Kia ora all - awesome to see discussions moving forward on this subject.

I'm not a journalist, so take my views with a grain of salt, but my impression is that investigative journalism describes a method - deep research, exploratory interviews etc - whereas public interest journalism explores a subject-matter: that is, what's in the public interest. The term 'public interest' will inevitably mean slightly different things for different people, but I think it refers to issues/goals that are in the interests of the broader public, as opposed to individuals or an exclusive few. I think there should be a lot of scope for collaboration between investigative journalism and public interest journalism - but in my mind you could have public interest journalism that isn't investigative.

I think it'd be cool for PublicEyes to consider in what specific ways journalism is drifting away from the public interest (e.g. excessive private ownership of media, conflicts of interest not identified, one-sided reporting of certain issues, etc). One form of drift might be in the lack of emphasis on investigative journalism.

It's also worth noting that the idea of 'public interest work' is taking off in a few other fields in New Zealand - for instance, in law (which is what I'm a bit more familiar with). I was a bit involved with setting up a group called Law For Change (which focuses on public interest law) - http://www.lawforchange.co.nz. And a NZ Public Interest Law Journal has just been set up by others: http://piljnz.org.nz. These groups could be creative allies in the fight to reclaim the public interest - and they might offer some approaches to defining 'public interest'.

Nga mihi nui,

Max

I teach a postgrad IJ course here at AUT (hat-tip NH for your brilliant Skype session with us the other day!). It's fascinating to see the students' perceptions of IJ change as we get into the course. At first they ask if all journalism isn't meant to be investigative in nature - which of course it is - and they tend to think of IJ as Excellent Journalism, or the Top Tier of journalism. But then they start to see the difference between deadline-driven access-based journalism (The Daily Grind, no matter how good it is) and self-driven investigative journalism, which, as they discover, is a lonely, arduous pursuit that may or may not find favour with a publisher. Yes, agree with Al - IJ is a subset of PIJ, one that takes the high moral ground and is less susceptible to charges of manufacturing consent.

Like Max, I'm not a journalist. I'm a NZer who wants to know what is really happening on the planet and I don't believe mainstream media reports this. What the world needs is transparency and I'd like to see journalism being the mechanism that digs into what politicians and business leaders say, and exposes what they actually do and where they are really taking us. Currently mainstream media, hence the public, is spoonfed what our leaders want us to believe. This is not investigative journalism.
As for public interest journalism? I dispair when I read the headlines of the most popular items in the NZ Herald (don't watch vids) each day - What absolute drivel- today "Lohan runs nude during shopping spree" - something everyone needs to know - right? Surely this belongs in a gossip rag or trashy glossy magazine. My point is, that if this is what interests the public then they need a good slapping to wake them up. So I'd like journalists to find a way to do this.
Sorry about the rant, but I get fruistrated with compromised media and politicians stroking we the public.

Kai ora, thanks for the invitation to join this discussion. I am unlikely to be available to attend the meeting - being shackled in Christchurch - but would be interested in the outcomes it generates. My own interest in investigative journalism is more in the human rights field and this is particularly difficult arena. It is primarily a challenge in terms of funding - without the backing of mainstream media how does the journalist survive in a conflict zone or avoid further risk due to their location and inability to pull out easily when their life, situation or the lives of others are threatened? There is also clearly the unwillingness of the mainstream to send reporters to report from the ground up when so much (unreliable or partisan) information can be accessed from the internet at far less cost. I should note that when I refer to journalists I am also referring to photographers. A good investigative journalist in any field will undertake a great deal of research before embarking on interviews and prior to making reports in order to test their analysis and they will be willing to change focus if needed. Any investigation requires scholarly thought and consideration and an ability to mix with the people most affected and to garner their perspectives. I need to read and think more on the boundaries between this kind of enterprise and public interest journalism. As Asta Wistrand infers what the public is interested in is not always what is in the social interest - test questions in terms of whether a public interest story fits the criteria for an investigative story might be: How reliable is the information? Does it have depth? Could this information move society forward in any useful way? Could it increase knowledge or is it merely confined to the realms of unreliable infotainment through scant scrutiny and speculation?

Considering the public interest aspect of journalism further I agree with Alistair that investigative journalism is linked to the former but I am less sure that investigative journalism has been a component of public interest journalism. A good investigative journalist will produce stories that meet the criteria for public interest journalism and a journalist who sees themselves as one of society's watchdogs on the political or social reform front will need to need employ investigative and research skills but that is a pedantic argument and not particularly relevant to the issue. The enemy of public interest and investigative journalism is the huge money thrown at communications cowboys/girls in public relations for private and public businesses seeking advertising. Journalists worth their salt used to call this the 'dark side' but continually people with media relations skills are paid far more than journalists to provide angles, articles, and even awards that will entice journalists to swim with this tide rather than produce anything that is unique, worthy or challenging. Most of us know that unless we enter the field of teaching journalism - a diminishing career due to the demise in student numbers - we will more than likely be 'freelancing' which in reality means accepting pay paralleling that of a supermarket checkout person. This is the cost of producing stories based on ethics, interest, research and investigation. The rise in social media is something that communication advisors, consultants and CEOs are acutely aware of and they are paid to manage and connect to the vast array of social media most effectively. Huge numbers of media people are now working for corporate and Government communications departments. Where does that leave the public? How does it affect genuine journalists who find it increasingly difficult to make a decent living? And in the gap how will our history be recorded accurately? My hope for an answer lies with groups like this.

Fantastic discussion. Jane. There's an old saw that goes something like. "Journalism is news which someone doesn't want you to write, everything else is PR." You are very right that the idea of "The Dark Side" while still around is diminishing in its clarity. As standards and resourcing fall across the board - and as corporates demand an ROI on their marketing spend - pure public interest journalism ( without fear or favour ) is under constant attack. In my role as Publisher and Editor I straddle the worlds somewhat. One of the challenges we face is that there is no new normal, just a moving and decaying feast.

Hi Greg. Your identification of the self-driven aspect of investigative work is very important. And I think the CIJ effort is all around fostering a community of peers which make that world more accessible to newbies. It is very hard to keep asking questions and digging when all you have for reference is your own notes. In the old days newsrooms would tend to have multiple people who had experience whom young journalists could call upon. When I arrived at the Dominion Post we had David Hellaby, Phil Kitchen, Steve Raea and a bunch of experienced people who I could talk to about stuff. I doubt I would have ever done any work without access to those people and their experience.

Thanks for the welcome!
I am a journalist and like Asta am quite disturbed by some of what passes for news.
Not so much Lohan running nude - I believe that celebrity news possibly has a positive knock on effect, kind of trainer wheels for ethics issues including corruption - as a failure to address issues facing the country and globe.
Writers here have already outlined key differences as they exist (or don't exist) so I would like to look more towards the future and suggest what differences might look like, ideally.
Public interest journalism could differ from investigative journalism if it focuses on areas of social impact not given sufficient coverage by corporate media, public and private.
Examples of journalism in the public interest may range from coverage of council meetings and issues such as rural pollution from agriculture, to parliamentary committee meetings on educational policy.
Less institutional examples might include reporting with social workers in urban settings, or profiles on social entrepreneurs.
Such an approach may focus initially on perceived gaps left open by corporation media while, hopefully, also breaking new ground.
Long range fact checking of electoral campaign promises, including greater use of data journalism, is one example where new ground might be broken.
Cost versus benefit analyses on sector and industry scales, using criteria such as people, planet and profit over timeframes longer than electoral cycles, could be such an area of public interest journalism.
Overall, looking to the future, solutions focused outcomes could arguably form a focus for public interest journalism.
Investigative journalism, by comparison, is commonly perceived to focused more on individual stories or issues, of people and places, companies and governments.

Awesome and thoughtful points being raised. Please remember if you're in Wellington this weekend there's a gathering on Sunday afternoon, 1pm at Massey Uni campus, Mt Cook ---- details here: http://pij.org.nz/

Oh, bugger! I will be in Wellington on Saturday evening but not Sunday,

Welcome @jasonbrown @russellbrown @astawistrand @billrosenberg @corazonmiller @debbiesmith @duncangraham @ericrowe @garethgillatt @garthb @geofflealand @gregtreadwell @janeengland @jeremyropse @juliana @kristenmarypaterso @martieller @samhuggard @sophiebarclay @strypey @victoriaquade

I am very much enjoying this discussion thread. Thanks all. I like to focus on "doing", which actually does gel with most of the previous commenters in one way or another (be the comments from a reader/user perspective or a practitioner perspective -- and BTW these groupings need to be broken down in more ways than simply providing for what are often toxic "comment threads" -- but that's another discussion). Having been involved, as no doubt many of you have, in civil society efforts that spend 95% time planning and 5% doing, (and not wanting to diss planning -- OK, well not too much anyway), my goal for the next stage of Public Eyes is to encourage our not getting bogged down with the structural/theoretical "what ifs" -- at least to the extent they become a block to action. So, independent public interest investigative journalism -- whatever we "call" it, I feel like we all kinda know what it is and want to see more of it. Simplistic, but I'm trying to keep this as a bit of guiding mantra as we continue to work toward seeing if we can get Public Eyes, and more independent, public interest, investigative journalism going. See some of you at the weekend. And look forward to more discussion.

Welcome @richardpamatatau @stephenj

Quote for the day from @ericrowe : Definitions create false idols.

Although by no means an uncontested authority, the BBC's editorial guidelines do offer a comprehensive list of what can be considered journalism in the public interest including but not confined to:
- exposing or detecting crime
- exposing significantly anti-social behaviour
- exposing corruption or injustice
- disclosing significant incompetence or negligence
- protecting people's health and safety
- preventing people from being misled by some statement or action of an individual or organisation
- disclosing information that assists people to better comprehend or make decisions on matters of public importance.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/page/guidelines-privacy-introduction/
Freedom of expression itself is also recognized as something in the public interest..
The advantage of adopting such a list is that it provides 'sign posts' to indicate intent of the Trust which Stephen Olsen rightly identifies as helpful, without necessitating an exhaustive (and likely futile) search for a single definition which satisfies all.

The underlying question here seems to be do we need two new organisations here, or should there be an attempt to reach out to the Investigative Journalism org, and explore a possible merger? Org structures take effort to maintain, so mergers should definitely be considered where a) the mission of two organisations is the same, or even very similar and b) there is a significant overlap in their officials and memberships.

As described above, it seems like the two orgs have a sufficiently different mission and organisational culture, and only a loose overlap of personnel, that there is a need for them both. I'd definitely like to see them making contact and discussng possible alliance and shared projects though.