IT'S DIFFICULT, unpopular time-consuming and expensive. So why does anyone do it? Beyond a few pockets of radio and television, there is a reluctance nowadays to commit resources to the sort of journalism that tackles miscarriages of justice or campaigns to change laws.
But the successes, when they come, demonstrate the best of what journalism can achieve: a contribution to the health of a democracy, First Tuesday's campaign leading to the release of the Guildford Four is the most
compelling recent example and represents a significant achievement.
Investigative
television's strength is in making a human, emotional and immediate. It regularly draws audiences of double the combined circulation of broadsheet newspapers, an audience made up of many constituences of opinion. It has the ability to make injustices common property.
Paul Woolwich, newly appointed editor of Thames Television's This Week, argues that investive journalism almost always works. "If a programme changes even one person's view of what's
being done in their name, then it's a success."
Much more difficult to achieve are legal or procedural changes. Television can engage an audience through personal accounts, but problems can get dangerously personalised, reducing people to helpless victims so that the systematic failures of police, courts and governments escape censure. It's a problem sharply felt on BBC TV's Rough Justice. "We've had some success in getting convictions overturned,
but in effect we're papering over the cracks," says Steve Haywood the series producer.
Taking Liberties, also from BBC TV's documentary features department, has attempted to focus on failures of the system - with some results. Last year's investigation into abuse of the Prvention of Terrorism Act was broadcast just before the Manx Parliment debated how to adopt it. Hazel Hannan, a member of the House of Keys, say the programmme influenced the debate, making amendments possible.
An analysis of stories on Taking Liberties over its previous two series...
