Spotlight won the Best Picture and Best Original Screenplay Oscars at the Academy Awards on Sunday night. The movie is a fictional retelling of the investigative journalism conducted by the Boston Globe to show the decades of sexual abuse of children by members of the Catholic clergy and the extent of the coverup by the church.
The Twitter comments were quick in response. My favourite came from @danfagin: "What we really need is a movie showing how sexy and exciting it is to READ journalism."
The Poynter Institute also posted some comments.
Marty Kaiser, former editor of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, said: "I think many publishers know big stories and well-done investigations are good for the news organization, but it also takes editors and reporters who know how to do real investigations that make a difference. I think the pressure is on editors to give up day-to-day BS stories and create an investigative culture. The problem in the end however is resources. If companies keep cutting staff, the owners and publishers can talk all they want about investigative journalism, but you have to give editors resources i.e. time and people."
Marty Baron, now with the Washington Post, but a central editor at the Globe during its work to uncover this tragic story, said: "People ask us, 'Can news organizations afford investigative reporting?' It's odd because when you go to these red carpet events, you look around at all the press there, and you can only come to the conclusion that yes, news organizations can."
Both journalists talk about resources and priorities from owners and managers but they both more subtly point the finger at you, the reader, the audience.
It's all fine and good to give up the "day-to-day BS stories" but one reader's BS is another reader's "that's the kind of good news I wish my local newspaper would do more of."
Investigative journalism is long, complicated and frustrating, both to do but also to read. It involves conducting dozens of interviews and follow-up conversations totaling hundreds of hours of conversation, and the review of thousands of pages of documents, not to mention the time it takes to get those documents and to build trust in sources that they'll share what they know.
When the stories do come out, audiences are not thankful, they are resentful and those are just the ones that bother to read a series of stories rolled out over a period of weeks or months that may total 200,000 words, the length of a hefty Stephen King novel.
"They just do it to sell newspapers," is the common, ridiculous criticism. It's ridiculous because the time and energy investigative journalism requires doesn't help sell newspapers. What it does do is serve the public interest, in defiance of many readers and advertisers. Through their subscriptions or their marketing budgets, a significant portion of the audience doesn't want to read anything anywhere anytime that challenges their worldview, offends their sensibilities and/or scares away business.
Furthermore, the graphic depiction of sexual abuse, particularly against children, is the perfect excuse for some to cancel their subscription or pull their advertising. "I thought this was a family newspaper, not a tabloid. How could you publish this trash? Would you like your kid to read it?"
It's BS to them but it's real life for the people who endured those crimes. It's also an opportunity for these victims to share with the world the extent of their suffering, to no longer be invisible, to see justice be applied to the powerful and protected.
Righteous indignation against those who abuse their positions of power is all fun and games until either you're the one holding that position or someone you love and respect is. Righteous indignation against the newspaper for publishing graphic details of sexual abuse is terrible, until it's your abuse or that of someone you love and respect. Then you want the whole world to know the full extent of the crime and how the abuser so richly deserves that burning spotlight.
Dwindling resources in newsrooms is a challenge, but excellent investigative journalism continues to be practiced each year. The problem is the significant audience who would prefer to see the stars being interviewed on the red carpet at the Academy Awards or to watch a movie about journalistic do-gooders than to actually read and support that journalism with their eyes and their dollars, regardless of how uncomfortable or angry it may make them feel.
