The truth is that in many countries, corruption is rarely hidden from public view. Petty corruption - policemen taking bribes from erring motorists or fixers who demand a fee in exchange for facilitating a permit or a license - is fairly easy to document. Reporters can interview victims or simply go through the processes themselves to see whether they are asked to make payoffs.
Corruption on a grander scale is harder to investigate, but not impossible. Many times, there are insiders in an organisation who, for whatever reason, are willing to play the role of whistleblower. Often, they are only waiting to be asked the right questions by an inquisitive journalist. All reporters, after all, are constantly on the lookout for their "Deep Throat".
Otherwise, there are business or political rivals who can be tapped for information. Businessmen who lose bids for government contracts may be willing to speak about how bribes have been extorted from them. Sometimes, police or other investigators are only to eager to share with journalists what they have found.
Evidence of actual pay-offs may be difficult to find, so investigative journalists instead look out for lapses in established procedures or conflicts of interest. Sometimes, a pattern of irregular decision-making or awarding of contracts to favoured firms can be discerned, even if proof of actual bribery is not available.
One other area that is ripe for investigation is the lifestyle and public behaviour of government officials. For example, it is difficult to show that judges are paid off, but reporting on judges meeting with litigants or lawyers with cases pending in their courts may be sufficient to demonstrate breaches in ethical conduct. Certainly, reporters who find tax examiners driving Volvos and sporting Rolex watches should start following the money trail.
The more sophisticated types of corruption are the most difficult to report on, especially when they involve dummy firms and shareholders, corporate layering, overseas bank accounts and offshore companies. In an era of digital convergence, transnational money flows and international crime, investigating corruption becomes more challenging than it ever has been.
Even the most talented investigative journalists can reach a dead end when investigating complex transactions that cross national borders and various legal jurisdictions. But even in these instances, it may be possible to get the co-operation of lawyers and accountants, as well as of official regulators and investigators. Otherwise, there are business rivals or company insiders who may have reason to blow the whistle.
Journalists should of course develop a certain scepticism about their sources. It is easy for corruption investigations to be manipulated. Reporters are often fed information by sources who have something to gain from an expos. The challenge is to steer clear of partisan politics and to be independent of vested interests.
But no matter how careful journalists are, they will be accused of the basest motives. This is par for the course; reporters eventually learn to be patient and to realise that only after several exposs will they be able to prove their independence and develop a reputation for credibility and trustworthiness.
Too trigger-happy
The public's trust is earned if journalists are careful about their methods. Investigative reporting has come under fire in the US, where reporters have been accused of being too trigger-happy with the use of undercover and surveillance methods.
The ABC network, for example, was penalised in court for allowing its journalists to seek employment in a grocery store and to use hidden cameras to show how the Food Lion grocery chain was selling stale meat.
In 1998, a reporter of the Cincinnati Enquirer resorted to accessing the internal voice mail of employees of Chiquita Brands in the course of researching a story on the company's business practices. He was widely criticised for using illegal methods to get a story and later, for revealing his source in the course of court proceedings.
The easy availability of surveillance-type equipment, such as video cameras or tape recorders that fit neatly into a small pocket, makes it tempting for journalists to take shortcuts. But if they are to have the public's confidence, journalists should be more self-critical about their methods and ethics. They must also be willing to disclose the methods they use in their investigations.
The ideal for the press is still self-regulation. Codes of Ethics that clearly define appropriate conduct and lay down the principles that journalists should uphold must be drawn up and strictly enforced, either at the level of the news organisation or of the media community as a whole.
Journalists should also engage each other and their readers or viewers in discussions on the conduct of the press and its methods of work. These discussions can take place in various forums, including conferences, online newsgroups, industry publications, or newspaper columns.
There should also be mechanisms, such as press ombudsmen or press councils, through which aggrieved readers or viewers can seek redress or at least air their views. This way, the media themselves become accountable.
The media is a powerful institution that deserves to be subjected to the same examination as other institutions. There is no reason why the power of investigative reporting should not be used to probe the excesses of the media as well.
For example, media corruption - as in bribes or favours given to reporters in exchange for favourable coverage - is an issue that most journalists refuse to discuss publicly. But like corruption elsewhere, corrupt practices in the media will persist if they are not brought out into the open and subjected to scrutiny and reform.
There are other issues that must be addressed if the media is to be an effective and credible watchdog. One is wages and benefits. In many countries, journalists are poorly paid in comparison to those in other professions. This is one reason why petty corruption - such as envelopes of cash given out during press conferences - persists in many developing countries.
Better salaries help keep reporters honest, and they ensure that the best of them stay in the profession instead of seeking better remuneration elsewhere. Competitive pay for journalists also ensures that the media attract the best and the brightest. High levels of skill, probity and behaviour are demanded of investigative journalists, yet the media industry is niggardly and often unwilling to provide adequate compensation for reportorial integrity and talent.
Sustained reporting
The danger, of course, is that sustained reporting on corruption would lead to widespread cynicism about government. It is important that investigative reports make an impact in terms of policy reversals or personnel changes, or at least the initiation of official investigations of the wrongdoing that has been exposed. Otherwise, citizens will think that nothing can be done and they will view exposs as yet another distraction proffered by the media.
Often, news organisations that have invested on an expos will try to make sure that something does happen, by eliciting reactions to their investigation or writing follow-up stories that examine what has been done.
Sometimes, the media as whole gets involved in an issue, with reporters from various news organisations investing resources to follow up on a particularly explosive revelation. This was the case with Watergate, when both television and print reporters followed the trail of the story for many months after the initial Washington Post investigation.
Investigative journalists are lone-ranger types: many of them work best alone or in small teams. But in many countries now, they are realising that if reforms are to be sustained, there must be a conscious effort to develop a community of journalists who can trade techniques and sources as well as provide each other support when they are being hounded by the powerful.
The role of press organisations is important in this regard. These groups can act as lobbyists for journalists' rights and for greater access to information. They can monitor infringements on press freedom and develop mechanisms to assist and protect journalists.
Press groups can also help improve skills through training and internships. In the 1990s, groups defending press freedom have been set up by journalists in several Latin American countries to document and protest abuses against the press. These groups have organised seminars on press rights and mobilised fact-finding missions and international delegations to look into infringements on media freedom.
In 1998, journalists from Indonesia, Thailand and the Philippines got together to form the Southeast Asian Press Alliance, a watchdog group to promote press freedom in the region. The alliance facilitates exchanges of information among press groups, keeps track of press freedom violations, and conducts training seminars.
But journalists alone cannot solve social ills. Civil society plays a role and eventually, the wheels of government have to be set in motion to fight malfeasance. At best, journalism plays a catalytic role. Investigative reports enrich public debate and put on the news agenda issues that should be of concern to citizens.
By probing, for example, the consequences of corruption in terms of the quality of government services taxpayers get or the magnitude of the waste of public resources, journalists help readers to understand the problems of governance and to make decisions about who they should vote for and what changes they should demand. At their best, exposes should make people angry rather than cynical, and move citizens to action. Outrage makes change possible.
Ideally, investigative reporting should help raise the level of public discourse by bringing issues of corruption away from personal attacks or partisan politics to the level of policy and institutional reform. Apart from the psychic rewards of exposing crooks, naming and shaming is important because it makes corruption visible and intelligible to the public.But investigative journalists should look at not only who is responsible for the wrongdoing they have uncovered and how it was done, they should also examine why it was possible and how it can be corrected.
For this reason, it may sometimes be good to feature the work of reformers, whistleblowers and organisations combating corruption. Citizens need to be informed about innovations that have worked or reforms that have been implemented - and what still needs to be done - so they can temper their outrage with a measure of hope.
Part 1:[#1] Media's role in uncovering corruption[/#]
Part 2:[#2] Investing in investigative journalism[/#]
SHEILA S CORONEL is the executive director of the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism and a founding board member of Seapa (Seapa is a sponsor of malaysiakini ). Coronel's investigative reports on corruption in the Supreme Court in 1997 and 1998 have helped clean up the courts in the Philippines. She will be speaking at the[#3] regional journalist[/#] seminar on Access to Information in Southeast Asia on Oct 21 in Hotel Armada, Petaling Jaya.
