This is another myth that people inherit from Hollywood movies and television, as well as government and media scamming - the stereotypical 'investigative reporter', the brave man or woman allegedly eager to fight for the truth ... but what you will find, is that a number of the famous 'investigative journalists' are fake, in fact serving governments and the rich and the powerful, with agendas of deception and distraction.
The same goes for so-called famous 'whistle-blowers' and 'leak' sites, they are often government and intelligency agency actors, carrying out a devious agenda. One of those agendas is to catalog and document, and be able to silence and destroy, real whistle-blowers and people trying to fight against governments or the oligarchy.
The genuine kind of 'investigative reporters' basically died out a long time ago in major media terms. They were exterminated as local media sources got bought up by the big conglomerates, and as America's media became increasingly part of the big corporate machine that controls American life.
There are enough investigative journalists who have wound up dead in mysterious circumstances, that the rest of media personnel have gotten the message. For example, there was Gary Webb, who exposed evidence that the US government itself was involved in flooding USA minority ghettoes with illegal drugs. Webb allegedly 'committed suicide' in 2004, shooting himself 'twice' with 'two bullets in the head' (!), if you would like to believe that 'official story'.
Real and honest 'investigative journalists' are mostly obscure now, found an minor and semi-censored internet sites, out of the mainstream search results, and often slandered as 'conspiracy theorists' and so on, on the major websites and government-infected 'free internet encyclopaedias'.
So-called 'investigative reporters' in major media today in the USA, basically only start 'investigating' more details about someone, after the government initiates the process. The prosecutors tip off the reporters that they will be going after some person, and then the media will go chasing after details. But the government or its rich oligarch partners, is nearly always the original source motivating a 'big' story.
What rarely happens, is where people come to a newspaper or media organisation with proof of some crime that the government isn't prosecuting, and then the newspaper runs a big story to 'expose' the wrongdoing. That happens very rarely now, and when it does, the target of the story is usually someone who has no political connections.
What basically never happens at all, is where the media starts running stories about crooked lawyers or judges, just because they have proof of crimes that those people have committed. You can present totally slam-dunk evidence of crimes involving a judge, and the American media won't touch the story. That's the way it is in the USA.
In modern America, 'journalists' for the big media companies are people very submissive to their bosses. They know the unspoken 'rules'. Stories that violate the rules, don't get published or broadcast. And a reporter who writes stories which don't get published or broadcast, is pretty soon out of a job.
Since the ultimate bosses are the big corporations that own the media groups, the message filters down very quickly to the staff, regarding what is supposed to be 'news' and what is supposed to be ignored. The bosses don't need to put things in writing, in order for the reporters to figure out how to kiss up to the bosses and company owners and keep their jobs.
You can find the fingerprints all over the other corporate-media-celebrated cases of 'leakers' and 'investigations' ... if the story is all over corporate media, chances are it is run by a government intelligence agency.
The 1971 'Pentagon Papers'
of Daniel Ellsberg distracted from Vietnam-era war crimes, and Ellsberg
used his sudden fame to try to sell the 'official story' of the JFK
assassination.
People sometimes cite the old Watergate case, and the resignation of USA President Richard Nixon in 1974, as showing that America has a 'great legal system' in which a President was shoved out of office because of the work of some 'investigative reporters'. But even that is neither accurate, nor a good example, for several reasons.
Of course this is an old story, those events now nearly a half century ago. Since then, the American legal system, and the corporate ownership of media companies, are both a lot worse than they were in the Watergate days.
But even this Watergate case, was really about how other factions in the American government wanted to get rid of Nixon, for various political motives. The two reporters, Woodward and Bernstein, were themselves very well connected to other government officials, both in personal background, and in their attack against the Nixon presidency. Woodward had recently a US Navy intelligence officer, working under Admiral Maurer, who was head of the US military and its 'Joint Chiefs', during the 'Silent Coup' against Nixon. The Watergate case, like nearly all other news in America, had its origins in the powers of government itself, not the so-called 'investigative reporters'.
A similar scene took place in the 1990s, when alleged 'investigative reporter' Matt Drudge, led the media barrage to 'impeach' President Bill Clinton over trivial sexual activity in the White House. Whereas it seems to many that Clinton's impeachment was connected with his hesitation to bomb Serbia and kill thousands of civilians there ... the bombing began shortly after Clinton was 'acquitted'.
And then 2010 began the ballyhoo over Julian Assange and Wikileaks, Julian Assange with many connections to the wealthiest people in the world and their banks. Assange supported the 'official story' on 9-11, and people who sent Assange information turned up dead. Although allegedly 'facing charges' in the USA, Assange always refused to defend himself with his files from USA legal corruption victims, which he knows would block any extradition request. It is widely doubted Assange was ever really 'living in the London Ecuador embassy' all those years.
After Assange, we had another 'leaker' connected to governments and wealthy people, Edward Snowden in 2013, who first 'leaked' to the friend and biographer of USA George Bush Vice-President Dick Cheney at the Washington Post. Snowden was then promoted by a journalist linked to the world's wealthiest people. Like Assange, Snowden slams people questioning the 9-11 story, and is also hostile to talking about USA judicial and legal corruption, despite being exactly like Assange and allegedly facing a 'trial' in the USA.
And then in 2016 there was the leaked 'Panama Papers' on corruption in various governments, who also happen to be targets for undermining by the USA and its friends, the Panama Papers 'investigative journalists' themselves having close ties to governments and intelligence agencies.
It is all just one fraud after another, the frauds having the clear initial signal that they are massively promoted by the big corporation newspapers and media sites. Many people are duped into contacting the media associated with these frauds, by the fake stories of 'brave reporters' and alleged 'brave whistle-blowers' who are really frauds of intelligence agencies. And then some of the victims who contact these frauds and their hoaxing 'journalists', wind up dead.
A sad aspect of all these frauds is how they help defame and marginalise and slander real victims and dissidents, because people say, 'Well, if your story was true, wouldn't the media who talked about Assange or Snowden be helping you?'
The circus of political 'news' in the USA, is not about the common people, who are often crushed and ignored and thrown under the bus. The so-called 'news stories' are more often about one part of government, bickering with another part, playing a power game among themselves, whilst hiding the fact that the real needs of the people are ignored.
Click here to go back to the FAQ table of contents.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
