Ophthalmologist Dr Li Wenliang wrote a social media post in a doctor’s chat group at Wuhan Central Hospital at the end of December 2019. He alerted his colleagues to seven cases of a viral infection similar to severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and warned them to wear protective clothing.1 On 4 January, the doctor was summoned to the Public Security Bureau where he was told to sign a letter. In the letter he was accused of “making false comments” that had “severely disturbed the social order”:
We solemnly warn you: If you keep being stubborn, with such impertinence, and continue this illegal activity, you will be brought to justice – is that understood?
Underneath in Dr Li’s handwriting is written: “Yes, I do.”2
Dr Li had unwittingly identified a novel coronavirus that was poised to spread around the globe, infecting tens of millions of people and potentially killing millions of people.3 Dr Li’s warning of the onset of what became COVID-19 came three weeks before China ordered the city of Wuhan to be locked down on 23 January 2020. Dr Li was a brave whistleblower who possessed information that he knew was important to his society and to humanity. His national government did not fully understand what was happening but tried to silence his voice. History now records the importance of this medically trained whistleblower saying what he said at the time he alerted his colleagues. Had this scenario played out a few years earlier in the analogue age, it is unlikely Dr Li’s chat with colleagues would have become world news. Digitisation and social media enabled his discovery to be shared, despite the risks. His brave action illustrates why it matters so much that investigative journalism is currently facing a death threat and why it needs a dramatic rebirth.
Dr Li’s private comment documented the beginning of what quickly became a global pandemic. Even when the Chinese authorities tried to silence him, Dr Li released documentary evidence of those attempts. Despite the risk of official sanctions, he posted a letter to a social media chat group and documented his last illness from 10 January when he started coughing; next day, when he had a fever; and two days later when he was admitted to hospital. The outbreak of a novel coronavirus was officially declared on 20 January. Dr Li was diagnosed on 30 January. The Public Security Bureau sent him a written apology, which Dr Li also shared with his colleagues. Dr Li had only one week to live but he lived to see the disease he discovered recognised by global health authorities. The following day, 31 January 2020, the World Health Organisation declared a global health emergency as the outbreak spread beyond China and raised fears for populations in other countries, especially countries with poor health systems.4 In China, at least 213 people had already died of the illness and around 10,000 new cases were being reported each day.5 The Chinese authorities ordered people to stay inside.6 BBC News published details of the doctor’s medical discovery on 6 February 2020. Dr Li died the following day, 7 February 2020, aged 33 (Green 2020). China closed air, train and road transport in and out of Wuhan and nearby cities, isolating an estimated 760 million people in their homes (Cyranoski 2020).
Investigative journalism is the means by which the voices of whistleblowers such as Dr Li are heard, verified and then amplified via media outlets. Publication and broadcast of the information enables everyone who needs to know the information to hear and to respond. It allows members of the public to take action for themselves and their families. It alerts local, state and national governments to respond to protect their citizens from external or internal threats or opportunities. It allows the global community to respond to assist groups of people or nations that need financial or logistical assistance to be able to protect their people.
The necessity of investigative journalism is further underlined by the consequences of the three-week delay in officially declaring the emergence of a deadly and highly infectious novel virus for which humanity had no herd immunity, no vaccination or proven treatment and about which it had scant medical knowledge.7 During the three weeks of delay in declaring a new virus, millions of airline passengers boarded planes in Wuhan and flew to foreign airports around the world, and the virus was spread to dozens of countries, infecting thousands of people (Cyranoski 2020). By February 20, more than 74,000 people in 34 provinces in China were infected and more than 200 people had died.8 During those same weeks, passengers from around the world also arrived in Wuhan, became infected and carried the virus unwittingly around China and then brought it home to their families, friends and communities in 26 other countries. Within a month of the declaration of the novel coronavirus, the World Health Organisation established a Global Surveillance System and reported that the virus had infected people around the world including hundreds of people on cruise ships that incubated the virus among the closely packed passengers as they travelled.9 Governments closed their borders, grounded aeroplane fleets and isolated their populations to reduce transmission of the virus. Investigative journalists worked to gather, to verify and to write articles to provide people with timely, accurate health information; to convey medical advice; to convey the many changes in government regulations and a raft of other information as new issues arose. Journalists alerted people to the new disease threat, the need for isolation to slow the spread of the virus and tracked the public health response and focused public attention on the need for medical staff to have adequate protective equipment. The complex reporting was carried out under trying conditions and sometimes while reporters themselves were in isolation.
News coverage resulting from investigative journalism work often takes many years to emerge in the public arena, and even longer for the revelations contained in the media coverage to be addressed by the authorities. Two investigative journalists who feature in this book first met a particular whistleblower in 2008. Their initial investigation spanned several countries, took eight months to complete and was published in 2011. The allegations were investigated by police and the offenders were finally convicted in 2018. This 10-year time frame required the reporters to build and maintain rapport and trust with their contacts over many years, to spend time following up leads that may not always result in stories and to risk and fight legal challenges to publication. Despite these challenges, the importance and significance of the work should be recognised. The news coverage resulted in police investigations being launched that had previously been refused. The offending company was ordered to pay fines totalling $21million. Several staff were convicted of criminal offences including conspiracy to commit foreign bribery in three different countries. The personal risks to reporters of undertaking investigative journalism as a career must also be considered. These two reporters were both subpoenaed to give evidence in court about the identity of their confidential source.10 Investigative journalism is not for the faint-hearted, but it is necessary for the maintenance of healthy democratic societies.
Media coverage resulting from major investigative journalism projects frequently drives the public news agenda and sometimes the legislative agenda of governments as well, when parliaments respond to the need for change as articulated via the media, backed by public awareness and public opinion. Without investigative journalism, democratic societies do not have a watchdog – a fourth estate – reporting on the activity of the three estates of government: the Parliament, the Executive and the Courts. The fourth estate role of the media in democratic societies can be seen in the five functions of communication media in democratic societies: to inform citizens, to educate citizens, to provide a platform for political discourse, to report on government activity and to provide a platform for varying political viewpoints to be expressed (McNair 2003). Media coverage produced with the guidance of ethical precepts provides reliable information for citizens which informs their daily activities and choices. A variety of political perspectives allows citizens to consider various policy options, informing their political choices at elections. This book focuses on the huge investigative potential for reporters in hyperconnected societies to be able to find and report on issues and topics that would have previously been almost impossible or impractical to carry out. The timing of these stories is far longer than the daily 24/7 news cycle, far longer than the weekly political cycle and far longer, at times, than the annual financial cycle. Many of these stories take time to patiently uncover and it then may take years to expose the true intentions, bring criminals to justice, expose the extent of corruption and yield the necessary legislative change.
Important questions are now being raised amongst media scholars about the future of journalism – and particularly the costly and time-consuming practice of investigative journalism such as the story of Dr Li – and whether our societies can afford not to have investigative journalism. This question is being asked because the business model that has supported journalism financially from advertising revenues for the past few hundred years is no longer viable (Hamilton 2016). In addition the pandemic has led to a media extinction event in which 17 per cent of surveyed media organisations reported revenue falling by more than 75 per cent in the first three months of the pandemic (Posetti, Bell and Brown 2020). The question we must answer is: What if there had been no journalist to see, and verify and republish Dr Li’s post and letter, and to publish them widely enough for the world beyond China to realise that a global pandemic was on the way? I argue in this book that investigative journalism is necessary. It is my intention to encourage, inspire and enable anyone who wishes to embark upon or to continue a career in investigative journalism. Currently there are major difficulties to be overcome including the lack of funding available for the work due to digital disruption. However, I argue that the threats caused by digital technology have also produced new opportunities for investigative journalists to undertake the work faster and more cost-effectively whilst maintaining sound ethical practices, and to look for a variety of income streams from their work including writing books, creating oral history archives and making documentaries or podcasts.
The challenges presented by digital disruption of previous analogue business models are far-reaching. Press barons who monopolised the power of the printing press have substantially lost that monopoly. Digital disruption means that anyone with an internet connection can now communicate with anyone else on earth almost instantaneously for little or no cost – everyone has a virtual printing press. Additionally, information has suddenly been democratised as search engines enable internet-connected devices to search for information very quickly and easily using common language search terms. The storage of news coverage that is readily available creates enduring networks of digital connection between the information and anyone who is interested in that information. Many media outlets have tried to maintain their business model by creating paywalls to their content but that has the downside risk of reducing their readership and therefore the price they can demand for advertising space. No easy solutions have yet appeared. For young people considering career options, the number of reporters who have been made redundant means there are relatively few jobs available. For reporters who have been made redundant, it may be difficult to find alternative work. Journalism schools around the world are downsizing and some are closing or merging with others. All these challenges make journalism a brave choice of career for those determined to find a job in the industry and to succeed in it.
However, digital disruption also has some important upsides. Communication technologies now make collaboration easier than ever before. That collaboration may be a so-called micro-collaboration where as few as two or three reporters work together within one office, or in separate offices in different states or countries to investigate an issue and publish in one or more publications in one or more states or countries (Gearing and Berglez 2019). Collaborations may also include hundreds of reporters all working together, sharing vast caches of documents and data and publishing simultaneously in dozens or even hundreds of publications in many countries on an agreed date. The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) has produced global coverage that has led over several years to significant global governmental responses including collective legislative change, especially in the area of tax avoidance (Berglez and Gearing 2018). So, ironically, at a time when the industry and journalists are facing their toughest working conditions, they are more needed than ever and have the best possible tools to do the most exciting and necessary and powerful work as a nascent global fourth estate. This global fourth estate is an extension of the fourth estate role played by investigative journalism within individual countries. The emerging global fourth estate is making it possible for the global community to respond to diverse but pressing global risks and threats – such as money laundering and tax evasion, climate change and the global pandemic. The term global investigative journalism, introduced in this book, is the action of a journalist or journalists to investigate and report on issues that call powerful individuals, corporations or governments to account in their home country, or in a foreign country or countries. This is achieved by means of investigative journalism that relies on social media platforms and Web based communication technologies that enable journalists and media outlets to form networks of collaboration across national boundaries and time zones. I argue that global investigative journalism is needed, and that the technological means are now available. This book springs from my hope that journalism students and reporters will find inspiration in the case studies in this book and be ready to seize the day when opportunities arise.
Collaboration can result in faster, far more cost-effective investigations that yield powerful news coverage that focuses the public spotlight on issues that need to be addressed. When local, state or national authorities such as police, governments, businesses, organisations or politicians fail, journalism can call them to account in the public arena. Reporters who are able to marshal incontrovertible evidence and convincing whistleblowers can publish news coverage that brings public opinion to bear, forcing reluctant authorities to take action. Injustices can be repaired, corruption can be exposed and expunged, outdated laws can be scrapped, criminals can be apprehended and placed on trial. In all the cases in this book, people silenced by circumstances were able to find their voice and speak tr...
