What? When? Where? How? Who? Why? These words are the journalist's best friends.
Helped by the technologies available, investigative journalism combined with freedom of the press has the potential to straighten up those who thought
Like an undercover cop, the investigative journalist will have to play many roles in order to gather facts. To add objectivity, good quality recording
devices are essential which aren't so difficult to acquire if you look
for example. And that is what is cheaply
Even if the said journalist has to edit his story to make it more to the point, he will have the neccessary (lenghty) original documents to back it
up. Audio-video recordings are the best in this matter because they give you a more unbiased view than human relayed information*.
And in an attempt to suppress the probability of corruption, I'd even suggest a competition/collaboration between different news source to
investigate on important public matters.
Evidently, there should be protocols on how it is presented (a law in Canada prohibits intentionnally misleading information/interpretations from
declared news sources
). Too many times have I seen on T.V. or videos or else good questions being asked, good points being made... accompanied
by false assumptions from the presentator himself, effectively turning the subject away from key details.
Presentation is only a part of this kind of journalism. Going after the information itself is another one that will require from its gatherer multiple
talents and ressources. It is not easy. Some people can detect lies or at least emotions through body language. Acting is not as good as knowing.
While acting is important, there is no written script of what is to come. So, acquiring all the knowledge of the role an investigative journalist will
assume during his undercover investigation will greatly reduce the risks of him getting caught. The knowledge gained on the subject before the
investigation will be very useful after, to analyse the acquired raw data and select what is relevant.
Now, there's a great difference between freedom of speech and freedom of the press. The first one let people express what they want to and is an
unalienable individual's right. The second one gives journalists the right to obtain any (unsecured/uncensored) information and publish it, and I
would consider it as a right encompassing and protecting the masses from large scale broadcast of lies through some malicious powerful individuals.
Personnally, I support freedom of speech. But in true journalism, they have to report the facts as they are, assuming nothing, questionning
everything. Personnal opinions should have no place in this context because it would distort the information that is reported by not leaving the time
to most of the audience to analyse all the facts by themselves.
What is happening in the news world nowadays, is that every bit of information is digested and pooped out with the efficacity of the giraffe digestive
system. There's too many people between first hand information and its publishing. And not enough independent news sources, and if so, not a large
enough audience to make a difference.
What you think is your business, not mine. You are free. But if your goal is to report something based on your personnal opinions instead of facts and
good ol' logic, don't you think it is a little bit selfish and irresponsible doing so ?
*Speaking of relaying information, it would be nice that every camera installed in public areas were to be accessible for the public to see.