Most Read
Most Commented
Read more like this
mk-logo
Columns
To cover - or to go undercover in chasing news

Undercover journalism is not necessarily startling in its outcome - with the exception of renowned media exposé of government corruption, like Tehelka.com’s sting operation on the fake arms deal in India; or the infiltration by journalists into the darker side to reveal what conventional journalism methods could not.

Sometimes the outcomes of the “journalistic dark arts”, as the Leveson Inquiry termed the practice, are fatal. An example - a Filipino TV repairman committed suicide days after he was caught on Australia’s A Current Affairs for fraud. Reflecting on her experience 12 years later, the reporter said her story was “one of the most despicable pieces of journalism in Australia because of its outcome”.

It’s difficult to pin down what separates ‘despicable’ journalism from its undercover type. For instance, when a mother pines to be reunited with her children, and a television programme wants an exclusive story, which makes for dramatic reality coverage. That was what Australia’s '60 Minutes' programme attempted early April in Beirut.

The '60 Minutes' crew was recently released on bail for participating in the botched attempt. Channel Nine allegedly funded the child abduction, or ‘child recovery’ depending on your interpretation.

While the '60 Minutes' team did not go ‘undercover’ by definition, they did become part of the story in filming the event incognito.

Television exploits of hidden cameras to reveal human foibles are not new. It dates back to America’s first comedy reality show, Candid Camera , in 1948. Today’s ubiquitous smart phones and spy cams take journalism to a different level to catch crooks in the act. Some call it entrapment, subterfuge, deception.

These are theoretically legal in journalism, but some question whether they are ethical or fair to the subjects in the story. This is where we step into the grey area. Do the journalistic objectives justify the methods?

Journalists do go undercover only as a last resort, in the interest of public security, health and well-being, when they have exhausted all lines of inquiry to expose social injustices , human trafficking , racism , child prostitution , child slavery , misuse of public funds and blatant abuse of power.

Besides professional journalists, NGOs such as Global Witness have gone undercover to expose entrenched corruption in Sarawak’s plantation and logging industry ( photo ).

In going undercover, journalists adhere to a strict regiment - like not actively abetting, consciously misleading, intentionally misrepresenting or manipulating someone to break the law in order to secure a story.

The bungled child abduction attempt of '60 Minutes' in Beirut is certainly incomparable with the case of Peter Greste , a freelance journalist jailed in Cairo with two Al Jazeera journalists in 2013, for allegations of being sympathetic to the Muslim Brotherhood when covering the coup in Egypt.

It comes down to the journalist’s intention and integrity – to prioritise truthful reporting in the public interest over the commercial imperatives for audience ratings and, hence, advertising dollars.

Nevertheless, change the context and the interpretation changes.

If '60 Minutes' had funded a rescue of Nigerian girls kidnapped by Boko Haram, and recorded it on film, the crew would be commended for their courageous feat, albeit foolhardy, in contrast to the mixed public reactions to their involvement in the child abduction.

As one of the readers tweeted: “I hope the #60mins journos have learned a valuable lesson about allowing their egos to cross the line without their brains in check.”

The fact is journalists do go undercover only as a last resort, when they have exhausted all lines of inquiry to expose what they are utterly convinced is in the public interest. And, so they should, for altruistic objectives, which rarely occurs in Malaysia, given the predominance of pro-government editorial appointees in the mainstream media.

Editors who frame the issues

These editors essentially plant the seeds of a compliant newsroom environment, which in turn produces a generation of compliant reporters.

Here’s how it works: Often, a reporter’s reward comes not as much as from the readers’ recognition of their stories but from their editors and peers. Thus, instead of practising by their professional creed – to be trustees for the public and to report what they hold in their hearts to be true, unafraid and unswayed by the appeal of fame and privilege – rookie reporters work to meet their editors’ approval of particular types of stories.

This pre-determines the way particular issues are framed. Sociologists call this reading of the boss’s inclination, and thus, staying on the boss’ good books, “role cues”.

Role cues are communicated implicitly, sometimes intentionally. In our context, that’s the pro-government, pro-establishment newsroom culture. This is how bad editors plant the bad seeds.

Given the tight daily deadlines and learned experience that it’s easier to conform to than to confront, the newsroom environment nurtures a generation of reporters whose interpretation of what’s newsworthy generally aligns with the editors’ political inclinations.

To be fair, I know of some mainstream journalists and editors who do know more than what they are able or allowed to investigate, report and publish. But they are answerable to those higher-ups who have to juggle daily the commercial imperatives with their watchdogging function while toeing the government line.

Wielding of the censorship laws

Hence, I have stronger faith in the alternative news media, the well-researched blog sites and informed commentariats in working around the array of media laws to analyse the data, clarify the contexts and uncover the truths behind the chronic corruption in the public sectors.

The coverage of the 1MDB scandal is only as informative and engaging when journalists and the commentariats are able to access the critical information, speak to authoritative sources and collaborate with those within the system who are able to clarify, confirm or deny.

The government’s wielding of the censorship laws, security acts and brazen sanctions on whistleblowers, and clampdowns on the alternative media – although tech savvies will always find a way to get around the censors (just Google for ‘how to unblock Sarawak Report’) – underlines the need for the true believers, the journalists from the mainstream or alternative media, ‘citizen journalists’ and the commentariat to work together in the public interest.

The Panama Papers , for instance, is a result of painstaking research , collaboration and verification over the years to uncover the corruption in governments and corporate sectors. Malaysia is implicated in the papers. Only through collaboration and sharing of information will we know the truths behind the misinformation and manipulation of the 1MDB findings, the scandal that has become a case of cross-border corruption .

The Internet has given us startling opportunities to share information, generate contents and collaborate in uncovering the collusion and corruption in the administration of Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak.

While we recognise that journalism is a business activity, we should also recognise that collaborative journalism - and in some exceptional cases, going undercover - have a democratic purpose. This is only possible if consumers and non-profit organisations are willing to pay for, get involved and support collaborative investigative journalism.


ERIC LOO worked as a journalist and taught journalism in Malaysia from the late 1970s to 1986. He is now Honorary Senior Fellow in Journalism at University of Wollongong in Australia. Email: [email protected]

ADS