How digging up expense reports led a journalist to clobber British govt

GlennF sez,

I came across this interesting profile of Heather Brooke, the UK-based reporter who tried to get Parliament to release expense records by using UK disclosure laws, and whose efforts clearly led to the leak that the Daily Telegraph got.

Brooke started her journalism career in Seattle at the University of Washington, and learned via a newspaper internship from an old-school editor how to dig up public records--expense records, in particular.

The profile is fascinating because it shows one of the key functions of newspapers and similar periodicals that's been ignored as the quality of such publications has dropped: investigation, and management that supports investigation.

We've been lucky in Seattle that both local papers (one remains in print, the other online only) were long interested in funding very long-form, very long-running investigations. Who will fund this kind of reporting in the future? What editor will teach a future Heather Brooke to dig behind the public statements and facile information at hand?

This isn't a tirade in defense of dinosaurs. Rather, I legitimately wonder where the funding comes that allows reporters to devote the time. Hyperlocal news is great, and so is citizen journalism. But Brooke spent five years (and was scooped in the end) on digging out these expense reports.

Former UW student shakes up British government (Thanks, Glenn!)

[Takuan May 21, 2009 10:46 AM]

have they passed the law criminalizing looking at MP expense reports yet?

[Anonymous May 21, 2009 10:53 AM]

"Otherwise, her hobby is jazz dancing, befitting the va va voom side of her. She said she is writing a novel."

The heck? That combined with her photos chosen for the article make it kind of, well, icky.

[Brian Vaughan May 21, 2009 11:01 AM]

One catch is that we'll need to come up with funding from sources that don't have a vested interest in supporting the powers-that-be.

[CANTFIGHTTHEDITE May 21, 2009 11:05 AM]

Viewers like you, I suppose.

[ill lich May 21, 2009 11:12 AM]

"Investigative reporting" hasn't gone away, it's just mutated into ridiculous "gotcha" TV programs where they ambush some public official or doctor or innocent-until-proven-guilty citizen and ask them questions they can't answer, a la "Will you ever stop beating your wife?" So someone will bankroll investigations like this, but only if a reporter can then lurk outside the suspects house with a camera and a mic and list of leading questions, then show it on TV for a ratings boost. In other words, someone will bankroll the investigation IF they can later make a profit off of it.

[jjasper May 21, 2009 11:12 AM]

Who will fund this kind of reporting in the future?

No one knows for sure. Right now, funding is dwindling, and there's just less reporting going on.

[Daemon May 21, 2009 11:44 AM]

The funding is drying up because the public is more interested in who Britney Spears is sleeping with this week.

If people demand real news, somebody will pay to provide it.

[Moriarty May 21, 2009 12:06 PM]

People were paying to provide it, and then they started getting it for free. Hopefully somebody will figure out an adapted business model. Maybe investigative journalism with product placement?

[Brian Vaughan May 21, 2009 1:01 PM]

@4

Come to think of it, one thing that's bugged me about the discussion about the death of newspapers: that, aside from "new media," audience-supported media have existed for decades. Also, universities tend to have large numbers of researchers, producing research into all sorts of social and political questions. Universities aren't as independent of those vested interests as I would want them to be, but they still have some independence.

The other thing that really bothers me about the death of large-scale commercial news media is that there's little discussion of how much respect they lose when their systematic lying becomes obvious. Remember WMD in Iraq, for instance.

[Anonymous May 21, 2009 1:26 PM]

"Rather, I legitimately wonder where the funding comes that allows reporters to devote the time."

ProPublica and similar organizations. Newspapers have a fundamental conflict of interest between advertisers and those they are investigating. Actual or potential advertisers are implicated in almost every investigative journalism case. Thus, a move away from the for-profit dinosaurs and towards non-profit-sourced investigative journalism is hugely positive, IMHO.

[JL Bryan May 21, 2009 1:32 PM]

"The other thing that really bothers me about the death of large-scale commercial news media is that there's little discussion of how much respect they lose when their systematic lying becomes obvious. Remember WMD in Iraq, for instance."

This! The old media aren't just dying because they're expensive. They also aren't very trustworthy. Who wants to pay money to be lied to? We can read corporate and government press releases ourselves for free, and too often that's all we're getting from the papers and TV.

[Glenn Fleishman May 21, 2009 1:38 PM]

@10: I would argue that you're confusing big media with old media. Not all dead-tree publications lie or lied to their readers. There are a million examples of great public-oriented investigative work done by papers of all sizes, and often by the smallest.

I was inspired as a kid by the book The Light on Synanon, the remarkable efforts by a tiny newspaper to reveal the machinations of a local cult.

I grew up in Oregon, and the reporting of the Rajneesh community was rather remarkable, too.

[Anonymous May 21, 2009 1:51 PM]

@9, good points. But I think the closest analogy to investigative journalism going on in schools is law clinics and, err, investigative journalism. The track record for either of those surviving without the powers that be shutting off funding/firing advisers is nothing to be optimistic about.

[BadStoryDan May 21, 2009 3:10 PM]

@8, Moriarty;

I think the problem lies in defining 'it' - I am perfectly willing to pay for 'it', if by 'it' you mean honest to goodness news that:

-comes from a reputable source
-in a timely manner
-shows the stories I want, in the manner I wish to see them (via RSS, with filters, pushed to my phone/whatever. If it's technically possible I'd like to be able to do it.)
-doesn't gloss over or ignore stories that are too dry/technical/controversial/whatever to be included in the print edition (I get that there's a limit on how many pages should be printed. Not so with the internet.)
-is well written
-doesn't allow blatant scammers to advertise
-allows for transparency if not outright admits its own biases
-commits to a permanent archive to which I can link and share articles amongst fellow subscribers (and non-subscribers after a week or so, depending on the time-sensitivity of the item)
-offers a well thought out and well designed comment forum in which subscribers can discuss the articles
-and maybe even learns my preferences or follows who I comment @ & suggests changes to my keywords or articles that I missed.

It's really that first one that gets me though. I don't want to be 'sold' a story. Credibility for me is boolean: One lie, mistruth or incorrect source and you are no longer trustworthy as a news source.

I read a really funny piece in the paper the other day that I think demonstrates the fact that 'we' and 'they' are having two very different conversations: http://www.timescolonist.com/News/Speed%20displaces%20quality%20news%20digital/1605049/story.html

@11 Glenn

I think there is a distinction to be made between news organizations and individual reporters. I can't name one newspaper I read even periodically that hasn't stooped to bottom feeding. I get the feeling that some of the local papers are better at it than the larger ones, but really when you say "There are a million examples of great public-oriented investigative work done by papers of all sizes, and often by the smallest." I think you mean that there are still reporters out there who actually do their jobs - they are easier to find in local papers. I wonder why that is?

I also think that there's a bit of a bias for everyone when they read their local paper - in that a story about a resident of your neighbourhood would probably seem more 'investigative' or 'newsworthy' next to the exact same story about britney spears' cousin's brother-in-law's neighbour.

[BadStoryDan May 21, 2009 4:12 PM]

Sorry that should read @12 Glenn; not 11. I previewed my comment & the numbers disappeared. I am evidently rather poor at counting.

[Glenn Fleishman May 22, 2009 8:11 AM]

@14: "I can't name one newspaper I read even periodically that hasn't stooped to bottom feeding"

You are totally correct there, of course. But it's often management (publishers/owners), editors, and reporters in some kind of synergy that allow great investigative work. So you can have a bottom-feeding paper that does great civic work, oddly enough.

[Anonymous May 22, 2009 8:42 AM]

I keep having to point out that it's the American papers that are dying, not papers around the world. Most of Europe, Japan, India, all have many, many papers that are thriving.