This paper was written for the Global Investigative Journalism Conference held in Lillehammer, Norway, in October 2015 as part of the academic track and presented there. http://gijc15.sched.org/event/44Ik/studies-of-cross-border-investigations
This paper explores the efficacy and potential of increased journalistic and academic data, research and reporting collaboration, in the context of credible, accountability information. Investigative journalists throughout the world understandably cherish their independent “watchdog” function. Professional news organizations and individual journalists traditionally have not been particularly collaborative with scholars in the academic community (beyond perfunctorily quoting them in their stories), even though their interests, expertise, research and writing are often about quite similar subject matter. And of course, at the same time, the university milieu, the “academy,” has seemed distant and disengaged from civic life and current events issues because, too often, it is.
But of course, holding those in power accountable is necessarily a collaborative undertaking, especially considering how vital and varied reliable information is to democracy and to the entire concept of self-governance everywhere. Credible journalistic, academic, research “think tank” and other investigative, data-gathering institutions and individuals must increase the extent to which they share their information, knowledge and expertise with each other. And in the 21st century world of instant communication and hundreds of millions of often dubious websites, blogs, and other online publishing outlets, the winnowed ranks of serious, professional journalists in the commercial and nonprofit news media milieus must somehow find new ways to broaden the spectrum of valid, substantive information and deepen the forensic quality of public inquiry and analysis. To that end, they must consider – indeed, embrace — new synergistic approaches and previously unimaginable collaborations and potential partnerships. And there is increasing evidence of editorial cross-pollination and collaboration.
This paper will analyze the extent to which the public space for timely, authoritative, accountability-related information and reporting about those in (government and private sector) power can be enlarged.
Accountability Information, Across Borders
With the significant deterioration of the traditional news media business model in recent years, there are noticeably fewer independent reporters and researchers closely watching those in power. And that has very serious potential ramifications for the state of democracies throughout the world, for as the author of the U.S. Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, once wrote, “The only security of all is in a free press . . . The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary to keep the waters pure.” (Shapiro, 2006)
Unfortunately, only 14 percent of the world’s population lives in countries with a “free press” where “coverage of political news is robust, the safety of journalists is guaranteed, state intrusion in media affairs is minimal, and the press is not subject to onerous legal or economic pressures.” (Freedom House, 2015) For years, it has been quite apparent that “media freedom is in retreat” throughout the world. (Reporters Without Borders, 2015)
But in addition to the increasing physical, legal and other threats to reporters, editors and media owners, there arguably are not enough professional journalists to sustain a sufficiently scrutinous, watchdog presence, tracking the various uses and abuses of power. For example, in the United States, the number of journalists covering news is approximately the same as in 1972, during the time of the Watergate scandal. The problem is that now the U.S. has roughly 100 million more people and the annual federal government budget is 18 times larger. (Waldman, et. al, 2011) The media’s ability to cover important news issues is no longer commensurate with its own past reporting coverage standards and practices. Examples of this glaring inadequacy abound: for example, between 2003 and 2008 alone, the number of journalists covering the 50 state legislatures and government fell by one-third, decidedly reducing the ability to investigate the thousands of laws passed each year in state capitals, among myriad other potential issues. (Dorroh, 2009) And newspapers in 27 out of 50 states no longer have reporters based in Washington covering their members of Congress and other relevant federal-state topics. (Pew Research Center, 2009) The number of full time U.S. foreign correspondents has also decreased, precisely at a time they should increase. (Kumar, 2011)
Media operations in Europe also have been and continue to be “severely tested.” For example, just in the decade that ended in 2007, the number of journalists dropped by 53 percent in Norway, 41 percent in the Netherlands, 25 percent in Germany, and 11 percent in Sweden. (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2009) Overall the current, historic “rapid transformation,” according to international media economics authority Robert Picard, “is reducing the scale and scope of many news-gathering and dissemination activities.” And in turn, “in most developed countries . . . audience time given to traditional news sources is declining. Overall, the media from which the public traditionally received news and information, in which public debates were moderated, and in which collective public experiences were generated, are receiving less attention.” (Picard, 2010)
And while the growing nonprofit journalism ecosystem in the United States and around the world is auspicious – indeed, increasingly the most important enterprise reporting will emanate from this important space – it is not a panacea. For one thing, the overall enabling financial wherewithal and scale are insufficient. As has been noted, “since 2000, the U.S. newspaper industry has lost an estimated ‘$1.6 billion in annual reporting and editing capacity…or roughly 30 percent,’ but the new nonprofit money coming into journalism has made up less than one-tenth that amount.” (Starr, 2012)
It is also generally understood that with heat, there is often light and in the context of journalism and democracy, more information and public accountability. And conversely, as Pulitzer Prize-winning author Paul Starr has noted, “corruption flourishes where journalism does not… The less news coverage, the more entrenched political leaders become and the more likely they are to abuse power.” (Starr, 2012) Besides outright illegality, there is an increasing public perception and cynicism about the “legal corruption” of government, the mercenary milieu in which it is mired and its increasing inaccessibility and un-accountability to ordinary citizens, its inability to solve societal problems, etc. (Lewis, 2014)
For example, in the United States, in the presidential election alone in 2012, Americans were subjected to over a million campaign ads, and overall, presidential and congressional elections were awash in dollars, $6.3 billion, much of that “dark” or undisclosed money. That is more than double the costs of the 2000 federal election spending – while inflation only rose 38 percent during that period. (Choma, 2013; Wesleyan Media Project, 2012)
Of course, money and power have always been intertwined, and the public senses, correctly, that over the years, the financial elites and the political elites in the U.S. have essentially become the same. According to Federal Election Commission (FEC) data, between 1976 and 2008 (adjusted for inflation in 2008 dollars), the average cost of winning a House of Representatives seat jumped from $97,477 to $368,842, and the average raised by successful U.S. Senate candidates increased from $2,407,926 to $8,142,424. (Federal Election Commission, 2009) Very, very few Americans today can or would want to set aside a year or two from their job to campaign full-time for federal elective office, and either spend money from their savings or raise that kind of cash from well-heeled special interests seeking favors.
Not surprisingly, as the cost of U.S. campaigns has substantially risen, so too has the net worth of members of Congress seeking elective office these days. When the Center for Public Integrity in Washington analyzed the 1997 Senate disclosures for The Buying of the Congress published the following year, reporters and researchers were surprised to learn that there were “at least 36 Senators” who were millionaires. But since then, the number of millionaire Senators has nearly doubled — 70 out of the 100 U.S. Senators are now millionaires. (Center for Responsive Politics, 2011) And for the first time in documented U.S. history, more than half of the members of Congress, the Senate and the House of Representatives combined, have a financial net worth of more than $1 million, excluding the substantial value of their homes, data that is not required in their annual financial disclosure reports. (Choma, 2014) During that same approximate period of time (1997 – 2011), the median net worth of a U.S. family essentially remained the same, from $20,600 to $20,500. (University of Michigan, 2011; Whoriskey, 2011) In stark contrast, only five percent of the American people today are millionaires. (Samuelson, 2014)
Currently, in the U.S., we have unprecedented political gridlock (E.g. government shutdowns in which the two political parties cannot even agree on the federal government’s annual operating budget), dysfunction and deepening distrust by the American people. Only 7 percent of the American people have “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in Congress as an institution, “the lowest . . . recorded for any (American) institution” since that question was first asked in 1973, amidst the Watergate scandal. (Gallup, 2014) Without elaborating here, when it comes to government oversight and policies, it should be noted that inertia and inaction and merely maintaining the status quo sometimes is quite beneficial to powerful economic interests concerned about potentially inconvenient government regulation.
These issues are hardly unique to the United States. Years ago, the Peruvian investigative journalist Gustavo Gorriti observed, “Although Latin America has made the transition from military to freely elected regimes, many of these are cosmetic democracies in which critical features of truly democratic government remain undeveloped or nonexistent. The idea of accountability, for example, is of little concern to the majority of Latin leaders, some of whom served dictatorships in the past. Yesterday’s advocate of nationalization is often recycled as today’s apostle of privatization.” (Gorriti, 1998)
Of course, diminished trust and confidence in government are hardly unique to Western Hemisphere countries – indeed, that afflicts many of the world’s democracies. Indeed, as one United Nations report declared, “trust in government and political institutions has been in decline across advanced industrial democracies since the mid-1960s.” (Clarke and Light, 2006)
And far beyond politics and election issues, the increasing need for meticulously gathered, analyzed, disseminated and widely accessible and graphically visualized “Big Data” and other credible, verifiable information is quite obvious, on innumerable specific topics such as financial transparency and regulation, energy resources and the environment, health, human rights, national and international security, technology, employment, water scarcity and management issues, etc.
However, as elucidated earlier, traditional commercial and nonprofit news organizations at their current capacities are not able to cover these vital, compelling, complex subjects adequately and expose the frequently inadequate transparency, responsiveness and conduct of governments and corporations to the public.
Fundamentally, as Princeton University’s Starr put it, “in the established democracies, the digital revolution has weakened the ability of the press to act as an effective agent of public accountability by undermining the economic basis of professional reporting and fragmenting the public. If we take seriously the idea that an independent press serves an essential democratic function, its institutional distress may weaken democracy itself. And that is the danger that confronts us: Throughout the postindustrial world, the news media face a serious long-term crisis that social theory did not anticipate” (Starr, 2012)
And so the question is: to what extent can the public space for timely, authoritative, accountability information and reporting about those in (government and private sector) power be enlarged?
In some ways in this Internet age, that public space or coverage vacuum is being increasingly filled by other hunter-gatherers of information, many of them highly educated, professionally skilled, with strict research methods and standards and growing public credibility. Vital, accessible and reliable research based upon primary documents, recorded and transcribed interviews and secondary sources is increasingly available to the public now, published online by a growing number of non-government organizations (NGOs) sometimes described as “think tanks” or “public policy research organizations.” There are more than 6,000 of these organizations throughout the world in 182 countries, many of their employees “former” journalists now functioning as researchers, authors, producers, etc. Their work content is released via their websites and blog posts, newspaper and magazine articles, and radio and television and web stories or documentaries. The editorial quality, thoroughness, and public credibility of their published work vary, of course, not unlike traditional news organizations. (Lewis, 2014) And in some instances, these research organizations have distinguished themselves, by any standard.
For example, consider Human Rights Watch, begun in 1988, now with more than 400 employees, many of them “former” journalists still essentially functioning as such and lawyers including former prosecutors, offices in 17 cities on four continents, publishing in eight languages. No commercial news organization in the world covers and writes about “human rights” issues more extensively than Human Rights Watch. (Human Rights Watch, 2015)
Or in the earlier referenced context of special interest campaign finance money and its influence on political, public policy decision-making in the United States, journalists covering these subjects certainly recognize that the most authoritative research derived directly from primary documents with summarizing reporting, graphics and analysis is published directly online by two nonprofit organizations funded by philanthropic foundations, the Center for Responsive Politics and the National Institute for the Study of Money in Politics. These organizations, founded in 1983 and 1999 and tracking campaign contributions to federal and statewide candidates and their political parties, respectively, are better known online to the public and to journalists as “open secrets” and “follow the money.” (Center for Responsive Politics, 2015; National Institute for the Study of Money in Politics, 2015) There are numerous other political campaign finance-related research organizations throughout the United States, but these are the most credible. And besides professional journalists, numerous academic scholars throughout the U.S. are heavily reliant on this vital information that helps to enable and embolden their own work. These organizations and their researchers in the overall field of “money in politics” are scrupulously nonpartisan.
This kind of de facto collaboration appears to exist in a number of accountability-related fields or subject areas, but is hardly appreciated or understood at all by most working journalists and the general public. At the same time, while academic scholars have collaborated with each other for decades on major projects inside and outside their own universities on specific subjects, and journalists are now necessarily increasingly collaborating with each other inside and outside of their own news organizations, to date that generally appears to be the current extent of substantive collaboration. Generally speaking, academics and journalists do not substantially collaborate on joint investigations, jointly researched, written and published, but instead mostly function as silos, two separate worlds unto themselves.
For example, in academia in the United States today, there is a growing “Consortium of Universities for the Advancement of Hydrologic Science, Inc.” created in 2001, now with over 100 scholars studying water resource issues nationally and internationally (CUAHSI, 2015). Most U.S. journalists have never remotely heard of this group of experts, even during one of the worst droughts in contemporary U.S. history.
And separately, in the context of journalism, the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) was created in 1997 as a project of the Center for Public Integrity in Washington and now has 190 respected investigative journalists in 65 countries on six continents. To date, the ICIJ has organized, conducted and to date has published 25 cross border investigations. (ICIJ, 2015) And according to the Encyclopedia of Journalism, because of the ICIJ-generated investigative online reporting, the Center for Public Integrity became “the first global website devoted to international exposés.” (Feldstein, 2014) Now scores of leading news organizations throughout the world are interested in co-publishing the massive, award-winning ICIJ data projects, all of which is unprecedented in the annals of journalism history. (Buzenberg, 2015).
What if the best, most respected social scientist and journalist investigators could increasingly collaborate and combine their data, public and private sector documents and jointly explore the most important, compelling issues of our time?
While cross-pollination of ideas and techniques and information between these milieus is obviously not new, it has never been overt or systematic or even somewhat formalized. Traditionally, professional news organizations and individual investigative journalists have not been particularly collaborative with scholars in the academic community (beyond perfunctorily quoting them in their stories), even though their interests, expertise, research and writing are often about quite similar subject matter. Now, in this era of Big Data now amid a new generation of practitioners, there are exciting, new opportunities for greater collaboration with academia in the related fields of statistics, mathematics, computer science, forensic accounting, environmental science, etc.
And of course, at the same time, within the university milieu, the “academy” too often has seemed distant and disengaged from civic life and current events issues. But now, in this remarkable Information Age, many new professors and university-based research centers are interested in exploring and publishing online vital, searchable, topical information replete with primary documents and other data about important policy-related issues. These are auspicious developments and indeed, potential cracks in the stereotypical ivory towers of academia. For example, the Investigative Reporting Workshop at American University (AU), possibly the largest university-based reporting center (at or affiliated with a university) in the United States, recently collaborated for a year on a joint project with an AU public anthropologist and author, David Vine. “The Lily Pad Strategy” was the result, replete with multimedia maps, all of which was excerpted from his recently published book tracking the extent and location of every U.S. military base and installation in the world. (Vine, 2015). To my knowledge, coverage of this specific subject to this geographically thorough extent is unprecedented in the U.S.
It is increasingly apparent that holding those in public or private power accountable is and must be a collaborative undertaking, given how fundamental reliable information is to democracies and to the entire concept of self-governance everywhere. Public interest, academic, non-government organizations (including public policy-oriented “think tanks”) and other investigative or data-gathering organizations and individuals increasingly must share their information, knowledge and expertise. Of course, not all organizations or their personnel are created equal, in terms of competence, quality controls and standards, and simple, reliable accuracy. And alternatively, journalists must redefine the possible, and become more welcoming of substantive input from knowledgeable citizens and the common, shared interest and value in public accountability and related documents and data.
Years into this extraordinary “here comes everybody” world of the web and globally-accessible online information, the question is how to attempt and indeed, how to accomplish such a gargantuan task, and do so as efficiently and as realistically soon as humanly possible in this borderless world. How to separate facts from conjecture, data from diatribe, and logistically how to interpose material from different milieus in the most credible, accessible fashion.
The times demand this crossing of the streams of high quality information about the uses and abuses of power in a multitude of subjects. In the months and years ahead, this author intends to further investigate these subjects and all of the logistical encumbrances and existing related, organizational precedents to such a timely and publicly necessary endeavor.
For we must enlarge the public space for investigative reporting, for vital, publicly accessible, authoritative information for citizens everywhere and for all that is possible when it comes to holding those in power accountable.
Buzenberg, W. Anatomy of a Global Investigation: Collaborative, Data-Driven, Without Borders. July 6, 2015. Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy, Harvard University Kennedy School of Government. Retrieved from http://shorensteincenter.org/anatomy-of-a-global-investigation-william-buzenberg/
Center for Responsive Politics, www.opensecrets.org.
Center for Responsive Politics. 2009 Estimated Net Worth of Members of the 111th Congress as of December 2010, spreadsheet compiled for the author by Dan Auble of the Center for Responsive Politics, from http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/ overview.php? type=W&year=2009. “About the Personal Finance Data & CRP’s Methodology,” http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/methodology.php.
Choma, R. The 2012 Election: Our Price Tag (Finally) for the Whole Ball of Wax. Center for Responsive Politics, March 13, 2013. Retrieved from http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/03/the-2012-election-our-price-tag-fin/.
Choma, R. Millionaires’ Club: For First Time, Most Lawmakers are Worth $1 Million-Plus. Center for Responsive Politics, January 9, 2014. Retrieved from: https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2014/01/millionaires-club-for-the-first-time-most-lawmakers-are-worth-1-million-plus/.
Clarke, N., Light, P., Global Trust in Government, New York, NY: The Volcker Alliance, 2013, citing P. Blind, Building Trust in Government in the Twenty-First Century: Review of Literature and Emerging Issues, Vienna, Austria: 7th Global Forum on Reinventing Government, UNDESA, 2006.
Consortium of Universities for the Advancement of Hydrologic Science, Inc. (CUAHSI), Allied for Water Research (CUAHS), https://www.cuahsi.org/History
CPI Inflation Calculator, Retrieved from http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl? cost1=100&year1=2000&year2=2015.
Dorroh, J. Statehouse Exodus, April – May 2009. Retrieved from http://www.ajr.org/article.asp?id=4721.
Federal Election Commission News Release, Congressional Candidates Raised $1.42
Billion in 2007-2008, December 29, 2009 and other requested FEC Data Sheets. Inflation-adjusted figures from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics online calculator, http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl.
Feldstein, M., “Investigative Reporters,” in Sterling, C.H., gen. ed., Encyclopedia of Journalism (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2009), vol. 2, p. 801.
Freedom House. Dunham, J., Nelson, B., Aghekyan, E., Freedom of the Press 2015. https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-press-2015/harsh-laws-and-violence-drive-global-decline.
Gallup Inc. Riffkin, R. Public Faith in Congress Falls Again, Hits Historic Low. June 19, 2014. Retrieved from: http://www.gallup.com/poll/171710/public-faith-congress-falls-again-hits-historic-low.aspx
Gorriti, G. Where Journalists Still Get Respect. New York Times July 21, 1998. A15.
International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (a project of the Center for Public Integrity), www.icij.org
Kumar, P. Foreign Correspondents: Who Covers What? American Journalism Review. December – January 2011, retrieved from http://www.ajr.org/article.asp?id=4997.
Lewis, C. 935 Lies: The Future of Truth and the Decline of America’s Moral Integrity. 199-238. Public Affairs: New York, 2014.
Lewis, C. Legal Corruption and the Mercenary Culture. April 18, 2013. Public lecture, Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics, Harvard University. Retrieved from http://ethics.harvard.edu /charles-lewis-legal-corruption-and-mercenary-culture.
Lewis, C. and the Center for Public Integrity. The Buying of the Congress. 11. Avon Books: New York, 1998.
Lewis, C. The Rise of the NGOs and Nonprofit Media. 197-214 in Bowles, N., Hamilton, J., Levy, D., ed., Transparency in Politics and the Media. London: I.B. Taurus in association with the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, University of Oxford, 2014. Citing McGann, J.G. (2011) The Global Go-To Think Tanks, 2010. University of Pennsylvania. www.fpri.org/research/thinktanks/GlobalGoToThinkTanks2010.pdf
National Institute for the Study of Money in State Politics, www.followthemoney.org
Panel Study of Income Dynamics from the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan, http://psidonline.isr.umich.edu/, accessed December 28, 2011.
Pew Research Center Project on Excellence in Journalism. (Feb. 11, 2009). The New Washington Press Corps: As Mainstream Media Decline, Niche and Foreign Outlets Grow. Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org/analysis_report/new_washington_press_corps.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. The Evolution of News and the Internet. (Paris, December 2009) 19. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/sti/ieconomy/ 45559596.pdf.
Picard, R. The future of the news industry. 365-379 in Curran, J., ed., Media and Society. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2010.
Reporters Without Borders. World Press Freedom Index 2015: Decline on All Fronts. http://index.rsf.org/#!/presentation.
Project for Excellence in Journalism, “Overview,” in “State of the News Media 2010,” at http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2010/overview_intro.php.
Samuelson, R. The millionaire’s club expands. Washington Post, October 22, 2014. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/robert-samuelson-the-millionaires-club-expands/2014/10/22/04fcd128-5a01-11e4-8264-deed989ae9a2_story.html.
Shapiro, F.R. The Yale Book of Quotations (Yale University Press: New Haven, 2006), 395. Letter to Marquis de Lafayette. 4 Nov. 1823.
Starr, P. An Unexpected Crisis: The News Media in Post-Industrial Democracies. The International Journal of Press/Politics April 2012 vol. 17 no. 234-242. Citing Adserà, A., Boix, C., and Payne, M. Are You Being Served? Political Accountability and the Quality of Government. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 19 (2003), 445-489; Brunettia, A. and Weder, B., “A Free Press Is Bad News for Corruption,” Journal of Public Economics 87 (2003), 1801-24. Schulhofer-Wohl, S. and Garrido, M. Do Newspapers Matter? Evidence from the Closure of the Cincinnati Post. NBER Working Paper No. 1487 (2009); Snyder, J.M. and Stromberg, D., Press Coverage and Political Accountability, NBER Working Paper No. 13878 (2008).
Statistical Abstract of the United States 2011 (U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, U.S. Census Bureau, 8, 468 (Table 717).
Vine, D. The Lily Pad Strategy: American Military Extends Its Reach Worldwide. Investigative Reporting Workshop, Aug. 25, 2015. Retrieved from http://investigativereportingworkshop.org/investigations/lily-pads/story/lily-pads/. Excerpted from Vine, D. Base Nation (Metropolitan Books: New York, 2015).
Waldman, S., and the Working Group on the Needs of Communities. (2011). The Information Needs of Communities. Federal Communication Commission. 10. 366, nn.11, 13, 14. Retrieved from www.fcc.gov/infoneedsreport/
Wesleyan Media Project Advertising Analysis. Presidential Ad War Tops 1M Airings. Oct. 24, 2012. http://mediaproject.wesleyan.edu/releases/2012-shatters-2004-and-2008-records-for-total-ads-aired/
Whoriskey, P. Growing wealth widens distance between lawmakers and constituents,” Washington Post, December 26, 2011, http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/ economy/growing-wealth-widens-distance-between-lawmakers-and-constituents/2011/12/05/gIQAR7D6IP_story.html, accessed December 28, 2011.
Charles Lewis, School of Communication, American University, Washington, D.C.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to:
Charles Lewis, Investigative Reporting Workshop
School of Communication, American University
4400 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. (McKinley 112),
Washington, D.C. 20016.