Most journalists focus around 'every day' news stories that are planned and have a set agenda; maybe the government is releasing the budget, or announcing the resignation of the home secretary because of slack border control (hi, Theresa). Investigative journalists, on the other hand, have no set agenda - instead they ask why things happen and push until they get an answer. This is known as 'off-diary reporting' because the news is not scheduled.
A classic example of good investigative journalism involves the drug Thalidomide, which was given to pregnant women to help prevent morning sickness. As time progressed and these people started having their babies, they realised that the children were being born deformed. Harry Evans of the Sunday Times and his Insight Team pressed the company who produced Thalidomide to give them answers to why it was happening, but they insisted that it was nothing to do with them. Eventually though, they acknowledged that they knew Thalidomide could cause these effects in children. They had to pay the families compensation.
Most investigative journalism takes place in the justice system where miscarriages of justice can lead to innocent people being jailed for crimes they did not commit. Maybe the system was corrupt? In the case of the Birmingham Bombings in the 80s the police tortured those accused of the acts into false confessions. In an attempt to cut down on miscarriages of justice the government set up the Criminal Cases Review Commission. People convicted of crimes who maintained their innocense could approach them and ask them to review their case, which would, they hope, gain them their freedom. However, the CCRC was not without it's issues as it was so tied up within the system that it became ineffective. If experienced barristers and judges handled the case they would state that and chuck the appeal aside.
No comments:
Post a Comment