Probable ways of investigating issues pertaining to food inspection; Restaurants in focus

Investigative journalism involves exposing to the public matters that are concealed –either deliberately by someone in a position of power, or accidentally, behind a chaotic mass of facts and circumstances that obscure understanding. It requires using both secret and open sources, and documents.

Investigative journalism never provides an instant story. It goes through recognized stages of planning and reporting, and has to work to accepted standards of accuracy and evidence. And this could take weeks and months to write and research.

A successful investigative journalist must be curious have an inquiring mind and be very meticulous enough so as to unearth the truth. They are also initiative, flexible, and fair with strong ethics. In the quest to getting to the root of an issue to ascertain the precision also requires taking ethics into serious consideration. Since investigative reporting often takes time and carries legal risk, it is prudent to carefully plan, verify information, being very critical about checking and rechecking facts in order to minimize harm.

As far as investigative journalism is concerned, several methods have been propounded to unravel the truth about issues. They include surveillance, survey, interview, and documentary. Depending on the case in focus, any of the methods could be used. However, considering food inspection, all the methods could be applied to unravel truth.

Food inspection is done to ensure that best practices are employed in terms of cooking and food preservation as well as to save the public from food poisoning.

Therefore taking up the challenge to investigate into such activities is very crucial to public health. An investigative journalist who wants to unravel how food inspection is done could for instance get an undercover job as a food inspector. This way they could critically observe the activity of inspectors and have easy access to any food inspection document for evaluation as well. The reporter having secure the undercover job, could also have access to any restaurant of their choice and have the opportunity to do a thorough observations of procedures and conditions under which food is prepared. Where procedures contradicts known processes or defined procedures, find out what influences the lack of compliance.

Where it is observed that inspectors are not skipping inspections yet food is not prepared under hygienic conditions, the journalist could probe into who usually inspects the restaurant in question. Is it the case that the inspector has no idea about what to inspect? Or his palm is greased so that operators could have the lee-way to put the publics’ health into jeopardy. Being and insider could also help the investigative journalist to easily lay hands on documents or demand for documents which has records on the health condition of workers. This will ascertain if cooks are void of communicable diseases and in fact the last time workers underwent screening.

 Note however that getting an undercover job as a food inspector might be difficult. In this case one could observe from a distance by means of electronic equipment (such as CCTV cameras), or low-technology methods such as human intelligence agents

The investigative journalist could administer survey to investigate the problem. Survey involves sampling and it could be probability and non-probability sampling methods.

The investigative journalist uses probability sampling when conducting a general investigation about restaurant operations. In this case the investigator randomly selects any restaurant from sampled ones and use questionnaire to measure the attitude of restaurant operators.  However, if investigation is based on a tip off the investigator would have to conduct a purposive sampling.

Once the sampled restaurants are contacted survey data collection is done, the investigator could compare data and experience with what the relevant legislation set out, and note the failures in compliance.

Surveying a sampled population (restaurant) would reduce the amount of work that it would take to survey the entire target population.

Interviews are the most common tools of journalism and investigative journalist could apply that. As is it explained by Silverman, 1997:13, interview is a purposive conversation to elicit response, information or answers to an issue. It could be structured, standardized, semi-formal guided conversations and free-flowing informational exchanges. All interviews are interactive.

In the situation where the investigator is conducting a general investigation, they could pose as customers of a restaurant and try to engage cooks and waiters to fish for information

But if it is based on tip off, they could endeavor to have an undercover job as cooks, to help them interrogate their supposedly co-workers to find out why something is not done well. They could use the opportunity to interview experts on the field to have enough idea about what is expected of restaurant operators.

He uses his powers of observation to take graphic descriptive notes and paints word-pictures of what he observed. Investigative journalism should however beware of axe grinders in this case.

Documentary evidences are very vital in investigative journalism. The investigator must find out whether or not there are open sources – public documents, news reports, and so on – that can serve to verify or elucidate parts of their hypothesis. If so, consult them first in order to have a better understanding of the story before speaking to people.

Incident reports: Agencies like the Food and Drugs Board, the Environmental Protection Agencies, and the Standards Board have laid down rules and regulations that restaurant operators are supposed to follow. But employees make “mistakes.” The occasions when such errors or mishaps occur, require an official report will be spelled out in the agency’s manual or legal codes. Demand those reports.

Inspection reports: should a disaster occur, find out inspectors responsible for inspecting the facility. Look for reports and their authors. But if there’s no report, that’s a story: Why wasn’t the agency watching? If there is, and it predicts a disaster, why was nothing done to prevent it?

The reporter could also tracked previous reports of attempts by political organizations to get government action, and incorporate that information into his final story too.

In the nutshell, an investigative reporter could have to use all the tools above to unearth truth.

Should parliamentary reporting be limited to straight news reporting?

Public affairs reporting refer to the coverage of government activities-federal, state, local government officials (elected officials and others) and agencies, Politics, Police and crime. It also includes the reporting of criminal and civil court cases, public safety issues, accidents, community news, schools and education.

As far as public affairs reportage is concerned, parliamentary reporting is an activity in line with public affairs reporting.

Building an informed society and encouraging an exchange of ideas is essential for good governance and development. Part of building an informed society includes informing the public about parliamentary proceedings; broadcasting parliament can convey more fully the substance and flavor of how parliament works.

It can also take many different forms, whether it is a simultaneous broadcast or edited footage that can be used by the media to report on parliamentary business. Broadcasting parliament could also be a feature. Whichever way, parliamentary reporting assist the media in providing coverage of newsworthy issues and legislation on which parliament is deliberating.

Journalists as representative of the media, and citizens, are entitled to reasonable access to parliament. However, the media are in a special position in that they are also representatives of all those citizens who are unable to attend parliament, but who wish to be informed about what occurs in parliament. Accordingly, the media act as citizens’ eyes and ears to parliament.

Straight news unlike a feature presents stories just as it is without the reporter infusing their opinion. It states the facts as it and credit information to a source. Straight news affords the reporter to escape contempt of parliament. But with a feature story, the tendency of a reporter committing contempt of parliament is high. Parliamentary reporting is therefore best limited to straight news reporting. However it could be human interest considering the sort of heckling that usually goes on in the house and in this case the reporter could add their opinion and play the devil’s advocate. But where it is to inform the public about proceedings and debates, straight news is preferable.

A good reporter is open-minded and determined to give fair treatment to all the arguments they witness.  A bad reporter lets his or her own views interfere. This is particularly true in reporting political controversy.  It is not for the parliamentary reporter to decide which argument is the strongest.  Instead, the good reporter lays out all the arguments, fairly and accurately, and lets the audience decide for itself.

Parliament is a sovereign institution and that it’s right of access does not justify poor behavior or activity that breaches parliamentary privilege. Therefore whichever way a reporter chooses to report news from parliament must not cause any breach to parliamentary privilege. Meanwhile parliament must be prepared to deal with situations where journalists report on information that is leaked from people attending closed committee deliberations. The reporting of the information from closed committee deliberations may constitute contempt of parliament. However, parliaments should only take disciplinary action against journalists if what has been reported is false or incorrect.