Investigative Journalism: The MI5 of Journalists (without the insane murders)

Investigative journalism is defined as a story where the information is obtained by a reporter, collected through months of planning and investigation about a single topic. The journalists goes to the news, the news never goes to the journalist.

Harry Evans, the former editor of The Sunday Times gathered a famous team comprising of some of the best journalists in the country and formed what is now known as, The Sunday Times insight team. The insight team would solely look at investigative stories, which in my opinion I think is the hardest form of journalism, as you have to find the story that relates to the public interest. I would think though that some of the stories that the insight team reported on are some of the most memorable and respected pieces of journalism in recent memory.

One of the most famous stories reported by the insight was the Thalidomide scandal. Thalidomide was introduced as a sedative drug for pregnant women in the late 1950's. The drug was sold in circulation from 1957 until 1961 when the drug was withdrawn due to the revelations that it caused birth defects in children. 

It was not until The Sunday Times exposed the true extent of the damage that had left 100,000 unborn babies dead in the womb and a further 10,000 were born with some form of disability. The Stillian, the British distributor of Thalidomide rejected the initial claims that their drug had cause these birth defects, this was until the revelations revealed by The Sunday Times who has received a document from an inside source revealing the true extent of the drug's problems. This would cause The Stillians to drop the libel case against The Sunday Times and proved a success for the Insight team as the story was in the public interest. 

Another famous investigative news team was the ITV investigative program, World in Action. World in Action would break the mould for current affairs on television and would take calculated risks to ensure that they got the story they needed to report, in order to have a major impact on the new events of the day. There are many famous examples of the work World in Action accomplished, but one of the main stories was brought up by Chris Horrie who was working for World in Action during the time of the Manchester meat fiasco. 

The Edwards family were the sole owners of Manchester United from the early 1960's until the purchase by The Glazer Family in 2005. In 1980 World in Action investigated into the Edwards meat packing company, who were responsible for many of the local school food contracts in and around the Greater Manchester area. They claimed that they had evidence that showed that the meat that had been supplied to the local primary schools in Rochdale was tainted and unfit for human consumption. They also found that The Edwards family had been bribing the local school officials in Greater Manchester in order to obtain the contract for school dinners in the local surrounding areas.

The program was broadcasted on 28th January 1980. Four weeks later Louis Edwards died of a massive heart attack. It is unknown if the stress brought upon by the broadcast contributed to the death of Edwards, however it left the director Paul Greengrass labelled with the infamous nickname "Killer Greengrass". Paul Greengrass career would not be affected though as he would go on to produce some of the most critically acclaimed films in the last 10 years, most notably United 93. It seems that he always has to be involved in something United, Don't you think?

World in Action most famous story is the case involving The Birmingham Six. On 21st November 1974 two pubs in Birmingham: The Mulberry Bush and The Tavern in the town was both bomb by IRA activists. The two bombs results in a total of 21 deaths and 162 others were injured. Initially six Irish people, living in and around the Birmingham area were arrested and charged with murder and conspiracy to cause explosions All were found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment. This led to the investigation by World in Action in 1986 where they felt that the men had been framed, as they were known criminals in the area, but only for low-level crimes.

After two unsuccessful appeal attempts, in 1991 the Birmingham six was cleared of all charges due to new evidence of police fabrication and suppression of evidence. There are member of the World in Action who to this day known members of the IRA and had a good idea of who had was responsible for the bombings, these claims though have never been proven or released.

This video shows the innocence of the Birmingham Six through the eyes of Irish folk band The Pogues who wrote a song expression their distain for the situation.

One way you can find out information though is through subterfuge. It is very important for investigative journalists as they can use gather secret information through hidden cameras in a technique known as a "camera in a bag job". The only key constraint is that you have to ensure that all the information you obtain is legit, accurate and is in the public interest (it always seems to creep up). One thing you most never do is something called trawling. This is when you leave a hidden camera behind with the aspect of catching someone off guard in order to obtain the truth. So it is safe to say never go to a job interview and decide to leave your bag behind if there is a camera inside. 

Now Investigative Journalism used to stand for pride and was respected by the journalistic community, This was until one man came in and decided to turn investigation journalism into a dirty word and his name is Rupert Murdoch. Murdoch since he took control of The Sun and The News of the World has turned investigative journalism into pure scandal, using questionable tactics in order to obtain the right story. 

There are two key stories I will use as examples for this the first is involving the former multiple time Snooker world champion, John Higgins. In May 2010, The News of the World ran a story trying to expose Higgins and his manager Pat Mooney of trying to bring the game of Snooker into disrepute by accepting bribes from alleged Ukrainian businessmen to influence the decision of matches. The sting was infact two News of the World journalists posing as the Ukrainian businessmen, who were offering Higgins and Mooney 300,000 Euros to throw four frames in four separate tournaments.

They had been serious doubts cast about the reliability and accuracy of the story. John Higgins was charged with match fixing, but was found not guilty on 8th September 2010. However he was charged with bringing the game of Snooker into disrepute by not informing the approach made by The News of the World. He was banned from the game for six months and is due to play his first tournament next week. 

The other case involved the infamous News of the World spoof, "The Fake Sheikh". Mazher Mahmood  has been used constantly by The News of the World posing as the fake sheikh trying to expose celebrities and criminals by gaining their trust and then exposing them. One of the most famous stories involving the fake shiekh was with the former Labour MP and political activist, George Galloway. On 20th March 2006 Galloway claimed that Mahmood and a accomplice had sought out to expose Galloway not only as being involved in illegal political funding, but also as having expressed anti-semitic views, including the denial of the Holocaust. 

George Galloway was infamous for having constant meetings with former Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussian and was throughout his political career was opposed to any form of war, most notably the Gulf War in 1991. The Daily Telegraph also tried to expose Galloway as an Arabic sympathiser and they were claming to of obtaining documents after the death of Saddam Hussain in 2005 that exposed Galloway as a potential traitor and spy.

These two stories are just two of the many stories that The News of the World and the Murdoch empire have tried to create in order to entertain the public through scandal and corruption. They have given investigative journalism a dirty name and will try to produce a story, even if it means having to lie. There is one man, who if he were alive today would be disgusted and ashamed by the means that journalists take to find a story and his name is Emile Zola. 

Emile Zola (1840-1902) is seen by many as the founder father of investigative journalism. After the French defeat to the Prussian (German) army in 1870, the French army were trying to find someone to blame and started to blame French-Jewish soldiers. They were  accused of selling French army military secrets to the Prussian army. Captain Alfred Dreyfus was accused of being the ringleader of the group. He was found guilty in a show trial and was sentenced to life on Devil's Island in French Guiana and placed in solitary confinement. 

Emile Zola believed that the French army had framed Dreyfus, however after being trialed and found guilty for criminal libel, Zola was exiled to live the rest of his life in Surrey. The trial was brought about due to the letter  Zola published, which possibly  is the most famous piece of investigative journalism in history.

J'accuse was an open letter written by Zola in the French newspaper L'Aurore. The letter was directed at the French premier, Felix Faure, accusing the French of the unlawful and wrong imprisonment of Dreyfus and brought upon the famous quote: "We name the guilty men". This was supported by the first usage of photojournalism, exposing the corruption of the French army.

Even though it would take 15 years after Emile Zola's death for Alfred Dreyfus to be exonerated, it proved that the famous words of Zola laided down the foundations for the careers and success of all investigative journalists, up to this very day. 

However when it comes to investigative journalism, there is one serious legal implication that can affect the standard needed to defend an investigative report, the evidence gap. In criminal law the evidence gap is harder to prove as the defendant has to be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt. This is not the same in civil court cases where they only requires lower levels of proof and can be  determined by the balance of probability. 

One of the most famous cases involving the evidence gap is the case of the Omagh bombings in August 1998. The bombings left 29 dead and over 220 people were injured in the worst terrorist act ever to take place in the turbulent history of Northern Ireland. There were claims that the police knew who were responsible for the bombings, but they did not have enough substantial proof to charge anyone with the bombings. It also would of been hard to select a jury due to the strong support for the IRA throughout Ireland during the late 20th century. 

The police in Omagh decided to go the BBC Panorama program in order to try and help establish who was truly involved in the bombings and to bring the people responsible to justice. Panorama revealed the information they had behind who could potentially be responsible for the bombings. However the broadcast would backfire as the IRA retaliated by trying to bomb BBC television centre on 4th March 2001.

Up to this day no one has owned up or has been convicted of the Omagh bombings and I personally think that the evidence gap is so huge in this case that the likelihood of anyone ever being convicted of the crime is very slim to say the least. It proves that even when it comes to investigative journalism, there are constraints that journalists may have to face
 

.

Media Law lecture 3: Defamation

Well it has been a while since I produced a media law blog, so tonight (and possibly tomorrow) you have the pleasure of sitting through a mini-marathon of media law. Tonight we will start with the word that strikes fear into the hearts of all journalists: Defamation.

Defamation is how you make someone appear to the outside world. This statement or accusation has to be beyond personally hurtful and potentially threaten their personal life, as well as their reputation within society. This defamatory statement will be made through riddle, malice or with the intent of lowering a person's reputation within social circles and personally affect their earning power within their profession or trade. 

This means, for example if I was to say that after playing Tennis with Andy Murray that I had a better serve than him, this could be seen as a defamatory statement as it could affect his standing within his profession. However, if I was to suggest that my ironing was better than my housemate's then this statement would not be seen as defamatory as this is not my housemate's profession and could not affect his earning power. 

Defamation can have the affect to financially ruin someone. Within whole news organisations there are certain celebrities who they will stay away from in any way where they could defame this person's reputation. This is known as "the chilling effect". "The chilling effect" can be caused when a newspaper print a story about a certain celebrity, who will then automatically sue the newspaper and try to cause major financial damages to that newspapers. The way this will be done is in a long drawn-out libel case where the legal costs for the newspaper could become astronomical. Therefore there is one key statement that every journalists needs to follow: NEVER WRITE ANYTHING DEFAMATORY ABOUT ELTON JOHN OR YOUR GETTING SUED!

It is not just publishing a story yourself where you can be caught for making a defamatory statement. Publishing through a third party can catch you out, even thought the person does not need to be named. This is because there are three things that need to be accomplished before a statement can be seen as defamatory:

1. The statement needs to be defamatory.

2. The statement needs to be published someone.

3. The person needs to be indentified.

One safeguard we have as journalists is justification. Justification is the sheer truth of the story, however you need to have the evidence or the facts required to back up your statement. The most high-profile case where justification has been used was in the case of the former Conservative minister, Jonathan Aitken. In 1995 The Guardian with help from the ITV programme World In Action exposed Aitken for meeting up with leading Saudi who has been paying for his lengthy stay at The Ritz in Paris.

The World in Action filmed named "Jonathan of Arabia" was broadcasted and let to a libel case being filed by Jonathan Aitken against World In Action. However the case was dropped in June 1997 due to the evidence brought upon by the joint Guardian/World in action venture exposing the potential arms deals Aitken had with his Saudi associate.

The substantial amount of evidence against Jonathan Aitken led to him being charged with perjury and perverting the courts of justice and was handed an 18-month prison sentence in 1999. This was due to the justification that The Guardian and World in Action had against Aitken as they had the evidence to support their statement.

Another key defence Journalists have against defamation is that lovely word that keep cropping up time and time again; Privilege. Qualified privilege gives used us the protection to write something that is damaging. However this needs to be done in the public interest in order to show that no malice has been intended. An prime example of this would be in the an murder case, showing that the justice in the United Kingdom is doing the right thing as it will gain positivity and the backing of the general public. As journalists we have to remember that these laws have been created by the government to protect us and to ensure that we do not end up in front of a judge in breach of contempt of court.

The Third and final defence that we have as journalists is fair comment. Fair comment will be honest comment which you believe as a journalist is based upon truthful facts. The law on fair comment is questionable, therefore it can be easily interpreted and you will lose and defence you have against you if their is any malice or intent in your statement to damage someone personally. According to McNae's the main requirement of the fair comment defence can be summarised as being that:

* The published comment must be honestly held opinion of the person making it (thought it may have been published by another party);


* The comment should be recognisable (i.e. to the reader/viewer/listener) as opinion i.e. it should not be worded to be perceived as factual allegation;


* The comment must be based upon provably true facts/privileged matter;


* Those facts/ that matter must be recognisably alluded to or state in what is published with the comment, unless widely known that this is not necessary;


* The subject commented on should be a matter of public interest


For the defence to succeed, all of there requirement must be met. However there is another way that fair comment can be hidden in the form of bone and antidote. This is when you will say something that may be seen as defamatory, but you will qualify and back your statement up later on in the article.

Defamation could end up potentially destroying your career and ruining your reputation as a journalist. The key to ensuring that you do not end up facing a libel case is to ensure that everything you write is based on facts, you have the evidence to back up those facts and that the article is written in the public interested without MALICE OR INTENT.

There is one other thing you can do and that is write an article without prejudice against someone and then the law will become blind to the article. However everyone loves a little bit of scandal when reading their morning newspaper. Just make sure that everything you write is the less and not a point blank lie.

Peter Cole on Newspapers

From reading the four articles from Peter Cole about the newspapers in the United Kingdom, I think I have grasped a new and profound understanding about the every changing climate facing newspapers in Britain. With our news agenda presentations starting over the next few weeks, I felt that it would be beneficial to look at not only all of the UK newspapers as a whole, but focus on my chosen newspaper, The Telegraph.

Cole profoundly accepts that The Telegraph has stuck to its morals and has not adopted the Berliner format that has seen many broadsheets newspapers reduce the size format of their newspaper to tabloid size. The Telegraph is seen by Cole as the newspapers for the conservative middle class, with the majority of it's readership coming from the over 55's. Is Cole suggesting that The Telegraph is directed at the older population within the United Kingdom, with only 20% of it's readership being aged 35 or under. 

Peter Cole explains how The Telegraph has improved on it's extensive news coverage and hows it continues to provide provocative comment and opinion. It also explains the extensive sports coverage that The Telegraph presents. Now being an avid sports fanatic, I was curious to see what the sports coverage was like in The Telegraph and I am one to say I was impressed. It provides extensive, factual stories and is opening my eyes to analysing sport in ways previously I would not of thought of. 

Peter Cole finishes his article by asking if The Telegraph can take their reader with them, or find news one with the increasingly moving towards digital hyperactivity. I think if the younger population took the time to read The Telegraph then possibly this would be the case, but I will not have them losing the daily Matt Cartoon, which has made me chuckle most of this evening. 

Now I will move on to the other parts of Peter Cole's views on newspapers.

Now we have all heard the views that the sales of newspapers are in decline and that eventually all news will be broadcast either on television or online. Well when 11.7 million people buy a newspaper on a weekday and with that figure rising to 12.5 million on a Sunday, this shows that they are quite a few people buying a newspaper in the UK on a daily basis. I can not think of a day where I have not brought a newspaper in the last six months at least because I need to know what is going on in the world.

What you do need to take into account is that these articles by Peter Cole were published 3 years ago and the amount of changes there have been to online subscriptions for newspapers has been significant with more newspapers starting to rely on their online content. The numbers of newspapers paper being brought every day may have increased or declined, however what has not changed is the daily hunger for news.

The next thing that caught my attention was Professor Cole's view that The Daily Mail's audience could be described as "middle England". Now he does not meant that everyone from Coventry to Stoke-On-Trent reads The Daily Mail, what Cole is trying to suggest is that The Daily Mail have set out their targeted audience and kept it constant over the past 100 years. This could be down to the fact that the ownership of The Mail has stayed the same with not interference from the government. With an ageing population and a Conservative Prime Minister to boost the readership's confidence and support, I think potentially it could be just a matter of time before The Daily Mail overtakes The Sun as the biggest selling newspapers in the United Kingdom.

Peter Cole would give a very controversial opinion of the tabloids as he claims that the reader of tabloids are "another country to readers of this and other serious newspapers". Well then I welcome you to the planet of The Sun (there is no chance of getting burnt thought), which is inhabited daily by nearly 2.5 million readers. The Sun dominated the tabloid market during the week, with The News of the World taking the reign of tabloid supremacy on Sunday's.

What you need to take into account is that the three highest selling newspapers in the country are all owned by the Murdoch owned news conglomerate: News Corporation. Even though sales in tabloid newspapers continue to decline, Rupert Murdoch still has the winning solution when it comes to selling newspapers, however as Cole suggest the "golden age" of newspaper has long past it's sell by date.

Tabloid newspapers have increasingly over the past decade latched themselves onto popular television show, such as Big Brother and The X Factor. They have become more dependant on writing stories on which X Factor contestants are sleeping with each other or Which Big Brother contestant has cheated on their girlfriend. This latching on effect has left tabloid newspapers going more down-market and at the same time taking it's readership with them.

Peter Cole's final article talked about the rise of the "serious" sunday newspapers. He refers to the four serious sunday newspapers: The Independent on Sunday,  The Sunday Times, The Observer and The Sunday Telegraph. Cole goes on to list the vast number of sections you will find in the sunday newspapers and the fact that there is so much variety, but will every reader devote their time to reading each section?

There will be some readers who will spend their Sunday scoping through and reading each section in details (my uncle for one), but their will be the majority that will focus on the sections that interest them and leave the rest unopened. As Cole suggests, do we truly know the cost of producing the unopened sections that we leave to the unopened section of our Sunday newspaper.

Cole goes onto express how each newspaper specific unique qualities will keep their niche audience interested and give them their much needed weekend reading material. Sunday newspapers are embedded into national culture, just like the traditional Sunday roast, the Sunday newspaper has become part of our daily routine. Even though Sales of Sunday broadsheets have fallen 13%, if you compare these figures to the market as a whole then you can see that The Sunday Broadsheet will continue to stay strong into the future. I for one will certainly contemplate swapping my Sunday dose of gossip and phone-tapping lies to the unique and well-written Sunday broadsheet.

Finally I can wake up on a Sunday not having to wonder which page the life and times of Katie Price will end up on.  Until next time readers I will leave you with one thought; Is the world really ready for the global broadcast domination that could soon be the Murdoch empire??

I think we will ponder on that situation very soon.