Hurdles to investigative journalism

Investigative journalism provides the checks and balances but sadly in Malaysia it is still at its infant stage.

COMMENT

Every news organisation has only its credibility and reputation to rely on. —Tony Burman, ex-editor-in-chief of CBC News, The Globe and Mail

The term investigative journalism is relatively new and one of the most recurring images of investigative journalists at work comes from the Watergate exposé and later the movie “All the President’s Men”.

These images have left a lasting image of investigative reporting – brave reporters, alerted by tip-offs bringing down powerful and corrupt figures.

Journalism in Malaysia has been around for more than a century and as to investigative journalism, it is still in an infant stage.

In some countries this type of journalism is equated with a push for liberal democratisation process.

Here, many want the press to take a leading role in bringing about reforms. But unfortunately the media barons have their own agenda.

An investigative journalist has not only to put up with his blinkered owner but there is a slew of laws to stop him in his tracks.

“Malaysian journalists tread on murky waters of repressive laws, hence they find it extremely difficult investigating those in authority,” a local university lecturer Samuel Ihediwa wrote in an academic paper 2005 presentation entitled, “Investigative Journalism in Malaysia”.

Ihediwa’s research findings also cited numerous “obstacles” working against the practice of investigative reporting in the country.

A host of draconian and restrictive laws governing the media industry act as prohibitive catalysts against investigative reporting.

These include the infamous Internal Security Act (1960), the Printing Presses and Publications Act (1984), the Sedition Act (1948), and the Official Secrets Act (1972) .

And for good measure add in self-censorship from fawning editors out to please their masters.

Those in power hate investigating reports as it shows them up, warts and all. So the next best thing to do is to cripple the journalists with draconian laws and create a docile media industry.
And in Malaysia the powers-that-be have achieved what they wanted – no reports on accountability and good governance – at least in the mainstream media.

Lapdog role

Jan Shaffer of the Pew Centre for Civic Journalism (US) described our local media and reporters performing the following roles.

The majority of our print media plays the “lapdog” role. They are controlled by publishers or directors who have an eye on profits and advertising revenue rather than news gathering.

Then you have the role of the “attack dog” pushing to discredit or destroy the image of politicians or their credibility within the political divide.

The “watchdog” role being the “eyes, ears and voice” of concerned public on their interest and welfare, is considered the most vulnerable to political pressures, police reports and civil lawsuits.

Lastly, the “guide dogs” role giving people not only informative news but providing tips and useful information to the public on how and what to think on critical government policies affecting them.

While it is true that investigative journalism cannot flourish or be conducted creditably in an environment where freedom of the press and that of expression is placed under severe restriction, what are the options available to nurture an informed citizenry?

Silvio Waisbord, Associate Professor at George Washington University (School of Media and Public Affairs) and a veteran on the subject of “Watchdog Journalism” had this to say on ethical and investigative journalism.

On ethics of investigative journalism, Waisbord said: “Ethics instead deals with how to distinguish between right and wrong, with philosophical principles used to justify a particular course of action.

“What journalists and editors need to determine is who will benefit as a result of the reporting.”

Waisbord sees investigative reporting as more than playing the role of providing checks and balances in democratic systems. He emphasised that when government institutions fail to conduct further inquiries or investigations are plagued with problems and suspicions, investigative journalism can contribute to accountability by monitoring the functions of these institutions.

The new media

With such a negative picture , what is the future of investigative journalism in Malaysia?

The future is bright when compared with media barons losing their grip on influencing their readers and dwindling circulation figures.

With the advent of blogs, Facebook, twitters and on-line news portals, investigative reports are becoming more common and finally the public has another unbiased source to turn to.

In Malaysia , it would be a mistake to think the government is the sole culprit. Investigative journalism can also be discouraged by business corporations through a “menu” of options or benefits available to media players.

Publishers, editors and reporters could benefit from a range of “goodies” ranging from news scoops, free travels and monetary rewards as if they were candies for “well behaved” journalists, according to Waisbord’s field research on the matter.

But, there is a note of optimism . The future of investigative journalists is on the side of the Net-savvy, empowered people.

And to what extent can an investigative journalist go to do an exposé? Can television reporters use hidden cameras to get a story? Can journalists use false identities to gain access to information?

One person seems to have answered this predicament. Marvin Kalb who had spent 30 years as an award-winning diplomatic correspondent with US television networks, once urged journalists not to be swayed by public opinions, only by the pursuit of Truth, as close as he or she can get.

Stankey Koh is a veteran political observer and a FMT columnist.