There is no doubt that investigative journalism has been hard hit by cost cutting within the news media. For example, British newspapers have far fewer reporters assigned to long term investigations; the BBC and independent television companies have reduced quite dramatically the number of investigative and documentary programmes which they commission. All too often there is neither the editorial staff nor sufficient money to carry out time-consuming inquiries and investigations.

Despite the reduction in the number of newspaper articles and programmes on television and radio which are based on original research, competition within the media industry is so great that there is still a pretence by some sections of the press and broadcasting that they are engaged in original, investigative work. Sometimes what we read, see and hear are stories dressed up as exclusives which in reality are no more than planted stories where the information has been deliberately leaked and where, rather misleadingly, the journalists present the data as though it was the product of their own independent research.

This sleight of hand reflects the competitive pressures under which journalists have to work. Increasingly they are judged on their ability to deliver exclusive stories rather than their judgement or reliability. One of my concerns is that many public relations advisers know precisely how to exploit the competitive pressures which journalists have to struggle with; they understand how journalists do not always have the time or resources to conduct all the inquiries which they should make; and how addictive it can become to get exclusive information handed over on a plate, from government or big business.

More of that in moment. First let me deal with the practical problem that has resulted from the massive expansion in the number of professional advisers in public relations and public affairs. They far out number the journalists. Indeed many public relations consultants taunt the media by saying that without their pr departments being on hand to help, we the journalists would not survive, that we would not know where or even how to get the information we want because we have become so dependent on the pr professionals. As we all know there is some truth in this claim.

So the balance of power has changed: journalists have to make do on vastly reduced budgets; they do face fierce competition from rival papers and television channels; and all too often it is the world of public relations which holds the upper hand. One immediate consequence of the grip which the pr departments can hold over political parties, government services or big business is that they can erect such firm defences around the information they control that it is virtually impossible for journalists to get through and find out the detailed information they require.

We have certainly had that experience in the UK under the Labour government and the spin doctors working for Prime Minister Tony Blair. What has never ceased to amaze me has been the sense of discipline which the Labour Party has been able to impose, especially in Blair’s early years and the lengths to which Labour went to head off inquiries by journalists working on background stories or investigative programmes. Labour’s public relations officers have been trained, whenever in conversation with media staff, to discover the stories journalists are working on. The excuse is the party wants to help.

But when the pr team is debriefed back at party headquarters, the inside tip offs which have been collected are pooled and the pr department works out a strategy to thwart those inquiries which it believes might be hostile or unhelpful. Staff at headquarters put out the word to officials and party members that such and such a newspaper or programme is working on this or that story. The instruction is: Don’t talk to the journalists; instead inform party headquarters. Such was the level of discipline, at least initially that Labour people approached by the media for information did ring in and inform party headquarters.

Labour’s spin doctors were like control freaks. They would always carefully think through which stories might or might not be to their advantage, they would decide which of the inquiries and investigations they would co-operate with, and who should or should not speak on behalf of the party. So the first lesson for all journalists is to respect the confidentiality of our colleagues; never discuss the stories which are being pursued because out there are people whose mission it is to gather that inside knowledge and very likely it will be used to block inquiries and stop genuine investigative journalism.

The same goes for business: when out to lunch pr advisers are always gathering useful insights. Now that we are so outnumbered by public relations and public affairs specialists, we have to rely on surprise if we are going to succeed with our inquiries. On many stories, journalists often have no real alternative but to work furtively, yes even secretly, to thwart those who would like to close down our story lines even before we have had a chance to investigate them. So frequently there is no alternative but to wait until the very last moment before seeking a reaction from a political party, a government department or big business.

I have been criticised over this myself when I was a BBC political correspondent. I would purposely leave it until as late as possible before seeking a comment because I knew from bitter experience how successful the Labour Party could be in preventing people from speaking to me. Another trick for the pr professional – once they have the inside knowledge about the stories which journalists are working on – is to begin denigrating that investigation, putting the word around that the story is false or the reporter is unreliable.

That happened to me on many occasions. I found out that my story lines were being ridiculed and rubbished before they had even been broadcast.

So we have to be on our guard. Yes we have to be responsible, fair and balanced but we have to understand that political parties, especially for example at election time, will go to extraordinary lengths to block inquiries and stop investigations, even going over the heads of the journalists themselves direct to editors and managers claiming that the inquiries which the journalist is making might be misguided or misplaced.

This is when the whole business can get nasty: threats will be made; unless the story is dropped, the newspaper or programme will not get the interview it wants with a government minister or party leader; perhaps there might even be a threat to withdraw co-operation completely. So investigative journalists – journalists ready to take risks – know they are in an exposed position. They cannot always rely on support from the top, from their editors and producers. If political public relations advisers can find a way to undermine the journalist they will.

The accusation made against me to the management of the BBC – and this happened more than once but never to my face – was that my note taking by shorthand was unreliable, that my quotations, and therefore my stories could not be trusted. Accusations like that do have an insidious effect, they can undermine, the editor’s confidence in the reporter who is being criticised. The only way to withstand such attacks is to be doubly sure that your story is correct, that all the quotations have been properly attributed, and to develop contacts that are independent of the pr machine.

Once the public relations staff know that you do have your own independent sources of information you are more likely to earn their grudging respect, so we must encourage young journalists, when they come face to face with such tactics, to have the confidence to stand firm.

I would like now to turn to the phenomenon I have been researching for my latest book: the way in which public relations departments leak information deliberately and exclusively to certain journalists.

In return for favourable coverage and the right slant on the story, they are often prepared to allow the journalists to present that information as though it was obtained independently, that it was the journalists’ own work and investigation when in fact it was planted deliberately. Again what we find is a deep understanding by public relations departments of how the media works; they know how to exploit the weaknesses and frailties of journalists; how under pressure, we are tempted to put a helpful angle on the story if we do get information handed to us exclusively.

For my latest book, I have interviewed public relations advisers who are blatant about what they are doing. They understand how desperate journalists are to get exclusive stories; they know how the competitive forces within the news media can so easily be taken advantage of. What I found was that there are three broad categories of leaks: some come from genuine whistleblowers, people who feel compelled, for example, to draw attention to what they believe is wrong doing by the state. We have seen many examples of this over the British government’s support for the American-led attack in Iraq.

There are many opponents of the Iraq war and the criticism of Tony Blair – for allegedly taking Britain to war on the basis of a lie – has produced an upsurge in leaks from within the military and security services and the foreign affairs department. The second category of unauthorised disclosures come from what I call serial leakers – people on the inside who regularly leak information, perhaps in support of political cause or objective. They are very calculated individuals; they know the power of the media; how the unauthorised disclosure of information can prove so damaging to the government.

Serial leakers – because they understand which leaks are likely to cause the greatest embarrassment – can be of great advantage to investigative journalists. They tend to know their subject matter very well and because they target certain journalists when supplying information, they can prove invaluable. And nothing causes greater annoyance to the pr department than the realisation that the journalists are getting inside information which is accurate.

Two of the most celebrated deep throats in recent years were Mark Felt, the former American FBI deputy director general who was the deep throat in Watergate expose and Dr David Kelly, Britain‘s leading authority of biological weapons, who leaked information to the BBC about inaccuracies in the British government’s dossier on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. What the Watergate story illustrated was the careful, diligent way in which the two Washington Post reporters, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, handled their story.

They put together, piece by piece, the information which Felt was leaking to them and eventually of course their disclosures led to the downfall of President Nixon. In my opinion Dr David Kelly was by far the most reliable secret informant the BBC has had in recent years. The tragedy was that the three BBC reporters who were getting inside information from Dr Kelly – it was not just Andrew Gilligan – failed to work in the same methodical way as the Washington Post reporters; indeed they didn’t cooperate at all or even inform each other. That, I think, was due to a failure of control within the editorial systems of the BBC

Gilligan went first, and exclusively with the story, suggesting that the spin doctor Alastair Campbell had sexed up the Iraq dossier and that Blair had effectively taken Britain to war on the basis of a lie. If the three correspondents had pooled their information, if they worked together, if the story had been done in a co-ordinated and systematic way, who knows, it might have brought down Tony Blair, just as the Washington Post’s story exposed Nixon. If you look at the damage which has been done to Blair’s standing over the war in Iraq – and reflect on the accuracy of what Dr Kelly told the BBC – that is not too fanciful.

The lesson of the Kelly affair – and remember he committed suicide after his identity had been released by the British government – was that a prize contact has to be nurtured and protected, something which I think the BBC failed to do.

The final category of the leaks are those which are the work of deliberate leakers. They trade in unauthorised disclosures, they supply confidential data in a calculated way to selected journalists, and they hope that in return they can influence the news agenda, perhaps for political or commercial advantage.

It is the deliberate leaks which increasingly are the work on public relations departments. They have plugged into the pressurised world in which journalists have to work; they know how reporters need exclusives in order to survive, and it is this development which I find most worrying.

One bright hope on the horizon – especially in view of the way editorial standards are threatened in Britain – is the new generation of journalists working on news sites on the Internet. I am impressed by the way many news websites – I am not talking about opinionated web logs – do tend to report news in a straightforward way.

They do differentiate between fact and opinion. When I meet website journalists, not just in Britain but elsewhere in Europe, I am impressed by how keen they are to produce accurate reports, to source their information and give proper attribution for quotations. I think there in lies the future direction for political pr. Instead of what we see in Britain, where political propagandists trade information exclusively with favoured journalists, there should be a recognition by pr departments that they should seek to exploit the power of the Internet by providing all journalists with the same information at the same time.

I think that would be one way to drive up editorial standards. If all journalists knew they were getting the same information instantaneously, it would be harder to slant or fabricate stories, there would be no hiding place because the information can be checked out so quickly and challenged.

I would go further and say that this should become the guiding principle for any government or public service – that information from the state should be released simultaneously to all journalists, there should be a level playing.

I think it is unrealistic, at least in Britain, to expect journalists or the media proprietors to make the first move towards improving editorial standards, to stop the continual downward slide towards sensationalism. I think it has to be the state that takes the first step. Employees of the state should understand that releasing information selectively for political advantage does undermine the political process – as does any attempt to thwart genuine investigative journalism. And the same goes for the world of commerce.

This is the text of a talk given by Nick Jones, the former BBC journalist and media commentator to the SKUP conference Tonsberg Norway 1 April 2006. SKUP is the Norwegian foundation for investigative journalism.

http://www.skup.no/Info_in_English