Slashdot Mirror


Developing the Future of Investigative Journalism Online

meckdevil writes "If you're a cutting-edge geek with an interest in investigative journalism, there's a great job opening at the badly named Reporter's Lab, a project supported by Duke University's DeWitt Wallace Center for Media and Democracy. Headed up by former Washington Post editor and reporter Sarah Cohen, the Reporter's Lab is Duke's effort to extend what is known as 'computational journalism' into the realm of investigative reporting and thereby make investigative reporters more efficient and effective."

19 of 34 comments (clear)

  1. Real investigative journalism by countertrolling · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That will require the ability to make anonymous untraceable submissions, since the government spends most of its energy prosecuting and vilifying whistle blowers these days.

    --
    For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    1. Re:Real investigative journalism by Elbereth · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's not really true. If you're referring to Bradley Manning, I support what he did, but you have to look at things from the military's POV, as well. He pretty clearly broke the law, and they're not going to let that go. I probably would have done the same thing he did, but I'm impulsive and don't have a whole lot of respect for the chain of command or authority figures; for me, that's alright (though it causes some amount of trouble in my life), but, for a soldier, it's going to get you into a whole shitload of trouble. That's why I'm not a soldier. Even if what he did was morally right and he's absolved of all wrong-doing, he'll still probably face some harsh penalties for insubordination. They're not just punishing him for being a whistle-blower, though I imagine he'll be treated much worse because of it.

      You might also be referring to Julian Assange. I think he's a paranoid egomaniac with delusions of grandeur, but that doesn't mean he isn't doing the right thing (arguably for the wrong reasons). Whether the U.S. government set him up or not doesn't really matter, because we can't ever say one way or the other. We just don't have enough information to judge. It wouldn't surprise me if we did set him up, but arguing back and forth about it won't accomplish anything. It sounds like you believe we did, which is fine. I respect that. However, in the absence of evidence, I'm going to reserve judgment on that. Some of the more reactionary members of Congress have made statements that I believe are ignorant, violent, and stupid, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the CIA is out to get him. Sometimes good people do bad things, and sometimes bad people do good things. People rarely are wholly good or wholly bad.

      Finally, I'm sure you're referring to Wikileaks, which has caused quite a lot of controversy. Personally, I think Wikileaks is a good thing, and I support it, but, again, one must consider the opposing POV. Not everyone believes that Wikileaks is a good thing. When they make arguments against it, it doesn't necessarily mean that they're vilifying or slandering it. Some people are engaging in propaganda and calling for witch hunts (I've heard many apologists and outright supporters of Sen. McCarthy in recent years), but it's usually restricted to reactionary "commentators", rather than the government, which is usually too inefficient and divisive to have a single, unified vision that it can carry out. Having the U.S. government put pressure on Amazon (or other corporations) to stop supporting Wikileaks is a dirty move, but it's nothing less than I'd expect from our government, given my cynicism. When masked commandos storm a data center in Europe, destroying all the servers, I'll be more surprised (and maybe even moved from my apathy). Until then, it seems like Wikileaks and whistle-blowers are actually relatively low on their list of priorities, because all they're doing is sending "suggestions" to corporations that support Wikileaks. They could be doing much, much worse, if they really wanted to. In the grand scheme of things, this is a minor outrage, and doesn't even really bother me all that much, compared to major outrages like instigating wars under false pretenses. Does that mean that they get away with doing something wrong, because they're doing something even more wrong, at the same time? Maybe so... but that's apathy for you.

      I've yet to see strong evidence that the U.S. government is going after whistler-blowers, in general. What I've seen is more like a few dumbasses making idle threats against the life of Julian Assange, making life somewhat difficult for Wikileaks, and the military making an example of Bradley Manning, which could just be because they're assholes who can't stand insubordination. When another Bradley Manning shows up, and he gets the same treatment, it'll be a pattern. Until then... not a pattern.

    2. Re:Real investigative journalism by FriendlyLurker · · Score: 2

      I've yet to see strong evidence that the U.S. government is going after whistler-blowers, in general.

      Not sure if your trolling with that statement... In case not and it is just a case of mainstream news not keeping you the least bit informed, here goes (complete with plenty of references):

      Obama has made it his mission to prosecute whisteblowers, no matter how morally correct and beneficial for society their actions were. The crackdown, far exceeding any previous presidents attempt - has not been called "Obama's war on whistle-blowers" for nothing.

      Mark Klein, the former A.T. & T. employee who exposed the telecom-company wiretaps, is also dismayed by the Drake case. “I think it’s outrageous,” he says. “The Bush people have been let off. The telecom companies got immunity. The only people Obama has prosecuted are the whistle-blowers.

    3. Re:Real investigative journalism by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      You expelled an awful lot of wind there, to tell me what?... that I should reconsider reporting that the emperor has no clothes? Sorry bub, you just cheated your ass out of a fart

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    4. Re:Real investigative journalism by maxume · · Score: 1

      Linking Glenn Greenwald thrice probably doesn't carry any more weight than just linking him once.

      That thrice was brought to you by Conan.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    5. Re:Real investigative journalism by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      He pretty clearly broke the law, and they're not going to let that go.

      In what court has that been determined?

      The most important legal concept needing defending right now is that an accusation by the executive branch does not equal guilt. If Barack Obama accused Elbereth tomorrow of terrorism, does that make Elbereth a terrorist?

      For instance, right now Barack Obama claims and has tried to exercise the power to kill American citizens accused of terrorism. Before that, George W Bush claimed the power to indefinitely imprison and torture American citizens accused of terrorism.The accusation is secret. There is no jury trial. There is no confrontation of the evidence or witnesses. There is no due process of law. And many defend this sort of thing because the target must be an evil terrorist if the Obama administration said so.

      The list goes on: The NSA won't wiretap everyone, only the evil terrorists! The US Border Patrol won't steal everyone's stuff, only the terrorist's laptops! They all rest on the same lie, that the executive alone can decide guilt and act accordingly.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    6. Re:Real investigative journalism by kenh · · Score: 1

      He pretty clearly broke the law, and they're not going to let that go.

      In what court has that been determined?

      He abused his position of trust in the government and he has admitted that he shared classified information with people not authorized to receive it.

      --
      Ken
    7. Re:Real investigative journalism by FriendlyLurker · · Score: 2

      Fortunately investigative journalist Glenn Greenwald prolifically cites and links to his sources - hence the "plenty of references" claim.

    8. Re:Real investigative journalism by maxume · · Score: 1

      That's fine. My point was more that if he is the one writing the articles, you might as well frame your comment around "Glenn Greenwald reporting".

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    9. Re:Real investigative journalism by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I support what he did, but you have to look at things from the military's POV, as well.

      No, you don't. The military are (or should be) servants of, and subservient to the people, not the other way round. Anything else is fascism.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  2. Re:University of CAFR by artor3 · · Score: 2

    Seek help.

  3. Modern bloggers do not need any journalism skills by jmcbain · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Today's bloggers do not have to worry about such things as "journalism", "investigative reporting", "grammar", or "objectivity". Look at a typical posting on Engadget or Gawker to see each of these points burned to the ground. Today's bloggers just need to read a brief summary from a real news source (like the NYTimes), form some type of inner rage or indignation, and write out a few snarky comments with a link to the source. This is what today's 20-something audience demands. Who needs "facts" or "reasoning" when a quick, witty blogpost is all that's desired?

  4. Duke University? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Duke University isn't that the school that believes in guilty until proven innocent?

    --
    The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  5. Re:Modern bloggers do not need any journalism skil by TexNex · · Score: 1

    And that goes the same for many of the news media outlets the bloggers get their info-rage from. Take a look at a NYT article from today and compare it to something 60 years ago...then compare it to the average blogger vent. Its the same for many newspapers as the editing team is handpicked by the owning group. The Austin American Statesman suffers from this as well as an inability to report without prejudice. The news is polarized these days and you have to really pick through it to get to the truth...its almost not worth the effort.

  6. Hardly news... by Shoten · · Score: 1

    So, in other words, at the rate we're going investigative journalism is going to look much like Trade chat in World of Warcraft? That's hardly news...

    --

    For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
  7. Re:Modern bloggers do not need any journalism skil by houghi · · Score: 1

    So bloggers are just like any other news outlet then?

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  8. A war under false pretenses instantiated Wikileaks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    FYI: it was the inability of Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame to publish their documentary evidence that the Bush administration had started the Iraq war under false pretenses that instantiated Wikileaks. They had documents proving that Bush lied, on national television, about Saddam Hussein trying to build nuclear weapons. This was a stated reason for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. No "journalist" worldwide was willing and able to publish their explosive documents.

    People who had already considered building something like Wikileaks were galvanized into action. They began the Wikileaks project in November of 2003. There was a lot to do, so it took several years before Julian registered the domain. At first they didn't even have a name for it.

    This author agrees with you that starting wars under false pretenses is worse than persecuting whistle blowers. What you did not know, before reading this, is that the war under false pretenses, and the inability of the media to honestly report on it, was the reason for the founding of Wikileaks.

    This statement its not hearsay or supposition. I was there while it happened, and was very much caught up in the process. In early 2004 Valerie Plame stayed at my house and met with a Wikileaks Architect. This is a first person account from a long time slashdot reader and contributor.

  9. Whats stronger than 1000 investigative journalists by ibsteve2u · · Score: 1

    An editor pwned by Corporate America's owner/operators.

    --
    Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
  10. Most people are getting it wrong... by andrea.sartori · · Score: 1

    ...it' s just a rather convoluted way to promote voyeurtools.

    --
    Mostly harmless.