What future for investigative journalism?

A poll for the London Press Club has revealed that the majority of the public believe that investigative journalism has a positive effect on British democracy – yet does it have a future in a time of flagging newspaper sales and uncertain business models? Raymond Snoddy investigates.

Investigative journalism is rightly seen as the pinnacle of the reporting trade.

Of course almost all journalism should contain an investigative element; having the curiosity to find things out, check facts and challenge widely promoted assumptions.

Looking at the realities behind the Government’s ridiculous anti-immigrant vans, or exposing this week’s latest overblown public alarm – the largely mythical health tourism trade – is good, solid, useful journalistic work.

But true investigative journalism usually involves putting a great deal of resources – most importantly time – into digging out complex stories that those involved never want to be told. Then when journalists have assembled the information there is the final assault course to get the story into the public domain in the face of legal and libel obstacles.

Such investigations can involve enormous teams and cost, as in the case of the Daily Telegraph’s exposure of the MP’s expenses scam.

Or, as with the Guardian’s Nick Davies and the phone-hacking scandal, it may only involve one dogged reporter given the long-term support of a courageous editor.

Pessimists are forever wailing that the best days of investigative journalism are over. With newspaper revenues under such intense pressure surely the game is up.

And as for television, the days when ITV could run two current affairs programmes in prime time virtually every week – World in Action and This Week and the monthly First Tuesday series – are now little more than historic folk memories.

Even in contemporary television times there are signs of stress with Panorama normally cut to 30 minutes, as is the otherwise excellent Dispatches on Channel 4.

Because broadcasting is more tightly regulated than newspapers with its obligation to be impartial, campaigning on sensitive issues such as the Stephen Lawrence murder, let alone naming his alleged killers, is virtually impossible.

It is increasingly obvious that with the exception of instances where you simply have to see something, as in under-cover filming, it is the much maligned newspaper industry that will have to do most of the heavy lifting in future.

And all the signs are that newspapers, as long as they are not neutered by Parliamentary fiat, are equal to the task.

Interestingly, devotees of all three emerging financial models for the future of the press – free, hybrid and paywalls – have all been producing investigative journalism of a high order.

The Daily Telegraph has moved down the hybrid route with 20 stories available for free before charges kick in. Critics have said this is little more than toe-in-the water and neither one thing nor the other.

But let’s see whether the hybrid system of charging for access to online proves to be robust enough in future to finance anything as ambitious as the MP expenses investigation.

The Times has also produced important, sustained investigative reporting, in particular over the grooming for sex of young vulnerable women.

Equally, only time will tell whether investigative reporting by the Times can be sustained over the long haul from behind paywalls.

We have just found out after a embarrassing period of silence just how well the Times is doing. The number of online subscriptions to the Times and Sunday Times have reached 150,000 with a further 200,000 subscriptions to the paper edition.

The best you say is that is an OK sort of performance with plenty of room left for improvement.

In time a solid financial platform might be created and certainly at the moment Mike Darcey, chief executive of News UK is uncompromising over his belief that there is no alternative.

Darcey, coming from a background in Sky’s pay TV business, is perfectly prepared to shed a presence in the market by ignoring what he sees as the poor business involved in giving everything away for free.

Although the Times has surrendered presence for paywall cash in reality any significant stories it comes up with will be rebroadcast around the world by the likes of Twitter and Facebook.

The Daily Mail, so far at least, seems to be pulling off a remarkable double act – regular online traffic of more than 100 million a month combined with paper sales of 1.77 million.

Such a combination certainly provides the fire-power for a string of socially useful campaigns such as the successful opposition to the Liverpool Pathway under which patients without their knowledge were subjected to what amounted to a slow gradual death.

Naturally the medical establishment denounced the Daily Mail for its “inaccurate” and sensationalist reporting, until they were forced to admit the paper was right.

The Guardian is perhaps the best example that investigative reporting is in good heart and it appears to be an activity that seems to be valued by the general public.

According to a poll for the London Press Club this week the vast majority of the public believe that investigative reporting has a positive effect on British democracy.

The Guardian, with the help of the NSA whistle blower Edward Snowden, has demonstrated a new peak in investigative, or in this case, revelatory journalism.

It helps that the Guardian, which is owned by the Scott Trust, doesn’t have to show a profit in any particular year.

It helps even more that its executives believe there is absolutely no alternative to scattering its journalism, complete with its liberal values, far and wide around the world for free.

The Guardian now has the third largest online English language newspaper website in the world after Mail Online and the New York Times.

You can see why anti-establishment leakers would want to come to the Guardian to achieve maximum impact.

Again we will have to wait to see whether this is a sustainable financial model for the Guardian, though at least its losses are declining.

Yet that is a clue to why investigative journalism will continue to go from strength to strength. The internet, which has siphoned off so much newspaper advertising, turns provider as a source of information.

Whistle blowers could simply dump their material in a undifferentiated form out on the internet and watch it sink without trace.

Leaked information combined with the ability of investigative journalists to check, explain and put material into a context that seeks to avoid legitimate concerns about damaging national security, will be a winning formula for years ahead.