Religion & Spirituality - What...
ChatterBank1 min ago
Investigating journalism
13 Answers
Newspapers and their content have been much in the news this week.
The questions I now wish to ask are,
Is there any place still left for 'investigating journalism' by the press today, and how far should they go in their quest to provide us with facts that we might otherwise never get to hear about?
The questions I now wish to ask are,
Is there any place still left for 'investigating journalism' by the press today, and how far should they go in their quest to provide us with facts that we might otherwise never get to hear about?
Answers
1 to 13 of 13
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Of course, investigative journalism has a place........and there have been many dedicated, principled journalists spending weeks on paper-trails in fusty basements trying to piece together a story of 'public interest' to publish to the benefit of their fellow man.
It is a shame that they have to share the same name in 'occupational' terms as the other sewer spelunkers who want to sniff out a story that will 'interest the public' and believe that there ought to be no boundaries to ensuring they achieve their aim.
It is a shame that they have to share the same name in 'occupational' terms as the other sewer spelunkers who want to sniff out a story that will 'interest the public' and believe that there ought to be no boundaries to ensuring they achieve their aim.
This has been a fabulous week for Investigative Journalism.
The Guardian have written some brilliant reports this past week.
The events of this week have centred around illegal practices. Those practices were mainly not to reveal bribery, corruption or wrong doing, but to supply gossip.
Remember, the whole phone hacking saga began because of a News of the World story about Prince William bruising his knee.
The Guardian have written some brilliant reports this past week.
The events of this week have centred around illegal practices. Those practices were mainly not to reveal bribery, corruption or wrong doing, but to supply gossip.
Remember, the whole phone hacking saga began because of a News of the World story about Prince William bruising his knee.
I heard a great quote about some of these hacking stories:
"They are of interest to the public, but not in the public interest".
So investigative work like that used in Watergate all those years ago IS in the public interest.
The fact some film star or footballer is having a "bit on the side" is only of interest to the public.
"They are of interest to the public, but not in the public interest".
So investigative work like that used in Watergate all those years ago IS in the public interest.
The fact some film star or footballer is having a "bit on the side" is only of interest to the public.
Even the 'squeaky-clean' BBC have been accused in the past of 'setting up' certain factors in the investigatory documentaries.
http://www.tvlicencer...-dogs-to-foul-street/
Some others that spring to mind, was the setting up of gang fights by issuing of baseball bats to a group of youths in a Glasgow park.
Another involved child sweat shop workers making garments for Primark.
http://www.tvlicencer...-dogs-to-foul-street/
Some others that spring to mind, was the setting up of gang fights by issuing of baseball bats to a group of youths in a Glasgow park.
Another involved child sweat shop workers making garments for Primark.
Gromit
You appear not to know the difference between 'Investigative Journalism' and 'Investigative Jopurnalism'.
Whatever that means. :0)
Joking apart, you earlier posted,
/// The events of this week have centred around illegal practices.///
These illegal practices were implemented to get a particular point (story) across.
The BBC's practices while in themselves not illegal, could be interpreted as 'dodgy' practices, to get their particular point across.
You appear not to know the difference between 'Investigative Journalism' and 'Investigative Jopurnalism'.
Whatever that means. :0)
Joking apart, you earlier posted,
/// The events of this week have centred around illegal practices.///
These illegal practices were implemented to get a particular point (story) across.
The BBC's practices while in themselves not illegal, could be interpreted as 'dodgy' practices, to get their particular point across.
The BBC's <The Street That Cut Everything> was not 'Investigative Journalism' it was a current affairs documentary series illustrating a 'what if' scenario.
This thread is confusing different types of media in a rather unhelpful manner; you might as well accuse 'Super Nanny' of mis-reporting the state of Britain's childcare.
.
This thread is confusing different types of media in a rather unhelpful manner; you might as well accuse 'Super Nanny' of mis-reporting the state of Britain's childcare.
.
// These illegal practices (hacking) were implemented to get a particular point (story) across. //
No they weren't. They were done to steal information, such as Prince William bruising his knee. If a photograph had been photoshopped of the Prince with a bump on his knee, that would be fakery. Not illegal, but dishonest.
No they weren't. They were done to steal information, such as Prince William bruising his knee. If a photograph had been photoshopped of the Prince with a bump on his knee, that would be fakery. Not illegal, but dishonest.
No problem with investigative journalism. However I regard the war minister sleeping with a woman who also shares her bed with a spy as investigative. A footballer shagging around does nothinf for anyone, except the purient, salacious or jealous.
If the Millie Dowler story is true, and as far as I am aware, it hasn't proven yet, then that is criminal.
The 4th estate was once the bastion of the nations conscience, it now appears to be the diarist of the nations gutters and dustbins.
If the Millie Dowler story is true, and as far as I am aware, it hasn't proven yet, then that is criminal.
The 4th estate was once the bastion of the nations conscience, it now appears to be the diarist of the nations gutters and dustbins.
the Guardian has done well with the Murdoch story. The Telegraph did well with MPs' expenses (they were handed the story in the first place, but did a huge amount of work providing the killer details). And to be honest, I thought the NotW did well with the Pakistan cricket story. Those all seemed to me to be in the public interest.
Ryan Giggs's love life is not.
Ryan Giggs's love life is not.
1 to 13 of 13
