Whatever happened to investigative journalism?

Jul 02, 2022 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Kaieteur News – Investigative journalism is a dying art. Today, what passes for journalism are pick-ups where journalists sit back and wait for scoops to fall in their laps rather than go out and pursue the leads to uncover a story.
Bernstein and Woodward had an inside source called “Deep Throat”. But they did not sit on their laurels and wait for corroboration. These two journalists went out and substantiated what the source was relaying. They ended up popularising The Post and writing their names into the hall of journalistic fame.
In Guyana, within minutes of the assassination of Dr. Walter Rodney, the government was claiming that the historian blew himself up while trying to bomb the Georgetown Prison. And given the circumstances under which Rodney met his demise, that narrative may have well gained greater traction had it not been for the work of a small private media outfit which was associated with a religious order in Guyana.
Within days, the Catholic Standard began to publish reports about the identity of a member of the Guyana Defence Force officer called Gregory Smith. The electronic expert, Smith, turned out to be a government agent who befriended Rodney and promised him communication equipment. Instead, he delivered a bomb disguised as a walkie-talkie which was then remotely triggered and killed Rodney.
Had it not been for the journalistic work of Andrew Morrison, Guyana and the world may never have known the truth about Rodney’s assassination. This is the value of investigative reporting.
Neil Marks, a journalist with News Room did some outstanding feature reporting during the 2020 elections. In one feature, he detailed and explained the manipulation which was taking place during the tabulation of Region Four’s results. Other young journalists, including some who were with this newspaper, also did outstanding work in highlighting the shenanigans during the tabulations.
The potential therefore exists locally for investigative journalism. But unless our journalistic fraternity set aside partisanship and seek answers to questions, they will not be able to produce excellent investigative work.
And there are many issues which are crying out for more incisive journalistic investigation. This includes incidents of alleged extra judicial killings.
Normally, when there is a fatal police shooting there is usually a hue and cry about police excesses and extra-judicial executions. Experts emerge out of the woodwork with their own versions about what occurred.
In one instance, years ago, when some men were killed on the Georgetown Seawall, an alleged eyewitness emerged. It was claimed that he was on the roof of a building and was able to witness what happened.
The media, however, questioned how it was that this witness could have either see around or through dense vegetation and see what was happening more than 800 metres away. The alleged witness’ boss later came forward and said that the ‘witness’ was not on site on the day of the incident.
It is somewhat surprising that to date that I have not heard of any eyewitness refuting the police version of the death of Quindon Bacchus. But perhaps, I have not been following this matter closely enough because the media has not also been following up on this issue as it ought to.
The media’s reporting in this matter has been disappointing. We have heard accusations that there may have been a feud between the policemen and the victim. But the media has not provided any compelling evidence of this.
There have been some calls for the police to confirm whether the undercover operation was authorised by the hierarchy of the Force. The nature of undercover operations is of such that only a few persons would know about these types of work. It would hardly be undercover for long if there had to be a chain of authorisation.
The first question the media should have been probing is whether indeed this was an undercover operation and whether it was intelligence led. This is an important issue since there have been accusations made that there was a personal feud between the policemen and the victim. But no evidence of this feud has appeared in the media.
What has appeared on one social media page of an Opposition political operative are some voice notes which suggest some transaction. But there has been no attempt to corroborate whether one of the voices was that of the now deceased man. The media has been lax.
The Opposition APNU+AFC has come out with a statement describing the killing of Quindon Bacchus as an execution. But it has not provided a shred of evidence to support its contention.
The media also has not investigated the occupation of the deceased man, if he did work. And why he ran. Answers to these questions may give insights into what really was behind the shooting incident.
Public protests are not going to provide these answers. Public pressure must not be used to pervert the course of justice in the investigation into the death of Quindon Bacchus.
Just recently, there was an outcry in some quarters over a decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions to withdraw private charges against a lawyer accused of inciting racial hatred. The DPP stood its ground and insisted that it would not be pressured.
The real danger is that public pressure, including protests, without any supporting evidence, may be used to force charges on an innocent man. This would be an injustice too.
(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)

---

---