See http://wingseed.wordpress.com/ for a comment from Brett Davidson in response to this post.

There is a very interesting response to this piece by Owen Barder which can be found at http://www.aidinfo.org/content/cause-without-rebel

I agree with most of what Owen says, including many of his charges that mainstream media simply have not been performing the kinds of investigative journalism function that better accountability demands. I agree that bloggers - and I would argue citizen journalists - are increasingly filling this role. And that there are transformational opportunities for citizens to demand accountability which will revolutionise accountability relationships.

There are some issues I part company with Owen on.

First, although I work for an organisation connected to the BBC, I don't define media as mainstream media (nor does the BBC for that matter, but let's leave that)....I include within the term the whole gamut of community media, citizen journalism, blogging, radio talk show hosts and everything else, not simply the expert journalist working for the big city paper or broadcaster.

I disagree with the argument that investigative journalism by traditional media is no longer serving a social purpose. Just one counter to this - I'd point, for example, to the impact of the UK Guardian's recent weeks long exposes of tax evasion by major companies in the UK - it's very difficult to see the same vast research exercise being carried without similar financial and institutional foundations even if it is networked. The Guardian like most other papers is losing money at an ever more rapid rate at present and is worried about its capacity to do this kind of work in the future. Imagine the effect of a similar process looking at misappropriation of development assistance in any country dependent on aid - it would not only be extraordinarily useful, it would also be extremely unpopular with those exposed and, given the record on media freedoms, extremely risky - it helps to have the institutional and financial base to provide some protection. While I can point to many examples of really good investigative journalism by traditional journalists within developing countries, it is true that it is uncommon and possibly increasingly rare - but that's the whole point of highlighting it as a problem.

Owen acknowledges that if investigative journalism is dying then we really are in trouble. He feels that it isn't because bloggers will take up the slack. I am less sanguine.

We helped to organise a Ditchley Park conference on media and democracy (http://www.ditchley.co.uk/news/9/conference-on-the-media-directors-repor...) a few months ago where there was, as elsewhere, a huge debate on whether citizen journalists and other web 2.0 actors would fill the investigative journalism role increasingly vacated by traditional media. Opinion on this remains sharply divided but even those who consider that it will tend to think it will depend substantially on philanthropy (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/apr/06/huffington-post-us-newspaper... and http://www.hatnews.org/2008/11/28/icfj-launches-fellowship-for-african-j...).

Which brings me to my central argument. Investigative journalism – wherever and however it is carried out - is likely to change from being essentially journalistically driven to being either cause driven or philanthropically driven. I simply see very little evidence that the market will pay for the kind of investigative journalism that I think real accountability - especially in developing countries - need. There is a market failure, and where there is a market failure there needs to be a decision on whether the accountability function of the media (however defined) is a sufficiently important public good to require policy attention and investment.

If the decision is yes, then there needs to be some kind of capacity within the development or philanthropic sector that can understand what the real need is, decide if there is a market failure and then determine whether it is sufficiently important as a problem to take some action. It is difficult to detect where that capacity currently resides.

I'll acknowledge that I think there needs to be more systemic strategic thinking across the accountability and broader development movements about this issue and to that extent the critique of being top down sticks. My main point however is designed to avoid a top down future. The accountability function traditionally provided by the media has in general been provided free of charge to the development system by privately funded media. That has meant that the development system has generally placed a high policy value on an independent media existing (including through conditionality in the past), but - because it hasn't had to spend much money on it - a low policy priority on it. I think the costs of that low policy priority to development outcomes are increasing.

Without a more informed and focused policy attention devoted to media as an issue in development, I think an increasingly fragmented media with few market incentives to invest in investigative journalism may well find itself carrying out investigative journalism at the behest of whoever will pay for it. I can't help feeling that's a far more top down and concerning future.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts and feelings on this particular matter. Much appreciated!

- James, Resveratrol Consultant