NO-SMOKE-WITHOUT-FIRE JOURNALISM UNETHICAL

If someone says there is no smoke without fire or where there is smoke there is fire,they mean that there are rumours or signs that something is true, so it must, at least be, partly true.

The Cambridge Dictionary makes a good example of the idiom in a form of a sentence: ‘She says the accusations are not true, but there’s no smoke without fire’. In journalism, just because there is fire, it does not mean that something went up in flames. I may be cooking. The flare-up does not mean that things are about to burn to the ground. In various online platforms, i have seen signs and rumours, which are smokes in this context, flaunted as brilliant pieces of investigative journalism. Our brothers and sisters concentrate on the smoke, instead of the fire.

I have oftentimes wondered how aspiring journalists at tertiary institutions or elementary level, consume and perceive the quality of journalism that we are presently pursuing and the quantity of reportages flaunted, of course, as news articles on social media. In the name of journalism, emaSwati get insulted and their privacies are unabatedly invaded on social media, where gullible people ‘swallow poison’ which they presume as top-notch journalism that has never existed in Eswatini. Young men with laptops utilise the power of the computer keyboard to pull to pieces women as old as their own mothers.

Narrative

In the name of journalism, bedrooms are invaded to see what is happening there. Evidence is twisted and intentionally documents misread to push a narrative that will incite hatred and violence. We are a strong league of bona fide journalists and we are still here blessed with hands and brains. We are not going down and backing off. We are fully determined to rewrite the script of journalism. Journalism builds a nation with ‘evidential truth’.I am neither a saint in the profession nor a perspicacious journalist who can pride himself on having mastered the art of journalism. I am just a student. I want to learn more and i will learn till death. That has been my attitude. It is, however, very disheartening to see bloggers and ‘some’ journalists intentionally disregarding the ‘basics’ of journalism, chiefly the fundamentals of investigative journalism. They are not just disregarding the sophisticated branch of the profession, but tearing apart the basics on which journalism develops.

I agree with the Global Investigative Journalism Network (gijn) that investigative journalism is a set of methodologies that are a craft, and it can take years to master. Rightly articulated by gijn, investigative journalism is different from leak journalism. Notably, we often confuse leak journalism with investigative journalism. Gijn states that leak journalism is all about ‘quick scoops’ gained by the leaking of documents or tips. In emerging democracies, leak journalism is often labelled investigative reporting if the stories are critical or involve leaked records. A classified document ‘leaked’ to a journalist and reproduced in the form of a news article does not constitute investigative journalism unless it is taken forward and new ground broken.   

I have learnt that, in most cases, many journalists, even the celebrated ones on social media, encounter numerous challenges with the fundamentals of investigative journalism.
Positively though, i observe with sheer happiness that beat journalism has not been a teething problem, mainly in Eswatini. I am close to the core subject. Wait! I am aware that most institutions offering journalism courses define basics or fundamentals of this profession as the practice of gathering, analysing and presenting news and information to the public through various platforms. Those journalists are, indeed, driven by a passion for storytelling and a desire to inform, educate and engage their audience.  I have no qualms about this description. It is correct in many of its aspects. My interest is in investigative journalism.  I am interested in this branch of journalism because we have not yet mastered it.
 At worse, we, intentionally or unintentionally misrepresent it to the detriment of its nobility. Last year, over 2 000 journalists from around the world, including yours truly, attended a week-long seminar in journalism in sweden where some journalists claimed all reporting is “investigative reporting.”

Investigative

Organised by the gijn and various universities, we agreed that there is ‘some truth’ to this as investigative techniques are used widely by beat journalists on deadline as well as by ‘i team’ members with weeks to work on a story. We resolved not to amend the investigative journalism handbook published by  United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (unesco). Our handbook, adopted by the united nations, defines it thus: “investigative journalism involves exposing to the public matters that are concealed–either deliberately by someone in a position of power, or accidentally, behind a chaotic mass of facts and circumstances that obscure understanding. It requires using both secret and open sources and documents.”
Vvoj, the Dutch-Flemish investigative journalism group, defines investigative reporting as critical and in-depth journalism.

I personally feel all these definitions lack one word. It lacks ‘evidence.’ I do not know why ‘evidence’ is barely mentioned in these definitions. In the context of contemporary journalism, in fact, evidence does not send a full message as well. But, as a matter of fact, some of us are comfortable with “admissible evidence. According to sage journals, reliance on evidence to corroborate or refute claims, hypotheses and beliefs is considered a desired practice in journalism (Carey 1986, Coddington 2018 and Molyneux 2020. There is a consensus that evidence is used widely inside the important but tiny niche of investigative journalism (Ekstrom 2002, Ettema and Glasser 1984, 1998).

According to sage journals, the extent to which it is used in the broader realm of news reporting is disputed. Indeed, scholars of ‘journalistic knowledge’ tend to agree, as noted by sage journals, that news reporters rarely rely on evidence. On the other hand, those who study news sources and verification, insist that they do use evidence (Carlson 2009, Diekerhot and Bakker 2012). I am still not satisfied, even though i am not an expert in journalistic knowledge. Why do I prefer admissible evidence or direct evidence?  This is due to the fact that there are 21 different types of evidence – even more. Some evidences are not good for journalism.

In a court of law, as articulated by the Indeed Editorial Team, admissible evidence is a type of evidence that judges allow lawyers to present in court.  Judges determine admissibility based on relevance, authenticity and value. It is said that admissible evidence is factual, pertains to a specific case and possesses a value that exceeds other considerations, such as bias or shock value.

In my understanding, admissible evidence in investigative journalism or circular journalism, pertains to public interest-facts that are truthful, original, untwisted, verifiable and authentic and can stand the test of time. When one analyses the above-mentioned facets, we can see that there is still a long way to go in mastering the art of investigative journalism.
I must point to the fact that a story that is based on inadmissible evidence cannot be presented to audiences.

Admissible

It is a high risk material. The story may be factual on the surface, but nonfactual and inaccurate beneath the surface. That is the tricky part of this branch of journalism. Therefore, a journalist worth his or her salt cannot publish or cause to be published any material that lacks admissible evidence. I have seen stories lacking admissible evidence being published on social media. For instance, what evidence do you have that my wife does not grant me conjugal rights?

Ask yourself, what evidence do i have that he stole the money?  What evidence do i have that he had sexual intercourse with her? What sort of evidence do i have that he bewitched him? Why do you say he is corrupt?  In a political setting and in an environment such as ours, somebody stands up to call x a thief, is it justifiable in law and in journalistic practice to repeat the insult? Inadmissible evidence includes hearsay, fabrications, falsehood or improperly obtained items that are not in the public interest. The evidence is present, but it is inadmissible in print or broadcast. These are the standards we have to adopt as journalists writing for the international and local audience.

Circumstantial evidence

I urge the upcoming journalists to frown upon inadmissible evidence and totally discard circumstantial evidence in their reporting. Circumstantial evidence can only work in courts after a lengthy trial before a judge.   I advise my colleagues to, at least, produce direct evidence that is concrete, accurate and admissible to the public. When challenged in any forum, the direct evidence, rightly obtained and produced in a form of a story, can be a leg to stand on.

In court, direct evidence is any type of evidence that links a defendant directly to a crime. In media law or journalism, direct evidence is any story based on undisputable facts laced with empirical research and quantifiable measures. These may include video footages, reports, authentic and verified documents of public interest. Our aspiring journalists must guard against photoshopped evidence and evidence manufactured by artificial intelligence (AI). I must mention that circumstantial evidence, which is not good for journalism but widely practised by some publications, describes information that does not directly connect an official, for instance, to corruption or drug smuggling but ‘implies a connection’. Do not imply, just state the proven facts that influenced the conclusion.

In court circumstantial evidence, legal experts taught me that it does not directly prove that a defendant is guilty, but provide background or context to a crime. In Eswatini, students can refer to the case of Dr John Madelege, who was convicted of murder by the High Court. The body of his wife, Sheilla, was not located, even up to date, but the court was satisfied that Dr Madelege murdered her.  That is the route journalists cannot afford to take, because it is cumbersome and very expensive.

Circumstantial

Mind you, in circumstantial evidence, lawyers are at liberty to state that the accused was near a crime around the time it occurred. But stating this fact in a publication could imply that the person committed the crime. What if he was passing-by around that time or he went there to observe? These are the questions that can lead to forensic consideration, which a journalist may lack resources and adequate time to fulfil. Highly equipped journalists can also consider statistical evidence and real evidence which is scientific in quality, cumbersome and very expensive in execution, because it (real evidence) requires some consideration of DNA.  Prima facie evidence is a no-go area.

Prima facie evidence

I have seen some bloggers publishing prima facie evidence. Prima facie evidence is presumptive in quality and nature. It can be accurate or inaccurate. It is sometimes easy to counter this type of evidence. In short, it is disputable in nature.   I always advise my colleagues to guard against innuendos that manifest themselves as prima facie evidences.  Guard against all practices that taint the profession, mainly the no-smoke-without-fire journalism.  

Post your comment

Your name:

Your e-mail address:

Add your comments:

Please enter the code you see in the image:

Image:

Code: