Journalists are not monsters (2)

By Theodore M.K. Viwotor

Investigative journalism is one of the misunderstood areas of the media and it has also affected the image of journalists in many ways, negative or positive.

Journalists are referred to as the watchdogs of the nation or society. In effect, this accolade is not put on them alone but other security agencies like the Police, National Security Apparatus, among others, whose job is to ensure that the general public is safe from the deeds of evil men who would like to take advantage of the loose ends to get away with their bad intentions.

As watchdogs, journalists are expected to keep their eyes open when others are asleep and to look at the places where` others may not see the need to. A lot of wrong doings are going on in town, with all manner of people-those respected and held in high esteem and those classified as evil- working assiduously to outwit the system for their selfish gains; many of these are done at the blind side of the security agencies. The journalist becomes one of the persons called in to unveil some of these evil acts.

In relying on the journalist to investigate such acts, the public is indirectly reposing some trust in the journalist and some even believe the media might bring better results than institutions such as the Police and even the courts, since the wheels of justice grind slowly to them.

The act of investigative journalism is different from undercover investigations by security agencies through agents like the National Security Operatives, Criminal Investigations Department agents (generally referred to as CID). Investigative journalism is not supposed to be undercover as many have been made to believe as a result of some happenings in the past. Undercover journalism may turn into invasion of privacy if not handled well.

Using undercover means such as hidden identity, secret recording and tapping of phone lines is illegal and when one is caught in the act, s/he faces prosecution for invasion of privacy, among others. However, if a journalist is convinced that some acts pose a threat to National Security, Public Health and Public Safety, and they can really prove that, the laws of the land allow them to use undercover means to expose such acts. Should the issue of invasion of privacy arise, the onus lies on the journalist to prove that the use of subtle means to investigate the matter in question was not only based on a mere conviction but real facts. If he cannot prove this, then he risks being jailed.

The case of Anas Aremeyaw Anas’ undercover journalism comes up at this point. It is obvious that the renowned journalist uses subtle means to expose acts that are inimical to Public Health, National Security and Public Safety and trying to do so through simple investigative journalism would have made him a liar as some public officials have tried to let journalists appear to the general public.

It is through my journalism practice that I realized that some people in responsible positions could lie through their teeth and could convince you they were saying nothing but the truth. They say one thing in an interview and deny the very things they said when they are published. Some of them even want to deny their own voice when it is played to them. How many of the judges and judicial staff members found culpable of bribery and other acts of corruption in Anas’ investigations would have owned up if they were not recorded secretly. Even with the secret recording, some were still trying hard to defend themselves.

To avoid being made a liar or found guilty of defamation or libel, the journalist is at times compelled to record conversations without the consent of the officials or persons they are investigation or go undercover to achieve his aim.

I remember a case involving a man who claimed to be a CIA agent, who had assaulted one of his workers and was supposed to be prosecuted for assault. The source of the story was compelled to bring it to the media after realizing that the Police were dragging their feet on the case. I joined my editor to start an investigation that took almost a month. The ‘CIA agent’ tried to avoid meeting us until we came out with the first story on him after his security men at the gate told us he was not around though we saw his car inside the house. One interesting thing that happened was the insistence by the Police that the man was a ‘CIA agent’ and for that matter he was immune from prosecution due to the fact that he was working as a security agent of the USA. This assertion was made by the head of the Police Command, whose only proof was that he saw an American flag and other pictures in the man’s office that convinced him.

Further investigations showed that some officers under the Command were unhappy with the way that case was being handled so were not willing to comment on it at all. After the publication of the story that the man was being shielded because he was a CIA agent, the commander of the station came to our office to deny ever saying that. However, when he was told my conversation with him was secretly recorded and that whatever was reported in the story was from the recording, he became quiet and started apologizing. Right away the case was sent to court and prosecution was initiated.

Certainly, the use of undercover means in investigative journalism is a factor in the perception of journalists as ‘monsters’. As a cross-section of Ghanaians continue to hail Anas Aremeyaw Anas as a hero, the families of the judges that were recorded secretly, those whose livelihood and image have been affected by his undercover work, would continue to see him as a monster, just as many journalists whose quest to make the nation safer, healthier and secure are perceived.

Journalists are not monsters; they are just like any other citizen who desires to see their nation prosper and better. They wish they could be at peace with all people and not step on toes but their watchdog responsibilities put them at enmity with people who want to take advantage of the system, people who want to destroy the nation to build their selfish empire and people who are not ready to do their right thing.

As humans, journalists fail at times; they go wrong and some of them are as corrupt as those they are expected to investigate and expose. A better understanding of their work would help reduce the effect of the perceptions. Without them a lot would have happened at the blind side of nation, with even the security agencies not detecting.

The watchdog is expected to check everyone entering the house. Don’t hate the dog just because it mistakenly bit or attacked a person out of suspicion. It may be doing their right thing after all.

Your comments are welcome. mviwotor@yaho.com