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."

Comments

Real investigative journalism

[countertrolling]

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.

Re:Real investigative journalism

[Elbereth]

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.

Re:Real investigative journalism

[FriendlyLurker]

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.

Re:Real investigative journalism

[FriendlyLurker]

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

Re:University of CAFR

[artor3]

Seek help.

Modern bloggers do not need any journalism skills

[jmcbain]

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?

Duke University?

[Attila Dimedici]

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