Investigative reporting has changed with the Internet as more and more reporters use it to get hints and help with fact checking. They inform their community about their investigation, asking what is known to them, or whom it might be good to talk to.
“After every good investigative story, the reporter usually gets calls saying: great story, but here is what you’ve missed,” says Dan Gillmore, author of the book, We the Media, who has also done investigative reporting during his journalistic career.
He says the best outcome of an investigation is reached by announcing that it is going on.
“Like in every investigation, much of what will come in using a crowdsourced technique will be useless, and some will actually send you down the wrong path, but at the same time plenty of evidence will come from that,” he said.
Making investigative reporting into a process rather than a product to be delivered is not a new aspect for veteran journalists. There is rarely a big investigation without a followup. However, tweeting and blogging have added further possibilities that allow journalists not only to publish what has been investigated, but to turn the investigation into a public conversation and ask for hints.
“I wasn’t convinced about Twitter at first, but it quickly turned out to be quite useful for investigating,” the Guardian’s Paul Lewis says. “Twitter is not just a Web site and not micro-blogging, it is an entirely different medium — like e-mail, fax or even newspapers. The way in which information travels on Twitter — the shape of it — is different to anything that we’ve previously known.”
Lewis, who last year won the Bevins Prize for outstanding investigative journalism, thinks the value you get from people knowing that you are working on a story, trumps the slight disadvantage that your rivals also know.
The longstanding religion correspondent for the Times, Ruth Gedhill, started using the Internet early on as a research facility, and had her own Web site in the 1990s. She launched her Times blog, “Articles of Faith,” in 2006 to explain news stories further, link to sources and to engage with her readers.
“Often stories come to me through the blog, but I still find that getting out is the best way to get stories. That you can do so much on Google doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t go out there,” Gedhill says, but adds: “Sometimes my readers contact me with stories, often really strong stories. Even if readers comment with pseudonyms, you get to know them after a while.”
Engaging with readers is part of this new “frontier” style of journalism, as a community needs to be built first.
“If a reporter wants to use crowdsourced journalism, it requires that you have a strong enough relationship within a community,” explains Paul Bradshaw, a senior lecturer in online journalism at Birmingham City University, England.
Bradshaw founded the crowdsourcing project, “Help Me Investigate,” last year as the reality is journalists and interested citizens can’t just open a Twitter account and post that they are looking for information as nobody would listen. As with all sources they need to establish trust with their community.
Paul Lewis, whose investigation revealed facts surrounding the death of Ian Tomlinson, the London newspaper vendor who died on his way home from work during the G20 summit protests after being brought to the ground by the police, uses his Twitter account to keep readers informed about the topics he writes about. Lewis picks up ideas from other tweeters as much as he asks for thoughts, for help with identifying people on pictures or to submit material for his stories.
“Most of the journalists that are skeptical about Twitter think they already know what they need to find out. But I need to find what to know,” he said.
Asked if the Internet has made a difference to investigations, Gedhill gives it much thought. Finally, she says that in her opinion the Internet lies at the heart of unveiling the clerical child abuse scandal in Ireland.
“Many of these cases we are hearing about now are historic, and I can’t help thinking that the Internet made a big difference. Documents were becoming available online,” she said.
“Would the Holocaust have happened if there would be the Internet?” she suddenly asks. “Could the evidences have been denied in the same way?”
Surely, the Internet hasn’t replaced getting out and talking face-to-face to people during an investigation, but in a time of information overload, asking readers for help can direct a reporter to a piece of information or a direction of investigation that has been overlooked.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
RSS