A few years ago it was possible to be
pretty depressed about the state of investigative journalism in the UK. At one end of the spectrum there was, for
example, the mighty FT which fell significantly short of what ought be one of
its raisons d’être – to break stories about financial wrongdoing. It scarcely even pretended otherwise. When the Enron meltdown occurred - the
biggest financial collapse that had ever happened until then, in a company much
lauded for innovation and achievement - it completely blind-sighted the FT
(amongst others) which then spent weeks mournfully breast-beating over its
manifest failure even to recognise, still less to report what was going on. Just once in a while the Economist might
essay something mildly controversial.
It
was easy to guess that an overly nervous attitude towards the reaction of big
advertisers lay at the root of much of this indolence and cowardice – and not
much about the easily-observed conduct of (e.g.) the Telegraph or the Murdoch
media suggested otherwise. Another
cause was manifestly the deep cuts being made to the numbers of fulltime
journalists employed by ‘Fleet Street’ – and to their expense accounts.
[So pathetic has been financial reporting that when this modest blog started to gain traction, the good Guido asked if we would become the financial arm of Order-Order, to do for the City of London what he does for City of Westminster. We felt he’d missed a rather important point about companies’ willingness to litigate …]
At the other end of the spectrum was the decline in once-proud regional newspapers. Time was when the Yorkshire Post had a dedicated Westminster team; a conceit, perhaps, but dozens of big-city papers would reckon to be able to mount proper investigations on issues of local concern. Over the years, however, the local press become commoditized. Owned for the most part by a small number of chains, they became depressingly formulaic productions under a cost-cutting imperative. To fill out the gaps between advertisements, these rags would typically carry a dozen stories under a single “reporter’s” by-line every issue, this hard-pressed hack mostly re-hashing spoon-fed press releases: they no time to get out onto the streets and find out for themselves. And avoiding the controversial had the added benefit of minimsing the risks of legal costs and upsetting advertisers. The ease, and increasingly the ultra-low cost, of running photos in newspapers completed the descent into vacuity. Breaking a story? Only if it involved a photogenic kitten - with all material supplied gratis via email by someone with a digital camera.
To cap it all, we had the menacing pincer movement of, on the one hand Leveson, seemingly bent on grinding the press into craven submission; and on the other, social meejah that were (a) breaking stories, true and fake, with minimal cost or regard for the consequences; and (b) eating the MSM’s advertising revenue for breakfast, lunch and dinner. How would any mainstream outlet find the balls to take on controversial material? We seemed to be left with Michael Crick, Guido and a handful of others hacking away at the relatively easy targets: individual slimeball politicians who are poorly placed to retaliate. Little wonder that purposefully generated fake news overwhelms truth in so many quarters. And with so many universities reduced to gibbering jelly by the contagion of “identity politics” and its flagrant disavowal of reason and objectivity, well might Pilate’s challenge ring out again: where is truth?
But lo! - out of this depressing state of affairs has come something of a turnaround. At the national and international level, triggered by the really big wikileaks-type of mega-revelations, a newly rediscovered taste for seriously disruptive journalism has been given a significant boost. By way of a symptom of this: for some years Private Eye had allowed the 'Paul Foot' awards (for investigative journalism) to lapse. But they were revived in 2017; and this year saw a shortlist of finalists that was pretty impressive.
Equally heartening, there is a new phenomenon arising out of – yes – regional journalism. The newspaper chains that dominate ownership of local papers, notwithstanding their unimaginative, ad-laden hard-copy and websites, have started to support pooled teams of reporters from across their multiple titles – and given them mandates and resources to go after stories that actually require diligent research and a bit of patience. And at all levels, it seems, when the proprietor permits, the hack still hankers after breaking the big scandal.
All this leaves me slightly more optimistic about the health of investigative journalism right now, which seems to be appropriately rude – even if operating as a small fleet of vulnerable vessels in an ocean of craven dross.
And with the newly serious prospect of a Corbyn/McDonnell government in the air, it’s timely. If this ghastly contingency ever takes place, I think we may confidently predict an all-out attack on freedom of the press as a flanking maneouvre to protect their malign endeavors. We know that the already-powerful EC dreams of making disrespect of the federast project an offence - and the euro-wallahs are at least somewhat restrained by due process.
I tremble for free speech at the hands of a C/M regime coming to power in anarchic conditions. We shall need journalists with a determined bias for the truth, working for organisations with serious institutional balls. We shall need them like never before. Will they be there? The question stands.
ND
[So pathetic has been financial reporting that when this modest blog started to gain traction, the good Guido asked if we would become the financial arm of Order-Order, to do for the City of London what he does for City of Westminster. We felt he’d missed a rather important point about companies’ willingness to litigate …]
At the other end of the spectrum was the decline in once-proud regional newspapers. Time was when the Yorkshire Post had a dedicated Westminster team; a conceit, perhaps, but dozens of big-city papers would reckon to be able to mount proper investigations on issues of local concern. Over the years, however, the local press become commoditized. Owned for the most part by a small number of chains, they became depressingly formulaic productions under a cost-cutting imperative. To fill out the gaps between advertisements, these rags would typically carry a dozen stories under a single “reporter’s” by-line every issue, this hard-pressed hack mostly re-hashing spoon-fed press releases: they no time to get out onto the streets and find out for themselves. And avoiding the controversial had the added benefit of minimsing the risks of legal costs and upsetting advertisers. The ease, and increasingly the ultra-low cost, of running photos in newspapers completed the descent into vacuity. Breaking a story? Only if it involved a photogenic kitten - with all material supplied gratis via email by someone with a digital camera.
To cap it all, we had the menacing pincer movement of, on the one hand Leveson, seemingly bent on grinding the press into craven submission; and on the other, social meejah that were (a) breaking stories, true and fake, with minimal cost or regard for the consequences; and (b) eating the MSM’s advertising revenue for breakfast, lunch and dinner. How would any mainstream outlet find the balls to take on controversial material? We seemed to be left with Michael Crick, Guido and a handful of others hacking away at the relatively easy targets: individual slimeball politicians who are poorly placed to retaliate. Little wonder that purposefully generated fake news overwhelms truth in so many quarters. And with so many universities reduced to gibbering jelly by the contagion of “identity politics” and its flagrant disavowal of reason and objectivity, well might Pilate’s challenge ring out again: where is truth?
But lo! - out of this depressing state of affairs has come something of a turnaround. At the national and international level, triggered by the really big wikileaks-type of mega-revelations, a newly rediscovered taste for seriously disruptive journalism has been given a significant boost. By way of a symptom of this: for some years Private Eye had allowed the 'Paul Foot' awards (for investigative journalism) to lapse. But they were revived in 2017; and this year saw a shortlist of finalists that was pretty impressive.
Equally heartening, there is a new phenomenon arising out of – yes – regional journalism. The newspaper chains that dominate ownership of local papers, notwithstanding their unimaginative, ad-laden hard-copy and websites, have started to support pooled teams of reporters from across their multiple titles – and given them mandates and resources to go after stories that actually require diligent research and a bit of patience. And at all levels, it seems, when the proprietor permits, the hack still hankers after breaking the big scandal.
All this leaves me slightly more optimistic about the health of investigative journalism right now, which seems to be appropriately rude – even if operating as a small fleet of vulnerable vessels in an ocean of craven dross.
And with the newly serious prospect of a Corbyn/McDonnell government in the air, it’s timely. If this ghastly contingency ever takes place, I think we may confidently predict an all-out attack on freedom of the press as a flanking maneouvre to protect their malign endeavors. We know that the already-powerful EC dreams of making disrespect of the federast project an offence - and the euro-wallahs are at least somewhat restrained by due process.
I tremble for free speech at the hands of a C/M regime coming to power in anarchic conditions. We shall need journalists with a determined bias for the truth, working for organisations with serious institutional balls. We shall need them like never before. Will they be there? The question stands.
ND
