SamSuka
citationsneededpodcast
citationsneededpodcast

patreon


Ep. 156: How the “Investigative Journalism” Aesthetic Can Be Used to Launder Power-Serving Narratives

"Investigative journalism." It’s a term that conjures imagery of committed, industrious newsrooms like those in the Oscar-winning films All the President’s Men or Spotlight, filled with intrepid reporters dutifully scouring documents, scrutinizing photographs and taking secretive yet explosive phone calls at all hours of the night. It’s a rallying cry for TED Talkers and Brookings Institute essayists, many of whom extol the virtues of scrappy and scrupulous reportage that succeeds in taking down a crooked politician, exposing a company’s abusive policy, or otherwise changing the course of history.

It’s common to think of investigative journalism as an honorable line of work - after all, investigative reports have exposed powerful misdeeds, labor abuses, air and water pollution, and racism in healthcare. But this isn’t the only form of investigative reporting in the United States. Too often, stories characterized as well-meaning investigative reports - local news pieces alerting viewers to the “dangers” of bail reform, or New York Times scoops on government “leaks” demanding billions more for military spending--end up reinforcing the very power structures they’re supposed to be challenging.

While the title of “investigative journalist” is so often used as a catch-all term for a noble tireless, truth-seeking, deep-digging reporter who, like a determined fictional detective, follows a twisted trail of breadcrumbs to their blockbuster end, why should we assign valor to what can often merely be the lazy practice of government and corporate stenography? Or laundering intelligence or pro-police propaganda?

On this episode, we discuss the ways in which investigative journalism is portrayed as an inherent good even when it serves powerful interests, how professional norms in the journalism industry seek to remove power dynamics in deciding what leaks are important and who is leaking them, and why investigative reporting without politics isn’t an inherently subversive or moral enterprise.

Our guest is Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting's Jim Naureckas.

***

Guest

Jim Naureckas is the editor of FAIR.org, the digital home of media watchdog Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting and, since 1990, has edited Extra!, FAIR’s monthly magazine.

****

Show Notes

Ten Noteworthy Moments In U.S. Investigative Journalism

Fred Dews and Thomas Young | October 20, 2014 | Brooking Institution

A Muckraking Model Investigative Reporting Cycles in American History [PDF]

Mark Feldstein | 2006 | Press/Politics

Don Bolles murder: A look back at the Arizona Project

Lauren Vasquez | June 2, 2016 | Arizona Republic

Stalking the Story

Rafia Zakaria | August 13, 2018 | The Baffler

Journalists are reexamining their reliance on a longtime source: The police

Paul Farhi and Elahe Izadi | June 30, 2020 | The Washington Post

In ‘Russian Bounty’ Story, Evidence-Free Claims From Nameless Spies Became Fact Overnight

Alan MacLeod | July 3, 2020 | FAIR

Deep Throat: hero or villain?

Mark Tran | December 19, 2008 | The Guardian

Publick Occurences Both Forreign and Domestick [PDF]

September 25, 1690

*****

Transcript

For a full transcript of this episode, go here.

******

Ep. 156: How the “Investigative Journalism” Aesthetic Can Be Used to Launder Power-Serving Narratives

Comments

This is, by far, my most valued and enjoyed podcast. Always fantastic.

Dash X

I subscribed today just to say I wish Jim was not cut off at the end! And also you guys also do fantastic work and deserve 50x more patrons.

natfos 💌

I was thinking the same thing HAHA

natfos 💌

NPR has this bullshit “Bill of the month” piece starting whatever $100,000 medical bill someone was charged; it’s outrage-inducing schlock that I’ve always thought serves power by pointing to a few, small instances of malfeasance instead of actually seeing the whole system as the problem. And while those few instances have lead to positive resolution for those few people, they allow the VAST majority of cases to go unaddressed. (Similar to the piece on cancel culture and how editors partake in that.)

they cut jim’s mic right at the end smdh. free jim!!

big mood


More Creators