13 - Where did you get that again?

subtitle13

Investigative journalism is considered by many editors to be the ultimate journalistic task: long, in-depth and comprehensive research, checking facts, corroborating data and then publishing a big story. The "Panama Papers" were one such story, only possible with the help of cross-border cooperation between numerous editorial offices. In Austria, the affairs are often smaller, but sometimes still have serious consequences, such as the stories about real estate deals in Grafenwörth, Viennese allotment gardens or the events surrounding René Benko. Many viewers, listeners and readers often ask themselves: "Where did that come from again?"

Ulla Kramar-Schmid and Martin Thür, both ORF News, provide the answer.

This is one of the most frequent, more or less enthusiastic questions asked in our industry whenever a sensitive story is on the table. The answer is simple: from politicians, lawyers, civil servants, entrepreneurs, ordinary employees, silent observers and so on. What they all have in common: They must be able to rely on us not revealing their identity. Editorial secrecy is linked to this. This does not necessarily protect editorial offices, but above all their sources. Why is that the case? For one thing, our contacts run a high risk when they publish sensitive material. Sometimes even a risk under criminal law if they themselves are bearers of secrets - and you don't have to work for the secret service to do that. It is enough to work in an office, a bank or a tax consultancy firm. To this day, we still don't know who the "John Doe" is who leaked the documents of a Panamanian law firm to the International Consortium for Investigative Journalism (ICIJ) - and from which the ORF, as one of the worldwide media partners, published the so-called Panama Papers.

Was that legal? Of course it was. The journalists working on it were able to verify its authenticity, the resulting stories were properly researched and the overriding public interest - how celebrities invest their money without paying tax - was unquestionably given. And that is what ultimately counts with every publication: the quality of the research and the overriding public interest. So who cares who John Doe is? In November of the previous year, we were leaked a tape recording: On it, the once most powerful man in the Ministry of Justice, Christian Pilnacek, can be heard talking about ÖVP interventions in the judiciary. The most important question that had to be clarified first: Are the recordings genuine or have they been edited in such a way as to distort the meaning? ORF commissioned two expert reports to answer these questions as best they could. However, they cannot offer absolute certainty. That's why we meet the creators of the recordings several times, we check their statements and also scrutinize them. Only when all these checks have been completed after two long weeks do we begin to write down the story. One ethical question remains to the end: The recording was made in private, without Pilnacek's knowledge, and it was only given to two media outlets after his death. Can this be published? In our opinion, the public interest prevails here too if there is a suspicion that a ruling party may have intervened in the judiciary in its favor (the presumption of innocence applies here too).

In this case, it was acquaintances of Pilnacek who brought the tape to the media and thus to the public; in other cases, it is frustrated employees, often political opponents. However, it is at least as important that journalism itself requests secret information from the authorities. This was already possible under the Freedom of Information Act and is to be made even easier in future with the new Freedom of Information Act.

In recent years, the ORF has fought for groundbreaking case law in the highest courts, which makes it possible to monitor the work of politicians and the administration. For example, a decision by the Supreme Court allows journalists to search for property belonging to certain individuals, something that was previously reserved for lawyers. A decision by the Constitutional Court on the continued payment of politicians' salaries ensures that so-called "public watchdogs", which we journalists are, have access to information from public authorities. This decision later even led to legal proceedings against a former minister. The new Freedom of Information Act changes comparatively little for journalism. The abolition of official secrecy had long been the legal situation due to European case law. The new law creates an expanded legal framework, which reorganizes deadlines and defines instances and expands the number of organizations required to provide information. The ORF itself will also have to answer questions in future.

However, the control function of investigative journalism goes far beyond citing leaked files. Very often you have to follow files, information and documents for weeks or months, then check them, classify them, confirm the information they contain via other sources and finally summarize them in such a way that viewers can also classify their explosiveness and relevance.

#socialvalue