Finding the stories behind the stories

The rewards of digging deeper and using the correct investigative skills to find hidden stories are evident in Sheila Coronel's book.

To correctly outline the purpose of the text Sheila states:

"Journalists’ articles, coupled with interesting advice, skills, investigative stories, databases, tips and techniques, will inspire readers to take up the challenge of a career in investigative journalism".

Andrew D. Kaplan wrote the 2008 book ‘Investigating the Investigators: Examining the Attitudes, Perceptions, and Experiences of Investigative Journalists in the Internet Age’

The book outlines the history of investigative journalism over the past 20 years. It shows that 20 years ago investigative journalists were very idealistic and highly motivated by revealing wrongdoing, and apparently today's journalists are very similar.

Andrew D. Kaplan revealed the following:

“given that nearly 20 years have passed and the news industry has changed dramatically, the rewards that investigative journalists most value I the Internet age agree nearly identical to those from an earlier era in journalism”

Below is a graph which outlines journalists views on how the Internet has impacted investigative journalism.

The Internet has allowed more critical data to be revealed, however the Internets resources should not be solely trusted. All sources should be backed up with further evidence. Digging deeper into stories does provide great rewards for not only the journalists but also their audience. The Internets impact on investigative journalists is evident, however whether it is a positive impact is a debated topic.

To blow the whistle or not to blow the whistle, that is the question?

To blow the whistle or not to blow the whistle that is the question? A question which whistleblowers may find themselves asking more often in the digital age, especially after the hefty 25 year sentence that newly turned female Chelsea Manning coped. Journalists are also finding themselves posing very similar questions, as they too are increasingly being prosecuted for not revealing their sources.

New York Times Editor Bill Keller describes how technology has made it easy to illegally tap into private information:

“The digital age has changed the dynamics of disobedience in at least one respect. It used to be that someone who wanted to cheat on his vow of secrecy had to work at it. Daniel Ellsberg tried for a year to make the Pentagon Papers public. There was a lot of time to have second thoughts or to get caught. It is now at least theoretically possible for a whistle-blower or a traitor to act almost immediately and anonymously. Click on a Web site, upload a file, go home and wait.”

The Internet has brought about many pros and cons for whistleblowers. However as Bill Keller outlines, there is very little time for second thoughts. Whistleblowers need to be much more conscious and careful, yes information can be dispersed anonymously, however that can also back fire and the original source could be located.

Laurie Oakes made a really important point about those in society that leak information to the public.

“Leakers, whatever their motivation, serve the public interest, simply because of their importance to free journalism: being first with important news is, in essence, what being a reporter is all about,” He said.

Whistleblowers do not withhold the same responsibility that journalists do. It is the journalist’s role to decide whether or not the information is in the public’s interests and identify the whistleblowers motives.

Wikileaks – Angel or Devil in disguise?

Founded in late 2006 wikikeaks has revolutionised the concept of whistle-blowers, the organisation has caused controversy and shocked the world more times than I can remember.

The question which really needs to be answered is whether Wikileaks has done more harm than good or whether it is a necessary source for society. Wikileaks is a source that keeps people informed, in the loop and educated, yet a source that must not always be trusted.

Wikileaks says their goal is to: "bring important news and information to the public. We provide an innovative, secure and anonymous way for sources to leak information to our journalists"

When private information has been revealed governments often justify their actions by simply stating that the reason why the information has not been revealed is because it is a ‘national security’ threat!

However citizens seem to hold a different point of view to the government, as Dreyfus et al said in 2011:

“nothing in government should be kept secret from the citizenry unless there is a real reason for doing so”

So what are the positives behind wikileaks? It empowers citizens in corrupt countries and most importantly Wikileaks reveals wrongdoing that would most likely be left undiscovered.

One of the most famous reveals Wikileaks carried out was the ‘Collateral Murder’ whereby US soldier were captured indiscriminately firing on civilians. The Collateral Murder was disjointedly covered up by the pentagon and it poses the question as to how much more information is being with held from world.

How much is too much information and does going forward as a society require transparency? These are all questions, which result in a variety of answers and opinions. The increased use of computerization has resulted in instant information, leaving less time for people to react. If society embraces transparency then maybe people will be more prepared for shocking information such as crashing of the financial market.

There is no denying that Wikileaks has proved to be a beneficial source however that is not always the case. Wikileaks is not always viewed as the knight in shining armor and the information revealed really should come down to whether or not the information is in the public’s interest.