By The House of Lords, UK.
To read full report: The future of investigative journalism
Summary.
The role and practices of investigative journalism have received unprecedented
scrutiny over recent months. Its long history of exposing issues that are not in the
public domain and speaking truth to power has come under the microscope as the
phone-hacking scandal, perhaps the greatest political media scandal of a
generation, has gradually unfolded, raising a plethora of questions surrounding the
public interest, privacy and media ethics.
This report does not set out to propose solutions to these issues which are
currently being considered in other forums, most notably Lord Justice Leveson’s
ongoing Inquiry into the Culture, Practice and Ethics of the press. Instead, this
report explores the media landscape in which investigative journalism operates and
argues that any changes should not be rooted in the past but should seek to enable
responsible investigative journalism to flourish in the future.
Responsible, high quality, investigative journalism matters; it is a vital constituent
of the UK’s system of democratic governance and accountability. At its best, it
informs and educates us, enhances our democracy, and is a force for good.
However, it has become clear during our inquiry that rapid economic,
technological and behavioural change is creating profound economic, legal and
regulatory challenges for investigative journalism and how it might be conducted
in the future.
Investigative journalism is suffering as a result of inconsistencies and lack of clarity
in the law. We therefore make recommendations in this report which would
provide clarity on the complex and sensitive issues surrounding the public interest.
We do not recommend that all relevant criminal law be re-drafted in order to iron
out inconsistency between different pieces of legislation when it comes to a formal,
statutory defence relating to the public interest. We do, however, urge the
prosecuting authorities to publish their broad approach to determining which cases
should be prosecuted or otherwise in cases where illegal activity undertaken by
journalists in the course of an investigation might be considered to be in the public
interest.
Furthermore, we recommend that media organisations implement a two-stage
internal management process whereby they track and formally record their
decisions first to investigate and secondly to publish a story if such decisions rely
on the public interest. We also recommend that regulators should, in turn, take
such an audit trail into account when evaluating the responsibility or otherwise
with which investigative journalism has been undertaken. The regulators should
also take into account the actions taken ex post facto in considering what penalty is
appropriate for any particular breach.
Investigative journalism is also suffering from a lack of proper investment and
organisational support. To offer some respite from the funding crisis, we
recommend an investigative journalism fund. Any fines which are levied for
transgression of journalistic codes of conduct—including fines that might be
introduced under a new system of press self-regulation and a proportion of fines
issued for breaches of the Ofcom code—should be allocated to this fund which
might be used for investigative journalism or for training investigative journalists.
