| THE COPS IN KANSAS
CITY weren’t thrilled with Karen Dillon, a former
factory-worker-turned-award-winning journalist, who wrote a
scathing exposé for the local newspaper on the questionable
ways that police departments across the country use money
seized in drug busts and traffic stops.
Not long after her series started to run, two Missouri cops
at the local station even confronted her. Hovering over her —
Dillon is a small woman — they stomped and screamed and called
her names. One even had his hand on his gun — part of the body
language that cops use to let you know how they feel, says
Mike McGraw, Dillon’s colleague at the Kansas City
Star. When asked about the situation, Dillon is
nonchalant, in the way that mid-Westerners can be.
“I was polite. I waited until the stomping and screaming
was over, then said, ‘Thank you for your time,’” she says.
“You try not to let it get personal because you know you’re
doing the right thing. You’re searching for the truth.”
The truth is out there. It’s what keeps Dillon and other
investigative reporters going, usually in obscurity, even in
the face of aggressive body language. It’s why Dillon landed a
Kennedy School Goldsmith Investigative Reporting Award last
year for her series. It’s why the Shorenstein Center, which
gives out the Goldsmith Award, started in the first place — to
explore democracy and the media’s role in making it
better.
The Peak
Muckraking. The word that Teddy Roosevelt made
famous in 1906 sounds grubby, and by all accounts, it is. It
involves reporters, sometimes working in teams or alone, as
was the case with Karen Dillon, digging, researching, and
pulling teeth, sometimes for months or even years, in an
effort to expose misconduct in public life. Those who do the
work rarely get rich or famous. (Name five investigative
reporters off the top of your head.) It’s also not pretty
(take the recent Boston Globe series on priest
pedophilia in the church) and often leaves in its wake hurt
people and tainted reputations. But during its century-long
history, the greater good that investigative journalism is
meant to accomplish has brought down crooked presidents,
dishonest child labor exploiters, and shady business
deals.
These days, the current state of investigative journalism
is a debatable subject. However, there’s no doubt that the
media’s “watchdog” role has an illustrious, gloatable past.
Tracing back to the founding of the nation, most consider the
turn of the last century to be the “golden age” of muckraking.
A handful of reporters (the ones we can name) working for
magazines like McClure’s, the Arena, and
Collier’s began poking around the dark corners of
America, exposing graft and corruption that were flourishing
with the rise of industrialism and a growing class of nouveau
riche who wielded considerable influence over government and
business. It was a time, writes C. C. Regia in The Era of
Muckrakers, when a “passion for change swept the country.”
The muckrakers vigorously responded, “thundering their
denunciations in bold face, italics, and large-sized caps.”
They “threw bricks at the wealthiest and most powerful
citizens of the land,” he writes. “While muckraking was at its
height, there was no institution which was immune from
attack.”
At the same time, advances in printing made newspapers and
magazines cheaper and faster to produce, therefore readily
available to the public, who were more educated than ever
before in history. They ate it up. The number of publications
skyrocketed, jacking up the competitive nature of the media.
Leading the pack was McClure’s magazine, the
Mother Jones of its day. In 1902, the fledgling
publication started by S. S. McClure as a way to inexpensively
bring literature to everyone, not just the elite, began
publishing Ida Tarbell’s “History of the Standard Oil Company”
about the illegal monopolistic practices of Standard Oil,
owned by John D. Rockefeller, the richest guy in America at
the time. During a five-year stretch, Tarbell fleshed out the
18-part series by doing something previous reporters hadn’t
done: she tediously sifted through boring transcripts of
congressional hearings, land deeds, and court records,
inventing a brand new “paper-trail school of journalism.”
Prior to Tarbell, exposés were based primarily on gossip,
interviewing, and undercover spy tactics.
Other hard-hitting series followed. Lincoln Steffens on
political corruption at the local level. Upton Sinclair on
unsanitary meatpacking conditions. David Graham Phillipps on
crooked congressmen. Samuel Hopkins Adams on dangerous
chemicals used in over-the-counter, unregulated medications.
Ray Stannard Baker on railroad greed and the lynching of black
southerners. Photography, a relatively new invention, also got
serious, moving from decoration to documentation: Jacob Riis
on the squalid conditions of tenement housing in New York
City, Lewis Hine on the plight of child coal miners.
The Bubble Bursts
It was an intense decade.
Unfortunately, the golden age of muckraking lasted just that
long: a little more than 10 years. Conservative special
interests began buying up muckraking magazines or starting
competitors. Libel laws were toughened. A new profession —
public relations — emerged, staffed mostly by former
journalists ready to challenge every word. One magazine was
even infiltrated with spies, who copied stockholder lists. The
stockholders were told the magazine was misusing funds.
Eventually, the magazine had trouble securing loans and had to
be sold. It quickly folded. “The Interests set out
resolutely…to bring in the fiery untamed muckraking magazine,”
wrote Charles Edward Russell in 1914 in Pearson’s
magazine, “and tether it in the corporation
corral.”
By the time World War
I rolled around, a combination of the war, a decrease in the
number of publications, new ownership by large corporations,
and a pullback of advertising dollars further forced
investigative publications out of business or to soften their
content. After the war, President Warren Harding called for a
“return to normalcy.” The public, eager to get back on track
with their lives, agreed. The press responded. Fewer and fewer
investigative pieces were written.
After that,
investigative reporting ebbed and flowed, reaching its lowest
point during the patriotic decades of the 1940s and 1950s
before making a comeback in the turbulent, “Let’s Question
Everything” 1960s. By the early 1970s, the second “golden age”
of muckraking began. Seymour Hersh published the Pulitzer
Prize-winning “My Lai” series about the massacre of innocent
civilians in a Vietnamese village during the Vietnam War. Paul
Brodeur tackled the massive public health risk posed by
asbestos. David Burnham exposed corruption in the New York
City Police Department with the help of an officer named Frank
Serpico, made famous years later by Al Pacino in the movie
Serpico.
And then two reporters
for the Washington Post turned investigative journalism
upside down in 1972 with an anonymous source called Deep
Throat and the first resignation of an American
president.
Deep Truth
The names “Woodward
and Bernstein” — almost always said in unison — have become,
since then, synonymous with the investigative reporter.
(Although some argue that their story was in an entirely
different realm from most.) Their work certainly impacted
Karen Dillon. After years working on a General Electric
assembly line making refrigerator parts, she was inspired to
change careers and become a reporter, in part, because of
Watergate. It’s why she sleeps with a pad and pencil by her
bed. She’s afraid she may forget something
important.
“These projects take
over your life. You’re eating and breathing the story,” she
says. “It becomes your life.”
“All of Washington was
changed with Watergate, especially Washington journalism,”
wrote Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel in the May/June 2001
issue of Columbia Journalism Review. Soon after, the
New York Times established a formal investigative team
in its Washington bureau. 60 Minutes was launched.
Time declared 1974 the “Year of the Muckraker ” after
four Pulitzer Prizes were awarded for investigative
series.
“Scarcely a reporter
in the country is now immune to fantasies of heroic
achievement and epic remuneration,” wrote Newsweek in
1976. “Woodstein envy is rampant, even among newsmen with
enviable reputations of their own.”
Investigative
reporting had become hot again. Sexy even.
From Watergate to Gunslinger
Today scores of
“I-Teams” exist at local television stations across the
country. Professional groups like Investigative Reporters and
Editors hold conferences to debate the profession. Honors like
the Kennedy School’s Goldsmith Award, which Karen Dillon won,
are given annually (see sidebar).
“We seem to be in one
of the peak periods now,” says Joe Bergantino MPA 1985, an
investigative reporter at Boston’s WBZ-TV. As he sees it,
investigative journalism is thriving at many of the major
newspapers and some television stations across the country.
“It’s probably no coincidence that it coincides with an
economic downturn.”
Watergate clearly had
a lasting effect on how and why we report. However, its legacy
wasn’t all positive, say some, including the two men who
helped put the scandal in the history books: Bob Woodward and
Carl Bernstein.
During a string of
interviews in 2002 marking the 30th anniversary of the bugging
of the Democratic National Committee and the Watergate
break-in, Bernstein said on Meet the Press that while
the lessons from Watergate are there for journalists — be
meticulous, report tough but fair, base your work on facts,
double-source information — “I wish that they had been
followed more.”
Instead, in a rush to
get the story out first in this 24-hour news cycle, many
journalists aren’t careful, overuse single and anonymous
sources, and are swayed by gossip and manufactured
controversy. “There are too many journalists who are
gunslingers,” he said.
The definition of the
field has also changed in recent years, says Bergantino, and
not necessarily for the better.
“Oftentimes, the word
‘investigative’ is misused. It’s sexy to say, ‘We’re
investigating,’ but in fact, a lot of what’s defined as
investigative reporting is just good basic reporting,” he
says. “There’s been a lot of scandal reporting passed off as
investigative. Some might view the Lewinsky/Clinton or Chandra
Levy scandals as investigative. I don’t, and I don’t think a
lot of other investigative reporters do either.”
Certainly not all
investigations rise to the level of Watergate. “TV news has
been the worst offender.” Bergantino says. “‘Investigations’
into the dangers of high-heel shoes or automatic doors stoop
to the level of total absurdity. Viewers have caught on and
laugh this stuff off the screen with a press of the
clicker.”
Problematic in this
evolution of “McMuck,” or muckraking-lite, as it’s sometimes
called, says Richard Parker, an adjunct lecturer in public
policy and senior fellow at the Shorenstein Center on the
Press, Politics and Public Policy, is that the public is
starting to tune out not just the silly stories, but the
serious ones as well.
“The sheer volume of
that kind of ‘exposé’ means that people have become inured to
it,” he says. “Enron? Big deal. Another crooked
corporation.”
Parker began his
journalism career in the 1960s at the progressive magazine
Ramparts then went on to co-found Mother Jones
magazine in 1975, in which hard-hitting exposés forced Ford to
recall its deadly Pinto and pharmaceutical giant A. H. Robbins
to stop selling the equally deadly Dalkon Shield IUD. Things
have changed since those halcyon days, he says. Like other
writers, he’s now concerned about the future of investigative
reporting, particularly in light of mega-media mergers and a
“bottom-line” mentality.
When Ben Bagdikian
published The Media Monopoly in 1984, he reported that
about 50 media conglomerates dominated the U.S. mass media.
“By today’s
standards,” writes Robert McChesney in Rich Media, Poor
Democracy, “that era was downright competitive.”
The number has
dwindled to a handful, and ownership isn’t just horizontal
(one newspaper owning a handful of other newspapers), but
vertical (one newspaper owning televisions stations, movie
studios, cable channels, cable systems, music companies, and
magazines.)
According to a
February report put out by the Media Access Project and the
Center for Digital Democracy, this kind of “cross ownership”
often transforms newspapers “from watchdogs into lapdogs,
unable to report on or criticize affiliated TV media,
particularly when the interests of the cross owners are most
affected.”
Journalists worry. In
a 1999 survey by the Pew Research Center, among those in
television and radio, particularly national television, 53
percent of journalists compared to 38 percent of news
executives said that pressure to make a profit is hurting the
quality of coverage rather than just changing the way things
are done. This is a reversal from the center’s poll four years
earlier, when the national television media split was 37
percent journalists to 46 percent news executives.
Fear of corporate
influence interfering with journalistic integrity was evident
even in the early days of investigative reporting. According
to Robert Miraldi in Muckraking and Objectivity, “The
breakup of the original McClure’s staff came, in part,
because in 1906, McClure began…to seek outside capital. The
muckrakers felt that the new business interests would be
hostile to their reporting.” Tarbell said in her 1939
autobiography that investigative journalism “has lost the
passion for facts in a passion for subscription.”
Owners, of course,
have their own opinions, primarily that mergers and corporate
influence make journalism stronger. The evening news at
network-financed local television stations, for instance, can
be as snazzy and sharp as the Big Guys, with reporting from
anywhere in the world. A small town newspaper with limited
funds for expensive investigative series can be infused with
cash and resources when bought by a wealthy, corporate giant.
“Journalism is a business,” writes Michael Gartner, a former
president of NBC News in USA Today in February. “You
can’t be journalistically vigorous if you aren’t economically
strong.”
“I can understand the
bottom-line mentality but not respect it,” Richard Parker
says, having worked both as an editor and a publisher at
Mother Jones. “It depends on what you want from your
magazine. You can be a bottom feeder or you can strive for
excellence. If you do well, then excellence is part of the
goodwill that hits the bottom line. It sustains your mission
and brings in new subscribers.”
“The problem is that
journalism is on the one hand hit by a lot of economic
problems — the downturn in the economy — and on the other,
corporate issues,” says Alex Jones, director of the
Shorenstein Center and a former reporter and editor.
“Investigative reporting is expensive. It’s the luxury of
American journalism. It tends to get less attention when there
are fewer resources. In TV especially, there’s not a lot of
interest in it except in a Dateline-kind of
way.”
At some stations and
publications, this was evident after September 11, when money
was reallocated and the mission revamped to cover Ground Zero
and Osama Bin Laden.
“The story of the year
has been about terrorism,” says Jones. “It’s taken some of the
attention and energy away from investigative journalism.
It’s also created new stories, though, so the impact of
September 11 is a mixed bag.”
Onward
No one interviewed had
a crystal ball that could predict what shape investigative
journalism will take in the near future, as mega mergers
continue and the economy tightens. Will this second era of
investigative reporting follow in the footsteps of the first
and become just a brilliant but dusty chapter in journalism
textbooks? If best-selling investigative books like Eric
Schlosser’s Fast Food Nation and the Boston
Globe’s wide-reaching series on the crisis in the Catholic
Church are any indication, the answer would be, definitely
not. Although Americans in recent years have ranked reporters
below lawyers and on par with insurance salespeople in the
contempt they inspire, it’s clear that investigative reporting
is a must in any democratic society. Because of investigative
reporters, child labor laws were passed, worker compensation
laws enacted, building codes created, and election laws
modified. Crooked politicians were kicked out of office,
military secrets revealed, and pedophiles punished (see
sidebar).
It’s these successes
that help reporters like Karen Dillon get support for their
next project. Winning awards helps too.
“The Goldsmith Award
has given my editors great faith in my news judgment. When I
presented my next project after winning the prize, there were
few questions asked,” she says.
Of course, her
“dogged” personality is also a bonus, says Mike
McGraw.
“Karen doesn’t give up
or let things, little or big, deter her,” he says. “She
doesn’t let a refusal to comment stop her. She always finds a
way.”
Asked if he meant what
he said in a Columbia Journalism Review interview last
year, that Dillon reminds him of a “terrier on steroids,”
McGraw laughs.
“I truly meant that.
She took it as a compliment,” he says. “Investigative
reporting is like a jigsaw puzzle that someone else took apart
because they don’t want you to know something. Karen will look
forever for that missing piece.”
Stories that Directly Changed How
We Live (and Die)
Thomas Jefferson once said in 1807 that
“the man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed
than he who reads them.” Read on and see if you agree.
Ida Tarbell
At the end of the 19th century, in nearly
every industry, big corporations were driving out competition
and creating huge monopolies. Ida Tarbell had a particular
interest in one of those industries: oil. Born near the
nation’s first well to a man who operated a small,
independent oil business, Tarbell saw her father forced into
bankruptcy by John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Company.
Armed with documents from government investigations into the
company and two years worth of discussions with a Standard
executive, Tarbell wrote an 18-part series in 1904 for
McClure’s called “The History of the Standard Oil
Company.” Rockefeller launched a campaign to discredit her
work. Instead, the public got behind her. Two years later,
Congress passed the Hepburn Act, ending oil company rebates.
The Investigative Bureau of Corporations was formed.
Eventually, Standard’s monopoly was shattered. The company
broke into many, including Exxon, Mobil, and Chevron.
Upton Sinclair
After receiving $500 from an editor to write a
novel about America’s working class, Upton Sinclair went
undercover at a Chicago meatpacking plant for seven weeks,
gathering information about unsanitary working conditions and
unfair labor practices. Five publishers initially rejected the
book. Sinclair self-published, then got picked up by Doubleday
in 1906. The book hit a nerve. The meatpacking publicity
agents went into high gear, printing rebuttals in the Saturday
Evening Post and talking libraries out of carrying the
book. President Teddy Roosevelt launched his own
investigation. Winston Churchill, then a member of Parliament,
urged the English to buy the book, which was eventually
translated into more than a dozen languages. The nation’s
first Pure Food and Drug Act passed later that year.
Jacob Riis
Before landing a job as a police reporter for
the New York Tribune, Jacob Riis, an immigrant from
Denmark, wandered the streets of Gotham City, homeless and
suicidal, experiencing firsthand “how the other half
lives” — a phrase he copyrighted, then later used as the
title of his 1890 book that showed how nearly three-quarters
of New York City’s residents were living: crammed into
dilapidated, unsanitary tenement dwellings in the Lower East
Side. The prose was searing, the photos powerful and
undeniable. With photography still in its infancy, for many
Americans this was their first glimpse into the lives of poor
immigrants: dirty kids sleeping barefoot in the streets,
alleys full of trash, families living under bridges. The
book’s impact was instantaneous. Teddy Roosevelt, then
police commissioner of the city, called Riis “the most
useful citizen of New York.” Roosevelt abolished rear
tenements devoid of air and light. Playgrounds were built, and
fire hazards rooted out. City water was purified, and efforts
to establish child labor laws began.
Rachel Carson
Hired by the U.S. Bureau of Fisheries to write
radio scripts during the Depression, Rachel Carson became
worried about the widespread use of synthetic chemical
pesticides. She wanted to warn the public. After a New England
birdwatcher noticed that sprays used to kill mosquitoes and
gypsy moths were also killing birds, Carson started writing Silent
Spring, which came out in 1962. The chemical industry and
some in government attacked it. However, President John
Kennedy demanded that all of the chemicals mentioned in the
book be tested and studied. His Science Advisory Committee
later backed up her claims, causing a major shift in public
consciousness about the environment. By the end of the year,
more than 40 bills regulating pesticides came up for vote,
eventually leading to a ban of DDT. The creation of the
Environmental Protection Agency followed.
Jessica Mitford
Often referred to as the Queen of the
Muckrakers, Jessica Mitford was most famous for her scathing
indictment of the funeral industry in The American Way of
Death, published in 1963. The book revolutionized the way
many Americans came to think about funerals. Mitford revealed
that undertakers — who had carefully recast themselves as
“funeral directors” — had “successfully turned the
tables in recent years to perpetrate a huge, macabre, and
expensive practical joke on the American public.” As coffins
became “caskets” and flowers “floral tributes,” the
cost of dying in the United States, she found, was rising
faster than the cost of living. The funeral industry was
growing fat on people’s misery. The book caused a stir.
Eventually, the Federal Trade Commission established standards
for the first time.
Seymour Hersh
Working on his own as a freelancer in 1969,
Seymour Hersh broke the story of the massacre of Vietnamese
civilians at My Lai by American troops during the Vietnam War.
Initially distributed through the tiny Dispatch News Service
owned by a friend, the series was eventually picked up by 36
newspapers, as well as news networks and magazines. (Life
and Look rejected the story, assuming it wasn’t
true.) Hersh snagged the Pulitzer Prize. His Mai Lai story,
written during the peak of the Vietnam War, forced Americans
to look at their government with a new, critical eye.
Woodward and
Bernstein
Few investigative reporters, at least in
modern times, are as well known in the farmhouses dotting the
Nebraska landscape as they are in congressional offices around
Washington — except Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein.
Watergate did more than just bring down a president. The
public’s view of government, the presidency, and the media
was radically changed. Today’s overwhelming public cynicism
about government can be traced directly back to Nixon’s
resignation. Watergate also had a huge impact on lawmaking,
which emerged as a strong force in trying to limit the abuses
of power in politics. Campaign finance reform was unleashed.
Congress passed the Privacy Act of 1974 in response to the
misuse of profiles and widespread wiretapping. The Ethics in
Government Act was passed a few years later. “I think it
made politicians more scared of lying,” said Washington
Post editor Ben Bradlee. The field of journalism was also
changed, catapulting investigative reporters into more than
just household names: they also became celebrities.
Boston Globe
On January 6, 2002, the Boston Globe
published a story by its investigative Spotlight Team that
revealed that Cardinal Bernard Law, head of the Archdiocese of
Boston, had moved defrocked priest John Geoghan from parish to
parish over the course of several decades, despite knowing
that he had sexually abused children. The story exploded. Over
the next few months, the series continued as hundreds of
victims came out to tell their stories — more than 200
within a month after the initial story broke — leaving
dozens of priests accused of abuse. Allegations widened, as
similar stories around the world broke. Reaction was immediate
and far-reaching: Civil suits filed in court; debates and town
hall forums filled with parishioners questioning the
church’s handling of abuse reports, as well as their own
faith; and top church leaders asking for sweeping reforms of
the church’s structure. The fallout continues today.
|