Preserving news media scoops

[occasional thoughts]

Interesting editorial in last Wednesday's Capital News which I can only characterize as self-serving.

The editorialist lauds the provincial government's proposed changes to the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act, with one interesting exception which it says will seriously degrade the revised legislation. The issue is that the provincial government is proposing to disclose all freedom of information requests upon them being received and before the processes are completed.

Says the editorialist, "While that may sound reasonable, it will gravely damage the media's ability to conduct investigations into government decisions and actions discreetly, releasing stories only when all information and sources have been pursued.

"Alerting other media, government officials and the public of an ongoing investigation is a deep disincentive to journalists . . . ."

Now, I may have very well written such an editorial in years gone by when I was a print media reporter, but looking at it today, not so much; I have mixed feelings. What it's really saying is, do that and we lose all ability to develop scoops where FOI requests are involved, and so we may stop doing investigative stories.

Probably if I didn't let my fairly low opinion of news media nowadays get in the way, I'd say, yeah, let them keep their scoops. I'm very interested in what forum members think?

[madmudder]

What it's really saying is, do that and we lose all ability to develop scoops where FOI requests are involved, and so we may stop doing investigative stories.

Investigative stories in this province have been dead since the BC Lieberals have been in power. The media gets paid millions of our tax dollars every year to publish government propaganda. Why would the media risk losing millions doing an investigative report on the lying Liberals.

[Smurf]

Do you have a link to the article?

I have a feeling that many reporters only investigate either what they are told to or it is written as they are told to, often biased or missing information. The rouge reporters who do print things are often chastised and written off as fools even though some of the information is true and should be followed up on. I am not a fan of today's news media as I feel that with today's ability to get information they could do a lot better.

Off the top of my head I think these releases would be a good idea as we would at least see things and it might cause a good reporter to dig deeper to get the real story instead of making up the one they want to. A downfall might be that the government will try to release them in such a way that some will get missed. They already try to do that by quietly releasing them when big stories are going on in the hope that they will be missed. Yes this could have mixed blessings, however I think it will be more positive than negative at least for people who are interested enough to watch the releases.

[occasional thoughts]

No link, just my home-delivered copy. It may be on their website.

[maryjane48]

there are others ways to get info . paying for inside info comes to mind .

[Hurtlander]

This entire thing is stemming from the fact that there's been a lot of government dirt exposed thru FOI requests. This government is now bending over backwards to discourage those FOI requests to keep that dirt hidden.

[occasional thoughts]

So we have one poster saying news media don't investigate and another saying FOI has lead to lots of dirt. I'd say that FOI has enabled some interesting and occasionally spectacular stories, but we don't really know whether it's "lots" compared to the full potential of dirt to be exposed. The latter poster is suggesting, as the editorialist contends, that the decision to make public the existence of an FOI request will stop news media from engaging in some investigation, so maybe the last poster is right about the government's motivation. I wish I knew.

[Bsuds]

I wish I knew.

So send them a request to find out!

[Hurtlander]

So we have one poster saying news media don't investigate and another saying FOI has lead to lots of dirt. I'd say that FOI has enabled some interesting and occasionally spectacular stories, but we don't really know whether it's "lots" compared to the full potential of dirt to be exposed. The latter poster is suggesting, as the editorialist contends, that the decision to make public the existence of an FOI request will stop news media from engaging in some investigation, so maybe the last poster is right about the government's motivation. I wish I knew.

Here's an editorial opinion..

http://www.vernonmorningstar.com/opinion/380711101.html

[Rosemary1]

Not really understanding rationale behind decision of releasing outstanding FOI requests. Doing so
- could provide a heads up about a planned investigation giving politicians and others advance preparation time to launch damage control activities
- will likely take away competitive edge from journalists first with scoop
- could dissuade some from pursuing investigative journalism needing FOI requests
- could cause a lot of media distraction placing politicians and others in defensive mode wasting time responding to speculative questions before journalists have completed their investigation.
- could generate more FOI’s from competing journalists and others whose interest was piqued by list of outstanding FOI’s
-
Value to public? Questionable. The one sure thing to expect? FOI will be clamoring for more staff and bigger budget.

[occasional thoughts]

I think you've got it exactly from the newspaper's point of view, and I tend to agree with "let the news media preserve their scoops". The editorial quotes the government minister as saying publishing FOI requests as they come in will make government more accountable for responding to them.

When I was a young journalist about a million years ago we learned that you don't write editorials that aren't based in a news story that you have previously published. That is not always followed nowadays, I'm not aware of a link to the government's thoughts or intentions, so I'm assuming that the editorial is based on a private or insider knowledge of what the new FOI legislation says and/or what minister DeJong has told Black Press, which has become a major player in B.C. newspapering.

[Hurtlander]

I also read a similar editorial in the Van Sun. If news editors and journalists from major BC news outlets such as the Sun and Black Press are concerned that this new FOI legislation is bad for the future of government related investigative reporting, then there definitely is a problem. Clearly the government is trying to cover its rear end, but it didn't think this through very well. This legislation will also make it more difficult for the media to do investigative journalism on any future and possibly different brand of government.

[Smurf]

Thinking further I wonder if it will make media think twice about spending the money for a request if they know the information will be released before they can even do a complete investigation and finish a story. Could possibly quell a lot of requests.

[occasional thoughts]

That's clearly what they're saying; it will reduce the incentive to investigate. And weak as that incentive is, it ain't zero so far.

[occasional thoughts]

Hurtlander posted a link from the Vernon Morning Star at 8:02 a.m today, above. I checked it with the Capital News editorial, first three paragraphs; they are identical, so it was probably written by Black Press head office and required to be printed by, probably, all Black Press newspapers. I'm surprised how temperate it is, given their editorial columnist. I'm also surprised that Black Press is so concerned about holding our provincial government to account, given how cosy Mr. Black is with the government. Credit where credit is due: this says something good about the journalistic ethic and heartbeat of the Black Press newspapers.