國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Chapter 2. Investigative Journalism
Since “journalism” is a relatively broad field of study, it is necessary to define the term “investigative journalism” in order to lay the foundation for a cohesive theoretical analysis. DeBurgh, (2003) argues that “journalism usually involves extensive research by one or more journalists to uncover matters which affect the citizenry of the society in which the journalists lives and of which the society generally does not approve but is unaware.” (p. 806) Journalists, in this sense, attempt to get the citizenry interested in matters which they were not aware of or did not care about before. Methods that are employed by the investigative journalists are documentary research, espionage and subterfuge and stings. These methods are considered to be controversial and expensive.
Different scholars offer different definitions of investigative journalism.
Feldstein (2007) elaborates:
Of all media actors, then, investigative reporters are the ones most positioned to independently shape the public agenda. In fact, in many respects that is their explicit mission, to investigate beneath the surface and uncover hidden wrongdoing by powerful individuals and institutions. As the newsroom’s most autonomous operators, investigative reporters alone are granted the resources and mandate to dig up original information, to develop their own agenda and not simply act as the megaphone for someone else’s. (p. 501)
Bloomfield and Moulton (1997) argue that “publicity in the age of global communications can be a powerful diplomatic instrument to encourage noncoercive compliance through its powers of, so to speak, shame, embarrassment, and ridicule.”(p. 63) In addition, Spark (1999) theorizes that “investigative journalism is
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
to discover the truth and identify lapses from it in whatever media may be available.”
(p. 369)
If one’s attempt is to discuss journalistic paradigms in China, it is important to define the term “journalistic paradigm” itself. In this regard there exists a broad range of definitions. This study shares the idea that a journalistic paradigm is as a shared worldview, commitment, and way of doing things in journalist community.
Furthermore, as an abstract cognitive map, a paradigm is embodied in a set of concrete cases that serve as shared exemplars of the logic and rules of trade (Kuhn, 1970). Journalistic paradigms in China, for instance, are exclusively defined by the Party authority itself. Technically there is no space for interpretation of or deviation from this monolith principle. Yet, Chinese investigative journalists employ different discourses to shape, discuss and legitimize their profession under the diverse conditions of the Deng reforms. Many journalists adhere to the principle of Party journalism, i.e. Party propagandists are the exemplary journalists. Other journalists believe in the Anglo-American way of professional journalism (Pan & Chan, 2003).
Pan and Chan (2003) stress that:
Research shows that the reforms to build media and consumer markets are eroding the Party-press ideology and could potentially elevate the canons of journalistic professionalism, such as objectivity and press freedom. The influence of professionalism is on the rise and may, in more opened regions such as Shanghai […] even has surpassed Party journalism after 25 years of reform. (p. 653)
Except a broad range of different definitions of journalistic paradigms there also exists a multitude of roles that journalists assume while practicing their profession. With regard to the Anglo-American concept of investigative journalism
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
scholars allocate four different attributes to the role of the reporter. Journalists are supposed to be “interpretive”, a “disseminator”, “adversarial”, and a “populist mobilizer” (Pan & Chan, 2003). These four roles sometimes conflict and sometimes interact. The present research assumes that for professional Chinese investigative journalism, the role of the “disseminator” is supposed to be of superior interest. This role also seems to be the most fundamental one as it reflects the basic activity of investigative journalism, which is to provide information for the Party elite and the people. This phenomenon of dual activity will also be explained in the later section.
Additionally, “disseminator” is also the most comparable role across media systems.
With regard to the general understanding of investigative journalism it is not sufficient to solely concentrate on definitions, journalistic paradigms or roles of journalists. It is rather important to look beyond the reporters and to identify their source. The relationship between the reporter and the source has also a tremendous impact on the output of investigative journalists.
In this sense, journalism can basically be divided into two major blocks, routine news and investigative news. Routine-news regards the political establishment as input for the press. In this case, the sources are dominating the procedure. In contrast, scandals are exceptional cases where reporters have access to “anti-normative” actions of the authorities, covered secretly. During the process of revealing the image, those representatives of authority attempt to conceal. The role of dominance shifts away from the source in favor of the journalist’s side. In this sense, journalism begins to fulfill its watchdog-role. It is also at this stage that journalists are put at risk vis-à-vis their sources since the balance between source and journalist is loosing its equilibrium. As a result of this imbalance and in the interest of self- protection, the exposure of scandals must be foolproof if exposed in the Western
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
world, and harmonized with the current state of tolerance of the Party authority if exposed in China (Liebes & Blum-Kulka., 2004).
As for investigative news, the aspect of the source is also tremendously crucial.
Not every source or “whistle blower” is trustworthy. The journalist needs to verify the credibility of its source in advance. According to experienced muckrakers, the more hesitant a source or whistle blower is, the higher his credibility might be. Since there is a strong connection between the sensitivity of a story and the willingness of the editor to publish it, investigative reporters constantly need to be aware of untrustworthy sources that can cause remarkable damage. As to Liebes and Blum-Kulka (2004), “the hotter the story and the more powerful the object, the more doubtful is the willingness of the editors or owners to pursue it and the greater the damage to reporter if it collapses.” (p. 1156)
Another issue that complicates the relation between the source and the reporter is over-enthusiasm of the source. Some sources might act when there has been
“transparent hurt”. Reporters are likely to treat those sources with extreme caution since the information they try to provide to the reporter might be contaminated. Hence, such stories are rather dangerous and have the potential to backfire on the reporter (Liebes & Blum-Kulka, 2004). Finally, investigative journalism indeed is a crucial and valuable tool to promote government transparency and accountability to citizens and institutions (Ettema & Glasser 2007). Building on this fundamental theoretical knowledge, the concept and practice of investigative journalism in China is elaborated.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學