The revelations of the Cambridge Analytica scandal in March 2018, when over 50 million Facebook profiles were harvested without consent, marked a pivotal moment in the public’s understanding of Big Tech’s data practices. The investigation by The New York Times and The Guardian triggered widespread public outcry, significantly impacted Facebook’s market value, and brought regulatory scrutiny to the forefront. The shift from focusing solely on technological capabilities to scrutinising the power and influence of tech companies signaled the onset of what is now known as the ‘Techlash’ era.
This piece explores the role of investigative journalism as an important governance mechanism for Big Tech platforms, assessing its strengths and limitations. It compares investigative journalism with regulatory mechanisms, arguing that while investigative journalism cannot be the sole governance tool, it plays a crucial role within the broader governance ecosystem.
Investigative journalism as a governance mechanism
Investigative journalism, with its roots in holding powerful entities accountable, has evolved significantly in the age of Big Tech. Modern investigative journalism is characterised by its resource-intensive nature, adversarial stance, and a focus on exposing corporate truths. The rise of specialised tech-focused outlets such as The MarkUp, Lighthouse Reports, and 404 Media underscores the critical role investigative journalism plays in scrutinising Big Tech.
The strengths of investigative journalism as a governance mechanism are several. Firstly, its speed and agility allows it to bring issues to light far quicker than regulatory bodies, which often lag behind due to lengthy legislative processes. Secondly, investigative journalism operates independently of the lobbying influences that frequently compromise regulatory bodies. This independence is crucial in ensuring that the information reaching the public is not tainted by corporate interests.
Moreover, investigative journalism plays a pivotal role in raising public awareness and sparking outcry. By shaping public discourse, it can catalyse consumer pressure and hasten regulatory responses. The Cambridge Analytica scandal is a prime example of how investigative journalism can lead to immediate policy changes, with Facebook announcing significant alterations to its data collection practices following the exposé.
The impact of investigative journalism is further demonstrated in the Facebook Files investigation of 2021. The Wall Street Journal’s exposé, based on leaked internal documents, revealed that Facebook was aware of the mental health risks its platforms posed to teenagers. This led to Facebook indefinitely pausing its Instagram Kids project and implementing new safety features for teens.
Limitations of investigative journalism
Despite its strengths, investigative journalism faces significant limitations. The most prominent is resource constraints, as investigative journalism is expensive and time-consuming. Only well-funded outlets can afford to sustain in-depth investigations. Additionally, investigative journalism’s reliance on whistle-blowers can be a weakness, as it leaves journalists vulnerable to the risks and biases associated with whistle-blower testimony and the difficulties associated with identifying and protecting witnesses who may be under punitive NDAs.
Another critical limitation is investigative journalism’s lack of enforcement power. While it can expose wrongdoings and inform the public, it cannot compel changes or impose penalties. This is where the role of regulation becomes vital. Furthermore, the current media environment, characterised by declining public trust and the proliferation of deep fakes and disinformation, poses a serious and ongoing challenge to the credibility and effectiveness of investigative journalism in the eyes of the general public.
The role of regulation
Regulation, in contrast to investigative journalism, possesses the critical advantage of enforcement power. Regulatory bodies can enact laws that lead to systemic changes and hold Big Tech companies accountable. However, regulation is often slow to be implemented, as seen in the long gap between the introduction of digital technologies and the enactment of corresponding laws, such as the UK’s Online Safety Act.
The Collingridge Dilemma highlights the challenges regulators face in addressing technological advancements. Laws lag new technology as regulators struggle to fully grasp their potential impacts in early adoption phases. However, as technology becomes more entrenched in society it becomes increasingly difficult to regulate. This pacing problem is exacerbated by bureaucratic inertia and political influences, with regulatory bodies often subject to lobbying efforts that can dilute the effectiveness of proposed regulations. We can see this playing out globally as legislative regions everywhere struggle for their AI governance to keep pace with the rapid development pace of artificial intelligence.
Big Tech’s lobbying power is unparalleled, with companies like Google, Amazon, and Meta spending millions annually to influence policy. The secrecy and scale of these lobbying efforts make it challenging to gauge their full impact, but it is clear that they pose a significant obstacle to effective AI governance and regulation.
Investigative journalism and regulation both play essential roles in governing Big Tech, yet neither is sufficient on its own. Investigative journalism excels in its speed, independence, and ability to spark public outcry, but lacks the enforcement capabilities that regulation provides. Conversely, regulation can enforce changes but often struggles with the pacing of technological advancements and the influence of lobbying.
For effective governance of AI and Big Tech, a complementary relationship between investigative journalism and regulation is ideal. Investigative journalism can spotlight issues and mobilise public opinion, prompting regulatory bodies to take action. In turn, regulation can provide the enforcement power necessary to hold Big Tech accountable and ensure that the changes brought about by investigative journalism are sustained and impactful.
While investigative journalism can never be a standalone solution, it is a key component of a broader governance framework that includes robust regulatory mechanisms. Together, they form a governance ecosystem capable of addressing the challenges posed by the monopolies of Big Tech and AI technologies.