Investigative Journalism

I have deep respect for the work of investigative journalists. They often work under very difficult circumstances – risking persecution, law suits and harassment. But investigative journalism is indispensable. We have a saying in my country: The tabloids keep the democracy clean. Journalists are the ones that make sure that the authorities are held accountable for their actions – or lack of action.

In my part of the World, the relationship between journalists and officials has generally been tricky – it is like a love/hate relationship – without much love. Within the public sector many used to live by the saying: “I have the right to remain silent – otherwise I will be misquoted and my statement used against me”. Very few had any interest in speaking to journalists for exact this reason and because speaking to journalists would never ever do you any good in your career. If you where so unlucky to actually talk to a journalist and if – god forbid – you actually got quoted for something – you could be quite sure that the upper ranks were not amused.

This phenomenon is changing in many ways. For start, we know that is it no longer possible to keep a lid on stories. Freedom of speech for public servants as well as for everyone else, the right of access to documents and a generally very high standard of investigative journalism makes it pointless to try to hide information that mostly is available if you know how to look. History has also thought us that it is not the misdeed itself that makes a government fall or cost civil servants their career. No, it is the cover-up after something has been discovered that bring down governments. So the lesson is quite clear – if an investigative journalist is on to something it is generally better to take the issue seriously – maybe even cooperate – in order to try to solve the problem before it is too late. The story will go to press anyway. Journalists would probably say that the government is trying to outsmart them. I would say it is a more professional way of dealing with the press.

I know this reality is very far from the one that investigative journalists are facing in this region but for governments and states that take freedom of press and freedom of speech seriously they have to go down this road. And don’t worry – there will still be stories to investigate.

There is another phenomenon that also is changing. Journalists on established media are no longer alone in doing investigative reporting. New media is transforming the landscape and traditional journalists now face competition from bloggers, You Tubers and informal networks and NGO’s. For the printed press the outlook is not rosy at all. But as with all competition there is also an opportunity – and the opportunity is to be better, be more relevant, and in particular to become much more credible.

Credibility has very much to do with skills and techniques. If a critical investigative story is based on good journalistic research and sound criticism of sources it will become irrefutable. And with increased credibility the readers will come back. Yesterday, to my great interest I heard that Al Masri al Yawm as a result of their recent investigative reporting on the pollution of the Nile had had a substantial increase in sales. Readers want that kind of stories. And this is exactly why government-owned press and papers will face a hard time – they will not be credible in investigating their owners.

We have been told, that “for freedom of press – the sky is the limit”. As Danish ambassador I cannot be more in agreement with that statement – and it saddens me to see, that according to Jordanian journalists themselves, self-censorship is the common rule. Self-censorship is to do the dirty work for the otherwise would-be censors - how can we then reach the sky? It is not enough to stand on our toes – we have to build the ladder ourself.

We have also been told that the level of criticism and boldness in articles should be matched by an equal level of research techniques, fact check and scrutiny. This is a crucial point and not only for investigative journalism. Because what use is freedom of the press if journalists are not capable of conducting proper research? We all have agendas that we want to promote. Good journalists know that and take this into account when researching and writing their articles. I am sorry to say that – based on a number of personal experiences in Jordan – this is not always the case in Jordan. Sources are accepted at face value and let far too easy off the hook. Add to this that systematically fact checking of numbers, dates, names etc. is often absent in articles.

Maybe other journalists should take one of the ARIJ classes on how to prepare for that crucial confronting mother-of-all-interviews? Or at least read and learn from the manual ARIJ published yesterday (.pdf – and really worth a read)

This brings me to ARIJ. Last year we celebrated the first ARIJ conference for Investigative Journalism in the Arab region. It was a milestone and rightly praised by Tim Sebastian in an article in New York Times. This year is also a tribute to all who care for good, professional, solid and not least credible journalism in a region where that is not a given thing.

On the Danish side we are very proud to be part of the ARIJ project since its inception in 2004 through a number of Danish institutions and foremost among them International Media Support.

The team that ARIJ have put together, from the extremely qualified persons on the board over the outstanding and high profile trainers participating in this year’s conference to the amazing general manager Rana Sabbagh is second to none. The mere fact that ARIJ have been able to get such an outstanding group of people involved is a clear sign of its success – and of its necessity both for the region but also for the profession. As I said – the competition is fierce and the product has to become better. Investigative journalism is one of the areas where the traditional press still can have an edge. And it is needed for the sake of society.

(Excerpts of a speech on the occasion of the second Conference for Investigative Journalism in the Arab Region on November 21st)

Oprah goes to Denmark – Watch this

Followers of this blog will know that my country have had its share of bad press coverage. So now to something totally different.

Oprah Winfrey recently visited Copenhagen in Chicago’s unsuccessful bid for the Olympics 2016. During her stay she shot a sequence about danes and the way they live for her show. It is a quite rosy story but it also give some insights to some of the things that Danes value in their life.

If you’re into Oprah this is something for you.

I think I am going to have a look at how they live in Dubai – the contrast must be remarkable

Freedom of Press

Reporters Without Borders have made their 2009 index of press freedom public. 

Jordan is 112th on the list – an improvement from last year. Reading the Methodology paper RSF mentions that the Index ”measure the level of self-censorship in each country and the ability of the media to investigate and criticise” which is probably what puts Jordan in the lower half.

On top of the list you find a group of Nordic countries (Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland – and Ireland) – all at an equal high score of zero points meaning full freedom of Press.

The first 15 countries are all small and highly developed countries and no one more than roughly double the size of Jordan in population. It seems that size does matter…and there is room for Jordan in the club.

Press boycott of Parliament

One of the phenomena in Jordan that have been puzzling me since I arrived here almost two years ago is the widespread use of boycotting as a political tool. While a boycott might be a legitimate instrument, the risk of a boycott backfiring is much higher than its chance of success.

Take the latest boycott example of (most of) the Jordanian Press boycotting the Parliament. It is really strange.

The Parliament was expected to pass a law amendment that would reduce/abolish a tax on newspaper ads. But the amendment was rejected by a majority – so it didn’t pass. One argument from the majority was that the government hadn’t respected the Constitution in the first place. Another argument, this time from the Press, was, that the parliamentarians were unhappy about the Press reporting on a  unfavourable poll about Parliament performance and that MP’s thus took revenge by rejecting a law favourable to the Press.

All mainstream newspapers (apart from Jordan Times) were apparently offended by some harsh remarks (not identifiable) from a parliamentarian about the Press. That triggered the standard response: boycott unless an apology is issued.

And this is where I don’t get it. The Press decided almost unanimously to boycott the whole parliament. It simply goes against the idea of professional reporting. What use is a boycott to the press when it needs to able to report on all sorts of political developments? Of course the editors can fight their political fight in the editorials, but why should the public be held hostage and not be told about what happens in such an important institution as a Parliament. And this has nothing to do with whether the Parliament is performing or not. Let the readers decide based on the news reports. Luckily this has so far ended with the newspapers giving up their boycott – without receiving any kind of apology – but I expect this is just another round in an ongoing battle between the first and fourth political power.

Next round has begun with the idea in the Parliament administration to regulate who among the journalists will have physical access to the Parliament….

You can read the developments yourself here, here, here and here.

Global Peace Index – DK second most peaceful country

The annual GPI index “Vision of Humanity” was published on the 160th constitution day of Denmark (yesterday that was). DK got a nice gift on the occasion. Once again DK is the second most peaceful (and stable) country in the world. Only NZ is a notch ahead again.

Have a look at the figures and methodology at the GPI site for more info. And try also to make a comparison between two countries – like for instance Denmark and Jordan (ranking 64th). It is clear where the big and decisive differences are. Political instability, likelihood of violent demonstrations and military expenditure.

Looking a bit more closely you will see the very large difference in the driving political factors of democracy and transparency. Very low Jordanian scores on electoral process, functioning of government, political participation, civil liberties and corruption. These political factors are among the most important drivers of peacefulness and stability.