Here are answers to questions Nicky Hager has been asked by journalism students:
What is investigative journalism?
The essense of this role is keeping watch on people in authority and making them accountable for their actions. This requires a healthy scepticism about “important” people. The impulse is a democratic one – understanding that people in authority have a basic conflict of interest when it comes to freedom of information. This conflict of interest is that they control access to information about public issues that the public has a right to know about, but it can serve their personal interests (politically, commercially etc) to withhold or only selectively release this information. It’s our job to put the public interest before their other interests.
Because the ‘information’ age is so awash with paid public relations messages, paid industry spokespeople, paid advertising and daily media that carry all these, another way of describing the role is that it is trying to provide the public with some reality in the midst of all the spin.
By the way, I don’t think it’s the job of investigative journalism to dig up dirt on people who are obviously not powerful. Stories about individuals cheating beneficiaries, supposedly pampered prisoners or missing money on the marae building project tap into easy prejudice, and reinforce stereotypes about groups of people – and, incidentally, are easier to do than probing those with real power and influence – but contribute little to understanding about who really shapes society and makes the big decisions affecting other people’s lives.
What are the ideal attributes of an investigative journalist?
I have met many investigative journalists from around the world and there are obvious similarities. Typically they are nosy and interested in the world. They use lateral thinking and initiative as they pursue information. They are persistent, even if the story takes months or years. And — not the answer you might expect — they care about the things they’re writing about. The best journalism comes from people who care about their subject areas, who are offended by injustice, who are sceptical of authority and who still feel indignant when someone tells lies. If you don’t feel strongly about those things, don’t bother!
How can a busy journalist ever have time for investigative work?
I understand that time feels like an insurmountable barrier to ever being able to do investigative work. However after looking at real examples around the world I don’t think time is as important as motivation, creativity and persistence.
Hardly anyone in media is going to be given lots of time for one story so people find ways to do investigative work anyway. Fortunately most investigative stories aren’t full-time. There are long gaps while you wait to find the right sources, wait for replies to letters and generally wait for one breakthrough to help lead to others. Therefore the way to do it is to allow one or a few longer term projects fit between the daily routine of other stories – and accept that your best and most satisfying work may have to be done partly or even entirely in your own time. If getting started feels hard, ask advice from someone who has done it before.
Do you think investigative journalism benefits society?
Yes, that’s the whole point as far as I’m concerned.
Do you think daily journalism benefits society?
Yes, of course, hugely. When everyone can know roughly what is going on, day by day, it helps to bind together a society and allow people to be part of that society. The reason why investigative journalism is needed as well is that if all we have is the daily reporting lots of information remains secret, is released selectively or comes loaded with spin. The role of investigative journalism is to go behind the spin and seek the truth so that the public can know more about things affecting their lives and participate in their communities.
How do you do it?
The starting point is having a question or hunch. Investigative journalism is then all about planning how to find the information. You learn that there are many tools in the toolbox: little known official sources of information, freedom of information laws, specialist databases, ways of tracing people, ways of locating and protecting willing inside sources, fieldwork and much more. The harder the information is to get, the more resourcefulness is required. Often an investigation will seem impossible for a while and then the right idea or lucky breakthrough occurs. Quite often the latest breakthrough suggests steps that were not previously visible. Every small breakthrough can be a pleasure, encouraging you on.
What investigative stories are worth doing?
Usually the best work comes from journalists who care personally about an issue. This is NOT about lack of objectivity, it’s about motivation. This is about feeling offended about people lying, being suspicious of issues where the public seems to be getting spin, wondering what vested interests are driving issues from the background and so on. I find there are things in the news all the time where I’m thinking: they haven’t answered the question, what’s behind the spin? The main thing is watching news critically, noticing what’s not there and what seems fishy.
What about objectivity?
Every journalist (except perhaps for a few very dull ones) has political views and things they care about. After all, this is quite likely why they went into journalism. It guides them in asking the important questions, helps them recognise an important story when they find it and keeps them going until they’ve cracked it. The point of objectivity isn’t that journalists should be blandly indifferent to what they write about. The professionalism comes from being fair, accurate and balanced even when they have personal views.
Do you ever get called any of the following: superficial, boring, nasty or mean?
No, but I get called other names. I think this is a product of a style of politics where people attack rather than debate. Generally, I get attacked by people who don’t like my findings and praised by people who do. Thus many people know someone like me through the criticisms and insults of people who don’t like what I reveal, rather than by reading my books and articles themselves. Fortunately, lots of people do read books and want to understand issues and in that way information and ideas spread through society.
Why do you think investigative journalists get more abuse thrown at them than daily journalists?
I assume it’s because the work is more challenging to people in authority.
Amanda Cropp’s book about investigative journalism said daily journalists are: “Like hit-and-run drivers, hit-and-run reporters don’t hang around the scene. A quick look and they’re off. As a result their stories are superficial and fail to answer even the basic questions of Who? What? Where? Why? How? And When?”. What do you think of this comment?
I know lots of journalists who really try to do better than that. But it’s probably a fair generalisation.
Do you enjoy your job?
Yes, I enjoy my job a lot. It is fun in piecing together hidden or scattered information. It is satisfying showing up people who mislead the public and abuse their power. And there is pleasure and relief when I have succeeded in writing something well enough.
What is your view on the standard of investigative journalism in New Zealand?
The main and obvious answer is that there isn’t much of it. There are complex reasons for this lack. The usual explanation is a lack of time for reporters. But I think it is more about the media and political culture. I don’t think investigative journalism is encouraged within news organisations and I think that idealistic journalists (who would love to do such work) get discouraged about their ability to do so.
Since there is so little full-time investigative journalism, I think it is more useful to talk more generally about the standard of journalism, since investigative journalism is not some special different activity but more a point along a continuum from less to more carefully researched work. Lots of normal reporting is needlessly poor, with formulaic stringing together of quotations and unthinking adoption of powerful interests’ ‘framings’ of issues. The place where most improvement could be achieved in New Zealand media is not at the investigative end (as much as I’d like to see that) but in an effort at higher quality basic reporting: asking more probing questions, bothering to be at least faintly informed, wondering what lies behind press releases etc etc, none of which takes impossible amounts of time.