De Burgh in his book Investigative Journalism defines Investigative Journalism: as an act leading to “discover the truth and to identify lapses from it in whatever media may be available… distinct from apparently similar work done by police, lawyers, auditors and regulatory bodies in that it is not limited as to target, not legally founded and it is closely connected to publicity”. (Ref.2)
In the chapter about ‘globalising media agendas (The production of journalism)’ De Burgh also mentions that “because investigative journalism upholds people’s right to know about controversial issues and events through media exposure, it is central to debates about the public sphere.” (Ref.4)
In other words investigative journalism is closely related to ‘Gonzo’ journalism and performance journalism. Ordinary ‘news’ journalism is just telling the news which determined by the public agenda whereas investigative journalism is where journalists decide the agenda for themselves. Unlike De Burgh definition this could include subject matter on a lightweight or TV or even entertainment-led agenda. The classic ‘investigations’ however are on heavy subjects like for example Harry Evans and the Insight Team. A lot of the serious IJ these days is financial, fraud and money laundering for example. (Ref.2)
De Burgh also says that the principle of publicity coincides with the principle of investigative journalism, the principle of reason and truth to be more important than a personal profit intentions and therefore it is within for public good to make sure of exposing corruption and domination. (Ref.4) He also rightly notices that the “role of journalism in upholding democratic communication are increasingly taking place in a global concept.” (Ref.4) The features that define the globalisation process through “intensification of global interconnectness and media networks, financial systems, the expansion of transnational corporate activity (...) and so on bring up the question on “the nature of information and news and practices of investigative journalism at an international level”(Ref.4) as one of the arguments given is that transnational media business can lead to the “homogenisation of culture and may erode distinctive national and local cultures across the world through an ‘Americanisation’ of other cultures, particularly poorer and weaker Third World nations.” (Ref.4) However, what we should take into consideration is the fact that many broadcasting organisations in America have the materials that they use more available and convenient (cheaper) if obtainable from their own country or even England than other countries. The broadcasts are made out of specific country and so they will be covered in a particular way representing the culture they are in. I think it is safe to say that America or England have more financial potential to produce/print materials to the world that yes, can be about other countries or events happening elsewhere but it is understandable it will be shown to the world in a specific cultural style that is representing their own country. Whereas broadcasts from the Third World countries for example is probable not as frequent and not as reachable (sometimes restriction wise or financially not as advanced technically for example) to other countries and so majority of people is likely to watch programs from let’s say America than from any other poorer country.
MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE
The classic ‘off agenda’ for investigative journalism is miscarriage of justice – where innocent people go to jail and if it is the case that it is the criminal justice system that is corrupt then the last hope is the journalists which brings up the concept of the journalism fulfilling the role of The Fourth Estate. (Ref.2) The Fourth Estate also hits when there is a need for exposing a political manipulation (Watergate, “All the president’s men”- when the legendary power of the press is shown during the famous Watergate case which inspired generation of journalists. , to see more go to post “All the president’s men” Watergate exposed- power of the fourth estate)
The times that have been famously remembered that have exercised the legal system by re-examining miscarriages of justice are shown in a short film called: Reeling in the Years 1974-3, which shows two of the cases that I would like to talk about. The case of The Birmingham Six and the case of The Guilford Four:
(Ref.11)
Who Bombed Birmingham- Parts 1-11 (Ref.10)
Six men were arrested and sentenced to life imprisonment after the bombing in Birmingham in 1970s. IRA seemed to be the instigator but what the IRA insisted was that none of the sentenced six were their members. 21st November 1974 two of the public houses were bombed by the IRA, 21 people were killed and 162 injured, 6 people were convicted and had been in prison since 1974. A Granada film is a reconstruction of examining of their case by three journalists since 1985 giving the story of the Birmingham six.
See article on Miscarriages of Justice –Investigative Journalism (The Birmingham Six and The Guilford four. )
The journalists who were re-examining their case noticed inaccuracies to do with the times of interrogation by the police, methods and possible fault in the DNA testing; they started questioning the course of the investigation that had put the six men into prison. As we can see on the film, the men were brutally beaten and assaulted (the interrogation forced the Six to sign the confessions).They were also looking into the bombing routine. In part 6 Chris Muller, one of the journalists comes to the conclusion that there were four people responsible for the bombing, two makers and two planters and there is also an assumption about the guy in the van to be another. The film ‘Word In Action’ is made and broadcasted as a result of the investigative journalism of the re-examining of the case (possibility of an appeal? New evidence?). Chris finds the man who put the suitcase with the bomb under the table in the pub and shortly his ‘Error of judgment’ book was published. It didn’t get men out of the prison but it made the governing bodies start to question things again (Home office 1986). The police was under the eye of the home secretary. During the questioning by the police Chris kept his sources covered fulfilling his journalistic code of Conduct. Police says to him that they never said that the imprisoned Six were members of IRA. Eventually Chris found the police officer who decided to give the evidence about the mistreating in prison (shotguns). Further material is being broadcasted, possibility of the DNA judgment to be wrong and mistreating (looks of the prisoner’s faces). The case goes to court of Appeal after two programs had been done and book by Chris Muller published, 1987. Once the Appeal started The Birmingham Six got to study the schedule of the timings produced by the police of them being questioned, the case is investigated again (1987).
Part 10 is my favourite part of the film when Chris says to the ‘young bomber’: “They didn’t know where the bombs were, it was you! I challenge you to deny it! “. In the meantime, while being questioned in court, the police officer unfortunately denies all the allegation on violence used on the Birmingham Six and inaccuracies within the schedule of questioning them but the turning point is when the police woman who had previously given a false statement came back to the court and admitted how she had witnessed one of the defendants to had been physically assaulted, she had also heard what was said “This is what we do to the fucking murdering bustards”(Ref.10). Then the forensic scientist who examined the original samples of the defendants’ DNA is called as a witness and his statement implies that his judgment then could have been faulty but neither that or any other allegations put forward in the court of Appeal convinced the judge and in the last part of the film the appeal fails. Chris does not give in; he keeps exercising the justice system. It took until the 1991 for the court to admit that they had the wrong men The Birmingham Six spent 16 years in prison before found not guilty and was released.
Other case mentioned in the that has come to the history as miscarriage of Justice is the case of the Guildford four: “In the name of the father final scene” (Ref.12)
The Innocence Project (The Innocence Network UK) http://www.innocenceproject.org/
An idea of supporting wrongly convicted prisoners has started from one of the biggest miscarriages of justice in the British law. After cases like The Birmingham six, in seventies, and the Guildford four the Government created The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), formally established in 1st January 1997 to review cases with possible grounds to appeal. The Innocence Project steps in when mistakes are being made in the process to appeal, and when the process for rectifying them is flawed. The idea of The Innocence Project stands on side of wrongly imprisoned people giving them their last chance for appeal. (Read more on Innocence Project here).
EXPOSING CORRUPTION (PEOPLE’S TRIBUNES) is certainly another fascinating aspect of investigative journalism. The work and story of Veronica Guerin brilliantly shows the risks that come with this dangerous subject. See the post on: Journalists resources and my Irish inspiration – Veronica Guerin here
which also explores aspects of protection of sources which is one of the most difficult aspects to cover by being a journalists.
The NUJ's Code of Conduct has set out the main principles of British and Irish journalism since 1936. It is part of the rules and all journalists joining the union must sign that they will strive to adhere to it. As the European Court reached conclusion over the Goodwin v United kingdom case from 1996, it said that “protection of journalistic sources was one of the basic conditions for press freedom, as was reflected in the laws and professional codes of conduct in a number of contracting states and was affirmed in several international instruments on journalistic freedoms.” (Ref.1)
Another great example of a journalist who was not afraid of sacrifices to curry out journalistic duty of keeping the source of his information safe is Bill Goodwin, I talk about Bill’s case in detail in a separate post: Max Mosley, Catherine Zeta Jones and other cases - celebrities and privacy here.
Police Act 1997, Regulation of Investigatory Powers (RIP) Act 2000, the Terrorism Act 2000 and the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 and Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005... they all have now created more opportunities for lawful chance to ace the confidential information from citizens (including journalists). (Ref.1) And the European Court of Human Rights has stated that “an order to disclose the source of information cannot be compatible with the Article 10 of the Convention (freedom of expression) unless it is justified by overriding requirements in the public interest.” (Ref.1)
Protection of confidential sources of information is perhaps the key professional duty of the journalist. Refusal by journalists to reveal sources of confidential information can lead to prosecution for contempt of court if the journalist defies a court order to reveal those sources. (Ref.2)
“More recently the Attorney General threatened the deputy news editor of the Manchester Evening News, Steve Panter, with prosecution after he had refused to reveal protected sources who had helped him name suspects behind the 1996 IRA bombing of central Manchester. The case was dropped amid comment that it would have been politically unwise to turn Panter into an ‘instant martyr’”. (Ref.2)
Other aspect to be considered when talking about investigative journalism is the evidence gap - civil and criminal standards of proof. “The Daily Mail’s famous branding of five young men suspected of killing the London teenager Stephen Lawrence as “Murderers” is a highly illustrative example of the way in which journalism can operate in the ‘gap’ between the standards of proof in the civil and criminal law. After the collapse of the trial the Daily Mail printed front page pictures of the five youths beneath the block headline “MURDERERS” and the prominent strapline: “The Mail accuses these men of killing. If we are wrong, let them sue.” http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/02_04/paperDM2502_468x433.jpg
“Had the accused been facing trial the paper would have been guilty of the serious crime of contempt of court. But since it was now extremely unlikely that the accused would be facing trial in front of a jury in the near future the only legal risk was an action for libel. “ (Ref.2)
OMAGH BOMBING
“The BBC Panorama programme’s investigation into the Omagh bombing is another illustrative example of investigative journalists using persuasive and accurate, but legally inadmissible evidence, gathered by the police. The official investigation was largely based on then innovative methods of electronic tracking of patterns of mobile phone traffic. The evidence was highly persuasive, but open to challenge as circumstantial and co-incidental. ‘The programme’s reporter, John Ware, defended his methods and commented: “Getting people out of jail who have been wrongly convicted has always been recognised as a journalistic pursuit very much in the public interest. “ (Ref.2)
The investigative work has to be of course practiced with absence of malice and keeping the Common Law Qualified Privilege (REYNOLD’S DEFENCE AND COMMON LAW QP). Central to the Reynolds ten-point test is the idea of the public good and “the public interest”, and “how this is to be balanced against the right of the individuals under investigation to maintain their reputation, as well as their HRA right to privacy (36). If it can be shown that there is a high level of public interest in making the allegations, and that they are free from malice, then there is a strong QP right to publish them (and perhaps, indeed, even a duty to publish), even if the allegations turn out to untrue, or are incapable of proof (37).” (Ref.20
"INVESTIGATION OF CELEB PRIVATE LIFE – FAR LESS PROTECTED thus ‘investigative journalism’ which has as its focus purely private concerns such as the state of health or interesting lifestyles of public figures may not enjoy protection even if the methods used to obtain and check information conform to the ten point test and are otherwise of the highest quality .” Read more on examples of celebrities and their privacy cases: ‘Max Mosley, Catherine Zeta Jones and other cases - CELEBRITIES AND PRIVACY, (CATHERINE ZETA JONES CASE; MAX MOSLEY CASE; PRINCESS CAROLINE OF MONACO; NAOMI AND DAILY MIRROR DRUG REHAB CASE )
The law says that a person who has obtained information in confidence must not take unfair advantage of it and therefore someone who believes his/her confidence is to be breached can get an injunction preventing this. Such injunction will prevent all media from publishing it. The right to privacy is guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention of Human Rights. Section 12 of the Human Rights Act is intended to provide some protection against injunctions in matters involving freedom of expression but in absence of a cause of action for privacy, courts use breach of confidence actions to prevent ‘the unjustified publication of private information’. (Ref.9)
See the details on Breach of Confidence and secrecy – studying media law week 5 post in here.
SUBTERFUGE, usually, you must ALWAYS clearly identify that you are a reporter and that anything said to you COULD be published. You have no choice but to honour an ‘off record’ undertaking, because of the general obligation in the first place to protect sources and possibility of denial. TAPE RECORDERS and SECRET RECORDING are not allowed in radio/TV without specific prior permission from regulatory bodies or BBC editorial policy. If there’s no consent you can’t use the material at all as evidence, but you can quote it. (Ref.2)
HEAVY INVESTIGATIVE STUFF (electronic surveillance)
Some of the law are more relevant to photographer, journalists using video cameras, and TV crews than the print reporters (PPS Code of practice and Photo-journalism). (Ref.1) in Clause 3: Privacy, states that “everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private and family life, home, health and correspondence, including digital communications. Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any individual’s private life without consent.”(Ref.1) And that “it is unacceptable to photograph individuals in a private place without their consent.” (Ref.1)
Journalistic infiltration of far right, far left can be perfectly legitimate, so long on matters of public interest, and no entrapment (Infiltration (eg Gunther Wal lraff) of Bild – he’s the German Fake Shiek), The Secret Policeman (BBC)
In Clause 4 of the Privacy Act it is stated that “Journalists must not engage in intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit. They must not persist in questioning, telephoning, pursuing photographing individuals once asked to desist; not remain on their property when asked to leave and must not follow them. Editors must ensure these principles are observed by those working for them and take care not to use non-compliant material from other sources.” (Ref.1)
Electronic surveillance by private persons (and journalists) was made illegal by the 1997 Criminal Law Act, and the prohibition was strengthened by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA), 2000. There was concern at the time of the RIPA’s passage that it would constrain certain types of legitimate journalistic investigation. January 2007 saw the first prosecution of an investigate journalist using RIPA - News of the World investigative reporter Clive Goodman was sentenced to four months in jail after being discovered using an electronic ‘bug’ to record telephone calls made by the British royal princes. (Ref.2)
“Photographers, to avoid the arrest, need to know law on aggravated trespass, and the general powers police have to arrest those ‘obstructing’ them or the highway.”(Ref.1) Moreover, the law of trespasses forbids an unlawful entry to a land or property and if failed to do so the result can be “an injunction to prevent further trespasses, or damages.”(Ref.1)
Police have also “issued guidelines to their officers about the need to help the media, and about controversial ‘stop and search’ powers in section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000.” (Ref.1) It should be well known for journalists that publishing of a wrong photograph or juxtaposing it results in action for libel and so the editors have to be careful when “deciding whether to use ‘user-generated content’ (...)” (Ref.1) which is essentially the materials (pictures/footage) that is supplied by the members of the public because their “publication may breach someone’s privacy or copyright” (Ref.1) or even defame a someone.
Laws are clearly against terrorism and even the UK citizens now are legally obliged to communicate with the police about any information about actual terrorist activity anywhere in the world. Terrorism in UK is defined as “the use or threat of action where the threat is designed to influence the government, or an international government organisation, or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause. (Ref.13)
(Read more on terrorism and Counter Terrorism in the post: Terrorism and the effect of counter-terrorism law- studying McNae’s).
References:
Ref.1) McNae’s essential law for journalists (Twentieth Edition) Banks, D. Hanna, M. (2009)
Ref.2) Notes from the Media Law section on Winchester Journalism site for third year ba students (updates, year 3, BA Journalism 2010) week 7 http://journalism.winchester.ac.uk/?page=102
Ref.3) Media Law Lecture ba Journalism, year 3, week 7
Ref.4) Investigative Journalism, Context and Practice (2nd Edition) Hugo de Burgh (edited) Routledge, chapter 6
Ref.5) Emile Zola and J’Accuse – Dreyfus http://www.lawsch.uga.edu/academics/profiles/dwilkes_more/his9_jaccuse.html
Ref.6) My blog on Breach of Confidence and Secrecy (to Privacy) http://veronicafryd.blogspot.com/2010/11/breach-of-confidence-and-secrecy.html
Ref.7) My blog on terrorism and effects of counter terrorism: http://veronicafryd.blogspot.com/2010/12/terrorism-and-effect-of-counter_02.html
Ref.8) My blog on protecting the sources ( and my Irish inspiration: Veronica Guerin): http://veronicafryd.blogspot.com/2010/11/journalists-sources-and-my-irish.html
Ref.9) My blog on recent cases on Privacy: Max Mosley, Catherine Zeta Jones and other cases - celebrities and privacy http://veronicafryd.blogspot.com/2010/11/max-mosley-catherine-zeta-jones-and.html
Ref.10) Who bombed Birmingham?
Part1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbTqTbmMgkQ
Part2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNCGyaS3oPk&feature=related
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpPW2LjkYnE&feature=related
Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXMUuyEgbb8&NR=1
Part 6 (which is the following part after part 4 on youtube): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XstdO1PY5gQ&feature=related
Part 7: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gu9isCmV-rs&NR=1
Part 8: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YBqyYOjCcQ&NR=1
Part 9: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIO0lClllzI&NR=1
Part 10: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nY70XT_Muo&NR=1
Part 11: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WhtXQo5EC4&feature=related
Ref.11) Reeling in years 1974-3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_OFo7Crigs&NR=1&feature=fvwp
Ref.12) The Guilford Four, In the name of the father : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgUWn0gVpq0&feature=related
Ref.13) Terrorism and the effect of counter-terrorism law- studying McNae’s http://veronicafryd.blogspot.com/2010/12/terrorism-and-effect-of-counter_02.html
