Watchdog journalists are known for their perseverance, patience, readiness to sacrifice, determination, and courage. Without them, all potentially great stories crumble, surfacing as phantom investigations, just glimmers of what could have been. The great history of journalistic investigation has always hinged on the journalist’s ability to withstand ubiquitous pressures both internal, placed by the institution where the journalist works, and external, imposed by the interests that the dissemination of the story compromises (1). This category of journalism reveals huge hidden interests and, like a “social geologist”, the watchdog journalist explores thoroughly the matter that constitutes society.
Érick Neveu once wrote that watchdog journalism “is highly praised but insufficiently practiced” (2). By appealing solely to the market, it is simple and expedient to justify this suppression. A shaky market that thrives on concessions avoids stories that threaten to jeopardize its own interests. A shaky market escapes the legal ramifications of media exploration. Because of the echoes of the probe, a shaky market fears that advertisers may break contracts. All of this distances journalists from the truth (3). According to Dean Starkman, “the watchdog stops barking” whenever the journalist, among others, speaks to elites rather than dissidents, avoids confrontation for fear of making enemies, or claims to be the spokesperson of powerful interests rather than telling us what the powerful do and how they do it (4). Nevertheless, even though there are precarious or resigned journalists who, in a dwindling market, feel compelled to follow the decisions of middle managers without question, who are limited to managing time and adhering to the schedule, there are others, equally precarious but nonconforming, who do not bend to the condition, questioning, doubting, and, above all, overcoming the daily constraints with firmness and ingenuity (4). This subversive is the main characteristic of the watchdog journalist.
Subversion takes a great lot of bravery. Sacrifice, dedication, tenacity, patience, and, most importantly, resilience are all required. Curious, the subversive journalist casts doubts at the heart of the issues, building “skeptical knowledge”, as defined by Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel, an attitude that helps it to accomplish “a high degree of verification” (5). These journalists, on the other hand, run against the wind. When everyone is at home, protected by the powers that be, they are left to fend for themselves outside in the harsh wind. This metaphorical wind can take up many shapes. Democracy demands, from the start, that such subversion does not result in death like it happened before in Russia and Malta, for example (6). A mature democracy should welcome, defend, and develop journalists who devote their whole lives to uncovering the truth with all of the instruments at their disposal.
The complex nature of journalistic stories containing international implications or large unfiltered information packages requires most of the time complementary skills to journalism – data analysis and processing, geographical proximity, reality awareness – which prevents the investigative journalist from achieving the goal of uncovering the truth on his or her own. A collaborative approach to journalism allows a single journalist to cover stories that would otherwise be impossible to cover (7). The journalist who stands out, who curbs, who rises up after each failure, who sees beyond the obvious, refusing the official view, is at the heart of the establishment of a collaborative consortia; the subversive journalist who scrutinizes, doubts, and details at every stage of the investigation. These journalists acquire the critical mass that makes each story unique by working together rather than competing. Transnational collaboration provides the escape that sets history free in geographies where freedom of speech is a felony punishable by incarceration, persecution, and death. Collaboration between local journalists from various platforms provides the narrative the size it needs to become unavoidable in unstable marketplaces where big private interests manage to quash investigations (7).
Investigative journalism is dwindling all over the world. It’s becoming more and more of a one-off phenomena, linked to a small number of journalists who, with the help of a few heads, are able to get the required time for the miracle of inquiry. However, rarity cannot be the answer. The time for competition is now finished. Journalists should embrace the inevitability of collaboration in the name of the future of investigative journalism. Only then, truth will constitute the ultimate answer. Nevertheless, one question still remains: do people recognize the importance of watchdog journalists? Nearly three-quarters of US adults believe it is critical for journalists to act as watchdogs in general (8). When the public is asked how journalists are now performing, however, the wide consensus is shattered. According to a new study of data from Pew Research Center’s Election News Pathways project, 35% believe they are going too far as watchdogs, 32% say they are not going far enough, and 30% say they are about right. Those evaluations are heavily influenced by media diet and politics (8). As a result, it is critical to comprehend public perception and argue for the formation of consortia aimed at making watchdog journalism more accurate and informative in the eyes of the public.
Overall, this article takes us on a trip through the significance of watchdog journalism and how its consequences may influence society through the prism of truth. However, like everything else in life, this field of journalism still has certain obstacles to overcome, and it hasn’t been easy in recent years. Only after journalists manage to surmount them, will they be able to become the actual vigilantes that society needs.
Rafael Luis Pereira Santos
References
(1) Rabinowitz P., “Organizing for Effective Advocacy”, CommunityToolBox.
(2) Neveu, E. (2013), “Sociologie du journalisme”, La Découverte.
(3) Cancela P. (2021) “Between Structures and Identities: Newsroom Policies, Division of Labor and Journalists’ Commitment to Investigative Reporting”, Journalism Practice.
(4) Starkman D. (2015), “The Watchdog That Didn’t Bark: The Financial Crisis and the Disappearance of Investigative Journalism”, Columbia University Press.
(5) Kovach B. and Rosenstiel T. (2010), “Blur: How to Know What’s True in the Age of Information”, Bloomsbury USA.
(6) Taub B. (2020), “Murder in Malta”, The New Yorker.
(7) Carson A. and Farhall K. (2018), “Understanding Collaborative Investigative Journalism in a “Post-Truth” Age”, Journalism Studies.
(8) Jurkowitz M. and Mitchell A. (2020), “Most say journalists should be watchdogs, but views of how well they fill this role vary by party, media diet”, Pew Research Center.
