DON'T SHOOT THE MESSENGER - PAY HIM! - YOUGOV DEBATE ON INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM

I attended a YouGov debate last night at Stationer's Hall.  The theme was 'Investigative Journalism - is there a future?' and the room was packed with journalists and editors I suppose wanting to know if there was for professional and probably personal reasons as well.

They had four interesting speakers.   Alan Rusbridger, Editor in Chief of The Guardian, who is much more likeable than his characterisation in the film The Fifth Estate.  Tom Harper, an investigations journalist from the Independent (not sure what is the difference between an investigations journalist and an investigative reporter, but it may be the same thing, - I should investigate further..).  Heather Brooke, who was an investigative reporter, became an author because (sic) there was more money in it' and is now in academia, because I suppose there is more security in that,  and Andrew Gilligan who is another investigative reporter, award winning who told us he has won many court cases against wealthy and not so wealthy crooks and liars but admitted himself that he had lied in order to do so.   Andrew O'Neil chaired, making sure questions were short and succinct from the audience and if they weren't short and succinct, allowing the punters to give themselves sufficient rope with which he could hang them with.

The consensus was there was a future for investigative journalism, although Brooke said it had limitations, and that proper investigative journalism 'costs' - not the journalism itself, but paying the journalists legal fees when the wealthy crooks/establishment have been found out and they use their money/contacts/the 'system' (which was spoken about a lot during the evening like some elephant in the room) to 'protect their reputation'.   The Guardian was viewed as a bastion almost a lighthouse of the investigative journalism, although it did make me smile when Rusbridger admitted 'we haven't lost as much money this year' - which I though was quite endearing.   Other papers are making lots of money, but then they would, wouldn't they -  the people they could 'out' are paying their wages, which sort of screws up the whole idea of investigative journalism - biting the hand that feeds you and all that.

Tenacity, curiosity, contacts and courage seemed to be the recipe for good investigative journalism and a bloody good lawyer.   Gilligan admitted to lying to get stories, but then as The Fifth Estate film showed, everyone in this business (or any business actually) lies, it's just that some of the liars you like, or rather you like them more than the others.

Not much was talked about ethics although someone from the audience did talk about the Telegraph journalists who posed as wanting an abortion to two doctors, and how this was irresponsible journalism and morally questionable.  Gilligan commented the Telegraph has a right to be anti abortion as much as any 'one' else.  Yup, just that any 'one' else, doesn't pose as people wanting abortions.

And the media wasn't seen as a 'profession', but as 'tradesmen', which I suppose means we're not establishment, we're messengers, voice of the people.  And the messenger is always shot.

What was skirted around was the reality that much of the media (with the exception I presume of The Guardian because it is losing money) is part of the establishment, and is as corrupt as the police, the politicians, the lawyers, the city, and all the other 'bastions' which tell us what to do and how to do it (or at least try to).  But then that would be libellous.   There were quite a few barristers in the room with business cards at the ready.

Brooke commented the 'public' weren't aware that investigative journalism costs money and there is no such thing as free news.    I think they are aware, and they're aware that it costs the investigative reporters and the editors who stand behind them, a lot more than money. It costs in some cases lives for those who are informants, for those in Middle Eastern countries getting the 'truth' and the journalists who do their job have a long time waiting to see if their 'courage' is going to pay off. Gilligan has won many awards for his scoops, but I wonder how much sleep and years of life he'd lost in the process.

What the public are frustrated with and I could see it on the faces of these experienced journalists on the panel as well, is that when a person or an issue is investigated and the 'truth' comes out (which Gilligan pointed out to those who are found culpable appears an invasion of privacy and smear rather than truth telling), the 'system' doesn't do anything about it.

Doctors aren't prosecuted and jailed for malpractice, politicians get off for good behaviour and land jobs back in authority, the City boys and bosses still get their bonuses, police who may want to set up politicians they have come to recognise as utterly revolting people, are allowed to get away it.  Justice isn't done.    Revelation doesn't lead to revolution - or a change of the 'system'.    So all this investigative journalism, all this truth telling, all these sleepless nights, all this money being paid into the legal system, all this courage, is for nothing because 'the system' allows the crooks to get away with it. Probably because the crooks make the system or the crooks pay the people who know the system.   Even the freedom of speech on the world wide web is monitored, skype is monitored, not for lies, but probably for the truth.     Too much money, too much ego, too many liars.   What a web we have weaved...