SEAPA -- Southest Asian Press Alliance

Home I About Us I Contact Us

Investigative Reporting: The Role of the Media in Uncovering Corruption
By: Sheila S. Coronel
July 31, 2000

MANILA - - In 1972, two rookie reporters of the Washington Post exposed the burglary and attempted wiretapping, apparently on orders from the White House, of the Democratic Party headquarters at the Watergate building in the U.S. capital. Since then, the series of articles written by Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein alleging the complicity of U.S. President Richard Nixon's aides in political espionage has been the stuff of journalistic legend. Watergate became the symbol of the might of investigative reporting. Although the truth was somewhat more complex, it soon became part of the popular mythology that the president of the most powerful nation on earth was forced to resign because two enterprising reporters showed how he had abused the prerogatives of his position.

A quarter of a century later, the myth remains compelling. In truth, Nixon resigned, not because of what the Woodward-Bernstein exposes contained, but because thorough probes undertaken by several government bodies later yielded evidence of illegal acts committed by the president's aides. The Washington Post deserves the credit not for toppling the president, but for breaking the story of his aides' indiscretions, putting it on the news agenda, and framing it as one of wrongdoing at the highest levels of government.
WatergateÕs most lasting impact is perhaps on journalism. It inspired an entire generation of U.S. journalists; even outside the United States, it set the standard for what the press can do. Hollywood helped by glamorising the reportersÕ role. But beneath the glamour was the essential truth: two dogged journalists following the trail of wrongdoing to no matter where it led them, no matter the consequences. It is a somewhat romantic notion. But one generation after Watergate, when citizens and governments in many countries are overwhelmed by widespread malfeasance and when it has become obvious that there are too few checks on the excesses of power, there is now renewed interest in the role of a free press and of enterprising journalists in ensuring that officials and institutions are held responsible for their actions.
Today, the idea of the press as watchdog and catalyst of change is widely accepted in most democracies, even if only in theory. In countries where democratic institutions are fragile and corrupt, and where the rule of law is at best erratic, journalists soon realise that their role is not just to passively record events. Because other institutions are weak or compromised, the press has ended up doing what the police, the courts, parties and parliaments should be engaged in: exposing malfeasance, calling for reforms, and mobilising public action against corruption.
In recent years, the importance of a free and independent press has been demonstrated most dramatically in new or ÒtransitionalÓ democracies. In these countries, the fear of media exposure is often the only deterrent to official abuse. In some notable instances, media exposŽs have compelled corrupt officials to resign. If they donÕt, public pressure forces governments to bring to justice those who are guilty of malfeasance. Because of investigative reporting, wrong policies are reversed, extravagant projects are put on hold, and politicians whose misbehaviour has been exposed lose elections.
It is little wonder that the dramatic impact of investigative reporting has caught the attention of donors and multilateral institutions in search of mechanisms to improve governance. What journalists have known all along the importance of the press in ensuring the accountability of powerful institutions is now being preached by experts as if it were an original notion. It is not. The idea of the press as Fourth Estate, as a check on the excesses of government, is deeply embedded in liberal democratic theory. The importance of freedom of, and citizens' access to, information has been enshrined in laws and constitutions, in some countries, since the 18th century.
Today, on the eve of the 21st century, as the world becomes ever more complex, and the power of big public and private institutions over citizens' lives becomes even more pervasive, the old precepts of a free press and the free flow of information need no reinvention. The problem is that in many countries, whether they are old autocracies or new democracies, these principles are observed more in the breach. Stringent laws, monopolistic media ownership, and sometimes brute force seriously hinder the ability of the press to be an effective watchdog. In 1998, 24 journalists were killed because of their work. In addition, 77 journalists were in prison in 1999, some of them for more than 10 years, because authorities were displeased with their reporting.
But state controls are not the only constraints. Serious reporting is difficult to sustain in media markets that put a premium on the shallow and the sensational. In many newsrooms, even in affluent countries, tight budgets do not allow for the investment in time and resources that investigative journalism requires. Moreover, in many countries, journalists do not have the experience and the training to do in-depth reporting. Or even if they did, the pecuniary and political interests of media owners limit the freedom of journalists to conduct exposŽs. The obstacles to investigative journalism, both in terms of state control and of anarchic media markets, remain formidable. In fact, the astonishing thing is that this kind of reporting thrives at all, sometimes in the least hospitable of environments.
The Press as Democracy's Watchdog
THE MOST instructive case is that of Latin America, where it is widely acknowledged that sustained investigative reporting on corruption, human rights violations and other forms of wrongdoing has helped build a culture of accountability in government. There, media exposure, particularly of corruption in high places, has brought down governments. The downfall of two presidents Fernando Collor de Mello of Brazil and Carlos Andres Perez of Venezuela was due largely to investigative reporting on their complicity in corrupt deals.
In 1992, Brazilian magazines printed exposŽs on Collor de MelloÕs involvement, through his campaign treasurer, in the extortion of bribes from companies in exchange for favourable government treatment. The Brazilian Congress formed a body to investigate the charges and eventually, the president was forced to resign. Not long afterward, a Venezuelan newspaper ran articles alleging that President Perez was unable to account for $17 million in discretionary funds and that he made money by speculating on the local currency. In reaction, the Venezuelan Congress began impeachment proceedings, prompting Perez to step down from office.
Elsewhere in Latin America, the media have raked up similarly damaging charges against high officials. The Argentinean press has found evidence of President Carlos Menem's involvement in financial scandals. In Panama, a team of investigative reporters showed how a local bank with close ties to the government was used by a Colombian drug cartel to launder profits from the narcotics trade. Such reporting has made the press a credible and prestigious institution that enjoys the public's support and trust. In the fledgling democracies of the region, the press has stood out as the one institution that has functioned effectively and independently.
But this success has come at a great cost. The New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) has tallied 117 journalists killed in Latin America from 1988 to 1998. Most of the murders took place in countries where the judiciary is weak and corrupt, therefore unable and unwilling to defend press rights. Because the courts are dishonest and inept, the killers are seldom punished. Those who wish the press ill Ñwhether they are officials, drug cartels, or insurgent movements involved in illicit trades or the protection of crime Ñ are able to operate with impunity.
It is obvious that at the most basic level, a free press and investigative reporting are possible only where journalists enjoy some protection. Constitutional and legal provisions are necessary, but even where these exist, they do not always ensure that the media can report without fear or favour. It is important that the rights of journalists are upheld by an independent judiciary and protected by the rule of law. In Latin America and the Philippines (where 33 journalists have been killed since 1986), many of those murdered were the victims of small-town bosses able to terrorise communities because weak states are unable to enforce the law and provide protection to their citizens, journalists included.
That is why it often seems that the press is caught in a chicken-and-egg situation. Its freedoms are not guaranteed unless other democratic institutions perform their functions well. But these institutions are unable to do so because there is no independent check on their performance, in part because the press is threatened and bullied. It is often up to crusading journalists to break this impasse despite the risks. Legal Constraints on Reporting
CERTAINLY, the job of journalists can be made much easier. In many countries, stringent libel and defamation laws keep the media in thrall. Because these laws penalise erring reporters with prison terms, journalists become wary about doing exposŽs that could land them in jail. In addition, the prospect of long, expensive litigation and hefty penalties daunts media proprietors who are more concerned with profit margins than public service.
In many countries, truth is not considered a defence in libel, and journalists can be compelled to reveal their sources on pain of contempt of court or a prison term. Contempt charges have also been used to clamp down on critical reporting on the courts. In September 1999, Canadian journalist Murray Hiebert, then Malaysia bureau chief of the Far Eastern Economic Review, was jailed for four weeks for an article that a local judge deemed was derogatory to the judiciary in that country. Journalists writing articles questioning an officialÕs actions or motives have also been tried for treason and sedition. In Nigeria, four journalists were convicted in 1995 as Òaccessories after the fact to treasonÓ for reporting on a supposed coup plot. In Croatia, merely reporting facts considered insulting or harmful to a government officialÕs reputation is ground for a libel suit. There are some 500 lawsuits pending against journalists in that country in 1998, including 130 criminal libel suit! s with fines totalling over $13 million.
In many places, politicians file suits indiscriminately, knowing that the mere threat of a court case often succeeds in squelching further reporting on a controversy. Even when reporters are not actually hauled off to jail, they have to get a lawyer, pay bail, attend court hearings and compile evidence to back their case. This is tedious work that takes them away from what they should be doing reporting. If investigative reporting is to take off, libel and defamation must be decriminalised. As press groups in various countries have argued, civil suits are sufficient to provide redress for aggrieved citizens. The experience of many countries has shown that stringent laws do not actually curb sensationalism and irresponsible reporting; instead, these statues have mainly been used to clamp down on serious journalists who expose official wrongdoing.
There is also a need to liberalise other laws, including those that impose strict licensing requirements for newspaper publication or allow the government to seize or close down publications or ban programs considered as a threat to national security, public order, or national unity.
Although less onerous, such laws such as the Official Secrets Act are still in force in many Commonwealth countries and are a real damper to investigations because they make government records inaccessible. In contrast, few countries have freedom of information statutes. And even where there are disclosure laws, record-keeping in many new democracies is in a primitive state and a culture of secrecy still rules in bureaucracies.

**********************************

Investigative reporting becomes unnecessarily excruciating, and sometimes impossible, if journalists do not get routine access to essential public records like corporate registration, property records, audit reports and disclosure statements of officials. Procedures that simplify access to such records, instead of making them subject to the discretion of officials, make it easier for reporters to do their jobs. In truth, the requisites for investigative journalism are not difficult to put in place even in the most fragile of democratic regimes: legal guarantees and protection for the press, accessibility of public records, and a community of committed journalists.

Writes Joel Simon, the CPJ's Latin America co-ordinator: While enormous financial investments and strong political will are needed to create an independent judiciary or truly competitive political parties, a free press requires no financial investment or direct government support. All that is needed is for the government to allow journalists to work without fear of reprisal. Investing in Investigative Journalism

THE institutionalisation of a free press is of course the first step. To sustain investigative reporting, however, a laissez-faire approach will not suffice. Investigative journalism requires an investment in time, resources for research, and the development of reportorial talent. Unfortunately, such investment is lacking. In many newsrooms in the world, media proprietors compete with their rivals by offering sex, sleaze and sensation instead of in-depth reports. The media market is so crowded and so anarchic that the tendency is to appeal to the lowest common denominator of public taste. In this environment, investigative reports are crowded out of the newscast and the news pages by the routine reportage of events and the other distractions that are passed off as news.
Investigative reporting is a risky business. It threatens to upset the cosy relationships between media owners and their friends among the upper-crust of business and politics. In addition, press proprietors are wary that investigating such issues as corporate irresponsibility might turn off advertisers. Given these obstacles, the only way that investigative reports can make any headway in the media free market is to show that they can sell newspapers and news programs and that there is an audience for serious reporting.
The truth is that in many countries, investigative reports do sell. They generate a great deal of public reaction and bring recognition to news organisations. The key is to get newsrooms to initiate and invest in investigations despite the costs and the risks. One way is to convince them of the rewards, in terms of increased audience share, name brand recognition or professional prestige. Awards for investigative reporting are one way to encourage this trend.
Other benefits are less tangible, but perhaps even more important. Carefully-researched, high-impact investigative reports help build the mediaÕs credibility and support among the public. The press as an institution is strengthened if journalists have demonstrated that they serve the public interest by uncovering malfeasance and abuse. A credible press is assured of popular backing if it is muzzled or otherwise constrained. Such support may not be forthcoming if journalists squander their freedoms on the superficial and the sensational.
Restraining Media Excesses
TO BE sure, the development of investigative reporting can be seen as one way to curb some of the excesses of a free press. This is especially true in new democracies. The fall of dictatorships is often followed by a media explosion. After Ferdinand Marcos was toppled in 1986, for example, scores of new newspapers and radio stations were set up in the Philippines, as citizens basked in the novelty of a free press.
In Indonesia, hundreds of new newspapers opened after the 32-year reign of President Suharto ended in May 1998. Indonesians called it the Òeuphoria press.Ó Euphoria is a wonderful thing, but it does not always give birth to good journalism. To begin with, there is a lack of skilled journalists to staff the news organisations created by the media boom. Secondly, the boom results in intense competition, which often means racing for the headlines and sacrificing substance and depth.
Investigative reporting offers a way out of these problems. It addresses the problem of skills by forcing journalists to sharpen research and reporting techniques. It helps resolve the problem of sensationalism because investigative reports require sobriety and depth. They also help sell newspapers and give publications a competitive edge. Hopefully, if constantly exposed to excellent reporting, audiences develop a more discerning palette and will learn to tell the difference between fast-food journalism and substantial reading fare. In time, they may even be weaned away from the merely distracting and entertaining and will demand more in-depth reporting. But unless exposed to new ideas and better kinds of journalism, audiences will stagnate and news organisations will be stuck pandering to their undeveloped tastes.
Apart from improving the quality of the media and of the media audience, investigative reporting helps widen the scope of journalistic freedom. By constantly digging for information, by forcing government and the private sector to release documents, by subjecting officials and other powerful individuals to rigorous questioning, investigative journalists expand the boundaries of what is possible to print or air.
At the same time, they make officials accustomed to an inquisitive press. Officials eventually realise that releasing information benefits the government. After all, if official information is not forthcoming, journalists will tend to report lies, rumours, and speculations instead, and no one is the better for it. It may take time, but officials must be convinced that informed citizens make better citizens, even if in the process, government takes a beating in the press. In any government, no matter how corrupt or how autocratic, there are reform-minded officials and bureaucrats who appreciate the journalistsÕ role and who are willing to co-operate with reporters in the release of information. In the long term, the constant give-and-take between journalists and officials helps develop a culture Ñ and a tradition Ñ of disclosure. This, in turn, buttresses the mediaÕs capacity to play its watchdog role. Investigative journalism gives the media not only more bark, but also more bite, making them better watchdogs. The better the media are, the more able they are to find proof of wrongdoing, the more they are able to hold powerful individuals and institutions accountable for their actions.
Certainly, it can be said that dictators like Marcos and Suharto have been able to rob their countries blind not only because they controlled the levers of power, but also because they muzzled the media. Such plunder by similar regimes in Africa and Latin America was possible partly because of an acquiescent press. Would these leaders have been able to get away with their crimes if inquisitive journalists had dogged their trail and exposed their abuses? Probably not. This is why democracies need skilled journalists with the ability and the courage to ask tough questions and to keep an eye on those who wield power and create wealth. Otherwise, they risk being trapped in a cycle of plunder and abuse.
Increasingly now, in many parts of the world, the realisation is that democracy does not bring an end to corruption, cronyism or environmental devastation. The abuses merely take new forms. Corruption, for example, becomes more decentralised, no longer concentrated in the head of state and his family; many more snouts crowd around the public trough and it becomes ever more important to guard it. The criminal waste of public resources continues in scandalous proportions and very often, unless the media expose these crimes and unmask the criminals, reforms do not take place.
Investigating Corruption
NOT all reporters, however, have the inclination or the skills to be investigative journalists. Exposing malfeasance requires not only the nose, but also the doggedness, to sniff out wrongdoing and follow its trail. Patience and perseverance, especially with tedious detail, are needed. Other requisites are a basic knowledge of laws, the capacity to understand bureaucratic procedures, and the ability to chase documents that will provide evidence of malfeasance. Good investigative journalists know where to find sources who will provide reliable information and help them piece together how wrongdoing was committed. Increasingly now, a familiarity with computer-assisted research tools (e.g. the use of computer databases and the Internet) is indispensable for investigative reporters.
All of these can be learned. In many cases, training for special skills, such as reading financial statements, constructing databases and Internet searching has proved useful in honing investigative skills. Manuals for investigative reporters, including those that provide tips on where appropriate documents can be found and the procedures for accessing them, arm journalists with the tools they need for conducting research. In time, and with practice, journalists master these tools and sharpen the instinct for reporting on corruption. They are also able to develop a network of sources that will provide information on official wrongdoing.
The truth is that in many countries, corruption is rarely hidden from public view. Petty corruption Ñ policemen taking bribes from erring motorists or fixers who demand a fee in exchange for facilitating a permit or a license Ñ is fairly easy to document. Reporters can interview victims or simply go through the processes themselves to see whether they are asked to make payoffs.
Corruption on a grander scale is harder to investigate, but not impossible. Many times, there are insiders in an organisation who, for whatever reason, are willing to play the role of whistleblower. Often, they are only waiting to be asked the right questions by an inquisitive journalist. All reporters, after all, are constantly on the lookout for their ÒDeep Throat.Ó Otherwise, there are business or political rivals who can be tapped for information. Businessmen who lose bids for government contracts may be willing to speak about how bribes have been extorted from them. Sometimes, police or other investigators are only to eager to share with journalists what they have found.
Evidence of actual pay-offs may be difficult to find, so investigative journalists instead look out for lapses in established procedures or conflicts of interest. Sometimes, a pattern of irregular decision-making or awarding of contracts to favoured firms can be discerned, even if proof of actual bribery is not available. One other area that is ripe for investigation is the lifestyle and public behaviour of government officials. For example, it is difficult to show that judges are paid off, but reporting on judges meeting with litigants or lawyers with cases pending in their courts may be sufficient to demonstrate breaches in ethical conduct. Certainly, reporters who find tax examiners driving Volvos and sporting Rolex watches should start following the money trail.
The more sophisticated types of corruption are the most difficult to report on, especially when they involve dummy firms and shareholders, corporate layering, overseas bank accounts and offshore companies. In an era of digital convergence, transnational money flows and international crime, investigating corruption becomes more challenging than it ever has been. Even the most talented investigative journalists can reach a dead end when investigating complex transactions that cross national borders and various legal jurisdictions. But even in these instances, it may be possible to get the co-operation of lawyers and accountants, as well as of official regulators and investigators. Otherwise, there are business rivals or company insiders who may have reason to blow the whistle.
Journalists should of course develop a certain scepticism about their sources. It is easy for corruption investigations to be manipulated. Reporters are often fed information by sources who have something to gain from an exposŽ. The challenge is to steer clear of partisan politics and to be independent of vested interests. But no matter how careful journalists are, they will be accused of the basest motives. This is par for the course; reporters eventually learn to be patient and to realise that only after several exposŽs will they be able to prove their independence and develop a reputation for credibility and trustworthiness. The publicÕs trust is earned if journalists are careful about their methods. Investigative reporting has come under fire in the U.S., where reporters have been accused of being too trigger happy with the use of undercover and surveillance methods. The ABC network, for example, was penalised in court for allowing its journalists to seek employment in a grocery store and to use hidden cameras to show how the Food Lion grocery chain was selling stale meat. In 1998, a reporter of the Cincinnati Enquirer resorted to accessing the internal voice mail of employees of Chiquita Brands in the course of researching a story on the companyÕs business practices. He was widely criticised for using illegal methods to get a story and later, for revealing his source in the course of court proceedings.
The easy availability of surveillance-type equipment, such as video cameras or tape recorders that fit neatly into a small pocket, makes it tempting for journalists to take shortcuts. But if they are to have the publicÕs confidence, journalists should be more self-critical about their methods and ethics. They must also be willing to disclose the methods they use in their investigations.
The ideal for the press is still self-regulation. Codes of Ethics that clearly define appropriate conduct and lay down the principles that journalists should uphold must be drawn up and strictly enforced, either at the level of the news organisation or of the media community as a whole. Journalists should also engage each other and their readers or viewers in discussions on the conduct of the press and its methods of work. These discussions can take place in various forums, including conferences, online newsgroups, industry publications, or newspaper columns. There should also be mechanisms, such as press ombudsmen or press councils, through which aggrieved readers or viewers can seek redress or at least air their views. This way, the media themselves become accountable.
The media is a powerful institution that deserves to be subjected to the same examination as other institutions. There is no reason why the power of investigative reporting should not be used to probe the excesses of the media as well. For example, media corruption Ñ as in bribes or favours given to reporters in exchange for favourable coverage Ñ is an issue that most journalists refuse to discuss publicly. But like corruption elsewhere, corrupt practices in the media will persist if they are not brought out into the open and subjected to scrutiny and reform.
There are other issues that must be addressed if the media is to be an effective and credible watchdog. One is wages and benefits. In many countries, journalists are poorly paid in comparison to those in other professions. This is one reason why petty corruption Ñ such as envelopes of cash given out during press conferences Ñ persists in many developing countries. Better salaries help keep reporters honest, and they ensure that the best of them stay in the profession instead of seeking better remuneration elsewhere. Competitive pay for journalists also ensures that the media attract the best and the brightest. High levels of skill, probity, and behaviour are demanded of investigative journalists, yet the media industry is niggardly and often unwilling to provide adequate compensation for reportorial integrity and talent. The Journalism of Outrage and Hope
THE danger, of course, is that sustained reporting on corruption would lead to widespread cynicism about government. It is important that investigative reports make an impact in terms of policy reversals or personnel changes, or at least the initiation of official investigations of the wrongdoing that has been exposed. Otherwise, citizens will think that nothing can be done and they will view exposŽs as yet another distraction proffered by the media.
Often, news organisations that have invested on an exposŽ will try to make sure that something does happen, by eliciting reactions to their investigation or writing follow-up stories that examine what has been done. Sometimes, the media as whole gets involved in an issue, with reporters from various news organisations investing resources to follow up on a particularly explosive revelation. This was the case with Watergate, when both television and print reporters followed the trail of the story for many months after the initial Washington Post investigation.
Investigative journalists are lone-ranger types: many of them work best alone or in small teams. But in many countries now, they are realising that if reforms are to be sustained, there must be a conscious effort to develop a community of journalists who can trade techniques and sources as well as provide each other support when they are being hounded by the powerful. The role of press organisations is important in this regard. These groups can act as lobbyists for journalistsÕ rights and for greater access to information. They can monitor infringements on press freedom and develop mechanisms to assist and protect journalists. Press groups can also help improve skills through training and internships. In the 1990s, groups defending press freedom have been set up by journalists in several Latin American countries to document and protest abuses against the press. These groups have organised seminars on press rights and mobilised fact-finding missions and international delegations to look into infringements on media freedom. In 1998, journalists from Indonesia, Thailand and the Philippines got together to form the Southeast Asian Press Alliance, a watchdog group to promote press freedom in the region. The alliance facilitates exchanges of information among press groups, keeps track of press freedom violations, and conducts training seminars.
But journalists alone cannot solve social ills. Civil society plays a role and eventually, the wheels of government have to be set in motion to fight malfeasance. At best, journalism plays a catalytic role. Investigative reports enrich public debate and put on the news agenda issues that should be of concern to citizens. By probing, for example, the consequences of corruption in terms of the quality of government services taxpayers get or the magnitude of the waste of public resources, journalists help readers to understand the problems of governance and to make decisions about who they should vote for and what changes they should demand. At their best, expos's should make people angry rather than cynical, and move citizens to action. Outrage makes change possible.
Ideally, investigative reporting should help raise the level of public discourse by bringing issues of corruption away from personal attacks or partisan politics to the level of policy and institutional reform. Apart from the psychic rewards of exposing crooks, naming and shaming is important because it makes corruption visible and intelligible to the public. But investigative journalists should look at not only who is responsible for the wrongdoing they have uncovered and how it was done, they should also examine why it was possible and how it can be corrected. For this reason, it may sometimes be good to feature the work of reformers, whistleblowers and organisations combating corruption. Citizens need to be informed about innovations that have worked or reforms that have been implemented Ñ and what still needs to be done Ñ so they can temper their outrage with a measure of hope.

Sheila Coronel is the Executive Director of the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism and a founding Board Member of SEAPA.

Back