2.1. Investigative Journalism and Day-to-Day Journalism

In 1976, in the aftermath of the Watergate affair and the two-year spurt of revelations about the 1972 break-in at Democratic Party headquarters, investigative journalists David ^{Anderson and Peter Benjaminson (1976}) published the first book entirely devoted to investigative journalism.

The book introduces an argument challenging the distinction between investigative journalism and everyday journalism: “any reporter who does the job well is already part investigator. Those who merely report the public words of people powerful enough ( … ) to attract the media’s attention are publicists or stenographers; they are not journalists” (^{Anderson & Benjaminson, 1976}, p. 3).

Indeed, many journalists (^{Aucoin, 2005})⁴ and certain scholars (^{Lanosga et al., 2015})⁵ have put forth the notion that all journalists are guided by an inherent watchdog instinct, suggesting that there are no differences among their profiles and levels of engagement with the journalistic object. That is not the stance taken in the present discussion.

David ^{Randall (2016}) succinctly captures the boundary between investigative journalism and day-to-day journalism in one sentence: “investigative reporting starts at the point where the day-to-day work stops” (p. 128). The news, the raw material of day-to-day journalism, has tight deadlines, and publication cannot stretch beyond the demands of the ephemeral. Randall underlines just that, “a point” at which the journalist has “to stop and report” what has found or not found (p. 128). In turn, investigative reporting, functioning at a different pace, “does not accept the secrecy and the refusal of officials… It finds out for itself” (^{Randall, 2016}, p. 128).

^{Randall’s (2016}) observation suggests that investigative journalism does not cancel out day-to-day journalism. The two approaches complement each other, embodying journalism’s noble mission to serve the public.

^{Dean Starkman (2014}) also establishes a clear distinction between investigative journalism, which the author classifies as accountability reporting and day-to-day journalism, access reporting. However, the author’s line of argument reflects a clear overestimation of accountability reporting while pointing to a set of access reporting practices that distort journalism’s framework of values. ^{Dean Starkman (2014}) breaks the link and the complementarity between the two paces of journalism, whose grounds have already been emphasised here:

access reporting tells readers what powerful actors say, while accountability reporting tells readers what they do ( … ). Access reporting tends to talk to elites; accountability, to dissidents ( … ). Access tends to transmit orthodox views; accountability ( … ) heterodox ( … ). In business news, access reporting focuses on investors’ interests; accountability, on the public interest ( … ). Access ( … ) its stories are, if not easier, certainly quicker to produce and rarely confrontational ( … ). Accountability reporting is forever marginal, a cost center... time consuming, stressful, and enemy making... Put simply, accountability reporting - the watchdog - got the story that access reporting missed... Without accountability, journalism has no purpose, no focus, no point. (pp. 10-11)

2.2. The Topics That Trigger Investigations

Investigative journalism is frequently linked to uncovering malpractices within public administration involving public servants, particularly active politicians or individuals who have held significant public roles. The most prominent thematic range of investigative journalism also encompasses the exposure of misconduct within private companies and their managers, particularly those with close professional connections to the Government. It further extends to foundations, their managers, and other civil society entities, especially those receiving public funding.

The choice of the topic depends mainly on three factors: the reporter’s originality and proactivity (^{Hamilton, 2016}; ^{Houston & Horvit, 2021}; ^{Hunter, 2018}; ^{Novais, 2022}; ^{Randall, 2016}), the associated costs of the investigation (^{Hamilton, 2016}), and the potential impact that uncovering the topic may yield.

In assessing the impact of investigative stories, ^{Hamilton (2016}) analysed the career of Pat Stith, an investigative journalist based in North Carolina. The study concluded that in four decades of work, Stith’s investigative reports generated $4,700,000 in community benefits. Thus, the conclusion drawn by the US scholar urges political authorities and civil society to prioritise the reinforcement of investigative journalism:

each dollar invested ( … ) in investigative work can yield hundreds of dollars in benefits to society when public policies change. Investigative reporting costing thousands of dollars can generate millions in benefits spread throughout a community. (^{Hamilton, 2016}, p. 279)

Andrew ^{Lehren (2018}) takes the example of Pat Stith to emphasise the relevance of the impact of investigative journalism. Stith’s alliance with technology has allowed him to expand the scale of his stories and their impact.

The social profit associated with such work, when it leads to change, reforms outdated laws, exposes corruption, and uncovers criminal networks, is not directly matched by financial profit. However, as ^{Philippe Meyer (2004}) acknowledges, the investment in quality investigative journalism is a long-term venture, as “quality produces business” (p. 79).

The impact of an investigation dictates that the journalist does not abandon the topic after publication or exposure. They must follow the story’s lead and investigate new leads generated by the impact (^{Hamilton, 2016}; ^{Houston & Horvit, 2021}; ^{Hunter, 2018}).

2.3. The Challenge of Uncovering

Because it is more complex and original than breaking news or beat journalism, it takes longer, it upsets people, and it is more demanding of official responses (^{Birnbauer, 2019}); because investigative journalists face greater ethical dilemmas, have greater transparency concerns, refer to more documents, spend more time producing stories than dayto-day journalists (^{Houston & Horvit, 2021}), investigative journalism is “a higher form of journalism” (^{Coelho & Silva, 2018}; ^{Knobel, 2018}).

The investigation challenge is too demanding for the journalist for the reasons outlined. “To stir up a hornet’s nest”, recognise ^{Oliver Hahn and Florian Stalph (2018}, pp. 2-3), has costs. There is a permanent conflict between those who investigate and those who are investigated and who strive, by creating “obstacles”, to avoid the pressure of the investigation. It is up to the journalist to resist, “to fiercely overcome” these obstacles.

^{Jingrong Tong (2022}) summarises the nature of this conflict - “investigative journalism pits the press against power” (p. 34) - and this evidence underpins a paradox noted by two authors in an analysis spaced 12 years apart. James T. ^{Hamilton (2016}) and Érik ^{Neveu (2004}) emphasise that investigative journalism is highly esteemed by both the public and journalists themselves, yet it is under-practised.

The time that investigative journalism requires, the uncertainty of the outcome and the costs associated with more complex investigations may not be the only justifications for the minimal expression of investigative journalism. ^{Tong (2002}) complements this assumption. The author writes that in an environment dominated by “severe financial losses”, journalistic media “may not be able to afford to damage such relationships” (p. 34).

^{Coelho and Silva (2018}) and ^{Houston and Horvit (2021}) use the same expression - “bulletproof evidence” - to stress the need for the published story to withstand the pressure of vested interests, which the investigation aims to uncover, but also the inevitable lawsuits that this reveal will eventually raise.

In the same vein, ^{Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel (2010}) associate investigative reporting with the imperative to attain “a higher standard of proof” while also maintaining “high levels of transparency” and providing “great detail about sources and methods” employed to demonstrate the report’s “independence” (p. 72).

2.4. Under the Primacy of Ethics

The most distinctive task involves a stronger commitment to ethics and careful reflection on situations that can create doubt in the public eye. Such a commitment forges “bulletproof evidence” and enhances transparency. David ^{Randall (2016}) notes, “ethics are not some optional extra but are integral to every aspect of the job” (p. 171).

Thus, ^{Hoxha (2019}) proposes that the investigation be subjected to “layers of verification of facts” (p. 1), a task that ^{Houston and Horvit (2021}) categorise as “line-by-line checking”, which requires the journalist to “check out each fact” and to go back “to the original documentation” and “interviews”, “the reporter checks quotes”, identifying “logical inconsistencies or information gaps” (p. 104).

The most demanding ethical commitment also requires investigative journalists to be particularly careful in their relationship with sources. Preserving a distance from the source, decoding from the outset what motivates them to make a certain revelation, limits the risk of the journalist allowing themselves to be instrumentalised, becoming hostage to the interests of that source (^{Anderson & Benjaminson, 1976}).

Using anonymous sources is another decision that can compromise the transparency of the investigation. ^{Houston and Horvit (2021}) recommend that anonymous sources should only be used after the relevance of the information has been considered and all alternative options available to the journalist have been exhausted, such as trying to verify the information with another person with real knowledge of the matter, or ensure it can be confirmed in official documents.

3.1. Using the Privilege of Time Wisely

The time that journalists “who had survived the cutbacks” increasingly spend on “superficial stories” (^{Birnbauer, 2019}, p. 44), developing an almost mechanical work, like the “hamster wheel” (^{Starkman, 2014}, p. 246), is, in the newsrooms of the digital age, a privilege. Time allows digging and widens the gap between the day-to-day journalist and the investigative journalist; it is an achievement and a responsibility.

Pat Stith, an investigative journalist for four decades, was given “the gift of time” (^{Hamilton, 2016}, p. 278). The News Observer journalist, whose career ^{James T. Hamilton (2016}) analysed, was able to construct “a happy combination”: his reporting generated “financial returns”, “professional pride”, and “social responsibility” (p. 278). Stith managed his time wisely, condensing, in that management, the main traits that set an investigative journalist apart: “get training”, as one of the pioneers of data journalism, “fight for records, analyze data, prepare for interviews, check and verify, publish frequently, and to do follow-ups that generate change” (^{Hamilton, 2016}, p. 278). However, to the time the News Observer gave him, Stith added his own time, “going beyond the normal payday to spend nights and often weekends to gather evidence and confirmations” (p. 278).

3.2. Doubt and Method

Stith was guided by “a mantra”, doubt: “I doubt that… the phrase pops up frequently - in interviews about his work” (^{Hamilton, 2016}, p. 208).

John ^{Pilger (2005}) also encourages scepticism in the investigative journalist. ^{Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel (2010}) recommend that reporters always start a story as if they know nothing, cultivating a permanent “sceptical knowledge” (p. 30). David ^{Randall (2016}) argues that being a “sharp and sceptical questioner” is an attribute of the “universal journalist” (p. viii). ^{Houston and Horvit (2021}) recommend the investigative journalist “healthy scepticism” (p. iv). David ^{Anderson and Peter Benjaminson (1976}) characterise the investigative journalist as one who distrusts “human nature” because, they add, “someone, somehow, is working against the public interest” (pp. 3-4).

While doubt sets the story’s pace, from the unrest that launches it to the moment it is published or aired, curiosity fuels it. Curiosity mirrors the “desire to know the story behind the story” (^{Houston & Horvit, 2021}, p. iv). David ^{Randall (2016}) believes that the best journalists display a “compulsive curiosity” (p. 279) that urges them to know more and more about the subject they are investigating. The information they amass on their journey towards in-depth knowledge of the subjects they cover requires investigative journalists, as ^{Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel (2010}) see it, “such methods” are “a way of disciplining their curiosity” (p. 153). Only then, the authors conclude, can journalists “always go further in the process of questioning” (^{Kovach & Rosenstiel, 2010}, p. 153).

3.3. Persistence, Intelligence and Credibility

Digging deeper into the how requires “personal engagement” from the reporter (^{Hunter, 2018}, p. 9), commitment, dedication, many hours of research, sharp thinking, and intellect. As ^{Randall (2016}) notes, “I have never met a very good or great reporter who was not also highly intelligent, reflective and thoughtful”. And those, “are generally more meticulous in their reporting than most journalists” (pp. 277-278). “Exceptional journalists” cultivate a “subtle signature” that pushes them to dig deeper in their verification work (^{Kovach & Rosenstiel, 2010}, p. 153); “the voice and words of these journalists reinforce the credibility of the investigation” (^{Novais, 2022}, p. 313).

This commitment to journalistic knowledge reinforces the usefulness of the verb “dig”, already mentioned here, and associates the investigative journalist with other traits that separate them from the rest. Starting with persistence. David ^{Randall (2016}) states that this “determination” is what allows them to move forward, overcoming the “inevitable frustrations” (p. 131).

^{Anderson and Benjaminson (1976}) add that “the challenge of unraveling” (p. 4) encourages the investigative reporter to persist and not give up. “To uncover concealed information” (p. 5) - enduring the hostility of those targeted and the stonewalling of those who want the information to remain concealed create - the investigative journalist must go to great lengths in this exercise of uncovering.

3.4. Subversion

^{John Pilger (2005}) and ^{Dean Starkman (2014}) associate investigative journalists with a less obvious trait, subversion, which places them in marginalised territory. The authors do not use the word, but the examples they highlight seem to associate investigative journalists with a certain defiance, a certain contempt for the rules and a willingness to shake up the dominant view.

In his compilation of examples in Tell Me No Lies, ^{Pilger (2005}) highlights journalists who refuse to become “part of a propaganda apparatus” and reject the role of being “spokesmen of the spokesmen”. Instead, they endeavour to alert their readers “to vital hidden truth”. These journalists cultivate a certain “insurrection against the rules of the game” (pp. xv-xvi).

Meanwhile, ^{Dean Starkman (2014}) details the role of Mike Hudson, a fringe journalist and society reporter for a Pittsburgh weekly, in covering the events that triggered the United States mortgage market crisis. In ^{Starkman’s (2014}) analysis, Hudson was one of the few who exposed Wall Street, overcoming the constraints of the official view: “the business press in general was guilty of missing the moment” (p. 287). When he was hired by the Wall Street Journal, Hudson, like “a basketball player playing out of position”, never adapted and resigned (^{Starkman, 2014}, p. 271).

4.1. The Challenge of Technology

To keep the mission of inspecting the actions of the powers, the digital era investigative journalist must acquire new skills and take on new roles. Accessing digital sources and knowing how to capitalise on the data they contain - giving the data a journalistic meaning, building a story with the potential to create impact from that work - requires “hybrid journalists”, who “combine journalism practice with methodologies drawn from sciences and innovative technologies” (^{Hahn & Stalph, 2018}, p. 7).

This digital hybridity is an expansion of the concept of precision journalism, coined by Philip Meyer in the 1970s, which essentially applied social science methodologies to journalism. In the digital age, this alliance is extended to computer science and statistics (^{Hahn & Stalph, 2018}; ^{Tong, 2022}).

The technology that provides the means to filter and decrypt a volume of data with the gigantic dimension of the leak that the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists dealt with in the Panama Papers⁷ is the same that made it possible to build the network that brought together the 370 reporters scattered in different parts of the world, bridging different cultures, different languages and providing each reporter with the protective shield that, especially in regions of the globe affected by attacks on freedom of expression, made it possible to dilute the risk for all the journalists involved (^{Coelho & Rodrigues, 2020}; ^{Lück & Schultz, 2019}; ^{Sambrook, 2017}).

Technology, which allows journalism to cross borders, gain scale and achieve a global impact, is, however, the same technology that feeds the security paranoia of states, simultaneously creating bubbles of information protection - which make access to essential materials difficult or even impossible - and watching, monitoring, at all times, any citizen, even if this tapping is merely an expression of uncontrolled power.

Collaborative investigative journalism is undergoing a “technological dilemma” (^{Coelho & Rodrigues, 2020}, p. 143), which ^{Bell and Owen (2017}) describe in these terms: “the very reasons the State wants to tame, penetrate, and control the digital universe are the same reasons that make it an instrument of liberty” (p. 8).

The dilemma we discussed gained particular relevance with the Edward Snowden revelations, which had a double effect on investigative journalism. On the one hand, it made it stronger - by empowering the creation of a network of journalists who investigated and revealed the leak, allowing the denunciation of the National Security Agency’s massive surveillance to reach a global dimension, which weakened the US administration -, on the other hand, this revelation inaugurated a new era of security paranoia, with direct negative effects on investigative journalism: “five eyes⁸ had the technology to snoop on journalists and their sources, a major revaluation of journalism tradecraft has begun” (^{Burgh, 2021}, p. 4).

To regain the trust of sources, many investigative journalists, even realising that surveillance is everywhere, have resumed direct contact, while others have learned encryption techniques. The financially stronger media organisations, where investigative journalism is prominent, have set up digital security training for journalists, and journalists have extended this training to their sources. However, the realisation that information security is no longer an absolute given has set in: “the Snowden Affair turned upside down the work of journalists” (^{Posetti, 2018}, p. 252).

4.2. The Challenge of Collaboration

Digital technology, associated with investigative journalism, has made it possible to strengthen collaborative journalism. In fact, collaborative projects have been identified since the 1970s. In 1976, at a time when long-distance communication depended on the telephone or letters, and the culture of the “lone wolve” (^{Burgh, 2021}, p. 3) set the pace for investigative journalism in newsrooms, the Arizona Project brought together 40 journalists from 12 media outlets to pursue the investigation of journalist Don Bolles, murdered in Phoenix, Arizona (^{Houston & Horvit, 2021}). The Arizona Project sent the clear message that “no one could kill a story by killing the reporter”⁹ (^{Houston & Horvit, 2021}, p. v). It was the inspiration for all the collaborations that followed, especially the one that, underpinned by data journalism, reinvented the concept of collaboration (^{Hoxha, 2019}) and changed “the very anthropology of investigative journalism” (^{Burgh, 2021}, p. 3) - the Panama Papers investigation we mentioned earlier.

Collaboration is based on what the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists categorises as “radical sharing” (^{Guevara, 2016}). Networked reporters share the results of their findings at all times. Sharing is a challenge for journalists, especially those trained in a world of competition. Therefore, to be effective, sharing requires trust, the principle on which journalistic collaboration is based (^{Días-Struck & Cabra, 2018}; ^{Houston & Horvit, 2021}).

4.3. The Challenge of Innovation

As the analogue era journalist has always faced, the data journalist faces the challenge of form. ^{Houston and Horvit (2021}), for example, consider it “a huge mistake” for investigative journalists to devote “little thought” to how to present stories: “there are countless examples of brilliantly reported work that ( … ) had little impact because the writing was impenetrable” and unable to captivate the reader (p. 77). The criticism is valid for the press but also television, multimedia or podcast.

In the digital age, investigative journalism is rising to the challenge of form by committing more to visual form in its various dimensions: video, interactive infographics, graphics, photography, and drone footage. As such, teams are expanding to include computer graphics experts, designers, photographers, programmers, visual journalists and drone operators (^{Kreimer, 2018}; ^{Radu, 2018}).

“Innovation” is the key word for Natalia ^{Antelava (2018}). The CODA¹⁰ platform, which she co-founded, results from two alliances: it merges different professional categories and articulates traditional storytelling models - “traditional text, features and video” - to “distinct, innovative and inventive digital formats” (p. 223). CODA’s alliances are structured with the essential in mind: producing “high quality” content.