has been repeatedly corrupted. But the voters have never done anything to stop their Congressmen and Senators from creating at least one new tax deduction for every lobbyist with enough money for many large campaign contributions to both parties. So the only positive accomplishment by the many investigative journalists was the money they earned for entertaining both politicians and voters with gotchas. Which is why they failed to communicate, They were entertaining their customers, and themselves, instead of educating voters. The voters became angry whenever they read about the tax code but their anger always faded away before any reforms could be enacted. This problem could be overcome with a Taxpayers Holiday if enough journalists wanted to communicate like a teacher instead of entertainer. But this will never happen because the journalists don't want to do it and they have convinced themselves that the problem can only be resolved by politicians exercising leadership. Too many journalists think their time is too valuable to wasted on the intellectual weaknesses of their customers.
1
.
.
Local investigative reporting is vital. Other Commenters have mentioned the work of Newsday and the Albany Times-Union. I can add that in 1988, the Pulitzer Prize in the Investigative Reporting category went to the Chicago Tribune, for a series about problems on/with the Chicago City Council. One of the reporters named on the Prize Citation is Dean Baquet, who held the title of Managing Editor of The New York Times the last time I looked (Dec. 19, 2015). http://www.pulitzer.org/bycat/Investigative-Reporting
But sometimes local reporting is not sufficient. Sometimes, a crime committed in Colorado is investigated properly, while a very similar crime committed in Washington State is handled very badly. Newspapers in each state, reporting locally, can inform readers and help bring justice to victims. Those are worthy accomplishments.
Yet, what can happen when skilled journalists from outside start looking into those same two similar crimes? One answer is found here https://www.propublica.org/article/false-rape-accusations-an-unbelievabl... That "unbelievable story" is the product of cooperative work by The Marshall Project and ProPublica. The result of their non-local investigation exceeded what separate local investigations may have accomplished.
I support strongly the local investigative work of which Ms. Sullivan writes. But any well-done investigative journalism, whoever does it, will help the audience and the content-providers in obvious and non-obvious ways.
.
Local investigative reporting is vital. Other Commenters have mentioned the work of Newsday and the Albany Times-Union. I can add that in 1988, the Pulitzer Prize in the Investigative Reporting category went to the Chicago Tribune, for a series about problems on/with the Chicago City Council. One of the reporters named on the Prize Citation is Dean Baquet, who held the title of Managing Editor of The New York Times the last time I looked (Dec. 19, 2015). http://www.pulitzer.org/bycat/Investigative-Reporting
But sometimes local reporting is not sufficient. Sometimes, a crime committed in Colorado is investigated properly, while a very similar crime committed in Washington State is handled very badly. Newspapers in each state, reporting locally, can inform readers and help bring justice to victims. Those are worthy accomplishments.
Yet, what can happen when skilled journalists from outside start looking into those same two similar crimes? One answer is found here https://www.propublica.org/article/false-rape-accusations-an-unbelievabl... That "unbelievable story" is the product of cooperative work by The Marshall Project and ProPublica. The result of their non-local investigation exceeded what separate local investigations may have accomplished.
I support strongly the local investigative work of which Ms. Sullivan writes. But any well-done investigative journalism, whoever does it, will help the audience and the content-providers in obvious and non-obvious ways.
1
You won't like this, Ms. Sullivan, but here's the truth - we don't look to the NY Times for investigative journalism any more. We are better served by the Daily News, the Washington Post, and UK papers on the Internet than by the NY Times. The NY Times current crop of editors has an extremely narrow view of what it thinks is worth investigating, and it usually arrives at transgender or black angst stories. Cases in point - there were 6 students killed in a balcony collapse earlier this year, in Berkeley, CA - other papers covered the tragedy well, and also the building code violations that may be present in other US buildings. The Times blamed the students (none of whom where black or gay or transgender as far as we know, the oldest was only 22) in the meager reporting, and did no follow up at all. Another case in point - this weekend, a parish pastor in Throggs Neck resigned following the filing of a lawsuit by parishioners about embezzlement, perhaps he has spent $1M on a male escort, drugs, vacations and high living. This case is HUGE news elsewhere - in the other NY papers and media, and in the UK and Australian papers on the internet - but nothing in the NY Times. Why? We see more transgender, race and prison articles, nothing on this groundbreaking, NY story about a congregation taking on the Archdiocese of NY for its failure to act. Where is the NY Times reporting on this important story?
2
What makes me nervous about these two columns is the focus put on "Spotlight," which I think is NOT a documentary, but a Hollywood adaptation.
Hollywood has been known to take great liberties in search of ticket sales. I fear that this might represent a further acceptance of "truthiness," as, in the words of Dean Baquet, "it's hard to imagine some version of this isn't true." Please hep keep truthiness out of the Times. Nothing but the full unvarnished truth will do
Hollywood has been known to take great liberties in search of ticket sales. I fear that this might represent a further acceptance of "truthiness," as, in the words of Dean Baquet, "it's hard to imagine some version of this isn't true." Please hep keep truthiness out of the Times. Nothing but the full unvarnished truth will do
2
.
Separating out your 1st 2 sentences from the rest -- if there is here a focus on "Spotlight" (redundancy?), then that would be a problem.
I think these are essays on Investigative Journalism in a locality, using real and/or Hollywood aspects of the priest investigation as some sort of framing device for the writer's thinking. If I'm right, then it's less problematic. It's also not as much of an issue that the writer gets an idea from a fictional aspect of the film: As long as the idea is valid, and is the writer's, I don't think we are harmed if the spark for the idea was the product of screenwriter's invention.
I also don't think hoverboards are to be shunned merely because Michael J. Fox rode one in a movie 30 years ago. Or that Steven Spielberg's holocaust fundraisers should give the money back because "Schindler's List" used composite characters.
In any event, it seems that concern about the future of local investigative journalism in the digital age has been around since "Serial" was just a podcast about a kid doing time. https://twitter.com/BrookingsGov/status/616208136970440705
Separating out your 1st 2 sentences from the rest -- if there is here a focus on "Spotlight" (redundancy?), then that would be a problem.
I think these are essays on Investigative Journalism in a locality, using real and/or Hollywood aspects of the priest investigation as some sort of framing device for the writer's thinking. If I'm right, then it's less problematic. It's also not as much of an issue that the writer gets an idea from a fictional aspect of the film: As long as the idea is valid, and is the writer's, I don't think we are harmed if the spark for the idea was the product of screenwriter's invention.
I also don't think hoverboards are to be shunned merely because Michael J. Fox rode one in a movie 30 years ago. Or that Steven Spielberg's holocaust fundraisers should give the money back because "Schindler's List" used composite characters.
In any event, it seems that concern about the future of local investigative journalism in the digital age has been around since "Serial" was just a podcast about a kid doing time. https://twitter.com/BrookingsGov/status/616208136970440705
1
Our city's once-proud paper (the Atlanta Journal-Constitution) wants its readers to subsidize its money-losing print operation by charging a premium price for raggedy (at best) content while it runs a skeleton staff which apparently does not include any copy editors. To its leaders' great surprise, people are saying no, and the AJC is circling the drain. No amount of front-page clickbait (usually snatched from other outlets) will save it. On top of that, the AJC has no clue at all about how to use other media tools like video in an age where everyone has a screen on which they expect to view something at least mildly interesting once in awhile. As a former TV journalist, I have often warned anyone who'd listen to me of the great danger of losing the investigative reporting done best (and in volume) by once-great newspapers. TV news will never fill that vacuum. So, Ms. Sullivan is exactly correct. We need our newspapers to be strong and financially viable. The first step is to stop printing words on paper. Paper is all done. Buh-bye. Deal with it. But instead of acknowledging that, the AJC is doubling down on printing coupons, to the point where it more resembles a supermarket circular than a newspaper. Congrats, AJC, you're a zombie. Fortunately they film The Walking Dead down here so maybe there's a role for you there.
Journalists make careful distinctions between news and opinion and in evaluating the sources of those opinions. But I think the average reader is not so discriminating, treating it as one big information space with their favorite sources.
While we are waiting for other investigative models to emerge, there is already a well-funded mechanism for filling that information space -- think tanks and pundits for hire (often ex-military). While examples span the spectrum of opinion, the conservative think tanks seem the most aggressive and successful in getting out their messages (very frequent in the NYTimes). What is insidious about these sources is that because they are classified as opinion in the business, there is no fact checking, and they are often willing to keep repeating information that is just plain wrong (lies?).
While we are waiting for other investigative models to emerge, there is already a well-funded mechanism for filling that information space -- think tanks and pundits for hire (often ex-military). While examples span the spectrum of opinion, the conservative think tanks seem the most aggressive and successful in getting out their messages (very frequent in the NYTimes). What is insidious about these sources is that because they are classified as opinion in the business, there is no fact checking, and they are often willing to keep repeating information that is just plain wrong (lies?).
5
I wonder how much money the Times spent on the silly "Flying" videos this weekend just so they could try to get Millenials hooked on 3D (1952, anyone?) and hope and pray they'll buy subscriptions? Imagine that money and those staff resources being put to investigative journalism; local, statewide and national. But, alas, it's not what the Times thinks its readers want. So we get a newspaper filled with the trivial, the sensational and an avalanche of personal stories. We get listicles and click-bait headlines. We get "news you can use" and an endless parade of stories based on studies that always end with "of course this study is incomplete and more study is needed."
Investigative journalism is more than 2 or 3 big stories a year. It's the core mission of a newspaper. I think it may take a wholesale change in the masthead to get the Times back to what it should be.
Investigative journalism is more than 2 or 3 big stories a year. It's the core mission of a newspaper. I think it may take a wholesale change in the masthead to get the Times back to what it should be.
8
One thing we need badly is a lot more real, old-fashioned, check-out-the-facts investigative journalism. One thing we DON'T need is more and more emphasis on fashion, style and enforcement of what seems to have turned into a sort of Eleventh Commandment: Thou shalt conscientiously go to the gym and continuously work on thy biceps, pecs and abs lest thou be thought a terminal slacker. Not to mention the breathless cheerleading for a real estate market that virtually requires the ability to work 24/7/365 (plus one day for leap years) along with a serious tolerance for claustrophobia. But that's what we're getting in boatloads, especially from, sadly, what used to be considered this country's 'paper of record'. Newspapers' function should be to keep up with and check out real news, rather than relentless drumming of manufactured trends into our heads. That's what fashion and style magazines are for. So when will the NYT decide once again to be the NYT, and quit competing with the likes of GQ and Vogue?
9
Investigative so called journalism is not not what it used to be. In the last two decades with Clinton followed by Bush/ Cheney, even the NYT times forgot to seriously investigate anything that mattered. First and fore most was Bill Clinton and his freaking signing the repeal of the Glass-Stegall Act. Which deregulated the banking system and the Fundamentally Flawed Economic System descended into the sewer. Then followed by the Bush/ Cheney BS untenable war on terror at home, Afghanistan / Pakistan and the fraud war on Iraq with falsified and manufactured evidence. That even NYT went along without questioning . let alone any real investigation. Before that it was that two bit senile old actor and his favorite freedom fighter, one bin Laden.
2
Investigative journalism is thriving in Albany NY via the Times Union, our major daily paper. They've had an ongoing series about NEXIVM (sic) a suspect investment firm. It's quite complicated & reporters have faced legal challenges & threats. (Search NEXIVM at timesunion.com.) Another reporter has a powerful, moving series about addictions, FAR from stereotypical minorities in marginalized neighborhoods. It's taken significant time & effort to get people to trust & talk to him.
An intrepid reporter told us of "shenanigans" in the County Legislature, its Chairman leaving office to become Mayor of an area city but perhaps double-dipping via high paying customized County job. He's protested vigorously in the media, Facebook, etc., it isn't true, etc. Methinks the gentleman doth protest too much! They also reported a scheme of reelected County Executive, Comptroller & Sheriff arranging w/County Legislators for significant salary increases. After the TU's story they changed their minds & raises will be phased in over 3 years. (The Comptroller was defacto the conscience of the county, but Show me the money!)
We NEED this kind of reporting inc. the NYT's expose of nail salons. If newspapers wont do it WHO WILL? Broadcast media?Soundbites rule. NPR's All Things Considered is a ghost of itself--90 minutes of blah-blah, no in-depth reporting. Daniel Schorr is turning over in his grave,
(
Note: I'm NOT affiliated w/the Times Union. Just a reader!)
An intrepid reporter told us of "shenanigans" in the County Legislature, its Chairman leaving office to become Mayor of an area city but perhaps double-dipping via high paying customized County job. He's protested vigorously in the media, Facebook, etc., it isn't true, etc. Methinks the gentleman doth protest too much! They also reported a scheme of reelected County Executive, Comptroller & Sheriff arranging w/County Legislators for significant salary increases. After the TU's story they changed their minds & raises will be phased in over 3 years. (The Comptroller was defacto the conscience of the county, but Show me the money!)
We NEED this kind of reporting inc. the NYT's expose of nail salons. If newspapers wont do it WHO WILL? Broadcast media?Soundbites rule. NPR's All Things Considered is a ghost of itself--90 minutes of blah-blah, no in-depth reporting. Daniel Schorr is turning over in his grave,
(
Note: I'm NOT affiliated w/the Times Union. Just a reader!)
4
The heroes of Spotlight were the victims' lawyer and the founder of SNAP. These people worked incredibly hard to bring Church abuses to attention. The Boston Globe, as the movie made clear, was complicit for a long while in the non telling of the story. The movie would have better served its subject had it not made the journalists the primary focus of attention.
6
Investigative reporting is, indeed, key, to maintain a vibrant democracy from defaulting into a lame body devoid of will, given the corporate forces that seem overwhelming; this, as individual efforts are considered useless, and participation a joke. However, if we can anticipate news organizations to 'keep digging' in our behalf, so to keep our politicians 'honest', or at least minimize corruption and ineptitude, then we shall regain trust in our institutions, and even become activists for the common good.
1
brave on & thank you
2
Ms. Sullivan, a possible internal investigative report could be done on the reluctance of the NYT do an objective and fair examination of Bernie Sander's platform.
4
.
Exactly!
Right after the internal investigative report on the reluctance of NYT to do an objective and fair examination of Martin O'Malley's platform. After all, Gov. O'Malley never ran in a statewide Democratic Party primary only to refuse the Democratic Party nomination (as Sanders has done). Gov. O'Malley is a longtime Democrat seeking his party's nomination, and he deserves to have his platform evaluated.
Then NYT should move on to candidates who became Democrats in 2015.
Exactly!
Right after the internal investigative report on the reluctance of NYT to do an objective and fair examination of Martin O'Malley's platform. After all, Gov. O'Malley never ran in a statewide Democratic Party primary only to refuse the Democratic Party nomination (as Sanders has done). Gov. O'Malley is a longtime Democrat seeking his party's nomination, and he deserves to have his platform evaluated.
Then NYT should move on to candidates who became Democrats in 2015.
I often find your remarks enlightening, Ms. Sullivan.
But one today, had me laughing...
The bit about having to have someone willing to hold accountable those with the power.
I find it frightening that over the past seven years, how little the press has held the Obama administration accountable.
Remember his promise run the most open and transparent administration in history?
Sadly, journalism has be a co-conspirator in making his presidency one of the most closed and opaque ever.
Why haven't you lent your voice to exposing this lie? Why has the NY Times abdicated its role in holding feet to the fire?
Perfectly reasonable question, is it not?
But one today, had me laughing...
The bit about having to have someone willing to hold accountable those with the power.
I find it frightening that over the past seven years, how little the press has held the Obama administration accountable.
Remember his promise run the most open and transparent administration in history?
Sadly, journalism has be a co-conspirator in making his presidency one of the most closed and opaque ever.
Why haven't you lent your voice to exposing this lie? Why has the NY Times abdicated its role in holding feet to the fire?
Perfectly reasonable question, is it not?
2
Owl, I agree with you. But stipulate that the Times was ALSO complicit with the Junior Bush Reign of Error, particularly in the run up to Iraq the botching of which gave birth to ISIS.
1
.
@ Paul:
You AGREE that it's perfectly reasonable to ask Ms. Sullivan why she hasn't lent her voice to exposing Obama Administration problems with openness and transparency?
So her blog post of Sept. 27, 2012 never happened? That was her first MONTH on the job. What about her Column on the 14th of the next month, or on the 10th of February OR March of 2013 ? Her Feb. 6, 2013 blog?
What about http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/14/leak-investigations-are... ? Is she complicit with Obama there? Or in her blog on Dec. 6, 2013?
Maybe she marked herself as a co-conspirator when she put out http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/23/on-combating-government... ? Or in her blog posts of June (or December) 9, 2013? Maybe her blog on May 21 of THIS year? Seems to have a certain seasonal rhythm, doesn't it? "Oh, the Solstice is less than a month away. Better co-conspire with the Obama Administration about secrecy and/or transparency again."
You'll see me criticize a Public Editor when deserved. (I thought she and seemingly every writer at the website omitted important facts when discussing James Risen's subpoena in the Jeffrey Sterling criminal trial, and I said so. I want to see a Part 3 on Investigative Journalism, saying what NYT should be doing with its resources in that area, and I've said so.) But please, try to read first and ask accusatory questions second!
@ Paul:
You AGREE that it's perfectly reasonable to ask Ms. Sullivan why she hasn't lent her voice to exposing Obama Administration problems with openness and transparency?
So her blog post of Sept. 27, 2012 never happened? That was her first MONTH on the job. What about her Column on the 14th of the next month, or on the 10th of February OR March of 2013 ? Her Feb. 6, 2013 blog?
What about http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/14/leak-investigations-are... ? Is she complicit with Obama there? Or in her blog on Dec. 6, 2013?
Maybe she marked herself as a co-conspirator when she put out http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/23/on-combating-government... ? Or in her blog posts of June (or December) 9, 2013? Maybe her blog on May 21 of THIS year? Seems to have a certain seasonal rhythm, doesn't it? "Oh, the Solstice is less than a month away. Better co-conspire with the Obama Administration about secrecy and/or transparency again."
You'll see me criticize a Public Editor when deserved. (I thought she and seemingly every writer at the website omitted important facts when discussing James Risen's subpoena in the Jeffrey Sterling criminal trial, and I said so. I want to see a Part 3 on Investigative Journalism, saying what NYT should be doing with its resources in that area, and I've said so.) But please, try to read first and ask accusatory questions second!
2
Everywhere but New York and Washington, it's going to be an ugly period as professional, commercial journalism dies before new revenue models are developed. Growing incompetence and corruption in local politics, justice systems and commerce eventually will awaken a general public accustomed to free news. As I keep saying, you get the journalism you deserve, especially if you aren’t willing to pay for it. But few people realize that yet.
4
Investigative reporting is to newspapers what available frequent-flyer seats are to airlines: the absolute minimum necessary, and just to keep the pretense afloat.
6
" “People don’t know of corruption unless it’s disclosed to them,” said Martin Baron, the Globe’s editor during the church investigation, now editor of The Washington Post. "
But I subscribe to Jenny Holzer's sentiment "Abuse of power comes as no surprise." Essentially, investigative journalism comes in at the 11th hour because ethics, regulation, the justice system and common decency have failed.
But I subscribe to Jenny Holzer's sentiment "Abuse of power comes as no surprise." Essentially, investigative journalism comes in at the 11th hour because ethics, regulation, the justice system and common decency have failed.
6
Margret Sullivan, your column was my first choice this morning because it may be the most important contemporary issue of our time. It is very clear to me that vibrant and independent journalism is at risk. It is encouraging to hear you say that young journalists are enthusiastic about pursuing investigative journalism as a career. As a democratic society, we simply must find a way to support journalism free of political and corporate influence. Thanks for the emphasis, if we don't get this right, we may indeed lose our Democracy.
6
INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM Provides an invaluable support for democracy. Political debate must be based on accurate, vetted fact. Investigative journalism can assure that the boundary between reporting of facts and stating of opinion remains clear and strong. Otherwise we will continue sliding the slippery slope, ever faster, down into the ever growing Babel of political propaganda and muck. It is a disgrace that the US is still retrying the monkey trials of a century ago, fighting the preposterous battle against the Theory of Evolution, the defeat of which signals the establishment of a state religion. That folly alone can bring us down. Our rejection of science has weakened our national defense and made us a laughingstock. Just a single example can show how our society will continue unraveling without continued publication of empirically validated fact. The alternative is that we become the slaves of the commercial interests that wishes to fill our minds with sales pitches 24/7. Sorry to say, but that's the "free market" at work! Vetted facts interfere with maximum sales, profits and stock earnings. Democracy is the worst system of government, except for all the rest; it is founded on the principle of the Enlightenment that rational debate will solve many problems. Striving to understand facts, seeing beyond emotion and logical problem-solving are the three pillars of rational thinking and key ingredients of the democratic process. We must value facts again!
3
I couldn't disagree with the gist of this article more. For example, the rash of police encounters in the last year or two was uncovered by people with smart phones, not investigative reporters. Much of the job of investigative reporting can and will be very well covered by bottom up crowd sourcing.
4
That's not investigative reporting. That's seeing something and turning on your cell phone camera. Investigative reporting takes months and months of tireless work, talking to dozens of sources, going through records and patching together information into a coherent narrative. Go back and read the stories on nail salons or internet gambling. Can a crowd with cell phones do that?
2
Resources devoted to investigative reporting are clearly needed. But also needed is a mindset that values challenging the status quo, and local news sources are just as likely to be part of "the establishment" as not. The Boston Globe's investigation of the institutional cover-up of child abuse is the exception, not the rule. There is much institutional corruption in Massachusetts - in business, in higher education, at the private foundations, in charter schools, in sports, at the State House and Governor's office - that never gets covered. To the contrary, the Globe's first instincts seem to support the decision's of Boston's elites - especially in the business pages. The Globe's coming move into the financial district of Boston will only create a cozier relationship with those in power. This does not bode well for sustained investigative journalism.
5
Unfortunate equivalency in the description of Ms. Sullivan's column in the referring page online (SundayReview: The Opinion Pages): fact-based investigative journalism is nowhere near the same as "muckraking", "the action of searching out and publicizing scandalous information about famous people in an underhanded way" (New Oxford American Dictionary).
The sad fact is that the vast majority of the American public just does not care about hard hitting local factual reporting, except when there may be some salacious scandal involved or the target is someone they ideologically detest. In fact journalism at the most watched television station, Fox, has become a joke. Stories are manufactured to advance an idealogical bent. Their obsessive fixation on Benghazi proves that journalists today spend much of their time and effort creating stories that don't even exist. For their effort they are richly rewarded with ratings, while the on the beat journalist expending time unearthing truly disturbing facts is given short shrift.
I have been rereading, maybe for the tenth time in my life, H.L. Mencken's "Newspaper Days," his great memoir about his early years as a Baltimore newspaper reporter and editor. Here is his account of the Baltimore fire of 1904.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/04/the-stacks-h-l-mencken-...
We'll probably never again get an equal of Mencken. I value investigative reporting as much as the next man, but for me newspapers will always be first and foremost about the quality of the writing. Databases and spreadsheets matter to me much less.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/04/the-stacks-h-l-mencken-...
We'll probably never again get an equal of Mencken. I value investigative reporting as much as the next man, but for me newspapers will always be first and foremost about the quality of the writing. Databases and spreadsheets matter to me much less.
5
Great piece from the ever sharp Ms Sullivan.
However, largely out of touch with reality
(1) Investigative Journalism, is part of the 'News' business, which is headed for extinction, because of its never-to-distant trip to bankruptcy court.
If your outfit has a wealthy benefactor, great
If your outfit can work with virtually no infrastructure and and volunteers, fine
If people working there need to earn a living, and require the public to support them, you're in trouble
(2) besides lack of $$ support from the public, there is also the fact that the US is well educated "on paper", as a whole, we are too stupid to govern ourselves, and as-a-whole are too quick to look for boogeymen as the cause for our problems, such as the every handy "Washington" or anonymous "Politicians".
The masses to whom the mass/mainstream media must pander to don't want news, they want either: infotainment, or pseudo-news shaped and slanted to appeal to a specific mindset/mentality/ideology.
(3) Investigative Journalism that would be harmful to Politically or Economically Powerful entities faces an uphill climb more difficult than an attempt to summit on Everest. The Catholic Church scandal was actually an easy one because there wasn't a vast, monied interest that would be trying to keep it under wraps,
AND because it was PURE scandal, and because it involved the one thing that ALWAYS sells: sex
However, largely out of touch with reality
(1) Investigative Journalism, is part of the 'News' business, which is headed for extinction, because of its never-to-distant trip to bankruptcy court.
If your outfit has a wealthy benefactor, great
If your outfit can work with virtually no infrastructure and and volunteers, fine
If people working there need to earn a living, and require the public to support them, you're in trouble
(2) besides lack of $$ support from the public, there is also the fact that the US is well educated "on paper", as a whole, we are too stupid to govern ourselves, and as-a-whole are too quick to look for boogeymen as the cause for our problems, such as the every handy "Washington" or anonymous "Politicians".
The masses to whom the mass/mainstream media must pander to don't want news, they want either: infotainment, or pseudo-news shaped and slanted to appeal to a specific mindset/mentality/ideology.
(3) Investigative Journalism that would be harmful to Politically or Economically Powerful entities faces an uphill climb more difficult than an attempt to summit on Everest. The Catholic Church scandal was actually an easy one because there wasn't a vast, monied interest that would be trying to keep it under wraps,
AND because it was PURE scandal, and because it involved the one thing that ALWAYS sells: sex
Thank you Margaret Sullivan,
We really do need more investigative reporting.
We really do need more investigative reporting.
19
.
.
When Ms. Sullivan became Public Editor, I think she vowed to write about issues in the larger world of journalism. Her delves (?) into these broader concerns are very edifying. A few items she mentions, I consider vital to vigorous investigative journalism:
1. Partnerships: A great way to make money go further. They also often lead to prize-worthy investigations (see pulitzer.org or liu.edu). Local radio's WNYC partners with ProPublica on a series; Center for Public Integrity partners with news organizations; NPR and PBS often mention joint investigatory work. The superb Texas Tribune no longer has its place of honor on nytimes.com's main page, but NYT does partner with other investigators. http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/04/23/an-exclusive-arrangemen...
2. "Alternative" papers (I hate that term): We need them badly. Look at who and what was overseen by David Carr at the Washington City Paper years back. Check Wayne Barrett's 1990s investigations of Rudy Giuliani. Essential.
3. Attendance at public meetings: At zoning boards or town councils, mere presence of the media can make a difference. The reporting that ensues can make a LOT of difference. A local official whom local media don't expose (say, a mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, or an official of Hempstead Township, L.I.) CAN become a VP nominee or a Senator. That's bad.
Now, I hope for a prescriptive blog post: What local investigating SHOULD NYT be doing, Ms. Sullivan?
.
When Ms. Sullivan became Public Editor, I think she vowed to write about issues in the larger world of journalism. Her delves (?) into these broader concerns are very edifying. A few items she mentions, I consider vital to vigorous investigative journalism:
1. Partnerships: A great way to make money go further. They also often lead to prize-worthy investigations (see pulitzer.org or liu.edu). Local radio's WNYC partners with ProPublica on a series; Center for Public Integrity partners with news organizations; NPR and PBS often mention joint investigatory work. The superb Texas Tribune no longer has its place of honor on nytimes.com's main page, but NYT does partner with other investigators. http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/04/23/an-exclusive-arrangemen...
2. "Alternative" papers (I hate that term): We need them badly. Look at who and what was overseen by David Carr at the Washington City Paper years back. Check Wayne Barrett's 1990s investigations of Rudy Giuliani. Essential.
3. Attendance at public meetings: At zoning boards or town councils, mere presence of the media can make a difference. The reporting that ensues can make a LOT of difference. A local official whom local media don't expose (say, a mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, or an official of Hempstead Township, L.I.) CAN become a VP nominee or a Senator. That's bad.
Now, I hope for a prescriptive blog post: What local investigating SHOULD NYT be doing, Ms. Sullivan?
25
Trenchant analysis, @MTF. Thank you.
Locally, I live at the intersection of Queens and the Town of Hempstead.
When Sydney Schanberg was run the off the Times Op-Ed page by Abe Rosenthal for refusing to temper his criticism of Rosenthal's friend Ed Koch, he went to the now departed New York edition of Newsday, where he immediately crossed swords with the Town of Hempstead's grandees whose IDA was busily facilitating a land grab of Roosevelt Raceway by politically connected gonifs.
Today the Town of Oyster Bay guaranteed loans to a connected con essionaire who had vacationed with, and paid fr, vacations for the County Executive and his family. It's front page in Newsday, and appears trivially, if at all, in the Times. I seriously question the Times commitment to effective investigative journalism.
Locally, I live at the intersection of Queens and the Town of Hempstead.
When Sydney Schanberg was run the off the Times Op-Ed page by Abe Rosenthal for refusing to temper his criticism of Rosenthal's friend Ed Koch, he went to the now departed New York edition of Newsday, where he immediately crossed swords with the Town of Hempstead's grandees whose IDA was busily facilitating a land grab of Roosevelt Raceway by politically connected gonifs.
Today the Town of Oyster Bay guaranteed loans to a connected con essionaire who had vacationed with, and paid fr, vacations for the County Executive and his family. It's front page in Newsday, and appears trivially, if at all, in the Times. I seriously question the Times commitment to effective investigative journalism.
2
But for the free press where is the beacon of truth to be found in this murky society, where wolves molest in the dark without anyone to shine the light on them to help bring them to justice?
What had made America great and truly different was nothing less than this freedom of the press to speak the truth and expose matters to the light of day for scrutiny. However, this light has waned, as has our nation--and it is not clear which is the cause and which is the effect--has the light waned because our nation has dimmed, or has the lack of light caused the nation to diminish.
Me thinks it is the aura of transparency bandied about to shield the lack of scrutiny of things that go bump in the dark.