How networking will save investigative journalism
A chat with Morten Warmedal
by Barbara L. L. Maimone*
Is journalism a job for lone wolves? Or is it, instead, all about team working and networking? We dug deeper into the dilemma with Morten Warmedal, a Norwegian journalist who will be one of DIG Festival’ jurors again this year. DIG Festival will take place in Riccione from June 1st to June 3rd, 2018.
Morten has held a number of editorial, executive and management positions in journalism. He has worked as a reporter, editor, director, anchor and executive producer in leading Norwegian media outlets, particularly in television. For the academic year 2017/18, he was selected as a John S. Knight journalism fellow at Stanford University in California.
With him, we discussed how networking could impact the future of investigative journalism in lights of recent international journalism works, such as the Panama and Paradise Papers.
Thanks for joining DIG Awards this year too, Morten. In your words, how can we define investigative journalism in 2018?
Morten: Although there is not one universal definition adhered to by professionals, the classic definition has not really changed. Investigative journalism still seeks to uncover significant information that often involve the revelation of secrets about a phenomenon in society that somebody does not want to make public. Journalists do this in a systematic, comprehensive and methodological way through original research and reporting. What has changed is the numerous channels and platforms now available for publication.
When thinking about investigative journalists, many of us think of lone wolves. Is it actually true that investigative journalism really works in solitude?
This has really become a myth that is not true today. In fact, almost all major investigative projects involve collaborative teams working together. There are many reasons for this, primarily that the range of challenges facing investigative journalists require people with diverse backgrounds and skills. In television and documentary work, this has always been the case since various professionals work together.
If networking is, then, really important for investigative journalism, what can kind of networking is needed? Connections with other investigative journalists? Or journalists in other fields? Or perhaps experts with complete different jobs?
All of the above, given the project you work on. Today, technological skills in the digital age are crucial for most journalist, both to uncover information hidden in databases and large collections of data, but also to master the digital tools available ranging from encryption and data mining to research and publication. I think the International Consortium of Investigative Journalism (ICIJ) has done a formidable job in showing to the global journalism community that cooperation between journalists has paid off in an amazing way. I mean, just look at the Panama Papers.
So, is networking with citizens something that investigative journalists should consider in the digital age? I am thinking about many major events that have been shaped or even reported by citizens or citizen journalists.
Absolutely! The contact and cooperation with ordinary citizens and committed individuals with information to share are crucial to obtain vital secrets, and also to publish correct information. In general, the method of keeping all researched information obtained by a few journalists hidden from the public, only making it public when editors decide to publish, is not the way forward. Editorial teams need input, correction and verification based on the vast knowledge that is out there to produce better and more correct stories. It’s significant to invite the public into the research process which also builds a more transparent connection with the audience and builds trust in media and journalism.
“In light of all the cutbacks in journalism and changing business models, collaboration between journalists could save journalism”
From your personal point of view, what can be done and how networking will really save investigative journalism? We got examples from big investigations such as Panama and Paradise Papers. Or recently the Daphne Project with 45 journalists working together on what Daphne Caruana Galizia had already started and for what she was killed.
My experience as a John S. Knight Fellow in Journalism at Stanford University this year is that collaboration in journalism is one of the most talked about and focused areas in the work that goes on here and internationally. In light of all the cutbacks in journalism and changing business models, collaboration between journalists could save journalism. ICIJ is doing great work and the Daphne project is a case in point, continuing the important and brave work of the Maltese journalist. As a result, there are numerous new initiatives, technological tools and management models to ensure better workflows and real cooperation. There must be systems in place that will make it obvious to lone wolves that cooperation is beneficial for their career and for the profession. However, that is not always the case in many newsrooms and media operations.
Have you got any example or positive thought for the future, Morten?
I’ve taken part in a seminar this week at Stanford university about cross border collaboration initiated by my JSK colleagues. It is all about providing practical tools to make collaboration work in everyday conditions. I’m sure that this initiative will lead to new networks of journalists working together on several continents. My JSK colleagues have also written a Medium article explaining the benefits of cooperation between journalists.
Would you like to say something for our readers for DIG Awards Magazine?
I will thank the organizers of the DIG Awards for staging this important festival. I hope it will inspire the entire journalism community in Italy to uphold a strong focus on investigative journalism that is so necessary to hold the powerful accountable, either in the government or the private sector, and to keep the public informed. I think the development after the election of Donald Trump in the US has led to a revival of investigative journalism carried out by numerous media, not least the legacy media, that are providing superb results. One reason is increased funding from philanthropists and other independent sources. That should be an inspiration for the well-off people and institutions in Italy and Europe, that they see the importance of independent media to strengthen democracy and support a vibrant civic society.
* Barbara L. L. Maimone is currently doing the International Journalism MA at City, University of London. She previously took a Law degree and she believes journalism is the way to give voice to the voiceless. Barbara is the editor of Doppio Standard, a famous Italian blog about gender stereotypes. She’s also interested in environmental issues, geopolitics, security and crime. Find her on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, LinkedIn.
