I have taken the controversial step of mentioning the words “hacking,” “reporting” and “ethical” all in the same sentence. Now I’ll need the rest of this post to convince you I haven’t lost all vestiges of integrity.
The Rupert Murdoch phone hacking scandal has exposed a serious malignancy in the state of British journalism. While everyone can see the moral bankruptcy of hacking into cell phones to harvest celebrity gossip, the scandal has raised ethical issues far beyond the odious practices of reporters at the now-defunct News of the World.
Is it justified to pay a private investigator for information the journalist might otherwise not be able to get? How far can deception go in the pursuit of journalistic truth? Is any form of hacking to be tolerated in the information-gathering process?
The answers aren’t as simple as you might think. Journalistic ethics have evolved over the years, and what may have been tolerated at one time might be seen as excessive at another. Here, for instance, is some helpful advice from a 1976 American book on investigative journalism by James Dygert:
“Information about a person’s phone calls, credit records, airline reservations, or utility bills can be obtained by a telephone call requesting the information in a manner implying the caller is the person in question or someone acting on his behalf.”
The British now call that practice blagging, and it has actually been illegal in Britain since 1994, though an exception is made when it can be shown to be in the public interest. The public interest defence has yet to be tested in court. But many British journalists, whether they work for the red-top tabloids or the more austere broadsheets, comfort themselves by hiring private investigators to do the dicey work for them.
Which brings us back to the topic of hacking, and whether it can ever be an ethical tool of journalism. It turns out that it can.
A good example is the work being done by Paul Radu and the coalition of journalistic groups running the Investigative Dashboard website. The site aims to help journalists around the world track corporate crime and corruption, and to share information that reporters uncover.
While the world’s multi-millionaires and billionaires have become adept at setting up offshore tax havens and convoluted business structures to defeat transparency, these journalists have been trying to discover tools to break through the complex web.
One of the most important services provided by the site is a gateway to worldwide company data. This is good as far as it goes, but not every country provides corporate registrations in a user-friendly format. For an investigative journalist, it’s important to be able to plug in a name of an individual to see which companies they are connected to, or to run a name of a company and immediately see the people involved with the firm.
Radu, along with what he calls his “civic hacker friends,” have solved the problem by scraping various sites and reconstituting the data in more usable form. The best example of this is the corporate registry of Panama, a favorite country for hiding money and attempting to cloud the real identity behind corporate directors and owners. Hackers scraped the site of all its data and reposted it in a way that allows investigative journalists to perform meaningful searches.
This is all perfectly legal, since Panama doesn’t charge for any of its data on the site. While the government of Panama may not like having its site hacked and scraped, it’s hard to see what harm, if any, this practice causes. Radu sees this as the beginning of many different ways to use hacking.
“There are organizations of hackers we need to work with,” he said at the recent Global Investigative Journalism Conference. “We have to go to local hack spaces to explain what our work is about. Right now hackers build beautiful tools no one uses.”
There is an ever-increasing supply of data available online, but very few Canadian newsrooms are using web scraping to harvest the information in a meaningful way. That’s not surprising, since most journalists don’t have the time or inclination to learn the programming language needed to perform scraping or legal hacking.
There’s a potential ethical minefield here as well, though. Contracting-out a web scraping or hacking project could bring just as many headaches to the journalist as hiring a private investigator with no strict ethical boundaries can. The collaboration can be a useful one, but it has to be well-monitored and thoroughly understood by the journalist at all times.
If it is, then hacker-assisted reporting can be a useful addition to the journalistic toolbox.
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Exposing Dirty Media Tricks: "It helps that Murdoch is a bastard"
Nick Davies, the Guardian reporter who broke the phone hacking scandal in Britain, described a remarkably simple technique for doing good journalism as he addressed a room full of investigative reporters in Kiev yesterday.
He calls it the "hang on a minute" moment. It's the act of identifying and then doggedly investigating the part of a story that just doesn't seem to add up.
Davies had one of those moments when he thought about the phone hacking prosecution in 2007 of a reporter for News of the World. The newspaper's royal correspondent, along with a private investigator, were charged with hacking into the messages of royal family members. The Murdoch-owned newspaper said it was an isolated practice.
During the investigation, police had seized material from the investigator. Davies wanted to know exactly what that was, and whether it went beyond the case at hand. He asked to know how many cell phone pin-codes had been found in the private investigator's possession. After months of stonewalling, authorities finally provided an answer: 91.
That told Davies the hacking was widespread, and it was the start of dozens of stories revealing dirty tricks and unethical practices that were known at the highest levels of the Murdoch empire, he said.
There was another interesting technique Davies used in his investigation. He convinced a number of the victims to sue, in the hopes of getting further disclosures as a result of the court cases. That's exactly what happened, and it provided Davies with proof that senior editorial bosses were involved in the practice.
Davies is the author of Flat Earth News, in which he critiques modern journalism as "churnalism" that repeats public relations lies and generally does not serve readers' interests. He blames cutbacks and commercialism that have forced reporters to churn out far too many stories a day, leaving them no time to check for the truth, and making them prey to corporate and government spin doctors.
There is also a chapter in his book on the "dark arts" used by many British media institutions. These include phone hacking, adopting identities to misappropriate other people's personal information, conducting questionable sting operations, hunting through garbage bins, and generally doing whatever it takes to find a scoop.
Davies was unrestrained in his criticism of Rupert Murdoch as he addressed delegates to the Global Investigative Journalism Conference. "Murdoch's people lie for a living," he said. "You cannot become as rich and powerful as Rupert Murdoch unless you are greedy," and leave a trail of enemies in your wake. That provided plenty of disaffected people for Davies to interview. "It certainly helps that Murdoch is a bastard."
Murdoch's power extends right into the prime minister's office, and Davies noted that a series of administrations have been in thrall to the media baron's influence. "You can't govern Britain unless Rupert says you can."
Davies continues to get tips about other dirty tricks in the newspaper business. Last week, he broke a story about how the Murdoch empire was using a scam to inflate circulation figures for it's Wall Street Journal in Europe.
David Leigh, investigations editor at the Guardian, said Davies was instrumental in staying on the story and bringing it to its historic conclusion. "He has done something none of us thought was possible. He has shaken the media empire of Rupert Murdoch."
Davies said arguably the best skill a reporter can develop is mastering the office politics of bargaining for sufficient time to work on important stories. Time is crucial for good reporting, and avoiding the imperative of churning out volume over quality is crucial.
He calls it the "hang on a minute" moment. It's the act of identifying and then doggedly investigating the part of a story that just doesn't seem to add up.
Davies had one of those moments when he thought about the phone hacking prosecution in 2007 of a reporter for News of the World. The newspaper's royal correspondent, along with a private investigator, were charged with hacking into the messages of royal family members. The Murdoch-owned newspaper said it was an isolated practice.
During the investigation, police had seized material from the investigator. Davies wanted to know exactly what that was, and whether it went beyond the case at hand. He asked to know how many cell phone pin-codes had been found in the private investigator's possession. After months of stonewalling, authorities finally provided an answer: 91.
That told Davies the hacking was widespread, and it was the start of dozens of stories revealing dirty tricks and unethical practices that were known at the highest levels of the Murdoch empire, he said.
There was another interesting technique Davies used in his investigation. He convinced a number of the victims to sue, in the hopes of getting further disclosures as a result of the court cases. That's exactly what happened, and it provided Davies with proof that senior editorial bosses were involved in the practice.
Davies is the author of Flat Earth News, in which he critiques modern journalism as "churnalism" that repeats public relations lies and generally does not serve readers' interests. He blames cutbacks and commercialism that have forced reporters to churn out far too many stories a day, leaving them no time to check for the truth, and making them prey to corporate and government spin doctors.
There is also a chapter in his book on the "dark arts" used by many British media institutions. These include phone hacking, adopting identities to misappropriate other people's personal information, conducting questionable sting operations, hunting through garbage bins, and generally doing whatever it takes to find a scoop.
Davies was unrestrained in his criticism of Rupert Murdoch as he addressed delegates to the Global Investigative Journalism Conference. "Murdoch's people lie for a living," he said. "You cannot become as rich and powerful as Rupert Murdoch unless you are greedy," and leave a trail of enemies in your wake. That provided plenty of disaffected people for Davies to interview. "It certainly helps that Murdoch is a bastard."
Murdoch's power extends right into the prime minister's office, and Davies noted that a series of administrations have been in thrall to the media baron's influence. "You can't govern Britain unless Rupert says you can."
Davies continues to get tips about other dirty tricks in the newspaper business. Last week, he broke a story about how the Murdoch empire was using a scam to inflate circulation figures for it's Wall Street Journal in Europe.
David Leigh, investigations editor at the Guardian, said Davies was instrumental in staying on the story and bringing it to its historic conclusion. "He has done something none of us thought was possible. He has shaken the media empire of Rupert Murdoch."
Davies said arguably the best skill a reporter can develop is mastering the office politics of bargaining for sufficient time to work on important stories. Time is crucial for good reporting, and avoiding the imperative of churning out volume over quality is crucial.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Working with WikiLeaks -- the Rewards and the Frustrations
"I personally would not work with Julian Assange or WikiLeaks ever again."
That was the blunt judgment of David Leigh, investigations editor at The Guardian and one of the original mainstream media partners with the whistleblowing website. "He is impossible to work with. Hackers and journalists don't really mix."
Leigh was one of four journalists who described their techniques, strategies and frustrations in dealing with WikiLeaks during a fascinating panel discussion Thursday at the Global Investigative Journalism Conference in Kiev.
Journalists at the New York Times, the Guardian, Oslo's Aftenposten and Nigeria's Next newspaper were all involved in trying to analyze and verify thousands of documents dealing with U.S. diplomatic traffic and war reports. It forced all of them to develop new methods so they could make sense of such a massive dump of raw information.
"For an old man like me, having to deal with all that data was something new," said Leigh. The Guardian was handed four massive datasets, and one of the newspaper's first steps was to build a searchable database of the documents.
The newspaper quickly realized that there were many important revelations, but that not everything in the documents was true. Verifying, analyzing and weighing the evidence became the most important exercise. It turned out that some of the documents labelled Secret or designated as not for foreign eyes were less interesting than cables merely coded as confidential.
"The old skills of journalism I learned as a young man are still relevant," Leigh added, noting that follow-up freedom of information requests were important in verifying some of the stories.
The original five media partners working with WikiLeaks weren't unanimous in their assessment of the cables. Leigh said Bill Keller of the New York Times accused the Guardian of being too focused on stories dealing the war dead because of its left-wing leanings.
Leigh eventually fell out with Assange over disagreements about how the material was handled and Assange's objections to the Guardian's coverage of sexual assault allegations in Sweden, among other things.
Andy Lehren, one of the key New York Times journalists working on the material, said his initial assignment was to analyze the documents and look at a one-day story. The newspaper ultimately formed a large, secret team to make sense of the material, much of which constituted single-source stories and incomplete accounts, he said.
The Times brought in other datasets, such as a database of private security contractors, to compare to the WikiLeaks documents. In some cases, a single cable told an entire story, but in many other instances it was necessary to do considerably more analysis and reporting.
Lehren said the diplomatic cables continue to live on, providing more insight as new world developments take place. He still spends time sifting through and reading them regularly.
Jan Gunnar Furuly, with Oslo's Aftenposten, said his newspaper managed to get the full set of diplomatic cables without entering into a formal relationship with WikiLeaks. "Thanks to a genius guy in our IT department" the newspaper had a searchable database operating within short order, enabling journalists to search for relevant documents.
The newspaper then formed a coalition with about 75 European journalists so the material could spread as widely as possible. Aftenposten printed important stories that the major WikiLeaks partners hadn't yet touched.
Musikilu Mojeed, of Nigeria's Next newspaper, received exclusive access to the Nigeria-related WikiLeaks cables in February of this year. He said they adopted a cautious and skeptical approach, treating the cables not as gospel truth but as the basis for further research and interviews. Providing additional context was an important objective for each report.
Though the leaks led to several major scoops and revelations, Mojeed acknowledged that they blundered by reporting a claim from a cable that their president had voted four times in the 2007 election. This subsequently turned out to be false, and the newspaper had to cover its face in shame for the error, he said.
Leigh and Lehren both said pressure from the U.S. State department and other government officials did not force them to back down on printing any important stories. While both were careful to protect identities of sources named in the documents, they didn't suppress pertinent information only because it was embarrassing to some.
Leigh said the newspaper was asked not to publish anything on the situation in Yemen because of the sensitive state of affairs there, but he paid no heed. Mojeed added that some officials in the Nigerian administration wanted inside information on the contents of the documents, even offering to pay for it.
Despite the treasure-trove of information, and weeks of exclusive reports filed by all the newspapers, there were many strained relationships along the way. Leigh left no doubt about his disdain for Assange's tactics and ethics.
"He tried to double cross us over and over again."
More than 500 journalists are at the conference. Assange was invited, but did not attend.
That was the blunt judgment of David Leigh, investigations editor at The Guardian and one of the original mainstream media partners with the whistleblowing website. "He is impossible to work with. Hackers and journalists don't really mix."
Leigh was one of four journalists who described their techniques, strategies and frustrations in dealing with WikiLeaks during a fascinating panel discussion Thursday at the Global Investigative Journalism Conference in Kiev.
Journalists at the New York Times, the Guardian, Oslo's Aftenposten and Nigeria's Next newspaper were all involved in trying to analyze and verify thousands of documents dealing with U.S. diplomatic traffic and war reports. It forced all of them to develop new methods so they could make sense of such a massive dump of raw information.
"For an old man like me, having to deal with all that data was something new," said Leigh. The Guardian was handed four massive datasets, and one of the newspaper's first steps was to build a searchable database of the documents.
The newspaper quickly realized that there were many important revelations, but that not everything in the documents was true. Verifying, analyzing and weighing the evidence became the most important exercise. It turned out that some of the documents labelled Secret or designated as not for foreign eyes were less interesting than cables merely coded as confidential.
"The old skills of journalism I learned as a young man are still relevant," Leigh added, noting that follow-up freedom of information requests were important in verifying some of the stories.
The original five media partners working with WikiLeaks weren't unanimous in their assessment of the cables. Leigh said Bill Keller of the New York Times accused the Guardian of being too focused on stories dealing the war dead because of its left-wing leanings.
Leigh eventually fell out with Assange over disagreements about how the material was handled and Assange's objections to the Guardian's coverage of sexual assault allegations in Sweden, among other things.
Andy Lehren, one of the key New York Times journalists working on the material, said his initial assignment was to analyze the documents and look at a one-day story. The newspaper ultimately formed a large, secret team to make sense of the material, much of which constituted single-source stories and incomplete accounts, he said.
The Times brought in other datasets, such as a database of private security contractors, to compare to the WikiLeaks documents. In some cases, a single cable told an entire story, but in many other instances it was necessary to do considerably more analysis and reporting.
Lehren said the diplomatic cables continue to live on, providing more insight as new world developments take place. He still spends time sifting through and reading them regularly.
Jan Gunnar Furuly, with Oslo's Aftenposten, said his newspaper managed to get the full set of diplomatic cables without entering into a formal relationship with WikiLeaks. "Thanks to a genius guy in our IT department" the newspaper had a searchable database operating within short order, enabling journalists to search for relevant documents.
The newspaper then formed a coalition with about 75 European journalists so the material could spread as widely as possible. Aftenposten printed important stories that the major WikiLeaks partners hadn't yet touched.
Musikilu Mojeed, of Nigeria's Next newspaper, received exclusive access to the Nigeria-related WikiLeaks cables in February of this year. He said they adopted a cautious and skeptical approach, treating the cables not as gospel truth but as the basis for further research and interviews. Providing additional context was an important objective for each report.
Though the leaks led to several major scoops and revelations, Mojeed acknowledged that they blundered by reporting a claim from a cable that their president had voted four times in the 2007 election. This subsequently turned out to be false, and the newspaper had to cover its face in shame for the error, he said.
Leigh and Lehren both said pressure from the U.S. State department and other government officials did not force them to back down on printing any important stories. While both were careful to protect identities of sources named in the documents, they didn't suppress pertinent information only because it was embarrassing to some.
Leigh said the newspaper was asked not to publish anything on the situation in Yemen because of the sensitive state of affairs there, but he paid no heed. Mojeed added that some officials in the Nigerian administration wanted inside information on the contents of the documents, even offering to pay for it.
Despite the treasure-trove of information, and weeks of exclusive reports filed by all the newspapers, there were many strained relationships along the way. Leigh left no doubt about his disdain for Assange's tactics and ethics.
"He tried to double cross us over and over again."
More than 500 journalists are at the conference. Assange was invited, but did not attend.
Saturday, September 3, 2011
WikiLeaks Latest
If you are having trouble following the twists and turns of the latest WikiLeaks controversy, this article provides a good summary.
Paperback Edition Released
Oxford University Press has released the paperback edition of Behind the Headlines: A History of Investigate Journalism in Canada.http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif
Oxford University Press
Amazon
Oxford University Press
Amazon
Monday, May 23, 2011
From the Workshop to the Real World -- Teaching Investigative Journalism
Teaching students the fundamentals of investigative journalism is important, but putting those principles into practice is the real test of an educational program.
The journalism school at King’s College in Halifax gets full marks on this front. Over the years, students have produced some impressive examples of investigative work. This year the school was honoured with an award at the annual Canadian Association of Journalists conference.
Students looked into Nova Scotia’s gaming strategy and found that people continue to be driven to financial ruin and addiction by VLT’s, despite government promises to address the problem. The investigation found that half the VLT losses come from people with gambling problems. Since the machines were introduced to the province, problem gamblers have lost more than $1 billion.
Part of the series looked at the gambling profits garnered by First Nations communities. While gambling has brought economic gains for the Membertou and Millbrook First Nations, the stories showed that gambling addictions occur five times as often on reserves as in other communities.
The series was published by the school on its own website, and was also featured in The Coast under the title Terminal Disease.
King’s investigative workshop is guided by assistant professor Fred Vallance-Jones, who has extensive experience in both broadcast and print journalism. Other investigations he has overseen at King’s include an examination of a pulp mill’s toxic legacy, and a computer-assisted look at Halifax police response calls.
The success at creating investigative projects may be one reason King’s College, in conjunction with Dalhousie University, is offering a new Master’s program in journalism that allows for a specialization in investigative work. The 10-month program allows students to choose either an investigative reporting stream, or a “new ventures” stream that will focus on freelancing or new journalistic enterprises.
The investigative stream provides in-depth instruction in public records analysis. It also focuses on data visualization, geocoding and specialized interviewing. A substantial part of the program involves a professional investigative reporting project.
Recognizing the need for students to be multi-skilled, both streams will include training in multimedia reporting skills.
For anyone interested in the future of investigative journalism in Canada, it’s exciting to see a university offer a specialized course of instruction in the field. And it’s an added bonus that the university already has a track record of guiding students to create meaningful investigative work.
The journalism school at King’s College in Halifax gets full marks on this front. Over the years, students have produced some impressive examples of investigative work. This year the school was honoured with an award at the annual Canadian Association of Journalists conference.
Students looked into Nova Scotia’s gaming strategy and found that people continue to be driven to financial ruin and addiction by VLT’s, despite government promises to address the problem. The investigation found that half the VLT losses come from people with gambling problems. Since the machines were introduced to the province, problem gamblers have lost more than $1 billion.
Part of the series looked at the gambling profits garnered by First Nations communities. While gambling has brought economic gains for the Membertou and Millbrook First Nations, the stories showed that gambling addictions occur five times as often on reserves as in other communities.
The series was published by the school on its own website, and was also featured in The Coast under the title Terminal Disease.
King’s investigative workshop is guided by assistant professor Fred Vallance-Jones, who has extensive experience in both broadcast and print journalism. Other investigations he has overseen at King’s include an examination of a pulp mill’s toxic legacy, and a computer-assisted look at Halifax police response calls.
The success at creating investigative projects may be one reason King’s College, in conjunction with Dalhousie University, is offering a new Master’s program in journalism that allows for a specialization in investigative work. The 10-month program allows students to choose either an investigative reporting stream, or a “new ventures” stream that will focus on freelancing or new journalistic enterprises.
The investigative stream provides in-depth instruction in public records analysis. It also focuses on data visualization, geocoding and specialized interviewing. A substantial part of the program involves a professional investigative reporting project.
Recognizing the need for students to be multi-skilled, both streams will include training in multimedia reporting skills.
For anyone interested in the future of investigative journalism in Canada, it’s exciting to see a university offer a specialized course of instruction in the field. And it’s an added bonus that the university already has a track record of guiding students to create meaningful investigative work.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
When Investigative Journalism Turns into Breaking News
Long-form investigative journalism faces the problem frequently: An investigation encourages one of the players in the story to go public, forcing the media outlet to break some or all of its story before the scheduled rollout date.
It happened with the CBC earlier this year, when a long-term investigation by the fifth estate on the Vancouver Olympics had to be rushed to air when elements of the story were leaked to competitors. And more recently, it occurred when the Aboriginal People’s Television Network investigated the affairs of Bruce Carson, a former aide to the prime minister.
The network was looking into the alleged lobbying efforts of Carson. Following APTN’s questions to the prime minister’s office, Harper’s staff sent letters to the RCMP, the ethics commissioner and the lobbying commissioner asking them all to investigate the allegations.
The story has produced some lurid details, with photos of Carson shown alongside those of his girlfriend, a former escort who may stand to profit from his lobbying efforts. It is alleged that promises of privileged access were made in relation to a water filtration project on first nations communities.
The PMO’s actions meant APTN had to scramble to release a version of its story immediately. More details have since emerged, and APTN promises the full details in the coming week.
The possibility of an unscheduled release of details relating to an investigation is troublesome for investigative journalists. It means months of digging can be scooped by competitors in a matter of minutes, or spun by the targets of the investigation.
As a result, journalists often strategize carefully about the best timing to use to approach different players in an investigation. More than once, for instance, Health Canada has deliberately foiled journalistic investigations by changing its regulations or releasing information upon hearing that a news outlet is looking into a specific matter under its purview.
All this leads to the question: when should the target of an investigation, or a key player, be approached for a comment?
There is no precise answer, as everything depends on the specific circumstances of the story. Responsible journalism demands that all affected parties be given the opportunity to respond to allegations. And there are elements of proportionality to consider. A six-month investigation by journalists who deman a response from a party in less than 24 hours may be problematic.
But some public relations agencies and advisors can manipulate the situation. Sometimes, without ever refusing an interview, they constantly delay and obstruct the process, all the while trying to gather more information and figure out how to maneuver. Other times they demand specific questions in advance, a request that many news organizations will not honour. It’s also not uncommon for detailed written statements to be delivered to the news organization within hours of publication or broadcast, throwing the journalists into a panic over how best to incorporate the comments at the last moment.
The best practice is for journalists to be fully prepared to publish their findings as soon as they approach key players for comments. In today’s world, a single Tweet can start the ball rolling on a media frenzy. As APTN discovered, a good story can and should trigger immediate action, even if the action comes before the story itself is released.
It happened with the CBC earlier this year, when a long-term investigation by the fifth estate on the Vancouver Olympics had to be rushed to air when elements of the story were leaked to competitors. And more recently, it occurred when the Aboriginal People’s Television Network investigated the affairs of Bruce Carson, a former aide to the prime minister.
The network was looking into the alleged lobbying efforts of Carson. Following APTN’s questions to the prime minister’s office, Harper’s staff sent letters to the RCMP, the ethics commissioner and the lobbying commissioner asking them all to investigate the allegations.
The story has produced some lurid details, with photos of Carson shown alongside those of his girlfriend, a former escort who may stand to profit from his lobbying efforts. It is alleged that promises of privileged access were made in relation to a water filtration project on first nations communities.
The PMO’s actions meant APTN had to scramble to release a version of its story immediately. More details have since emerged, and APTN promises the full details in the coming week.
The possibility of an unscheduled release of details relating to an investigation is troublesome for investigative journalists. It means months of digging can be scooped by competitors in a matter of minutes, or spun by the targets of the investigation.
As a result, journalists often strategize carefully about the best timing to use to approach different players in an investigation. More than once, for instance, Health Canada has deliberately foiled journalistic investigations by changing its regulations or releasing information upon hearing that a news outlet is looking into a specific matter under its purview.
All this leads to the question: when should the target of an investigation, or a key player, be approached for a comment?
There is no precise answer, as everything depends on the specific circumstances of the story. Responsible journalism demands that all affected parties be given the opportunity to respond to allegations. And there are elements of proportionality to consider. A six-month investigation by journalists who deman a response from a party in less than 24 hours may be problematic.
But some public relations agencies and advisors can manipulate the situation. Sometimes, without ever refusing an interview, they constantly delay and obstruct the process, all the while trying to gather more information and figure out how to maneuver. Other times they demand specific questions in advance, a request that many news organizations will not honour. It’s also not uncommon for detailed written statements to be delivered to the news organization within hours of publication or broadcast, throwing the journalists into a panic over how best to incorporate the comments at the last moment.
The best practice is for journalists to be fully prepared to publish their findings as soon as they approach key players for comments. In today’s world, a single Tweet can start the ball rolling on a media frenzy. As APTN discovered, a good story can and should trigger immediate action, even if the action comes before the story itself is released.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Secrets, Strategies and Whistleblowers
Earlier this month I took part in a discussion at the University of Manitoba about the ethics of Wikileaks. During the debate, I thought it was important to outline how investigative reports – particularly those that involve whistleblower allegations – are often greeted by the targets of the investigation.
The first reaction is often silence. By refusing to comment, some people hope the report won’t be picked up by other media outlets and will just fade away. Luckily for many targets of investigations, media rivalries often work in their favour. If one newspaper or broadcast outlet gets a scoop, others may try to ignore it. And if no one seems interested, the original media outlet may get discouraged. The story ends up having no legs, and a potentially important investigation may get curtailed.
A second strategy is often a studied indifference. The investigation is labelled old news, or it is disparaged as not really revealing anything of consequence. The strategy once again is to convince other media outlets, and news consumers, that there is nothing to the report. If it is in the power of the target to create a distraction, or a competing announcement, this can also serve to divert attention from the report.
Strategy Number Three involves attacking the messenger. The whistleblower who provided the media with information is labelled evil, corrupt, perhaps even mentally ill. As for the media outlet itself, it is called a dupe of the whistleblower, perhaps part of a conspiracy to smear the targets of the investigation. This strategy can get nasty. Whistleblowers can be slapped with lawsuits, and reporters can be thrown in jail for refusing to reveal sources, or for inducing sources to smear their former employers. If you have seen the movie The Insider, about allegations against Big Tobacco, you know the strategy well.
Of course in some countries, it can get more extreme. Journalists can get shot, even murdered. It has happened around the world. Call it Strategy Number Four, the ultimate one.
So in many ways, what has happened with the Wikileaks story is not altogether surprising, though the scope of the revelations and the ferocity of the reactions verge on the unprecedented.
Wikileaks has been around since 2006, but despite many fascinating early revelations, Strategy Number One was in place. It was largely ignored, and many people never heard of the website until 2010, when the disclosures really started ramping up.
Then came the revelations last fall about the Iraq war, showing evidence of 15,000 previously unreported civilian deaths in Iraq. The U.S. and Britain were saying up to this point that there were no official counts of casualties in Iraq. The documents instead showed meticulous records and an exact toll of 66,081 non-combatant deaths over a five-year period.
So Strategy Number 2 kicked in. A Pentagon spokesman called the release of these documents “mundane”, and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair insisted that they contained nothing new.
But that couldn’t hold up for long, especially when the UN chief investigator on torture said: "In relation to what now has been revealed by WikiLeaks, it confirms what we have heard about the brutality and the torture that were systematically practiced by Iraqi security forces and irregular militias.” And another top United Nations official called on the Obama administration to investigate the role of U.S. forces in human rights abuses in Iraq.
Things have escalated exponentially since then, of course. Arguably, Strategy Nunber 3 is in place. Now there’s talk of charging Assange under the Espionage Act in the US, and there have even been a few calls, joking and otherwise, for his assassination.
It is useful to compare the entire Wikileaks saga with the Pentagon Papers, as it reveals a number of similarities in strategy.
Daniel Ellsberg was a US establishment insider. He worked for the Pentagon, then the State Department, and then for a think tank analyzing the Vietnam War. He decided to leak an exhaustive internal analysis of that war. His aim was to bring an end to the war.
This was in 1971, and Richard Nixon was president. Interestingly, Nixon at first wanted to take the indifferent approach. The revelations went up to 1967, and mostly concerned Democratic presidents. But the US was so fearful of a culture of continued leaks that it chose to ramp up the strategy to the next level: smears and threats.
The most colourful part of the strategy, of course, was the creation of a secret unit called The Plumbers, a covert team that broke into Ellsberg’s psychiatrist’s office in an attempt to get files that would discredit him. This is where G. Gordon Liddy, E. Howard Hunt and other shadowy characters made their first appearance. All of this was subsequently revealed, and became part and parcel of the scandal that eventually forced Nixon from office. But in the meantime the attack on Ellsberg continued.
Ellsberg provided the papers to the New York Times, which consulted its lawyers, who advised not to publish them. But the newspaper decided to proceed, amid risks of injunctions, lawsuits and threats of worse. Ellsberg was threatened with prosecution under the 1917 Espionage Act, the same law Assange is being targeted for. He was eventually charged with theft and being in possession of secret documents. But the dirty tricks campaign, and other tainted evidence, led to the dismissal of all charges. On the question of whether the New York Times and other newspapers had the right to publish the material, the Supreme Court ultimately sided with the press. Here is what Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black said:
“Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people, and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell. … The government’s power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people.”
It’s interesting that many people who find fault with Assange have said they support the publication of the Pentagon Papers. At the time, though, Ellsberg and his media partners faced many of the same strategies and attacks that Wikileaks is now enduring.
How should investigative journalists assess the Wikileaks phenomenon? We can debate the sincerity or appropriateness of Julian Assange’s motivations, just as we can examine every aspect of his private life, down to the choices he makes or alleged improprieties he may commit in individual sexual encounters. It seems clear, though, that it is far more important to assess the value of the information he has helped to publicize. Does it help us get any closer to the truth of important issues? Does it assist us in holding powerful institutions to account? Those are the issues people in the U.S., Britain, Tunisia, Egypt and many other countries are grappling with today.
The first reaction is often silence. By refusing to comment, some people hope the report won’t be picked up by other media outlets and will just fade away. Luckily for many targets of investigations, media rivalries often work in their favour. If one newspaper or broadcast outlet gets a scoop, others may try to ignore it. And if no one seems interested, the original media outlet may get discouraged. The story ends up having no legs, and a potentially important investigation may get curtailed.
A second strategy is often a studied indifference. The investigation is labelled old news, or it is disparaged as not really revealing anything of consequence. The strategy once again is to convince other media outlets, and news consumers, that there is nothing to the report. If it is in the power of the target to create a distraction, or a competing announcement, this can also serve to divert attention from the report.
Strategy Number Three involves attacking the messenger. The whistleblower who provided the media with information is labelled evil, corrupt, perhaps even mentally ill. As for the media outlet itself, it is called a dupe of the whistleblower, perhaps part of a conspiracy to smear the targets of the investigation. This strategy can get nasty. Whistleblowers can be slapped with lawsuits, and reporters can be thrown in jail for refusing to reveal sources, or for inducing sources to smear their former employers. If you have seen the movie The Insider, about allegations against Big Tobacco, you know the strategy well.
Of course in some countries, it can get more extreme. Journalists can get shot, even murdered. It has happened around the world. Call it Strategy Number Four, the ultimate one.
So in many ways, what has happened with the Wikileaks story is not altogether surprising, though the scope of the revelations and the ferocity of the reactions verge on the unprecedented.
Wikileaks has been around since 2006, but despite many fascinating early revelations, Strategy Number One was in place. It was largely ignored, and many people never heard of the website until 2010, when the disclosures really started ramping up.
Then came the revelations last fall about the Iraq war, showing evidence of 15,000 previously unreported civilian deaths in Iraq. The U.S. and Britain were saying up to this point that there were no official counts of casualties in Iraq. The documents instead showed meticulous records and an exact toll of 66,081 non-combatant deaths over a five-year period.
So Strategy Number 2 kicked in. A Pentagon spokesman called the release of these documents “mundane”, and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair insisted that they contained nothing new.
But that couldn’t hold up for long, especially when the UN chief investigator on torture said: "In relation to what now has been revealed by WikiLeaks, it confirms what we have heard about the brutality and the torture that were systematically practiced by Iraqi security forces and irregular militias.” And another top United Nations official called on the Obama administration to investigate the role of U.S. forces in human rights abuses in Iraq.
Things have escalated exponentially since then, of course. Arguably, Strategy Nunber 3 is in place. Now there’s talk of charging Assange under the Espionage Act in the US, and there have even been a few calls, joking and otherwise, for his assassination.
It is useful to compare the entire Wikileaks saga with the Pentagon Papers, as it reveals a number of similarities in strategy.
Daniel Ellsberg was a US establishment insider. He worked for the Pentagon, then the State Department, and then for a think tank analyzing the Vietnam War. He decided to leak an exhaustive internal analysis of that war. His aim was to bring an end to the war.
This was in 1971, and Richard Nixon was president. Interestingly, Nixon at first wanted to take the indifferent approach. The revelations went up to 1967, and mostly concerned Democratic presidents. But the US was so fearful of a culture of continued leaks that it chose to ramp up the strategy to the next level: smears and threats.
The most colourful part of the strategy, of course, was the creation of a secret unit called The Plumbers, a covert team that broke into Ellsberg’s psychiatrist’s office in an attempt to get files that would discredit him. This is where G. Gordon Liddy, E. Howard Hunt and other shadowy characters made their first appearance. All of this was subsequently revealed, and became part and parcel of the scandal that eventually forced Nixon from office. But in the meantime the attack on Ellsberg continued.
Ellsberg provided the papers to the New York Times, which consulted its lawyers, who advised not to publish them. But the newspaper decided to proceed, amid risks of injunctions, lawsuits and threats of worse. Ellsberg was threatened with prosecution under the 1917 Espionage Act, the same law Assange is being targeted for. He was eventually charged with theft and being in possession of secret documents. But the dirty tricks campaign, and other tainted evidence, led to the dismissal of all charges. On the question of whether the New York Times and other newspapers had the right to publish the material, the Supreme Court ultimately sided with the press. Here is what Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black said:
“Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people, and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell. … The government’s power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people.”
It’s interesting that many people who find fault with Assange have said they support the publication of the Pentagon Papers. At the time, though, Ellsberg and his media partners faced many of the same strategies and attacks that Wikileaks is now enduring.
How should investigative journalists assess the Wikileaks phenomenon? We can debate the sincerity or appropriateness of Julian Assange’s motivations, just as we can examine every aspect of his private life, down to the choices he makes or alleged improprieties he may commit in individual sexual encounters. It seems clear, though, that it is far more important to assess the value of the information he has helped to publicize. Does it help us get any closer to the truth of important issues? Does it assist us in holding powerful institutions to account? Those are the issues people in the U.S., Britain, Tunisia, Egypt and many other countries are grappling with today.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Media Law for Canadian Journalists
Dean Jobb's newly-revised book on media law is an invaluable tool for anyone practising journalism in Canada.
Jobb is an associate professor at King's College School of Journalism in Halifax. He has specialized in covering and studying the courts and legal issues. The second edition of Media Law for Canadian Journalists covers all the essential legal topics journalists need to know.
Keeping up with all the new decisions and nuances of media law can be a full-time job. But the author carefully tracks the developments and puts them into context for reporters. From using Twitter inside a courtroom to avoiding defamatory remarks on Facebook, Jobb also provides useful advice on handling social media tools in a legally responsible manner.
Because Jobb has extensive reporting experience, he has a good appreciation of the often blurry boundaries between ethics, law and good taste. His book has a separate chapter on ethics and professional responsibility, and he isn't afraid to offer his opinion on the propriety of different types of reporting.
This is an important book, and whether you're a professional journalist or an occasional blogger, you won't regret getting a copy. It is published by Emond Montgomery Publications.
Jobb is an associate professor at King's College School of Journalism in Halifax. He has specialized in covering and studying the courts and legal issues. The second edition of Media Law for Canadian Journalists covers all the essential legal topics journalists need to know.
Keeping up with all the new decisions and nuances of media law can be a full-time job. But the author carefully tracks the developments and puts them into context for reporters. From using Twitter inside a courtroom to avoiding defamatory remarks on Facebook, Jobb also provides useful advice on handling social media tools in a legally responsible manner.
Because Jobb has extensive reporting experience, he has a good appreciation of the often blurry boundaries between ethics, law and good taste. His book has a separate chapter on ethics and professional responsibility, and he isn't afraid to offer his opinion on the propriety of different types of reporting.
This is an important book, and whether you're a professional journalist or an occasional blogger, you won't regret getting a copy. It is published by Emond Montgomery Publications.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Exposing International Tax Havens
The CBC and the Globe and Mail have been following the case of tax havens in Switzerland that have attracted Canadian investors. There is an interesting complementary investigation that looks at how some people use the desire of international investors to hide assets to their own advantage.
Reporters with the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, which covers the Balkans and Eastern Europe, looked at schemes that stretched from
Eastern Europe to New Zealand, Cyprus, Seychelles islands and to the US state of Delaware.
Part of the investigation used undercover work that eventually led to the arrest of a man alleged to be involved in a money-laundering scheme. The project exposed schemes that helped people hide company ownership, avoid taxes, and skirt monopoly laws.
The full series is on their website.
Reporters with the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, which covers the Balkans and Eastern Europe, looked at schemes that stretched from
Eastern Europe to New Zealand, Cyprus, Seychelles islands and to the US state of Delaware.
Part of the investigation used undercover work that eventually led to the arrest of a man alleged to be involved in a money-laundering scheme. The project exposed schemes that helped people hide company ownership, avoid taxes, and skirt monopoly laws.
The full series is on their website.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Exoneration 101
Investigative journalism, almost by definition, requires a significant commitment of time and resources – commodities that are in short supply at most news organizations.
That’s why it makes perfectly good sense to harness the talents of students to help with the research work that any good investigative project entails. Properly trained and mentored, a team of students can provide the research muscle for any ambitious project.
This lesson has been grasped well at the UBC Graduate School of Journalism, where a team of students and faculty won an Emmy award this year for a documentary about electronic waste. And a recent initiative by the school to partner with law students could play a significant role in uncovering new cases of wrongful convictions in Canada.
Earlier this month, the school announced a partnership with UBC’s law faculty to investigate miscarriages of justice in BC. Since 2007, the law faculty has run an Innocence Project that has been looking into more than 20 murder cases. The joint-venture is the first of its kind in Canada.
UBC’s Innocence Project is one of three across the country. The others are at Osgoode Hall and McGill, and all involve law faculties. Merging the talents of law and journalism students seems like a no-brainer, but no one has done it before in Canada. So it is encouraging to see such a partnership come to fruition.
Tamara Levy, a law professor and director of the UBC project, says on the university’s website that the journalism students “bring unique skills that will help us shed some light on our investigations and move them forward more quickly.” Mary Lynn Young, director of the journalism school, sees it as “a great opportunity for students to learn investigative journalism skills” in collaboration with the law faculty.
Students have played a pivotal role in overturning convictions in the U.S. for years. Most famously, the Medill journalism school in Chicago developed evidence that has freed 11 innocent men, five of them from death row, since 1996. Former Illinois governor George Ryan credited the school with helping provide the impetus for his moratorium on the death penalty in 2000.
One of the most memorable and gratifying projects in my own career involved an investigation into the wrongful conviction of David Milgaard. Through news stories, documentaries and eventually a book, we were able to document an extraordinary case of a man who spent 23 years in jail for a crime he didn’t commit. Seeing how that work impacted both the justice system, and one man’s eventual freedom, was humbling.
What better training could there be for journalism students than to be involved in a similar pursuit? To get some idea of how life-changing those experiences can be, you just have to peruse the stories of Medill alumni and read their descriptions of watching an innocent man walk free – in part, because of their work.
There will be no shortage of cases in Canada to investigate. It’s estimated that as many as five per cent of convictions could be faulty. It is only the fortunate few who link up with a lawyer, family member or journalist who are persistent enough to spend the time and resources to investigate their case.
The UBC project says it hopes to put forward its first case for ministerial review by the end of the year. With the new potent partnership of law and journalism students, there is little doubt that we will soon be learning about new cases of wrongful convictions from British Columbia.
That’s why it makes perfectly good sense to harness the talents of students to help with the research work that any good investigative project entails. Properly trained and mentored, a team of students can provide the research muscle for any ambitious project.
This lesson has been grasped well at the UBC Graduate School of Journalism, where a team of students and faculty won an Emmy award this year for a documentary about electronic waste. And a recent initiative by the school to partner with law students could play a significant role in uncovering new cases of wrongful convictions in Canada.
Earlier this month, the school announced a partnership with UBC’s law faculty to investigate miscarriages of justice in BC. Since 2007, the law faculty has run an Innocence Project that has been looking into more than 20 murder cases. The joint-venture is the first of its kind in Canada.
UBC’s Innocence Project is one of three across the country. The others are at Osgoode Hall and McGill, and all involve law faculties. Merging the talents of law and journalism students seems like a no-brainer, but no one has done it before in Canada. So it is encouraging to see such a partnership come to fruition.
Tamara Levy, a law professor and director of the UBC project, says on the university’s website that the journalism students “bring unique skills that will help us shed some light on our investigations and move them forward more quickly.” Mary Lynn Young, director of the journalism school, sees it as “a great opportunity for students to learn investigative journalism skills” in collaboration with the law faculty.
Students have played a pivotal role in overturning convictions in the U.S. for years. Most famously, the Medill journalism school in Chicago developed evidence that has freed 11 innocent men, five of them from death row, since 1996. Former Illinois governor George Ryan credited the school with helping provide the impetus for his moratorium on the death penalty in 2000.
One of the most memorable and gratifying projects in my own career involved an investigation into the wrongful conviction of David Milgaard. Through news stories, documentaries and eventually a book, we were able to document an extraordinary case of a man who spent 23 years in jail for a crime he didn’t commit. Seeing how that work impacted both the justice system, and one man’s eventual freedom, was humbling.
What better training could there be for journalism students than to be involved in a similar pursuit? To get some idea of how life-changing those experiences can be, you just have to peruse the stories of Medill alumni and read their descriptions of watching an innocent man walk free – in part, because of their work.
There will be no shortage of cases in Canada to investigate. It’s estimated that as many as five per cent of convictions could be faulty. It is only the fortunate few who link up with a lawyer, family member or journalist who are persistent enough to spend the time and resources to investigate their case.
The UBC project says it hopes to put forward its first case for ministerial review by the end of the year. With the new potent partnership of law and journalism students, there is little doubt that we will soon be learning about new cases of wrongful convictions from British Columbia.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
WikiLeaks: Transparency or Treason?
Investigative journalists spend a lot of time thinking about whistleblowers.
They encourage them to come forward, persuade them to talk, promise them anonymity, and sometimes they even risk going to jail to prevent their identities from being known. Whistleblowers have been key to many important exposes over the years, and they are a crucial component to investigative journalism.
That’s why the current debate over WikiLeaks is both perplexing and troubling. The website, founded in 2006, is devoted to soliciting and publicizing important information from whistleblowers. So why are so many journalists, including some investigative reporters, raising questions about what WikiLeaks is doing?
WikiLeaks has broken many stories in its brief history, posting everything from secret detention documents at Guantanamo Bay to a video showing American Apache helicopters firing at civilians in Baghdad. The stories have not endeared the site to U.S. authorities.
But whistleblowers rarely lead a placid life after they make their information known, and media that transmit the information also often find themselves targeted for retribution. Just ask Daniel Ellsberg and the New York Times, both of whom faced threats, injunctions and prosecutions for their role in publishing the Vietnam-era Pentagon Papers.
This year, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange raised the stakes by publishing more than 77,000 classified Pentagon documents on the war in Afghanistan. He followed that up recently with a further release of about 400,000 documents on the war in Iraq.
The Pentagon was predictably not happy. It said the Afghan documents endangered lives of people whose names had not been redacted, though no concrete evidence has yet surfaced of reprisals against anyone. Its reaction to the Iraq documents has been twofold: on the one hand, it says they reveal little new, while it also feels their release may be grounds to charge the people who leaked and publicized the documents with treason.
It is generally accepted that the release showed evidence of about 15,000 previously unreported and undocumented civilian deaths in Iraq, a remarkable fact given the difficulty of concealing such a large number of casualties in today’s plugged-in world. It also called into question previous U.S. and British claims that there were no official counts of casualties in Iraq. The documents instead showed meticulous records and an exact toll of 66,081 non-combatant deaths over a five-year period.
Assange also maintains the records show the U.S. failed to investigate hundreds of reports of rapes, assaults, and even murders by Iraqi police and armed soldiers over the years, a charge the Americans deny.
What has been the response of the journalism community to WikiLeaks? Surprisingly, there have been many reporters sniping from the sidelines. Reporters Without Borders criticized the site for publishing names of Afghans acting as informers for the U.S., while other journalists have supported the Pentagon’s analysis that the site is playing into the hands of terrorists.
Marc Thiessen, former White House staffer and a weekly columnist for the Washington Post, was blunt: “Let's be clear: WikiLeaks is not a news organization; it is a criminal enterprise. Its reason for existence is to obtain classified national security information and disseminate it as widely as possible -- including to the United States' enemies.”
Assange himself now finds himself living like a virtual fugitive. Originally from Australia, he is looking for a safe haven were he won’t be subject to a possible prosecution under the 1917 U.S. Espionage Act, the same legislation that was used to prosecute Ellsberg.
This seems odd, since a Pentagon spokesman has called the latest release “mundane”, and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair insisted that it contained nothing new. Some have argued that authorities simply want to ensure future leaks are plugged before they can cause any further embarrassment.
Nevertheless, the level of international intrigue surrounding Assange seems to grow daily. He applied for Swedish residency, but shortly afterwards was accused of molestation and rape by two women there. Assange maintains it was a set-up, but whatever the case, it torpedoed his attempt to settle there. He is now looking at Switzerland as a possible new home. A former professional hacker, he protects the security of the site by routing his servers through a maze of complex connections in safe locations.
In response to the backlash, especially from some sectors of the reporting community, a group of international investigative journalists is now coming to the defence of Assange and WikiLeaks. A statement of support, signed by members and associates of a global investigative journalism association, seeks to defend the principle and practice of the site.
“We believe that Mr Assange has made an outstanding contribution to transparency and accountability on the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, subjects where transparency and accountability has been severely restricted by government secrecy and media control,” the statement says. “He is being attacked for releasing information that should never have been withheld from the public.”
The statement, which has already been signed by journalists from more than 40 countries, defends WikiLeaks’ right to post confidential military documents. “If it is espionage to publish documents provided by whistle blowers, then every journalist will eventually be guilty of that crime. Mr Assange deserves our support and encouragement in the face of the attacks.”
Investigative journalism seeks to hold powerful people and interests to account, and that inevitably means challenging the status quo. The history of such reporting shows that those same powerful interests often strike back, launching counter-offensives. How this current battle will end is unknown, but it is fascinating to see how members of the journalism community are aligning themselves in the process.
The full statement in support of WikiLeaks is available at the Global Investigative Journalism Network website.
They encourage them to come forward, persuade them to talk, promise them anonymity, and sometimes they even risk going to jail to prevent their identities from being known. Whistleblowers have been key to many important exposes over the years, and they are a crucial component to investigative journalism.
That’s why the current debate over WikiLeaks is both perplexing and troubling. The website, founded in 2006, is devoted to soliciting and publicizing important information from whistleblowers. So why are so many journalists, including some investigative reporters, raising questions about what WikiLeaks is doing?
WikiLeaks has broken many stories in its brief history, posting everything from secret detention documents at Guantanamo Bay to a video showing American Apache helicopters firing at civilians in Baghdad. The stories have not endeared the site to U.S. authorities.
But whistleblowers rarely lead a placid life after they make their information known, and media that transmit the information also often find themselves targeted for retribution. Just ask Daniel Ellsberg and the New York Times, both of whom faced threats, injunctions and prosecutions for their role in publishing the Vietnam-era Pentagon Papers.
This year, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange raised the stakes by publishing more than 77,000 classified Pentagon documents on the war in Afghanistan. He followed that up recently with a further release of about 400,000 documents on the war in Iraq.
The Pentagon was predictably not happy. It said the Afghan documents endangered lives of people whose names had not been redacted, though no concrete evidence has yet surfaced of reprisals against anyone. Its reaction to the Iraq documents has been twofold: on the one hand, it says they reveal little new, while it also feels their release may be grounds to charge the people who leaked and publicized the documents with treason.
It is generally accepted that the release showed evidence of about 15,000 previously unreported and undocumented civilian deaths in Iraq, a remarkable fact given the difficulty of concealing such a large number of casualties in today’s plugged-in world. It also called into question previous U.S. and British claims that there were no official counts of casualties in Iraq. The documents instead showed meticulous records and an exact toll of 66,081 non-combatant deaths over a five-year period.
Assange also maintains the records show the U.S. failed to investigate hundreds of reports of rapes, assaults, and even murders by Iraqi police and armed soldiers over the years, a charge the Americans deny.
What has been the response of the journalism community to WikiLeaks? Surprisingly, there have been many reporters sniping from the sidelines. Reporters Without Borders criticized the site for publishing names of Afghans acting as informers for the U.S., while other journalists have supported the Pentagon’s analysis that the site is playing into the hands of terrorists.
Marc Thiessen, former White House staffer and a weekly columnist for the Washington Post, was blunt: “Let's be clear: WikiLeaks is not a news organization; it is a criminal enterprise. Its reason for existence is to obtain classified national security information and disseminate it as widely as possible -- including to the United States' enemies.”
Assange himself now finds himself living like a virtual fugitive. Originally from Australia, he is looking for a safe haven were he won’t be subject to a possible prosecution under the 1917 U.S. Espionage Act, the same legislation that was used to prosecute Ellsberg.
This seems odd, since a Pentagon spokesman has called the latest release “mundane”, and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair insisted that it contained nothing new. Some have argued that authorities simply want to ensure future leaks are plugged before they can cause any further embarrassment.
Nevertheless, the level of international intrigue surrounding Assange seems to grow daily. He applied for Swedish residency, but shortly afterwards was accused of molestation and rape by two women there. Assange maintains it was a set-up, but whatever the case, it torpedoed his attempt to settle there. He is now looking at Switzerland as a possible new home. A former professional hacker, he protects the security of the site by routing his servers through a maze of complex connections in safe locations.
In response to the backlash, especially from some sectors of the reporting community, a group of international investigative journalists is now coming to the defence of Assange and WikiLeaks. A statement of support, signed by members and associates of a global investigative journalism association, seeks to defend the principle and practice of the site.
“We believe that Mr Assange has made an outstanding contribution to transparency and accountability on the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, subjects where transparency and accountability has been severely restricted by government secrecy and media control,” the statement says. “He is being attacked for releasing information that should never have been withheld from the public.”
The statement, which has already been signed by journalists from more than 40 countries, defends WikiLeaks’ right to post confidential military documents. “If it is espionage to publish documents provided by whistle blowers, then every journalist will eventually be guilty of that crime. Mr Assange deserves our support and encouragement in the face of the attacks.”
Investigative journalism seeks to hold powerful people and interests to account, and that inevitably means challenging the status quo. The history of such reporting shows that those same powerful interests often strike back, launching counter-offensives. How this current battle will end is unknown, but it is fascinating to see how members of the journalism community are aligning themselves in the process.
The full statement in support of WikiLeaks is available at the Global Investigative Journalism Network website.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
The Future of Investigative Journalism
Brant Houston, Knight Chair in Investigative and Enterprise Reporting at the University of Illinois, has written a useful summary of current issues in the field of U.S. investigative journalism.
Houston chronicles the downsizing that has taken place in conventional media outlets, and the simultaneous rise of new, mostly publicly-funded models.
Houston notes that a study last year showed that since 2005, foundations have contributed $56 million to investigative centres and projects in the U.S. That is a signifcant infusion of dollars and it has already reaped equally significant results.
The report is reprinted on the university's College of Media website.
Houston chronicles the downsizing that has taken place in conventional media outlets, and the simultaneous rise of new, mostly publicly-funded models.
Houston notes that a study last year showed that since 2005, foundations have contributed $56 million to investigative centres and projects in the U.S. That is a signifcant infusion of dollars and it has already reaped equally significant results.
The report is reprinted on the university's College of Media website.
Saturday, October 2, 2010
Encouraging Signs: Is Investigative Journalism on the Rise Again?
While tough times generally put intense pressure on investigative journalism, the last two weeks have provided evidence that solid reporting can still create significant impact across the country.
A number of reports probed deeply into such diverse issues as daycare conditions, retirement homes, charitable donations, tax evasion and international terrorism investigations. Each of the stories did what good investigative journalism ought to do: hold institutions that wield power to account, and employ solid research methods.
There’s another factor that is harder to quantify and hasn’t been well-studied. Competition among media outlets can give rise to more investigative projects, as the urge to create impact and distinctiveness in the marketplace can lead to greater investment in this kind of reporting.
The Globe and Mail chose the day of its major re-design to highlight an investigative piece about a global manhunt for three University of Manitoba students who allegedly disappeared into al-Qaeda controlled territory in Waziristan. Despite a major effort on the part of CSIS and the RCMP, as well as other intelligence agencies, the case was a secret until the newspaper broke the news.
Six reporters were credited with working on the story, and it has now spurred many others to begin asking questions.
The same day, the Toronto Star’s front page featured the headline: “How Can This Happen?” The newspaper sent reporter Dale Brazao undercover to a Toronto retirement home while Moira Welsh checked the home’s health and court records. They documented dirty conditions, bad food and poorly trained and underpaid staff.
The CBC has also been active on the investigative front, with a major report by Diana Swain on the Canadian connection to a list of 80,000 secret HSBC Private Bank accounts in Switzerland. The report, a joint project with the Globe, says more than 1,700 Canadians had accounts in the bank, and the Canada Revenue Agency is probing possible tax evasion.
A week earlier the CBC revealed the results of an investigation into registered charities that employ external fundraising companies. The national picture showed that over five years, those fundraisers had earned more than $760 million. Individual stories from across the country revealed many examples of charities paying more than 50 per cent of their proceeds to fundraising companies (Disclosure: I was part of the team that reported this story).
And there were other examples. Radio-Canada showed how easy it was to sell illegal stun guns in Canada, while a joint CBC/Radio-Canada probe revealed that many Quebec children are being cared for in daycares that are either illegal or don't have the necessary permits. The investigative program Enquete also revealed that officials at a Montreal college turned a blind eye to allegations of sexual abuse in the 1960s and 1970s.
Canadian Press continues to be one of the leading journalistic users of the Access to Information Act, mining the legislation for important stories. Last week Dean Beeby pried loose an internal study from Justice Canada that showed aboriginal people and those in remote communities are spending more time in remand than others.
There is little question that hard economic times usually translate into less investigative reporting. The examples I have cited above are from the country’s biggest media institutions. Smaller newspapers and media outlets are struggling to maintain staff, and investigative reporting finds it difficult to flourish in an atmosphere of slashed resources and bare-bones reporting.
But it is encouraging to see renewed commitments being made by some media outlets to investigative work, both at national and regional levels. Reporters who possess the investigative impulse, no matter where they work, should take this as a cue to press their employers for the time and resources needed to join the fray.
A number of reports probed deeply into such diverse issues as daycare conditions, retirement homes, charitable donations, tax evasion and international terrorism investigations. Each of the stories did what good investigative journalism ought to do: hold institutions that wield power to account, and employ solid research methods.
There’s another factor that is harder to quantify and hasn’t been well-studied. Competition among media outlets can give rise to more investigative projects, as the urge to create impact and distinctiveness in the marketplace can lead to greater investment in this kind of reporting.
The Globe and Mail chose the day of its major re-design to highlight an investigative piece about a global manhunt for three University of Manitoba students who allegedly disappeared into al-Qaeda controlled territory in Waziristan. Despite a major effort on the part of CSIS and the RCMP, as well as other intelligence agencies, the case was a secret until the newspaper broke the news.
Six reporters were credited with working on the story, and it has now spurred many others to begin asking questions.
The same day, the Toronto Star’s front page featured the headline: “How Can This Happen?” The newspaper sent reporter Dale Brazao undercover to a Toronto retirement home while Moira Welsh checked the home’s health and court records. They documented dirty conditions, bad food and poorly trained and underpaid staff.
The CBC has also been active on the investigative front, with a major report by Diana Swain on the Canadian connection to a list of 80,000 secret HSBC Private Bank accounts in Switzerland. The report, a joint project with the Globe, says more than 1,700 Canadians had accounts in the bank, and the Canada Revenue Agency is probing possible tax evasion.
A week earlier the CBC revealed the results of an investigation into registered charities that employ external fundraising companies. The national picture showed that over five years, those fundraisers had earned more than $760 million. Individual stories from across the country revealed many examples of charities paying more than 50 per cent of their proceeds to fundraising companies (Disclosure: I was part of the team that reported this story).
And there were other examples. Radio-Canada showed how easy it was to sell illegal stun guns in Canada, while a joint CBC/Radio-Canada probe revealed that many Quebec children are being cared for in daycares that are either illegal or don't have the necessary permits. The investigative program Enquete also revealed that officials at a Montreal college turned a blind eye to allegations of sexual abuse in the 1960s and 1970s.
Canadian Press continues to be one of the leading journalistic users of the Access to Information Act, mining the legislation for important stories. Last week Dean Beeby pried loose an internal study from Justice Canada that showed aboriginal people and those in remote communities are spending more time in remand than others.
There is little question that hard economic times usually translate into less investigative reporting. The examples I have cited above are from the country’s biggest media institutions. Smaller newspapers and media outlets are struggling to maintain staff, and investigative reporting finds it difficult to flourish in an atmosphere of slashed resources and bare-bones reporting.
But it is encouraging to see renewed commitments being made by some media outlets to investigative work, both at national and regional levels. Reporters who possess the investigative impulse, no matter where they work, should take this as a cue to press their employers for the time and resources needed to join the fray.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Interrogation, Sensory Deprivation and the CIA: A Canadian Connection
Thirty-six years ago, Donald Capri was driving across the Redwood Bridge in Winnipeg when he spotted a body floating in the Red River. Police later identified the victim as Prof. John Zubek, a distinguished psychologist at the University of Manitoba. Cause of death was determined to be suicide by drowning. Zubek was 49.
Zubek’s mysterious life and death has a direct and largely unexplored relationship with the CIA’s methodology of interrogation. Zubek devoted his life’s work to researching sensory deprivation. In a special isolation chamber at the University of Manitoba, he conducted experiments on more than 500 people over 15 years, depriving them of all sensations for up to two weeks. The research was begun at a time when the CIA’s MK-ULTRA program was spending millions to understand how manipulating human behaviour could assist interrogations.
Zubek, who was funded by the Canadian defence department and the US government, was considered a world leader in sensory deprivation research, elaborating the covert work begun by colleague Donald Hebb at McGill University -- work he assisted, according to documents in Zubek's personal papers.
Despite his death in 1974, Zubek’s legacy endures in the methods used at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and other detention centres. The notorious photo of a hooded prisoner in Abu Ghraib, standing on a box with arms extended, shows the importance of sensory deprivation in the CIA’s methods. So does the declassified Foreign Affairs document that reveals how Omar Khadr was placed on the “frequent flyer” program at Guantanamo, constantly moved from cell to cell and denied uninterrupted sleep. “He will soon be placed in isolation for up to three weeks and then he will be interviewed again,” says the once-secret 2004 memo. In his influential book A Question of Torture, Alfred McCoy argues that the “no-touch torture” technique of sensory deprivation is critical to the US interrogation paradigm.
I have examined Zubek's archives at the University of Manitoba and written a lengthy article about his activities for the current issue of Canada's History magazine.
Zubek’s mysterious life and death has a direct and largely unexplored relationship with the CIA’s methodology of interrogation. Zubek devoted his life’s work to researching sensory deprivation. In a special isolation chamber at the University of Manitoba, he conducted experiments on more than 500 people over 15 years, depriving them of all sensations for up to two weeks. The research was begun at a time when the CIA’s MK-ULTRA program was spending millions to understand how manipulating human behaviour could assist interrogations.
Zubek, who was funded by the Canadian defence department and the US government, was considered a world leader in sensory deprivation research, elaborating the covert work begun by colleague Donald Hebb at McGill University -- work he assisted, according to documents in Zubek's personal papers.
Despite his death in 1974, Zubek’s legacy endures in the methods used at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and other detention centres. The notorious photo of a hooded prisoner in Abu Ghraib, standing on a box with arms extended, shows the importance of sensory deprivation in the CIA’s methods. So does the declassified Foreign Affairs document that reveals how Omar Khadr was placed on the “frequent flyer” program at Guantanamo, constantly moved from cell to cell and denied uninterrupted sleep. “He will soon be placed in isolation for up to three weeks and then he will be interviewed again,” says the once-secret 2004 memo. In his influential book A Question of Torture, Alfred McCoy argues that the “no-touch torture” technique of sensory deprivation is critical to the US interrogation paradigm.
I have examined Zubek's archives at the University of Manitoba and written a lengthy article about his activities for the current issue of Canada's History magazine.
Saturday, August 7, 2010
Getting Closer to the Truth in the Mulroney-Schreiber Affair
Harvey Cashore has a new book on the stands about the Airbus Affair. It's called : The Truth Shows Up: A Reporter's Fifteen-Year Odyssey Tracking Down the Truth About Mulroney, Schreiber and the Airbus Scandal.
I have reviewed it in the July/August issue of the Literary Review of Canada. Here is a portion of that review:
Cashore’s book is an engaging and instructive roadmap for any aspiring reporter. And he succeeds in revealing more of the truth behind the story than anyone else has to date. He takes the reader on a fascinating, behind-the-scenes journey of a complex journalistic investigation. The stakes are always high, because at the heart of the story is the suggestion that former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney may have benefited from commissions paid by Airbus to secure a sale of jets to Air Canada.
The secrets held by prime ministers and presidents are rarely, if ever, fully revealed. Last year, at a speech to the annual conference of the Investigative Reporters and Editors, legendary Watergate journalist Bob Woodward described a dinner he recently had with former vice-president Al Gore. How much does the public know about what really went on in the Clinton White House, Woodward asked his dinner guest. Gore thought for a moment before replying: “About one percent.” Add to the equation potential illegal behaviour on the part of a prime minister, and the odds for revelation of the truth become far smaller.
When Air Canada decided to buy 34 jets from Airbus in 1988, Karlheinz Schreiber received about $500,000 in secret commissions per plane. Reporters with Germany’s Der Spiegel magazine began chasing the story in 1994, and soon they were in partnership with CBC’s the fifth estate. Cashore was assigned to research the story for the program, and over the years his research produced a number of important documentaries and books about the affair.
Cashore brought with him a specific journalistic methodology he had learned from his mentor, former newspaper reporter and author John Sawatsky. In his groundbreaking investigation of the RCMP security service in the 1970s and 1980s, Sawatsky learned the importance of taping and transcribing all conversations. By studying his own questions and the answers they produced, and analyzing the questions posed by his colleagues and students, Sawatsky deduced that the quality of information was often directly related to the precise language employed in the questioning. He came up with a unique methodology of interviewing, and he stressed the value of maintaining a chronology of events in every story he worked on. Sawatsky also believed in maintaining a militant neutrality in his approach, always keeping an open mind and allowing for disconfirmatory evidence to be heard.
As a researcher for Sawatsky’s biography of Mulroney, The Politics of Ambition, Cashore learned the methodology well and adopted it for his own inquiries. Much of the book’s rich detail comes in the transcripts of Cashore’s taped interviews.
I have reviewed it in the July/August issue of the Literary Review of Canada. Here is a portion of that review:
Cashore’s book is an engaging and instructive roadmap for any aspiring reporter. And he succeeds in revealing more of the truth behind the story than anyone else has to date. He takes the reader on a fascinating, behind-the-scenes journey of a complex journalistic investigation. The stakes are always high, because at the heart of the story is the suggestion that former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney may have benefited from commissions paid by Airbus to secure a sale of jets to Air Canada.
The secrets held by prime ministers and presidents are rarely, if ever, fully revealed. Last year, at a speech to the annual conference of the Investigative Reporters and Editors, legendary Watergate journalist Bob Woodward described a dinner he recently had with former vice-president Al Gore. How much does the public know about what really went on in the Clinton White House, Woodward asked his dinner guest. Gore thought for a moment before replying: “About one percent.” Add to the equation potential illegal behaviour on the part of a prime minister, and the odds for revelation of the truth become far smaller.
When Air Canada decided to buy 34 jets from Airbus in 1988, Karlheinz Schreiber received about $500,000 in secret commissions per plane. Reporters with Germany’s Der Spiegel magazine began chasing the story in 1994, and soon they were in partnership with CBC’s the fifth estate. Cashore was assigned to research the story for the program, and over the years his research produced a number of important documentaries and books about the affair.
Cashore brought with him a specific journalistic methodology he had learned from his mentor, former newspaper reporter and author John Sawatsky. In his groundbreaking investigation of the RCMP security service in the 1970s and 1980s, Sawatsky learned the importance of taping and transcribing all conversations. By studying his own questions and the answers they produced, and analyzing the questions posed by his colleagues and students, Sawatsky deduced that the quality of information was often directly related to the precise language employed in the questioning. He came up with a unique methodology of interviewing, and he stressed the value of maintaining a chronology of events in every story he worked on. Sawatsky also believed in maintaining a militant neutrality in his approach, always keeping an open mind and allowing for disconfirmatory evidence to be heard.
As a researcher for Sawatsky’s biography of Mulroney, The Politics of Ambition, Cashore learned the methodology well and adopted it for his own inquiries. Much of the book’s rich detail comes in the transcripts of Cashore’s taped interviews.
Monday, August 2, 2010
Exposing the Dangers of Asbestos
For most people, asbestos is the stuff we desperately try to remove from old buildings because of its cancer-causing properties. But in much of the developing world, asbestos continues to be used, causing an estimated 100,000 deaths per year.
Canada plays a role in this situation by continuing to mine asbestos and export it around the world. Even though 52 countries ban the use of asbestos, Canada exports it to India, China, Mexico and other countries, where controls on its use have been shown to be lacking.
The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, working with the BBC and journalists around the world, recently released an expose on the problem called Dangers in the Dust: Inside the Global Asbestos Trade.
Among other things, the series looks at a global network of lobby groups that has spent nearly $100 million since the mid-1980s to preserve the market for asbestos. It exposes relationships between governments, industry and scientists to promote the continued production and export of asbestos.
One of those lobby groups is Canada's Chrysotile Institute, based in Montreal. Asbestos mining has been a traditional industry in Quebec, one which governments continue to support.
The ICIJ report says Canada exported 153,000 tonnes of chrysotile, or white asbestos, to India, Indonesia, Thailand, Mexico, Sri Lanka, Pakistan and the UAR. Only a small fraction of that amount is used back home.
There is currently a debate over enhanced funding for the expansion of an asebstos mine in Quebec. The Canadian and Quebec governments support the production and export of asbestos, while arguing that end users need to ensure the product is handled safely. The Canadian Cancer Society is urging government not to extend loan guarantees to the Jeffrey Asbestos Mine. The town of Asbestos in Quebec retaliated by cancelling support for the society's Relay for Life fundraising effort next year.
The ICIJ works collaboratively with reporters in many countries to produce investigative reports. This expose involved reporters in eight countries, though Canada was conspicuously absent.
A year ago, the CBC broadcast a powerful documentary on the asbestos issue called Canada's Ugly Secret. Reporter Mellissa Fung showed how workers in India handled Canadian asbestos with virtually no protection, exposing them to long-term health hazards.
Canada plays a role in this situation by continuing to mine asbestos and export it around the world. Even though 52 countries ban the use of asbestos, Canada exports it to India, China, Mexico and other countries, where controls on its use have been shown to be lacking.
The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, working with the BBC and journalists around the world, recently released an expose on the problem called Dangers in the Dust: Inside the Global Asbestos Trade.
Among other things, the series looks at a global network of lobby groups that has spent nearly $100 million since the mid-1980s to preserve the market for asbestos. It exposes relationships between governments, industry and scientists to promote the continued production and export of asbestos.
One of those lobby groups is Canada's Chrysotile Institute, based in Montreal. Asbestos mining has been a traditional industry in Quebec, one which governments continue to support.
The ICIJ report says Canada exported 153,000 tonnes of chrysotile, or white asbestos, to India, Indonesia, Thailand, Mexico, Sri Lanka, Pakistan and the UAR. Only a small fraction of that amount is used back home.
There is currently a debate over enhanced funding for the expansion of an asebstos mine in Quebec. The Canadian and Quebec governments support the production and export of asbestos, while arguing that end users need to ensure the product is handled safely. The Canadian Cancer Society is urging government not to extend loan guarantees to the Jeffrey Asbestos Mine. The town of Asbestos in Quebec retaliated by cancelling support for the society's Relay for Life fundraising effort next year.
The ICIJ works collaboratively with reporters in many countries to produce investigative reports. This expose involved reporters in eight countries, though Canada was conspicuously absent.
A year ago, the CBC broadcast a powerful documentary on the asbestos issue called Canada's Ugly Secret. Reporter Mellissa Fung showed how workers in India handled Canadian asbestos with virtually no protection, exposing them to long-term health hazards.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Fire the Editors, and Work Till You Die: Seymour Hersh
For the last few months, I had been looking forward to attending the Global Investigative Journalism Conference in Geneva. This is the sixth meeting of a group that brings together muckrakers from dozens of countries.
Unfortunately, the Icelandic volcano had a say in my travel plans, and I had to cancel at the last moment. But that didn't stop me from following some of the proceedings online, including a keynote speech by the always provocative and entertaining Seymour Hersh.
No one has had a more illustrious career in investigative work than Hersh. He came to international prominence with his story about the My Lai massacre in Vietnam. Later, working for the New York Times, he broke many of the important stories during the Nixon administration. And he has kept on working, breaking the Abu Ghraib detainee scandal and many other exclusive stories about Iraq and Iran. Hersh's books are also fine examples of his investigative reporting.
Hersh began his remarks in Geneva by describing how difficult the life of an investigative journalist can be, chasing relcutant sources, and struggling with the moral dilemma of trying to convince people to talk, while knowing that their participation might ultimately damage their own interests. And then there is the question of editors.
"The better the story, the more they hate it," he said, only half-jokingly. Hersh repeated a line I have heard him use before. We could lose 70 per cent of the top editors at newspapers and networks, and be better off. The reason: people who get promoted into the upper echelons tend to be among the most cautious and conservative.
To the relief of many in the audience, he acknowledged there are a small contingent of editors who demand accurate sourcing and work with reporters to make their stories better. But then he turned his attention to governments.
"Governments lie," he said, echoing maverick journalist I.F. Stone's most famous dictum. "We don't. We make mistakes. There's a big difference."
In fact, Hersh said the biggest danger he sees in the collapse of the conventional journalism model is the potential for unchecked corruption at the local and regional levels. Without vigorous teams of investigative reporters operating at a local level, politicians will have a field day at the public's expense, he said. The rise of foundation-based journalism models, together with mass distribution possibilities of the Internet, could well pave the way for a promising future for the genre.
After trashing editors and government, Hersh turned his attention to journalism schools. He wasn't that impressed with them, noting that they often concentrate too heavily on newspaper layout and other technical tasks to the detriment of real journalistic skills. Even the live streaming version of the speech showed that the moderator of the session -- Brant Houston of the University of Illinois -- squirmed uncomfortably in his chair.
When asked about how much longer he could continue doing this kind of work, the 73-year-old Hersh seemed amused.
"This is a lifetime job," he said. "Illegal and immoral wars are good for my career."
Unfortunately, the Icelandic volcano had a say in my travel plans, and I had to cancel at the last moment. But that didn't stop me from following some of the proceedings online, including a keynote speech by the always provocative and entertaining Seymour Hersh.
No one has had a more illustrious career in investigative work than Hersh. He came to international prominence with his story about the My Lai massacre in Vietnam. Later, working for the New York Times, he broke many of the important stories during the Nixon administration. And he has kept on working, breaking the Abu Ghraib detainee scandal and many other exclusive stories about Iraq and Iran. Hersh's books are also fine examples of his investigative reporting.
Hersh began his remarks in Geneva by describing how difficult the life of an investigative journalist can be, chasing relcutant sources, and struggling with the moral dilemma of trying to convince people to talk, while knowing that their participation might ultimately damage their own interests. And then there is the question of editors.
"The better the story, the more they hate it," he said, only half-jokingly. Hersh repeated a line I have heard him use before. We could lose 70 per cent of the top editors at newspapers and networks, and be better off. The reason: people who get promoted into the upper echelons tend to be among the most cautious and conservative.
To the relief of many in the audience, he acknowledged there are a small contingent of editors who demand accurate sourcing and work with reporters to make their stories better. But then he turned his attention to governments.
"Governments lie," he said, echoing maverick journalist I.F. Stone's most famous dictum. "We don't. We make mistakes. There's a big difference."
In fact, Hersh said the biggest danger he sees in the collapse of the conventional journalism model is the potential for unchecked corruption at the local and regional levels. Without vigorous teams of investigative reporters operating at a local level, politicians will have a field day at the public's expense, he said. The rise of foundation-based journalism models, together with mass distribution possibilities of the Internet, could well pave the way for a promising future for the genre.
After trashing editors and government, Hersh turned his attention to journalism schools. He wasn't that impressed with them, noting that they often concentrate too heavily on newspaper layout and other technical tasks to the detriment of real journalistic skills. Even the live streaming version of the speech showed that the moderator of the session -- Brant Houston of the University of Illinois -- squirmed uncomfortably in his chair.
When asked about how much longer he could continue doing this kind of work, the 73-year-old Hersh seemed amused.
"This is a lifetime job," he said. "Illegal and immoral wars are good for my career."
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
A Milestone for Non-Profit Investigative Journalism
Alternative journalism used to be a kind of slur in mainstream media circles, a phrase describing journalists who couldn't or wouldn't adhere to conventional norms.
In truth, alternative journalists have produced some of the most groundbreaking stories throughout the history of investigative journalism. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, it was the alternative newspapers and magazines that dragged mainstream media outlets into a prolific era of muckraking work.
Today, as the economic crisis cuts deeply into the heart of the U.S. media mainstream, the alternative sphere has a whole new texture. Some outstanding journalists from leading media outlets have either quit or have been laid off, providing a strong pool for independent organizations to draw on. And such organizations have been proliferating in recent years, raising money from foundations and universities to practice a brand of investigative work that doesn't place the profit motive at the head of the list of objectives.
This week one of those organizations, ProPublica, won a Pulitzer Prize for investigative reporting. It is a significant milestone that everyone needs to appreciate and try to analyze. In many ways, it marks an important turning point for American investigative journalism.
The Pulitzer went to Sheri Fink, who wrote a 13,000-word article called The Deadly Choices at Memorial. It chronicled one hospital's activities in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina, and how some doctors gave lethal injections to patients they thought could not be evacuated.
Fink's article appeared first on ProPublica's website. Two days later, it was published in The New York Times Magazine. This was an example of the organization's method of work, in which it researches an investigative story and then partners with one or more media outlets to ensure widespread circulation.
ProPublica is perhaps the biggest and best-funded example of the new breed of non-profit and non-partisan investigative institutes. With a significant endowment from the Sandler Foundation and support from other foundations, it has built an impressive team led by a former Wall Street Journal managing editor and a former investigations editor at the New York Times. With a newsroom in Manhattan, it has assembled a formidable staff of 32 journalists, some of them award-winning reporters and researchers from mainstream organizations.
In 2009, ProPublica produced 138 stories and partnered with 38 print, broadcast and online media organizations. The Pulitzer was the crowning achievement of the year, but there were other awards as well, including a George Polk Award, a Selden Ring Award and wins at the Investigative Reporters and Editors competition.
"The honors are gratifying, and we deeply appreciate them, but they are not a goal in themselves," wrote managing editor Paul Steiger on the group's website. "We view them as a sign that our nonprofit, nonpartisan model -- publishing both on our own Web site and in partnership with major print, video, audio and online news organizations -- can make a meaningful contribution to the information needs of the American people in an era of explosive change in newspapers and other media."
The awards will almost certainly provide a boost to similar groups that have sprung up across America, and are only now trying to grow in Canada. But they are by no means a guarantee of the long-term success for the model. Grants from foundations, like other charitable contributions, are subject to economic and political considerations, and can be withdrawn as easily as they are awarded.
Those non-profits that forge close links with ordinary readers, listeners and viewers -- audiences that are willing to pay for a high-quality product in one way or another -- will likely be the ones to succeed in the long run.
In truth, alternative journalists have produced some of the most groundbreaking stories throughout the history of investigative journalism. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, it was the alternative newspapers and magazines that dragged mainstream media outlets into a prolific era of muckraking work.
Today, as the economic crisis cuts deeply into the heart of the U.S. media mainstream, the alternative sphere has a whole new texture. Some outstanding journalists from leading media outlets have either quit or have been laid off, providing a strong pool for independent organizations to draw on. And such organizations have been proliferating in recent years, raising money from foundations and universities to practice a brand of investigative work that doesn't place the profit motive at the head of the list of objectives.
This week one of those organizations, ProPublica, won a Pulitzer Prize for investigative reporting. It is a significant milestone that everyone needs to appreciate and try to analyze. In many ways, it marks an important turning point for American investigative journalism.
The Pulitzer went to Sheri Fink, who wrote a 13,000-word article called The Deadly Choices at Memorial. It chronicled one hospital's activities in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina, and how some doctors gave lethal injections to patients they thought could not be evacuated.
Fink's article appeared first on ProPublica's website. Two days later, it was published in The New York Times Magazine. This was an example of the organization's method of work, in which it researches an investigative story and then partners with one or more media outlets to ensure widespread circulation.
ProPublica is perhaps the biggest and best-funded example of the new breed of non-profit and non-partisan investigative institutes. With a significant endowment from the Sandler Foundation and support from other foundations, it has built an impressive team led by a former Wall Street Journal managing editor and a former investigations editor at the New York Times. With a newsroom in Manhattan, it has assembled a formidable staff of 32 journalists, some of them award-winning reporters and researchers from mainstream organizations.
In 2009, ProPublica produced 138 stories and partnered with 38 print, broadcast and online media organizations. The Pulitzer was the crowning achievement of the year, but there were other awards as well, including a George Polk Award, a Selden Ring Award and wins at the Investigative Reporters and Editors competition.
"The honors are gratifying, and we deeply appreciate them, but they are not a goal in themselves," wrote managing editor Paul Steiger on the group's website. "We view them as a sign that our nonprofit, nonpartisan model -- publishing both on our own Web site and in partnership with major print, video, audio and online news organizations -- can make a meaningful contribution to the information needs of the American people in an era of explosive change in newspapers and other media."
The awards will almost certainly provide a boost to similar groups that have sprung up across America, and are only now trying to grow in Canada. But they are by no means a guarantee of the long-term success for the model. Grants from foundations, like other charitable contributions, are subject to economic and political considerations, and can be withdrawn as easily as they are awarded.
Those non-profits that forge close links with ordinary readers, listeners and viewers -- audiences that are willing to pay for a high-quality product in one way or another -- will likely be the ones to succeed in the long run.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Should the National Enquirer Win a Pulitzer for Investigative Journalism?
Some days -- if not most days -- the line between celebrity gossip, rumour and journalism becomes increasingly difficult to discern.
When most of the Western world drops everything to see how Tiger will explain himself, mainstream journalism outlets can no longer smugly stay out of the fray. To avoid irrelevance, they must cover the story. But then the question becomes: how much attention, resource, prominence and seriousness should they attach to the story, or stories like it?
This question was put squarely on the table of the Pulitzer Prize board recently when the National Enquirer decided to enter its John Edwards story in two categories: investigative reporting and national reporting. The supermarket tabloid, known for its celebrity gossip and bizarre news stories, cites its three-year long pursuit of presidential candidate Edwards and his extra-marital affair as worthy of American journalism's highest honour.
The entry has stoked much debate in journalism circles, with mainstream publications questioning whether the Enquirer belonged in the elite club, and a variety of bloggers cheering the supermarket paper on. Pulitzer administrator Sig Gissler initially tried to block the entry. He said the Enquirer was really a magazine, and not a newspaper, and that the publication violates conventional journalism ethics by paying subjects for their interviews. But conventional media did eventually match the Edwards story, and the Pulitzers have finally said they will allow the entry to stand.
If the spate of recent sex scandals has you confused about this one, let me rehash the basic facts. Edwards tried for the Democratic Party presidential nomination in 2008, and was dogged by stories that he had an extra-marital affair with campaign worker Rielle Hunter. The National Enquirer did indeed lead the way on this coverage. It was also reported that the two had a child. Edwards finally admitted all earlier this year, leaving his family life and career in tatters.
Sensationalism and gossip have always been a feature of journalism, even in publications that pride themselves on serious coverage. But the private lives of powerful people have been receiving unprecedented attention lately. Whether it's Bill Clinton or Maxime Bernier, politicians are now on notice that their sex lives may be carefully scrutinized, sometimes even more rigorously than their policy stances.
But should that be the case? While I would salute any reporter for a good scoop, I would also ask any news organization whether it is worth the time and effort to devote three years to dig into John Edwards' sex life. The U.S. has no shortage of important topics to investigate, many of them far more urgent than a DNA analysis of the Edwards love child. This factor needs to be considered by any jury assessing prizes for investigative journalism.
Many news organizations explicitly cite the need to prioritize investigative work, given the amount of time and effort needed to do a good job on this front. The CBC, for instance, says investigative journalism involves the vigorous and intensive examination of matters that touch upon public policy or issues that affect a large portion of the population. 'Investigative journalism should bear in mind the relative importance of an issue and should not be exclusively concerned with the revelation of errors, injustice or wrongdoing. Minor matters should not be treated when more significant topics warrant attention," says the CBC's policy book.
Several years ago, I heard renowned American journalist Seymour Hersh discuss his excellent account of the Kennedy years, The Dark Side of Camelot. One of the chapters details John F. Kennedy's now famous predilection for extra-marital affairs. In some quarters, Hersh was criticized for including this detail. But he argued convincingly that when private matters begin to impinge on public policy, the public needs to know. The mere fact that Kennedy had sex with women other than his wife shouldn't necessarily be relevant to an assessment of his political life, Hersh said. But when some of those women were also connected with gangland figures, it's essential for this to be reported.
An even bigger question, in my view, is the priority we must establish in investigative work. I have heard countless American reporters lamenting their lack of enterprise and initiative in the years leading up to, and following, the U.S. invasion of Iraq. They are self-critical about believing presidential arguments that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. They wish they had done more challenging and investigative work at the time. They promise to do better in the future. But how much better can they do if their budgets are devoted to breaking the best angles on Tiger Woods or John Edwards?
The war in Afghanistan is rife with opportunities for investigative work, in Canada and the U.S. Allegations of torture and government complicity in abuses at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib are still worth exploring. How many more Toyota episodes would come to light if journalists would devote more time and effort to such a vital question as automobile safety?
So the Pulitzer jury will have its work cut out as it considers this year's entries. It may want to check out the National Enquirer's website, which proudly announces that it pays big bucks for story tips and interviews (In the Elizabeth Smart kidnapping case, it had to retract a story after its tipsters admitted to fabricating a fantastic account of a family sex-ring connection to the matter). The jury will also want to consider what kind of message it sends journalism students and practitioners as to the type of investigative journalism it wants to honour.
When most of the Western world drops everything to see how Tiger will explain himself, mainstream journalism outlets can no longer smugly stay out of the fray. To avoid irrelevance, they must cover the story. But then the question becomes: how much attention, resource, prominence and seriousness should they attach to the story, or stories like it?
This question was put squarely on the table of the Pulitzer Prize board recently when the National Enquirer decided to enter its John Edwards story in two categories: investigative reporting and national reporting. The supermarket tabloid, known for its celebrity gossip and bizarre news stories, cites its three-year long pursuit of presidential candidate Edwards and his extra-marital affair as worthy of American journalism's highest honour.
The entry has stoked much debate in journalism circles, with mainstream publications questioning whether the Enquirer belonged in the elite club, and a variety of bloggers cheering the supermarket paper on. Pulitzer administrator Sig Gissler initially tried to block the entry. He said the Enquirer was really a magazine, and not a newspaper, and that the publication violates conventional journalism ethics by paying subjects for their interviews. But conventional media did eventually match the Edwards story, and the Pulitzers have finally said they will allow the entry to stand.
If the spate of recent sex scandals has you confused about this one, let me rehash the basic facts. Edwards tried for the Democratic Party presidential nomination in 2008, and was dogged by stories that he had an extra-marital affair with campaign worker Rielle Hunter. The National Enquirer did indeed lead the way on this coverage. It was also reported that the two had a child. Edwards finally admitted all earlier this year, leaving his family life and career in tatters.
Sensationalism and gossip have always been a feature of journalism, even in publications that pride themselves on serious coverage. But the private lives of powerful people have been receiving unprecedented attention lately. Whether it's Bill Clinton or Maxime Bernier, politicians are now on notice that their sex lives may be carefully scrutinized, sometimes even more rigorously than their policy stances.
But should that be the case? While I would salute any reporter for a good scoop, I would also ask any news organization whether it is worth the time and effort to devote three years to dig into John Edwards' sex life. The U.S. has no shortage of important topics to investigate, many of them far more urgent than a DNA analysis of the Edwards love child. This factor needs to be considered by any jury assessing prizes for investigative journalism.
Many news organizations explicitly cite the need to prioritize investigative work, given the amount of time and effort needed to do a good job on this front. The CBC, for instance, says investigative journalism involves the vigorous and intensive examination of matters that touch upon public policy or issues that affect a large portion of the population. 'Investigative journalism should bear in mind the relative importance of an issue and should not be exclusively concerned with the revelation of errors, injustice or wrongdoing. Minor matters should not be treated when more significant topics warrant attention," says the CBC's policy book.
Several years ago, I heard renowned American journalist Seymour Hersh discuss his excellent account of the Kennedy years, The Dark Side of Camelot. One of the chapters details John F. Kennedy's now famous predilection for extra-marital affairs. In some quarters, Hersh was criticized for including this detail. But he argued convincingly that when private matters begin to impinge on public policy, the public needs to know. The mere fact that Kennedy had sex with women other than his wife shouldn't necessarily be relevant to an assessment of his political life, Hersh said. But when some of those women were also connected with gangland figures, it's essential for this to be reported.
An even bigger question, in my view, is the priority we must establish in investigative work. I have heard countless American reporters lamenting their lack of enterprise and initiative in the years leading up to, and following, the U.S. invasion of Iraq. They are self-critical about believing presidential arguments that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. They wish they had done more challenging and investigative work at the time. They promise to do better in the future. But how much better can they do if their budgets are devoted to breaking the best angles on Tiger Woods or John Edwards?
The war in Afghanistan is rife with opportunities for investigative work, in Canada and the U.S. Allegations of torture and government complicity in abuses at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib are still worth exploring. How many more Toyota episodes would come to light if journalists would devote more time and effort to such a vital question as automobile safety?
So the Pulitzer jury will have its work cut out as it considers this year's entries. It may want to check out the National Enquirer's website, which proudly announces that it pays big bucks for story tips and interviews (In the Elizabeth Smart kidnapping case, it had to retract a story after its tipsters admitted to fabricating a fantastic account of a family sex-ring connection to the matter). The jury will also want to consider what kind of message it sends journalism students and practitioners as to the type of investigative journalism it wants to honour.
Monday, February 15, 2010
A Magazine is Silenced
In a country like Colombia, investigative journalism is practised only by the most courageous reporters.
One of the most daring publications was the weekly magazine Cambio. It broke numerous stories that challenged government, including an expose of illegal wiretapping by the country's intelligence agency of opposition politicians, activists and even Supreme Court judges. It also exposed how the army passed off young civilian casualties in the counter-insurgency war as guerrillas.
But Cambio was acquired by a new ownership group with close ties to the government, and not surprisingly, investigative journalism is no longer a piority. Cambio's top two editors have been dismissed, and the magazine will be converted into a general interest monthly.
Read more details here.
One of the most daring publications was the weekly magazine Cambio. It broke numerous stories that challenged government, including an expose of illegal wiretapping by the country's intelligence agency of opposition politicians, activists and even Supreme Court judges. It also exposed how the army passed off young civilian casualties in the counter-insurgency war as guerrillas.
But Cambio was acquired by a new ownership group with close ties to the government, and not surprisingly, investigative journalism is no longer a piority. Cambio's top two editors have been dismissed, and the magazine will be converted into a general interest monthly.
Read more details here.
Could Iceland Become a Journalism Haven?
Iceland could have used the services of more incisive investigative journalists over the last few years. Very few reporters foresaw the breadth or severity of that country's financial collapse, which has witnessed the failure of major banks and devaluation of the currency.
Now comes word that a proposal to be filed with Iceland's parliament could make the country a haven for investigative journalism.
The idea, backed by some journalists and parliamentarians, would reform Iceland's media laws to make the country an attractive place for investigative journalists.
See the BBC report on this story.
Now comes word that a proposal to be filed with Iceland's parliament could make the country a haven for investigative journalism.
The idea, backed by some journalists and parliamentarians, would reform Iceland's media laws to make the country an attractive place for investigative journalists.
See the BBC report on this story.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
What Exactly is Responsible Journalism?
Now that the Supreme Court of Canada has established a new defence to defamation -- responsible communication on a matter of public importance -- it will be interesting to see how much journalistic consensus develops on exactly what constitutes responsible communication.
There is no question that the court's ruling modernizes Canada's defamation law and provides greater leeway for journalists to probe matters of public importance. But it also places a greater burden on individual journalists and news organizations to debate and constantly perfect methods and principles. This is particularly true when it comes to investigative journalism.
For example, is it responsible for news organizations to use hidden cameras? Some do, others don't. Is it responsible for journalists to misrepresent themselves in the gathering of information? Some do, others don't. What about engaging in the so-called ambush or doorstop interview? Will the courts deem that to be fair game?
Even when it comes to more routine decision-making in the journalistic process, there are differences between organizations. Some city editors and news directors will publish the names of anyone charged with a criminal offence. Others will suppress the names of people accused of sex crimes. Some will publish names of the accused only if they intend to follow up the story to ensure that an eventual acquittal or dropping of charges isn't missed. Which of these approaches is the most responsible one?
And exactly how far should journalists go in exposing every last detail of the Tiger Woods saga?
Not every news organization in Canada has an established code of ethics, and I would suspect that not too many bloggers have one either. The absence of a written policy or set of guidelines can lead to ad-hoc decisions when it comes to determining what is responsible and what isn't. Some journalists tend to make it up as they go along, arguing that their gut is the best test for what feels right.
Even when a written set of journalistic practices exists, there are grey areas. While certain practices are frowned upon, they can be seen as acceptable in exceptional circumstances. Just what those circumstances are becomes a matter of subjective interpretation. It would be hard to imagine an absolute bible of journalistic laws that provided a clearcut answer every time on whether an act was responsible or not.
Not even the Supreme Court is willing to say definitively which practices are responsible and which are not. For instance, here is what it had to say about the controversial question of confidential sources:
"It may be responsible to rely on confidential sources, depending on the circumstances; a defendant may properly be unwilling or unable to reveal a source in order to advance the defence. On the other hand, it is not difficult to see how publishing slurs from unidentified 'sources' could, depending on the circumstances, be irresponsible." (Para. 115, Grant v. Torstar).
This is a groundbreaking statement from Canada's highest court that the reliance on confidential sources might be a proper journalistic practice. To date, journalists have had no substantial judicial protection when it comes to refusing to reveal sources. Some lawsuits have been lost as a result, and in some cases journalists have gone to jail for refusing to reveal their sources. But there is still no certainty here. The court is reserving its right to decide this question "depending on the circumstances," which is what many questions of journalistic ethics tend to revolve around.
Still, I believe an articulated set of standards is far better -- and in light of the Supreme Court's decision, now far more crucial -- than nothing at all. It allows readers and viewers the opportunity to see what the news organization's thinking is when it comes to journalistic methodology. It guards against arbitrary decision-making, and it gives people a basis to complain if they feel the organization has overstepped its bounds.
Whether a formal code exists or not, I believe every news organization should use the Supreme Court ruling as an opportunity to widen the debate about methods and practices. The public at large needs to be drawn into the discussion. And there have to be ways to hold journalists and their organizations accountable both for their guidelines and how journalists put those practices into action on a daily basis.
Many news organizations have seen their credibility plummet in recent years, as people grow tired of journalistic methods they don't understand or trust. When managing editors or news directors take arbitrary decisions on newsgathering practices, or are vague about explaining their rationale, it only adds to the mistrust. A free-ranging, inclusive, ongoing and transparent discussion would be a healthy development.
There is no question that the court's ruling modernizes Canada's defamation law and provides greater leeway for journalists to probe matters of public importance. But it also places a greater burden on individual journalists and news organizations to debate and constantly perfect methods and principles. This is particularly true when it comes to investigative journalism.
For example, is it responsible for news organizations to use hidden cameras? Some do, others don't. Is it responsible for journalists to misrepresent themselves in the gathering of information? Some do, others don't. What about engaging in the so-called ambush or doorstop interview? Will the courts deem that to be fair game?
Even when it comes to more routine decision-making in the journalistic process, there are differences between organizations. Some city editors and news directors will publish the names of anyone charged with a criminal offence. Others will suppress the names of people accused of sex crimes. Some will publish names of the accused only if they intend to follow up the story to ensure that an eventual acquittal or dropping of charges isn't missed. Which of these approaches is the most responsible one?
And exactly how far should journalists go in exposing every last detail of the Tiger Woods saga?
Not every news organization in Canada has an established code of ethics, and I would suspect that not too many bloggers have one either. The absence of a written policy or set of guidelines can lead to ad-hoc decisions when it comes to determining what is responsible and what isn't. Some journalists tend to make it up as they go along, arguing that their gut is the best test for what feels right.
Even when a written set of journalistic practices exists, there are grey areas. While certain practices are frowned upon, they can be seen as acceptable in exceptional circumstances. Just what those circumstances are becomes a matter of subjective interpretation. It would be hard to imagine an absolute bible of journalistic laws that provided a clearcut answer every time on whether an act was responsible or not.
Not even the Supreme Court is willing to say definitively which practices are responsible and which are not. For instance, here is what it had to say about the controversial question of confidential sources:
"It may be responsible to rely on confidential sources, depending on the circumstances; a defendant may properly be unwilling or unable to reveal a source in order to advance the defence. On the other hand, it is not difficult to see how publishing slurs from unidentified 'sources' could, depending on the circumstances, be irresponsible." (Para. 115, Grant v. Torstar).
This is a groundbreaking statement from Canada's highest court that the reliance on confidential sources might be a proper journalistic practice. To date, journalists have had no substantial judicial protection when it comes to refusing to reveal sources. Some lawsuits have been lost as a result, and in some cases journalists have gone to jail for refusing to reveal their sources. But there is still no certainty here. The court is reserving its right to decide this question "depending on the circumstances," which is what many questions of journalistic ethics tend to revolve around.
Still, I believe an articulated set of standards is far better -- and in light of the Supreme Court's decision, now far more crucial -- than nothing at all. It allows readers and viewers the opportunity to see what the news organization's thinking is when it comes to journalistic methodology. It guards against arbitrary decision-making, and it gives people a basis to complain if they feel the organization has overstepped its bounds.
Whether a formal code exists or not, I believe every news organization should use the Supreme Court ruling as an opportunity to widen the debate about methods and practices. The public at large needs to be drawn into the discussion. And there have to be ways to hold journalists and their organizations accountable both for their guidelines and how journalists put those practices into action on a daily basis.
Many news organizations have seen their credibility plummet in recent years, as people grow tired of journalistic methods they don't understand or trust. When managing editors or news directors take arbitrary decisions on newsgathering practices, or are vague about explaining their rationale, it only adds to the mistrust. A free-ranging, inclusive, ongoing and transparent discussion would be a healthy development.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Should reporters be deputies for the police?
A ruling by the Manitoba Court of Appeal this week has some important lessons for police and the media, and the troubling tendency on the part of police agencies to use media to further their investigations.
Five years ago, police forces were given a new tool called the production order. Though it bears some similarities to a search warrant, a production order can compel someone who is not the subject of an investigation to turn over documents and video tape to the police.
When a media outlet is served with a production order, a series of important questions touching on freedom of the press are raised. These can be particularly vexing when it comes to investigative journalism, but the principles involved are important for all types of reporting.
In April 2008, RCMP were attempting to arrest Terrence Yellowback following an alleged assault in God's River, Manitoba. Police allege he charged an officer with a weapon, at which point he was shot in the hip.
The weapon turned out to be a table leg. When the officer realized Yellowback wasn't brandishing a gun, she resorted to her Taser to immobilize him.
Later that month, the Manto Sipi Cree Nation called a press conference to criticize RCMP for its decision to investigate the circumstances of the shooting itself. Yellowback also spoke at the press conference, calling for an independent inquiry into the shooting. The press conference was covered widely in the media.
Instead of responding to the call for an independent inquiry, the RCMP decided to ratchet up its own investigation. Police were granted an ex parte hearing before a provincial court judge. The judge issued production orders which would force CBC, CTV, Global and APTN to turn over all their videotaped material from the press conference and the one-on-one interviews that followed.
And everything about these production orders was to remain a secret. Here is the provision as it applied to the CBC:
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and any employee, servant or agent shall not directly or indirectly disclose or permit disclosure of the content, existence or operation of this order, in any manner, or to any person except as may be necessary for the purposes of compliance with its terms or obtaining the advice or assistance of legal counsel unless otherwise ordered by a Court of competent jurisdiction.
Two other media outlets, Global Winnipeg and APTN, complied with the production orders and turned over their tape to the police. But RCMP still insisted the other stations do the same, hoping they would get additional information from interviews that might appear on the tapes.
The law creating production orders came into force in 2004. Unlike search warrants, they can force people who aren't under investigation to produce documents, or even to prepare documents based on data already in existence, where those materials might pertain to the commission of a crime.
Failing to comply with a production order carries a fine of up to $250,000, or a six-month jail term.
CBC and CTV refused to comply with the orders and took the matter to court, where Justice Glenn Joyal of Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench quashed the orders. He ruled that the production orders constituted an unreasonable search of a media organization pursuant to section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The Attorney General of Manitoba and Canada both appealed that decision to the Manitoba Court of Appeal. Earlier this week, the appeal court upheld Justice Joyal's judgment and dismissed the government's appeals.
The original judge's ruling said the RCMP knew about the press conference in advance and could have tried to attend if it wanted to, but chose not to. Instead, it tried to deputize the media after the fact, and use them as part of its investigative machinery.
"Production orders against the media casually given can have a chilling effect on the appearance of independence and on future actions of members of the public and the press," the appeal court ruled. "There may be a resulting loss of credibility and appearance of impartiality."
Five years ago, police forces were given a new tool called the production order. Though it bears some similarities to a search warrant, a production order can compel someone who is not the subject of an investigation to turn over documents and video tape to the police.
When a media outlet is served with a production order, a series of important questions touching on freedom of the press are raised. These can be particularly vexing when it comes to investigative journalism, but the principles involved are important for all types of reporting.
In April 2008, RCMP were attempting to arrest Terrence Yellowback following an alleged assault in God's River, Manitoba. Police allege he charged an officer with a weapon, at which point he was shot in the hip.
The weapon turned out to be a table leg. When the officer realized Yellowback wasn't brandishing a gun, she resorted to her Taser to immobilize him.
Later that month, the Manto Sipi Cree Nation called a press conference to criticize RCMP for its decision to investigate the circumstances of the shooting itself. Yellowback also spoke at the press conference, calling for an independent inquiry into the shooting. The press conference was covered widely in the media.
Instead of responding to the call for an independent inquiry, the RCMP decided to ratchet up its own investigation. Police were granted an ex parte hearing before a provincial court judge. The judge issued production orders which would force CBC, CTV, Global and APTN to turn over all their videotaped material from the press conference and the one-on-one interviews that followed.
And everything about these production orders was to remain a secret. Here is the provision as it applied to the CBC:
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and any employee, servant or agent shall not directly or indirectly disclose or permit disclosure of the content, existence or operation of this order, in any manner, or to any person except as may be necessary for the purposes of compliance with its terms or obtaining the advice or assistance of legal counsel unless otherwise ordered by a Court of competent jurisdiction.
Two other media outlets, Global Winnipeg and APTN, complied with the production orders and turned over their tape to the police. But RCMP still insisted the other stations do the same, hoping they would get additional information from interviews that might appear on the tapes.
The law creating production orders came into force in 2004. Unlike search warrants, they can force people who aren't under investigation to produce documents, or even to prepare documents based on data already in existence, where those materials might pertain to the commission of a crime.
Failing to comply with a production order carries a fine of up to $250,000, or a six-month jail term.
CBC and CTV refused to comply with the orders and took the matter to court, where Justice Glenn Joyal of Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench quashed the orders. He ruled that the production orders constituted an unreasonable search of a media organization pursuant to section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The Attorney General of Manitoba and Canada both appealed that decision to the Manitoba Court of Appeal. Earlier this week, the appeal court upheld Justice Joyal's judgment and dismissed the government's appeals.
The original judge's ruling said the RCMP knew about the press conference in advance and could have tried to attend if it wanted to, but chose not to. Instead, it tried to deputize the media after the fact, and use them as part of its investigative machinery.
"Production orders against the media casually given can have a chilling effect on the appearance of independence and on future actions of members of the public and the press," the appeal court ruled. "There may be a resulting loss of credibility and appearance of impartiality."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
