Huge changes have been made to investigative reporting over the years in the United States. More specifically, looking at investigative reporting from the time of the Watergate scandal in comparison to now it has changed significantly. Reporters face many more challenges today that were not factors in investigative reporting prior. For example, one problem the profession of investigative reporting is currently experiencing is the blurry line between what is actually investigative journalism and what is not. Today much of what passes as investigative journalism doesn’t have the necessary research and background for real depth and context. The lack of background information is usually due to the lack of financial resources. Currently newsrooms don’t have the resources (financial and time) to hire reporters who have the skills and expertise to adequately conduct and investigative report. But, there is one aspect of investigative reporting that journalists have now that was not a factor early on, the advancement of technology to better protect sources. Through, the examples seen in class such as, the Manning case, the Snowden case, and the recent release of the Panama Papers you can begin to see how the advancement of technology has allowed for leakers to better protect themselves.
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/06/02/DI2005060201136.html)
In comparison, with investigative reporting at the time of the Watergate scandal the profession has changed quite significantly. Reporters were much better funded back then, meaning they could spend more time and money on funding investigative reporting, resulting in better stories and journalism as a whole. Although, there were more available resources for investigative reporting journalists back then they had a harder time finding sources and getting sources to talk due to the fear of potential backlash. The technology we have today is allowing for sources, who potentially would have never leaked their information, to step forward and give necessary information to the public in the name of the public interest, while still being able to protect themselves and remain anonymous.
Investigative reporting has undoubtedly changed over the years and I argue mostly for the worst. This is due to the lack of funding to keep investigative reporters on board and allowing them enough time to thoroughly conduct an investigation on a case. But, thanks to advancement in technology sources are now able to better reveal secret information, as well as provide power to the people to conduct their own investigative reports and publish it online. I believe the change in investigative reporting is due to the overall advancement of technology.
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/06/02/DI2005060201136.html)
In comparison, with investigative reporting at the time of the Watergate scandal the profession has changed quite significantly. Reporters were much better funded back then, meaning they could spend more time and money on funding investigative reporting, resulting in better stories and journalism as a whole. Although, there were more available resources for investigative reporting journalists back then they had a harder time finding sources and getting sources to talk due to the fear of potential backlash. The technology we have today is allowing for sources, who potentially would have never leaked their information, to step forward and give necessary information to the public in the name of the public interest, while still being able to protect themselves and remain anonymous.
Investigative reporting has undoubtedly changed over the years and I argue mostly for the worst. This is due to the lack of funding to keep investigative reporters on board and allowing them enough time to thoroughly conduct an investigation on a case. But, thanks to advancement in technology sources are now able to better reveal secret information, as well as provide power to the people to conduct their own investigative reports and publish it online. I believe the change in investigative reporting is due to the overall advancement of technology.
I agree, I think the changes to investigative journalism will continue to increase. It would be interesting to look into the effects that whistleblowers and leakers have on these changes in investigative journalism. Have the consequences that previous leakers, like Manning and Snowden, have faced instilled any fear in journalists who investigate leaks such as theirs.
ReplyDeleteI agree in that it there is a "blurry line" between as to what is or isn't investigative journalism. Like you said it is very hard to collect the right research without the appropriate resources, but if done correctly it is a great way to inform the public. Another example that stood out to me is the work that Tim Poole does and specifically how he handled the Missouri case. He didn't have many resources but put himself in the situation and made an investigative report.
ReplyDelete