Discover how public service journalism exposes abuses of authority, ensuring politicians, bosses, and public servants face the consequences of their actions.
Journalists often talk about “speaking truth to power” and “holding power to account.” Put simply, both terms mean ensuring that those in positions of authority – such as politicians, company bosses, and public servants – explain their actions and face the consequences of their decisions.
The aim is to prevent the abuse of authority and maintain public trust. Journalism plays a central role in this. In fact, without journalism, it wouldn’t happen.
In another piece on Media Helping Media – Accountability for journalists – we looked at what accountability means for journalists themselves. Here we look at the other side of the coin: how journalists can help ensure the powerful are held accountable for their actions.
But before a journalist can even think about challenging decision-makers, they need to be absolutely sure they are operating ethically at every level – see Why editorial ethics are important.
One of the values every journalist needs to uphold is integrity, along with being absolutely clear that they cannot be manipulated. Once secure on those points, a journalist can set off on their task. Here’s a checklist of areas a journalist might want to consider exploring when scrutinising the powerful:
- Follow the money: Who pays their bills?
- Vested interests: Who pulls their strings?
- Past dealings: Who might have something on them?
- Shady relationships: Who are they friends with?
- Favours owed: Who might they feel indebted to?
- Weaknesses hidden: What human flaws might be open to exploitation by others?
- Have they deleted their history: What in their past might be worth investigating?
Now let’s look at these in some detail.
Follow the money
Money reveals priorities in ways speeches never do. Who funds a politician’s campaign? Who are a company’s biggest shareholders? Who sponsors a public figure’s foundation, think tank, or lecture tour?
Financial disclosures, donation registers, lobbying records, and company filings are public in many parts of the world, learn where to find them for the area you are covering.
If someone’s declared income doesn’t match their lifestyle, that gap is a story in itself, not proof of wrongdoing. Ask the question, then verify before you publish.
▸ Takeaway
Money moves quietly. Power depends on it staying that way. Tracing who funds, who profits, and who’s protected is often the fastest route to the real story.
Vested interests
Not all people in power act alone. Behind some major decisions, such as a minister’s policy announcement, a council’s planning approval, or a company’s new contract, often lies a trail of interested parties. To understand these moves, we have to ask: who lobbied for them, who benefits, and what did they stand to gain?
Registers of interests, planning applications, and lobbying disclosures are your starting points. If a decision-maker has a financial or personal stake in an outcome and hasn’t declared it, that is within the public interest to report.
Past dealings
A person’s history in business, politics, or public life often explains their present behaviour. Have they been investigated before? Have they been sued, or have they sued someone else? Have they been involved in a decision that later proved damaging?
None of this alone proves current wrongdoing. People change, and past association is not evidence of present guilt. But a documented pattern, verified and properly sourced, is a legitimate basis for scrutiny.
Shady relationships
Who someone chooses to associate with can be as revealing as what they say publicly. Business partners, political allies, family connections, and social circles all shape decisions, even when they’re never mentioned on the record.
But take care here – this is sensitive territory – being associated with someone is just a clue, it’s unlikely to be the story. The test is whether the relationship affects a specific decision or duty the person holds. If the answer is yes, it’s fair to investigate. If it’s simply who they know socially, then there might not be a story.
Favours owed
Power often runs on returning favours. Who has done this person a favour in the past? Perhaps it was a job, a donation, favourable coverage, an introduction to someone influential. Might that person be expecting something in return?
These debts are rarely written down, which is exactly why they matter to a journalist. Look for patterns. Unusual appointments, contracts awarded without competitive tender, or public support for a cause that doesn’t obviously align with someone’s known interests.
Weaknesses hidden
This is not about exposing personal failings for their own sake. It’s about understanding where a person in power might be vulnerable to pressure, blackmail, or manipulation by others. Such vulnerability can compromise their judgement or independence.
The public interest test matters enormously here: does this weakness affect their ability to do their job honestly? If not, it’s likely to be none of your business.
Deleted history
Old social media posts, deleted articles, archived press releases, and previous versions of a company website or policy document can all disappear quietly when someone enters public life or a scandal looms.
Tools like the Wayback Machine, saved search results, and archived local news coverage can recover what’s been removed. If something has been deliberately deleted, ask why. But make sure you are ready to show the results of your investigations when you report the discrepancy. Be sure to keep detailed records to support your case.
What holding power to account is not
Holding power to account is not the same as hostility. A journalist who treats every powerful figure as guilty until proven innocent is not doing their job properly.
It’s also not the same as intrusion. Digging into someone’s personal life is only justified when it bears directly on their fitness to hold power or discharge a public duty. Curiosity is not a public interest test. Relevance is.
And it’s not the same as certainty. Following the money, checking vested interests, or tracing a deleted history often leads nowhere. That is a legitimate outcome, not a wasted effort. The absence of a story is still part of the due diligence required for holding the powerful to account.
The question to keep asking is the same one that applies to accountability in your own reporting: can I defend why I am investigating this person, and can I show that my reasoning stands up to scrutiny? If the answer is yes, you are doing your job. If it is not, you are not holding power to account, you are abusing the position journalism gives you.
▸ Takeaway
Curiosity is not a public interest test. Relevance is. A journalist’s job is to ask why something matters to the public, not just why it’s interesting to them.
Questions to put to the powerful
Once you’ve done the background work, these are the kinds of questions that put a decision-maker on the record and test whether their answers hold up:
- Money: Who funded this decision, this campaign, or this position, and will you publish the figures?
- Advice: Who did you consult before making this decision, and whose advice did you reject?
- Interest: What is your personal or financial interest in the outcome of this decision?
- Benefits: Who benefits most from what you’ve just announced, and did they ask you for it?
- Focus: You said X in [year] and are now doing Y. What changed?
- Transparency: Why was this contract, appointment, or approval not put out to open competition?
- Relationships: Who introduced you to [person/organisation], and what is the nature of your relationship with them?
- Avoidance: You’ve previously declined to answer this question. Why should the public accept that today?
- Accountability: If this decision turns out to be wrong, who will be accountable for it, and how?
- Disclosure: What information have you chosen not to disclose, and on what basis?
None of these questions prove guilt. They are asking the powerful person you are interviewing what the public needs to know. The questions are all part of asking them to be accountable for their actions.
Not every question will get a straight answer, and some won’t get answered at all. A refusal to respond, a deflection, or a non-answer dressed up as one is itself informative. Note it, report it precisely, and let your audience draw their own conclusions rather than drawing a conclusion for them.
Asking the questions the audience can’t
Holding power to account is not about assuming the worst of everyone in authority. It’s about being willing to ask the questions others can’t, or dare not, ask. And it’s about having the evidence to back up what you publish when you do.
Most importantly, always refer up. Whether you are dealing with sensitive matters and delicate decisions in your own work, or scrutinising others, always ensure that your line manager and those who control editorial policy for your news organisation are aware of what you are doing.
Summing up
Here are some of the main points set out in the article:
- A gap between someone’s declared income and their lifestyle is a question worth asking, not proof of wrongdoing.
- An undeclared financial or personal stake in a decision is fair game for scrutiny.
- A documented pattern in someone’s past is legitimate grounds for scrutiny, but past association alone is not evidence of present guilt.
- The test isn’t who someone knows, it’s whether that relationship affects a specific decision or duty they hold.
- Favours are rarely written down, so look for patterns instead: unusual appointments, uncontested contracts, or support that doesn’t match someone’s known interests.
- The question is not whether someone has a weakness, but whether it compromises their ability to do their job honestly.
- If something has been quietly removed, ask why, and keep detailed records to show how you found it.
- Curiosity is not a public interest test; relevance is.
- A refusal to answer, a deflection, or a non-answer is itself informative, so report it precisely and let the audience draw their own conclusions.
- Whatever you’re investigating, keep your line manager and editorial leadership informed of what you’re doing and why.
▸ Takeaway
Holding power to account is not the same as assuming the worst. The goal is scrutiny, not suspicion. The distinction is what separates journalism from campaigning.
