Process vs. Product

We see this all the time--especially in broadcast journalism: reporters looking for the "story of the century." But in pursuit of this story, they get caught up in the product and not the process. The first example I can think of is the CBS scandal of Dan Rather. Perhaps he was too caught up in the product to focus on the process. Who knows? I am not out to make a value judgment on Rather, but I am trying to make a case that process is a focal point for investigative reporting.

Curiosity Saved the Cat's Ass

I think the watchdog metaphor is too often misunderstood, and--since I'm a cat fan--I say investigative reporting should be modeled after a cat. If you've ever seen a cat on the prowl, you'll notice that each move a cat takes is cautious, deliberate. A cat rarely goes into a barking frenzy and chase the bloody prey all across the yard.

A cat's moves are calculated and most of all, curious. Investigative reporting should have these same qualities: cautious and above anything, curious.

As with the cat, the strike is the last move. Striking a figure down should be the last resort of a reporter (that move is for the blog journalists ;c)). I would like to think that unless there is some overwhelming substantiated evidence that a reporter will not go out to "tear down the authority" or be an "administrative watchdog." A cat puts these preconceived notions to the side and focuses on the prey at hand.

The Balancing Act: Hearing all Sides, Feeling all Pains

Honestly, you do not have to avoid exposing damning (not necessarily of the criminal variety) evidence, when it is fair, accurate and balanced. When Bob Samuelson criticized America: Who Stole the Dream, I wouldn't think that he necessarily disagreed with the message, but I would think he disagreed with the bias of the story.

Balancing stories is not standing in the middle point of view, but it is like giving out consistent and fair portions to everyone. Simplified, it is like leveling a scale: both sides must be equally represented.