The argument has gotten old - and it isn't true: That traditional journalism is needed because only the card-carrying members of that profession have the skills and resources to drill down into what is.
Actually, we citizen journalists have better skills at uncovering the ugly underbelly of a situation as well as the benefits which may not be so visible or welcome in the court of public opinion.
I did just that when I live-blogged the four-month trial in Rhode Island [a short commute from my home office in Connecticut] about the alleged lead paint public nuisance. The defendants, ranging from NL Industries to Sherwin-Williams, weren't perceived in a positive light. I listened in court. I interviewed, mostly off-the-record, lawyers, policy makers, healthcare workers, social workers, heads of trade associations, and businesspeople.
On this blog [under "legal"] and then on http://lawandmore.typepad.com I told that story. In fact, I am still telling it as the California Supreme Court reviews the contingency part of the Santa Clara lead paint public nuisance suit. Here is the CA appeals court opinion approving the use of contingency in litigation initiated by government entities if the government maintains full control over the process Download H031540. Hogwash, I say. Litigation, from discovery to the actual process, is too much a seamless web for the government to ensure "control."
What I've found is this: Investigative reporting doesn't require expensive anything. It only demands passion, altertness, and plenty of hard work. The availability of digital communications makes the search for background information easy and cheap, of course.
The lead paint controversy is winding down. I have moved onto digging for the story in healthcare. Why does it cost so much? Are paid consultants to the industry helping contain those costs? What aspects of the European model of the healthcare system should we be reviewing?
If you can share your knowledge, insight and contacts, please get in touch with Jane Genova at Mgenova981@aol.com, 203-468-8579. I have a track record for keeping input confidential.
Comments