Investigative journalism seems to have boomed recently. A few names that come to mind are Morgan Spurlock (Supersize Me, 30 Days), Michael Moore (Bowling for Columbine, Sicko, Fahrenheit 9/11 ), Michael Pollan (The Omnivore’s Dilemma), and Barbara Ehrenreich (Nickle and Dimed). In Supersize Me, Morgan Spurlock throws himself into fast-food culture by eating McDonalds three times a day for 30 days. Spurlock also investigates the corporate side of fast-food. The movie revealed much about the industry that the corporate giants would have liked to keep under wraps. Shortly after Supersize Me was released, McDonalds began to make nutrition facts available for their food and introduced healthier options to their menu such as salads. Investigative journalism like this, while entertaining, is also very revealing about practices and policies we would not otherwise know about through daily newspapers. Spurlock, Moore, Pollan, and Ehrenreich delve into great detail in their investigation. As shown by Spurlock the often appalling findings, when made public, can lead to major positive change.
Although investigative journalism can be very revealing about important issues in society, it has recently crossed a fine line between enlightening and morbidly entertaining. The realm of the obscene has been entered with shows like Dateline NBC’s “To Catch a Predator” with Chris Hansen. The show involves Hansen going undercover to catch men who are hoping to engage in sexual activity with young girls they met on the internet. The men believe they are entering a private home, only to be surprised by NBC’s television cameras, then broadcast on national television. This show is not based on revealing important issues to the public but on our society’s voyeuristic obsession. While going undercover may require some “cheap tricks,” investigative reporters should still try to uphold strong journalistic ethics.
Supersize Me: An example of good investigative journalism.
To Catch a Predator: Where the line should be drawn.
2 comments:
I really enjoyed your blog post. I myself have been really interested in investigative journalism. I think it is a great way to be involved, get to know the story hands on, and really put yourself out there to experience everything. I think that Investigative Journalism really allows the journalist to get the truth, limiting the amount of "hear say" they would hear otherwise.
Today our society has become very interested in investigative journalists. Their names are becoming famous throughout the media, and their stories, opinions and experiences are being herd. I completely agree when you mentioned that there comes a point when these journalists & the media are technically "crossing the line". The Chris Hansen show is completely ridiculous. Yes, it is a very serious issue within our society and dealing with perverted creeps on the internet. But that show is merely for entertainment because like you said our society is obsessed. There is other ways to handle that problem without creating a show. However, "Supersize Me" is educating as well as entertaining. It made McDonalds realize what needed to be done in order to stay alive in society, and positive changes were made.
I really liked this post, investigative journalism, in my opinion lives at the crossroads between an invasion of privacy and a necessary piece of research into people and events that can have a real impact on our lives. Many journalists now seem to enjoy investigative journalism for the same reason many people join the acting field: to be a part of the one role that can make their careers. This leads to a lot of individuals creating stories that are investigate but may have a relatively small impact on a greater problem (i.e. the "to catch a predator" scheme. Can you say entrapment?) Such investigations usually don't stick and can use vast amounts of time while stirring up questions about lives that can do little more than kill the reputations of politicians and other public figures. Sometimes I feel like investigative journalism should only be applied when the pieces that are made public don't make sense, like with Watergate.
Post a Comment