September 16, 2025 • 30 mins
Discover the full story behind Princess Diana’s explosive 1995 Panorama interview that changed the Royal Family forever. This episode examines the shocking revelations Diana made about her marriage and life inside the monarchy, the secretive methods journalist Martin Bashir used to secure the interview, and the controversy and investigations that followed. We break down why this historic BBC broadcast remains one of the most talked-about interviews of all time and how it shaped public opinion of the British monarchy for decades.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-infographics-show-podcast--6317257/support.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-infographics-show-podcast--6317257/support.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:10):
Welcome everyone to beyond infographics. You know, sometimes there's a moment,
maybe just a single broadcast, that completely shatters your expectations.
It doesn't just report the news, it sort of reveals
hidden truths, peeling back layers on institutions you thought were
totally impenetrable. We're talking about those big cultural events that
just echo down the years, right, They make you question everything,
(00:33):
not just what you know, but how you know it,
and maybe even the integrity of the information itself. Today
we're taking a really close look at one of those moments,
the huge nineteen ninety five Princess Diana Panorama interview. Now
this wasn't just a massive global event where a royal
figure opened up about her struggles. It actually became this
pivotal point for a much bigger and often pretty uncomfortable
(00:56):
conversation about journalistic ethics.
Speaker 2 (00:58):
Absolutely, and it's a conversation that, well, it's still going
on decades later, with really profound implications.
Speaker 1 (01:03):
As we've seen exactly so here on beyond infographics. That's
our mission, isn't it, to go beyond the headlines, peel
back those layers and find the real, sometimes quite unsettling
insights hidden in these complex stories. This particular session isn't
just you know, a trip down memory lane into royal history.
It's a really rigorous look at how information shapes our world,
(01:24):
the massive responsibility of news providers, and the power of
a story, even.
Speaker 2 (01:28):
The story that, as we'll get into, was kind of
tainted by controversy and well outright deceit.
Speaker 1 (01:33):
Right, It's about understanding that relentless search for truth and journalism,
the good, the bad, and definitely the ugly parts too. Okay,
so let's really set the scene, can we picture it?
November nineteen ninety five. There's a huge buzz. It's Monday,
November twentieth, nine pm in the UK and pretty much
everyone is tuning into BBC one's main investigative show Panorama.
The title sounds quite well simple, an interview with HRH
(01:57):
the Princess of Wales sounds almost formal, respectful, deceptively so right,
But what actually happened in that hour, filmed secretly inside
Kensington Palace and then broadcast to millions, it was anything
but simple. It was designed to cause a shock and wow,
it definitely did.
Speaker 2 (02:15):
It really did, and the sheer scale of it is
what makes it so significant. We're not just talking to
popular TV show. This literally brought the UK to a halt.
We were looking at figures like nearly twenty three million
viewers in the UK alone. That's one of the biggest
audiences ever in British TV history.
Speaker 1 (02:30):
Twenty three million.
Speaker 2 (02:32):
Yeah, and globally the estimate we've seen is around two
hundred million people across something like one hundred countries. It
was huge. Wow. And here's a fascinating little detail. The
national grid in the UK they reported this massive one
thousand megawatt surgeon power demand right after it finished.
Speaker 1 (02:48):
No way, just from people putting the kettle.
Speaker 2 (02:50):
On exactly kettles, lights, phones, everyone reacting at once, needing
to talk about what they had just seen. It was
this collective like national gasp.
Speaker 1 (02:58):
That's incredible, a tangible totally.
Speaker 2 (03:01):
And the BBC at the time they called it the
scoop of a generation. Yeah, and you could see why.
The impacts was just immediate and visceral. It really showed
the power of TV back then and well Diana's unique influence.
Speaker 1 (03:13):
That power surge detail is amazing. It really paints a picture. Okay,
so let's unpack this. What did she actually say that
was so groundbreaking, so revolutionary, especially coming from a royal.
What were the big moments everyone was talking about?
Speaker 2 (03:27):
Well, it was the sheer candor, wasn't it. Royal interviews
were normally so careful, so vetted. This was raw. One
of the really poignant things she talked about was her
early hopes for the marriage. She said she desperately wanted.
Speaker 1 (03:41):
It to work right, especially because of her parents' divorce.
Speaker 2 (03:43):
She mentioned that exactly that context made it so much
more heartbreaking. It showed this deep personal yearning for stability,
which contrasted so starkly with how things turned out. It
made her feel very human. And she also talked about
feeling like a commodity, like a good product that sits
on the shelf and people make a lot of money
out of you.
Speaker 1 (04:03):
Wow. That's a harsh way to put.
Speaker 2 (04:05):
It, isn't it. But it captured that feeling of being
constantly watched, constantly used by the media, losing her own
agency just reduced to this object of fascination. It's a
glimpse into that immense pressure.
Speaker 1 (04:19):
Yeah, unimaginable pressure.
Speaker 2 (04:20):
But it wasn't all negative. She spoke about a turning
point after that big trip to Australia, New Zealand back
in eighty three.
Speaker 1 (04:26):
Oh yeah, that was a huge success, wasn't it massive?
Speaker 2 (04:29):
She says. She came back a different person, realizing her
sense of duty, and crucially, she felt this affinity with
people who'd been rejected by society.
Speaker 1 (04:39):
That's interesting, So a shift towards that more compassionate role
she became known for.
Speaker 2 (04:42):
Previsely, it wasn't just about being a princess anymore. It
was about using her platform differently, finding her own purpose.
Speaker 1 (04:49):
Okay, And then then came the big one, the line
everyone remembers.
Speaker 2 (04:52):
Ah, yes, the affair. She addressed her husband's relationship with
Camilla Parker Bowles head on. No more hands, no more rumors.
She just came out and said it. There were three
of us in this marriage, so it was a bit crowded.
Speaker 1 (05:04):
Boom, just like that. That must have sent shockwaves.
Speaker 2 (05:08):
Oh absolutely, It blew the lid off years of speculation.
It changed everything about how people saw the marriage, the monarchy.
Even that quote became iconic, instantly, devastatingly simple.
Speaker 1 (05:20):
And she didn't stop there, did she. She talked about
her own struggles too, right.
Speaker 2 (05:24):
She mentioned postnatal depression after William was born and her bolimia,
which again for a royal in the mid nineties, that
was incredibly brave. Mental health wasn't discussed so openly.
Speaker 1 (05:35):
Then, No, definitely not. That must have resonated with a
lot of people. Made her seem less remote hugely.
Speaker 2 (05:41):
It created this connection. People saw her not just as
royalty but as someone facing real difficult personal battles. It
broke down barriers.
Speaker 1 (05:50):
Her words were just so powerful, weren't they shaking things
up inside the palace and with the public. But it
wasn't just about the past. Was it her ideas about
the future, her future, the monarchy's future that felt almost
as revolutionary. So that's where it gets really interesting for me.
What was her take on her own role and where
the whole institution was heading.
Speaker 2 (06:09):
Yeah, that's a key part of it. She was very
clear she didn't think she'd ever be queen. She called
herself a non starter for the establishment.
Speaker 1 (06:17):
Why did she think that.
Speaker 2 (06:18):
Because, in her words, I do things differently and maybe
more tellingly, because I lead from the heart not the head,
which you could read is a bit of a critique
of the more traditional royal way.
Speaker 1 (06:30):
Definitely sounds like it so not Queen of the country.
Speaker 2 (06:33):
No, but she said she wanted to be a queen
of people's hearts, in people's hearts, that was her aspiration.
Speaker 1 (06:40):
That's quite a phrase. Redefining royalty almost more about connection
than constitution.
Speaker 2 (06:45):
Exactly, shifting it towards empathy, accessibility, a more modern feel.
Speaker 1 (06:50):
And she had ideas for the monarchy itself. Didn't she
how it could change?
Speaker 2 (06:54):
She did. She suggested it could walk hand in hand
with the public instead of being so distant.
Speaker 1 (07:00):
And she practiced what she preached there, didn't she taking
the boys to see homeless projects, meeting AIDS patients, right, She.
Speaker 2 (07:06):
Highlighted those things. They weren't just photo ops for her.
They were deliberate acts, showing her kids real life, showing
a different kind of royal engagement, more hands on, less formal,
redefining the job.
Speaker 1 (07:19):
Really and what about Charles becoming king? Did she talk
about that?
Speaker 2 (07:23):
She did, and it was well complicated. She suggested the
top job, as she put it, would bring enormous limitations
for him. She questioned if he could really adapt.
Speaker 1 (07:35):
Wow, questioning the air suitability.
Speaker 2 (07:38):
That's bold, incredibly bold. She even said there was always
conflict on that subject with him. When we discussed it
giving this rare glimpse into their private disagreements about the
future of the ground.
Speaker 1 (07:47):
That's just astonishing really coming from inside the family. The audacity,
Like you said before, it's quite something thinking about her
insights now, especially about the monarchy's future, it feels quite
prescient in some way.
Speaker 2 (07:59):
It really does, very forward thinking for the time. So
what do you find most striking about that? Looking back?
That willingness to question it all?
Speaker 1 (08:06):
Absolutely, the critique, the vision for change, it was unprecedented.
Speaker 2 (08:11):
Okay, So with all these bombshells landing, what did it
all mean for the royal family right then? How did
this raw outpouring actually hit them inside the palace and
how did the public react?
Speaker 1 (08:23):
Well, the reaction inside the palace was pretty explosive, immediate
and severe. We've learned that the Queen Mother, who was
very much a traditionalist, apparently brought forward hip surgery. Really
why the thinking was apparently that if she happened to
pass away during recovery she was ninety five, it would
dominate the news and push Diana's interview off the front pages.
(08:44):
Shows the lengths they'd.
Speaker 2 (08:45):
Consider goodness, that's quite something.
Speaker 1 (08:48):
And ironically some quite derogatory things Diana supposedly said about
the Queen Mother were actually cut from the final broadcast.
There was some editing going.
Speaker 2 (08:55):
On, interesting, and the Queen herself.
Speaker 1 (08:57):
Furious, reportedly absolutely furious about the inn direct criticisms of
the institution. She apparently even complained directly to a top
BBC executive. It was seen as a massive breach.
Speaker 2 (09:06):
Of trust, understandable from their perspective. And the public, how
did they take it? Oh? The public reaction was huge,
described as sensational, but it was really divided, very polarized.
Oh so well, many people saw Diana as incredibly brave,
her honesty or vulnerability it won her enormous sympathy. They
saw her as standing up to a stuffy institution speaking
(09:29):
her truth, a real champion for some right. But then
there was another large group who felt she did the
wrong thing, very protective of the monarchy, you see. They
saw her actions as disloyal, damaging, maybe even undignified. They
might have viewed her as a kind of royal pariah
and anti establishment figure breaking all the rules.
Speaker 1 (09:49):
So a real split in opinion. Was it seen as
more shocking than say, the Andrew Morton book that had
come out earlier.
Speaker 2 (09:55):
That's an interesting comparison. Some felt the Morton book, which
first revealed a lot of the troubles, had a bigger
initial shock, but many others felt the Panorama interview was
absolutely massive, precisely because it was her her own voice,
her face on TV saying these things directly to millions.
Speaker 1 (10:11):
Yeah, that makes a difference seeing and hearing it herself, definitely.
Speaker 2 (10:15):
People often compare its impact to the Harry and Megan
Oprah interview more recently, but many who remember ninety five
say Diana's was that but multiplied by a thousand times,
especially because it was before social media, before the twenty
four to seven news cycle really kicked in. It dominated
conversation globally in a way that's hard to imagine now.
Speaker 1 (10:34):
It really was a moment in time. You know, we'd
love to hear what you listeners think. What royal interview
or revelation sticks in your mind is having the biggest impact.
Let us know. And Hey, if you're finding this exploration
of history and ethics interesting, please do consider giving Beyond
Infographics a five star rating. It genuinely helps us bring
more stories like this to you. It's just such a
compelling story, isn't it, Diana's words, the public split, the
(10:56):
palace reaction, It's got everything. But just when you think
the dramas are over, years later, this other shoe drops
a really shocking truth about how that famous scoop of
a generation was actually obtained. Suddenly, the whole thing, the candor,
the revelations, it all gets cast in this much darker light,
an ethical breach that would end up shaking the BBC
to its core.
Speaker 2 (11:15):
You're absolutely right. The whole narrative shifted dramatically when the
results of that independent inquiry came out in twenty twenty,
Lord Dyson's.
Speaker 1 (11:23):
Report, Right, the Dyson Report. What did it find?
Speaker 2 (11:26):
Well, it was pretty damning. It found unequivocally that the
journalist Martin Basher used deceitful behavior to get the interview,
and worse, that he'd broken fundamental BBC guidelines in the process,
a serious ethical violation.
Speaker 1 (11:40):
Deceitful. How exactly what did he do?
Speaker 2 (11:43):
The main thing was he commissioned and used forged bank statements.
Speaker 1 (11:47):
Forged like fake documents.
Speaker 2 (11:50):
Exactly, fake bank statements designed to look like people close
to Diana were being paid off, supposedly by security services
or others, for spying on her.
Speaker 1 (11:58):
Wow, who were these peoples?
Speaker 2 (12:00):
Alan Waller who worked for Diana's brother, Earl Spencer, Patrick Jeffson,
her former private secretary, so when she trusted, and even
Richard Ailard who used to work for Prince Charles.
Speaker 1 (12:10):
So he used these fakes to convince her she was
being spied on, to make him paranoid.
Speaker 2 (12:15):
Precisely he showed them to Earl Spencer first, Diana's brother
used them to build this false sense of trust, to
spin these elaborate paranoid tales that played right into her
existing anxieties. That's how Spencer introduced him to Diana. The
documents were the key to unlocking that introduction and convincing
her to talk. It was pure manipulation.
Speaker 1 (12:35):
That's deeply unethical, predatory almost.
Speaker 2 (12:39):
It certainly looks that way. Yeah, But with just as troubling,
maybe even more so for the BBC's reputation, is how
the institution handled it back then. Ah.
Speaker 1 (12:48):
Yes, there was an earlier investigation, wasn't there?
Speaker 2 (12:50):
In ninety six, there was an internal one led by
Tony Hall, who ironically later became the Director General of
the BBC, and that inquiry cleared Pasheer completely.
Speaker 1 (12:59):
Clear to despite the forgery claims, yes.
Speaker 2 (13:02):
But the Dyson report found that the BBC had basically
papered over it. They'd sought to evade scrutiny, they didn't
investigate properly so well. For one thing, the graphic designer
Matt Weisler, the guy who actually made the fake documents
at Basher's request, he felt totally scapegoated, lost work, felt
like he took the fall while Bisher got promoted. And incredibly,
that nineteen ninety six internal BBC inquiry they never even
(13:25):
interviewed Weisler.
Speaker 1 (13:26):
They didn't talk to the guy who made the forgeries.
Speaker 2 (13:28):
Nope, Which just screams lack of thoroughness, doesn't it. It
points to a serious failure of internal accountability, letting this
massive ethical breach just fester for decades.
Speaker 1 (13:39):
That failure, that internal cover up, it feels almost as
bad as the initial deception. It just destroys trust. And
the impact of all this it must have been profound,
not just on Diana, who was already vulnerable, but on
her family and on public trust in the media, especially
the BBC.
Speaker 2 (13:55):
Oh Absolutely, the personal impact was huge, and you really
heard that in the reactions from her. William and Harry,
their statements were incredibly powerful.
Speaker 1 (14:03):
What did they say?
Speaker 2 (14:03):
Prince William launched this really scathing attack on the BBC.
He said his mother was failed not just by a
rogue reporter, but by leaders at the BBC. He directly
linked Bashir's deceit to the fear, paranoia and isolation she
felt in her final years, basically saying the BBC made
her suffering worse.
Speaker 1 (14:22):
That's a heavy charge, huge.
Speaker 2 (14:24):
And Prince Harry echoed it, but broadened it out. He
praised his mother's courage, but then connected the culture of
exploitation and unethical practices that led to the interview directly
to her death.
Speaker 1 (14:34):
Wow, he linked it to her death, He did.
Speaker 2 (14:37):
And he argued those practices are still widespread today, saying
nothing has changed, pointing to a systemic problem in the media,
not just this one incident. A really strong condemnation.
Speaker 1 (14:47):
So powerful hearing it from them and the BBC's How
did they respond once the Dyson report came out?
Speaker 2 (14:53):
Well, eventually they took significant steps, a full unreserved apology
for Bashir's conduct and the cover up. They paid substance
damages to Patrick Jeffson and also to Tiggy Legberk. The
former nanny who Bashir had also made false allegations about.
Speaker 1 (15:06):
Okay, apologies and compensation anything else.
Speaker 2 (15:09):
Yes. Significantly, they announced they would never screen the Panorama
interview again ever, and they urged other broadcasters not to either,
effectively trying to erase it from the record. That's a
big move, it is y And later they donated all
the money they'd made from selling the interview rights about
one point four million, to seven charities linked to Diana,
(15:29):
a gesture of redress, I suppose, but it came very late,
it certainly did.
Speaker 1 (15:34):
It just raises such big questions, doesn't it. When you
have a breach of trust, this massive, involving someone so
iconic and an institution like the BBC, how does that
affect how people see journalism overall, especially when top figures
were involved in covering it up.
Speaker 2 (15:49):
That really is the core issue, isn't it. Public trust
is everything, especially for a public broadcaster, and this whole
sorry saga becomes this really stark, uncomfortable lesson in journalistic ethics.
When you see how badly Bisher strayed, it highlights the
principles that should have guided.
Speaker 1 (16:04):
Him right and our own explorations into ethical frameworks show
that really it boils down to basics objectivity, balance, accuracy,
and always always acting in the public interest exactly.
Speaker 2 (16:15):
And it underscores the huge responsibility that comes with the
power of the word. It's not just about getting the story,
it's about how you get it and the impact it has.
The integrity the whole process matters.
Speaker 1 (16:26):
So let's dig into some of those key ethical ideas,
especially seeing them contrasted so sharply with what Bisher did.
First off, the purpose of journalism itself right, It's not.
Speaker 2 (16:35):
About seeking power or fame or even just getting the scoop.
It's fundamentally about serving the public's right to know. It
means being rigorous about accuracy, avoiding even unintentional errors because
they can be fatal to credibility. And it absolutely means
never using deceit. The power is in the word used truthfully.
Speaker 1 (16:55):
And then there's self regulation.
Speaker 2 (16:57):
How does that fit in It's crucial. The idea is
that the profession itself establishes and appholls ethical standards accuracy, fairness, privacy, responsibility,
while protecting editorial freedom. Things like press counsels, Omnisman Codes
of ethics. They provide ways for the public to complain
for errors to be corrected, for journalists to be held
accountable by their peers, not just.
Speaker 1 (17:17):
The state, like IPSO in the UK or similar bodies elsewhere.
Speaker 2 (17:21):
Exactly, They foster dialogue, build trust, and insure accountability from within.
It helps maintain credibility.
Speaker 1 (17:28):
Okay, and transparency that seems like a big one missing
in the Basher case hugely.
Speaker 2 (17:33):
Ethical codes like the Motfenegron code, for example, really stress
using open methods of gathering information, being clear you're a journalist,
not hiding behind deception. The public needs to trust how
the information was obtained. Basher's methods were the exact opposite
of that.
Speaker 1 (17:49):
And finally, trust in sources. That relationship seems so fundamental.
Speaker 2 (17:53):
It is you have to build trust with sources professionally
through honesty and integrity and protect them. It takes years
to build that reputation where people know you won't betray them,
even if you have to report difficult troops. Basher completely
destroyed that trust with Diana and her brother thir Lies.
It undermines the whole basis of good journalism.
Speaker 1 (18:11):
Okay, So if Martin Bashcheer's actions were such a clear violation,
such a damaging breach of ethics. What does good investigative
journalism actually look like? What's the standard we should be
looking for? The kind of work that genuinely serves the
public and upholds those principles we just talked about.
Speaker 2 (18:28):
That's a great question. We need to move from the
cautionary tale to the well, the potential, the positive side
of this work. I really like a definition from Robert Green,
a Pulitzer winning investigative journalist. He said, it's the gathering
of information that would remain secret if it were not
for the journalists.
Speaker 1 (18:46):
I like that. It's not just reporting, it's uncovering, digging
for what's hidden, exactly.
Speaker 2 (18:50):
What someone, often someone powerful, wants to keep hidden, and
its purpose is vital for democracy. It's about revealing corruption,
exposing illegal acts, highlighting a uses.
Speaker 1 (19:00):
Of power, correcting injustice too, perhaps.
Speaker 2 (19:02):
Yes, absolutely correcting injustice where other systems might have failed,
and explaining really complex problems that affect society. It's about
informing the public based on solid gathered facts and analyzes,
not just chasing headlines or entertaining people.
Speaker 1 (19:15):
So it requires a different mindset.
Speaker 2 (19:17):
Totally a different way of thinking than daily news. Setting
high goals, being skeptical, really diving deep into the why
behind things, not just the white I've often thought it's
like solving a really intricate, high stakes puzzle. Every piece
needs meticulous checking and placing to see the full picture.
Speaker 1 (19:36):
That puzzle analogy works well. It sounds incredibly dedicated, but
also really difficult. It can't be straightforward, can it. There
must be huge pressures and challenges, ethical rogue blocks, even
for the best journalists.
Speaker 2 (19:48):
Oh. Absolutely, it's far from easy. There are significant hurdles. First,
just the practicalities, time and money.
Speaker 1 (19:54):
Right, These things don't happen overnight, not at all.
Speaker 2 (19:57):
Investigations can take several months, even years. They need serious
resources for travel, data analysis, legal advice, just freeing up
reporters time. That's tough in today's newsrooms with budget pressures.
Speaker 1 (20:09):
And even if you do the work, does it always
have an impact.
Speaker 2 (20:12):
That's another huge challenge. Its effectiveness often depends on public reaction.
Many journalists say their biggest frustration is when no one
is reacting to the discoveries. You can expose something huge,
but if the public doesn't demand change, or if authorities
ignore it, it feels.
Speaker 1 (20:32):
Well futile, like shouting into the wind.
Speaker 2 (20:34):
Pretty much. Then there's just getting the information in the
first place. Access varies hugely how so well, in places
like Norway with strong transparency laws, you might get company
ownership details or even politicians tax info really quickly. But
in other places, maybe like Serbia or parts of the Balkans,
even with official bodies meant to help, it could be
(20:54):
a real struggle bureaucracy resistance. It takes incredible persistence.
Speaker 1 (20:59):
Okay, Ethically, what about dealing with the people you're investigating?
When do you confront them?
Speaker 2 (21:03):
Ah at the confrontation interview, that's a big ethical debate.
Do you go early Their response might guide you, but
it also risks them shutting down, destroying evidence or attacking you.
Speaker 1 (21:13):
Or do you wait until the very end.
Speaker 2 (21:14):
Right, go late, when you have all your ducks in
a row to minimize interference. Some even argue if the
evidence is totally overwhelming, maybe you don't need to confront
them directly before publishing, though that's very controversial.
Speaker 1 (21:26):
Regarding fairness, tricky, balance and safety. That must be a
constant worry.
Speaker 2 (21:32):
It really is. Investigative journalists annoy powerful people, sometimes criminal organizations.
The threats are real digital spying, physical threats, harassment of family,
psychological pressure, bribery, attempts. It's terrifying, it can be. There's
a grim kind of rule some follow publish the dangerous
information as soon as possible. The idea is once it's
(21:53):
out there, attacking the journalist becomes riskier because the motive
is obvious, A strange sort of protection. Maybe.
Speaker 1 (22:00):
Wow, that really drives home the risks. But sometimes even
with good intentions maybe or just through sloppiness, things go
wrong ethically, don't they even without the kind of outright
deception Basher used.
Speaker 2 (22:10):
Unfortunately, Yes, we see lines blurred. Ethical lapses happen. One
area is what gets called tabloid journalism, which can sometimes
turn into a tabloid lynching.
Speaker 1 (22:20):
What do you mean by that?
Speaker 2 (22:21):
It's when media run these sensational campaigns, often based on
anonymous leaks, maybe from state officials with an agenda. It
completely violates professional rules, invades privacy, and essentially tries and
convicts people in the media before any proper process.
Speaker 1 (22:36):
Like prejudging someone based.
Speaker 2 (22:38):
On leaks exactly. We've seen examples like in Serbia, where
confidential personal data, really private stuff was systematically leaked from
authorities to certain tabloids. It creates this dangerous blurting of
lines between investigation and smear campaigns. It erodes trust in
both the media and the state.
Speaker 1 (22:57):
That sounds incredibly damaging. What other pitfalls are there?
Speaker 2 (23:00):
The other major one is simply failing to check your
sources properly, using fake.
Speaker 1 (23:03):
Experts, fake experts. How does that happen?
Speaker 2 (23:06):
Well, we found this case in the Balkans involving a
guy let's call him DJ. He was all over the media,
TV appearances, conferences, always introduced as the executive director of
the European Economic Institute in Brussels. Sounded very official, EU funded,
he claimed. But then a diligent independent publication, Novy magazine
did some digging. Turned out the institute didn't exist, it
(23:30):
was completely made up.
Speaker 1 (23:32):
No way, and media outlets were quoting him as an expert.
Speaker 2 (23:35):
Frequently without checking. It just shows how vital that basic
principle is, checking, checking, and more, checking every source, every claim.
Otherwise you're just spreading misinformation and destroying your own credibility.
Speaking of checking, please do check out Beyond Infographics on
your podcast platform and give us that five star rating.
If you're finding this valuable, it really helps us keep
(23:55):
doing these deep dives.
Speaker 1 (23:56):
Those examples are quite chilling, showing how easily things can
go wrong. But despite all these challenges, the risks, the
potential pitfalls, investigative journalism done right is still so crucial,
isn't it. Can you share some examples where it really
made a difference, where it didn't just reveal something, but
actually led to change, maybe even delivered justice.
Speaker 2 (24:15):
Oh, definitely, when it's done with integrity and persistence, the
impact can be immense. It really can act as that
vital watchdog. For instance, we looked at a case uncovering
systemic loopholes. A journalist in Croatia investigating money laundering stumbled
upon something huge. Oh was that they found a law
related to financial crime that had been active for four
(24:37):
years but had no sanctions, no penalties for offenders written
into it.
Speaker 1 (24:41):
Seriously, a law with no punishment exactly.
Speaker 2 (24:44):
It effectively legalized massive corruption by providing no way to
prosecute it. The journalist's work exposed this gaping systemic loophole,
forcing politicians to actually fix the law. It wasn't just
about one crime, it was about fixing the system that
allowed it.
Speaker 1 (24:59):
Incredible what else.
Speaker 2 (25:00):
There's also holding power directly accountable moving from individual to general.
We saw a great example again in Croatia with an
assistant minister of finance.
Speaker 1 (25:08):
What happened there?
Speaker 2 (25:09):
Persistent reporting uncovered a clear conflict of interest. He had
a private company doing business with the state, and his
company got this dodgy loan from a state bank using
falsified documents. Then it turned out his wife was also
unofficial involved in related dealings. No whole network seemed like it.
The sustained reporting, digging deeper from the initial story revealed
(25:31):
this pattern, and the pressure eventually forced both the assistant
minister and the actual Minister of finance to resign. It
shows how focused journalism can expose wider corruption and demand
accountability right at the top.
Speaker 1 (25:44):
That's powerful stuff.
Speaker 2 (25:45):
Then there's exposing things like human trafficking, which often operates
in the shadows. The Showdown at Arizona Market project, for.
Speaker 1 (25:52):
Instance, what did that uncover?
Speaker 2 (25:53):
It looked at this post war market in Bosnia and
Herzegovina that had become this smuggling haven, including trafficking women
forced into prostitution. The investigation even found plans for casinos
and nightclubs hidden within reconstruction proposals, pointing to corruption. Facilitating
it all just awful, and related stories about women brought
(26:13):
from Eastern Europe as dancers on work permits but then
forced into prostitution. Investigations revealed this was only possible because
of corruption and state institutions, even consulates issuing visas systemic
failures enabling exploitation.
Speaker 1 (26:29):
It shines a light where authorities maybe aren't looking or
don't want to.
Speaker 2 (26:32):
Look precisely, and sometimes journalism can directly lead to justice.
There was this harrowing case of a convicted child abuser
from Croatia. He'd been convicted, but because no international arrest
warrant was issued, a massive systemic failure, likely due to
corruption or negligence, he was operating freely elsewhere.
Speaker 1 (26:51):
Oh my god.
Speaker 2 (26:52):
It was journalistic work, relentless digging and pressure that finally
forced the authorities to act, leading to his eventual conviction.
Journalists essentially initiated the investigation where the justice system had failed.
Speaker 1 (27:03):
That's amazing journalists stepping in where the system breaks down
it happens.
Speaker 2 (27:07):
There's even this bold learn from own experience method. One
journalist deliberately got arrested over an unpaid speeding ticket.
Speaker 1 (27:14):
Why would they do that to expose.
Speaker 2 (27:16):
Corruption and rights violations in how minor offenses were handled.
They spent four days in prison documenting everything poor conditions,
denial of rights, legal violations by judges guards. It showed
how systemic errors, not just individual bribes, create this chain
of corruption affecting ordinary people. Wow. That takes guts, It
(27:38):
certainly does. And finally, the power of international collaboration is
huge now.
Speaker 1 (27:44):
Like journalists working together across borders exactly.
Speaker 2 (27:47):
Projects like the In the Name of the State trilogy,
which looked at illegal arms dealing during the wars in
former Yugoslavia, Journalists from multiple countries collaborated to untangle these
complex corrupt.
Speaker 1 (27:58):
Networks and the big lead projects.
Speaker 2 (28:00):
Right like the Aushar Leaks project from the ICIJ, over
one hundred journalists in sixty countries digging through millions of
leak documents. Their combined work proved the massive abuse of
offshore companies for tax evasion and money laundering would have
been impossible without corruption, getting it all globally, exposing patterns
that no single journalist in one country can see alone.
Speaker 1 (28:20):
So what's the common thread in all these successful investigations.
Speaker 2 (28:24):
I think it comes back to that core principle, don't
write what you know, write what you can prove. Rigorous
dedication to facts, evidence, verification, that's the bedrock.
Speaker 1 (28:34):
But it's not always easy to publish even with proof.
Speaker 2 (28:37):
No, and that leads to that saying you sometimes hear
the best stories have never been published. It's a reminder
of the huge legal threats, financial risks, personal dangers, meaning
some crucial truths might remain hidden simply because the cost
of revealing them is too high.
Speaker 1 (28:53):
Wow, what an incredible journey we've been on today here
on beyond infographics. We started with those dramatic, real, the
emotional revelations from Princess Diana's Panorama interview, her personal truth
just laid bare for.
Speaker 2 (29:05):
Millions, Such a huge moment.
Speaker 1 (29:07):
But just as compelling. We ended up exploring the whole
ethical mindfield around how that scoop was obtained, and that
led us into this wider world of investigative journalism, often dangerous,
always difficult, but so essential.
Speaker 2 (29:19):
Yeah. And if you connect it all up, these stories,
both the flawed interview and the examples of great investigations,
they remind us that finding and telling the truth it's messy, yes,
often risky, but it's absolutely crucial for any healthy society.
Speaker 1 (29:35):
Whether it's a princess telling her story even in compromised circumstances,
or a journalists digging into hidden corruption.
Speaker 2 (29:42):
Exactly the value is in bringing light to what powerful
people might want to keep secret. It's about demanding transparency,
demanding accountability.
Speaker 1 (29:51):
Well, you've joined us on Beyond Infographics, where we try
to sift through all those details, look at the ethical complexities,
and find the real meaning. So the next time you
come across a big news story, maybe pause for a second,
think not just about what they're saying, but how did
they get that information? What unseen efforts or maybe missteps
lie behind that headline.
Speaker 2 (30:10):
And here's maybe a final thought to take away with you.
That phrase we mentioned the best investigations have never been published.
What does that really tell us about the truths we
don't get to hear, the injustices that stay hidden, the
corruption that carries on, And what responsibility does that put
on all of us as citizens, not just to seek
out and support good ethical reporting, but maybe to demand
(30:31):
the kind of transparency that allows those stories to be told.
Speaker 1 (30:35):
That's a powerful thought to end on. Thanks so much
for tuning in to Beyond infographics. If you found this
session insightful, please please do us a favor, leave us
a five star rating on your podcast app, and maybe
share it with someone else who appreciates the story with
a bit more depth. Until next time, keep asking those questions.
Welcome everyone to beyond infographics. You know, sometimes there's a moment,
maybe just a single broadcast, that completely shatters your expectations.
It doesn't just report the news, it sort of reveals
hidden truths, peeling back layers on institutions you thought were
totally impenetrable. We're talking about those big cultural events that
just echo down the years, right, They make you question everything,
(00:33):
not just what you know, but how you know it,
and maybe even the integrity of the information itself. Today
we're taking a really close look at one of those moments,
the huge nineteen ninety five Princess Diana Panorama interview. Now
this wasn't just a massive global event where a royal
figure opened up about her struggles. It actually became this
pivotal point for a much bigger and often pretty uncomfortable
(00:56):
conversation about journalistic ethics.
Speaker 2 (00:58):
Absolutely, and it's a conversation that, well, it's still going
on decades later, with really profound implications.
Speaker 1 (01:03):
As we've seen exactly so here on beyond infographics. That's
our mission, isn't it, to go beyond the headlines, peel
back those layers and find the real, sometimes quite unsettling
insights hidden in these complex stories. This particular session isn't
just you know, a trip down memory lane into royal history.
It's a really rigorous look at how information shapes our world,
(01:24):
the massive responsibility of news providers, and the power of
a story, even.
Speaker 2 (01:28):
The story that, as we'll get into, was kind of
tainted by controversy and well outright deceit.
Speaker 1 (01:33):
Right, It's about understanding that relentless search for truth and journalism,
the good, the bad, and definitely the ugly parts too. Okay,
so let's really set the scene, can we picture it?
November nineteen ninety five. There's a huge buzz. It's Monday,
November twentieth, nine pm in the UK and pretty much
everyone is tuning into BBC one's main investigative show Panorama.
The title sounds quite well simple, an interview with HRH
(01:57):
the Princess of Wales sounds almost formal, respectful, deceptively so right,
But what actually happened in that hour, filmed secretly inside
Kensington Palace and then broadcast to millions, it was anything
but simple. It was designed to cause a shock and wow,
it definitely did.
Speaker 2 (02:15):
It really did, and the sheer scale of it is
what makes it so significant. We're not just talking to
popular TV show. This literally brought the UK to a halt.
We were looking at figures like nearly twenty three million
viewers in the UK alone. That's one of the biggest
audiences ever in British TV history.
Speaker 1 (02:30):
Twenty three million.
Speaker 2 (02:32):
Yeah, and globally the estimate we've seen is around two
hundred million people across something like one hundred countries. It
was huge. Wow. And here's a fascinating little detail. The
national grid in the UK they reported this massive one
thousand megawatt surgeon power demand right after it finished.
Speaker 1 (02:48):
No way, just from people putting the kettle.
Speaker 2 (02:50):
On exactly kettles, lights, phones, everyone reacting at once, needing
to talk about what they had just seen. It was
this collective like national gasp.
Speaker 1 (02:58):
That's incredible, a tangible totally.
Speaker 2 (03:01):
And the BBC at the time they called it the
scoop of a generation. Yeah, and you could see why.
The impacts was just immediate and visceral. It really showed
the power of TV back then and well Diana's unique influence.
Speaker 1 (03:13):
That power surge detail is amazing. It really paints a picture. Okay,
so let's unpack this. What did she actually say that
was so groundbreaking, so revolutionary, especially coming from a royal.
What were the big moments everyone was talking about?
Speaker 2 (03:27):
Well, it was the sheer candor, wasn't it. Royal interviews
were normally so careful, so vetted. This was raw. One
of the really poignant things she talked about was her
early hopes for the marriage. She said she desperately wanted.
Speaker 1 (03:41):
It to work right, especially because of her parents' divorce.
Speaker 2 (03:43):
She mentioned that exactly that context made it so much
more heartbreaking. It showed this deep personal yearning for stability,
which contrasted so starkly with how things turned out. It
made her feel very human. And she also talked about
feeling like a commodity, like a good product that sits
on the shelf and people make a lot of money
out of you.
Speaker 1 (04:03):
Wow. That's a harsh way to put.
Speaker 2 (04:05):
It, isn't it. But it captured that feeling of being
constantly watched, constantly used by the media, losing her own
agency just reduced to this object of fascination. It's a
glimpse into that immense pressure.
Speaker 1 (04:19):
Yeah, unimaginable pressure.
Speaker 2 (04:20):
But it wasn't all negative. She spoke about a turning
point after that big trip to Australia, New Zealand back
in eighty three.
Speaker 1 (04:26):
Oh yeah, that was a huge success, wasn't it massive?
Speaker 2 (04:29):
She says. She came back a different person, realizing her
sense of duty, and crucially, she felt this affinity with
people who'd been rejected by society.
Speaker 1 (04:39):
That's interesting, So a shift towards that more compassionate role
she became known for.
Speaker 2 (04:42):
Previsely, it wasn't just about being a princess anymore. It
was about using her platform differently, finding her own purpose.
Speaker 1 (04:49):
Okay, And then then came the big one, the line
everyone remembers.
Speaker 2 (04:52):
Ah, yes, the affair. She addressed her husband's relationship with
Camilla Parker Bowles head on. No more hands, no more rumors.
She just came out and said it. There were three
of us in this marriage, so it was a bit crowded.
Speaker 1 (05:04):
Boom, just like that. That must have sent shockwaves.
Speaker 2 (05:08):
Oh absolutely, It blew the lid off years of speculation.
It changed everything about how people saw the marriage, the monarchy.
Even that quote became iconic, instantly, devastatingly simple.
Speaker 1 (05:20):
And she didn't stop there, did she. She talked about
her own struggles too, right.
Speaker 2 (05:24):
She mentioned postnatal depression after William was born and her bolimia,
which again for a royal in the mid nineties, that
was incredibly brave. Mental health wasn't discussed so openly.
Speaker 1 (05:35):
Then, No, definitely not. That must have resonated with a
lot of people. Made her seem less remote hugely.
Speaker 2 (05:41):
It created this connection. People saw her not just as
royalty but as someone facing real difficult personal battles. It
broke down barriers.
Speaker 1 (05:50):
Her words were just so powerful, weren't they shaking things
up inside the palace and with the public. But it
wasn't just about the past. Was it her ideas about
the future, her future, the monarchy's future that felt almost
as revolutionary. So that's where it gets really interesting for me.
What was her take on her own role and where
the whole institution was heading.
Speaker 2 (06:09):
Yeah, that's a key part of it. She was very
clear she didn't think she'd ever be queen. She called
herself a non starter for the establishment.
Speaker 1 (06:17):
Why did she think that.
Speaker 2 (06:18):
Because, in her words, I do things differently and maybe
more tellingly, because I lead from the heart not the head,
which you could read is a bit of a critique
of the more traditional royal way.
Speaker 1 (06:30):
Definitely sounds like it so not Queen of the country.
Speaker 2 (06:33):
No, but she said she wanted to be a queen
of people's hearts, in people's hearts, that was her aspiration.
Speaker 1 (06:40):
That's quite a phrase. Redefining royalty almost more about connection
than constitution.
Speaker 2 (06:45):
Exactly, shifting it towards empathy, accessibility, a more modern feel.
Speaker 1 (06:50):
And she had ideas for the monarchy itself. Didn't she
how it could change?
Speaker 2 (06:54):
She did. She suggested it could walk hand in hand
with the public instead of being so distant.
Speaker 1 (07:00):
And she practiced what she preached there, didn't she taking
the boys to see homeless projects, meeting AIDS patients, right, She.
Speaker 2 (07:06):
Highlighted those things. They weren't just photo ops for her.
They were deliberate acts, showing her kids real life, showing
a different kind of royal engagement, more hands on, less formal,
redefining the job.
Speaker 1 (07:19):
Really and what about Charles becoming king? Did she talk
about that?
Speaker 2 (07:23):
She did, and it was well complicated. She suggested the
top job, as she put it, would bring enormous limitations
for him. She questioned if he could really adapt.
Speaker 1 (07:35):
Wow, questioning the air suitability.
Speaker 2 (07:38):
That's bold, incredibly bold. She even said there was always
conflict on that subject with him. When we discussed it
giving this rare glimpse into their private disagreements about the
future of the ground.
Speaker 1 (07:47):
That's just astonishing really coming from inside the family. The audacity,
Like you said before, it's quite something thinking about her
insights now, especially about the monarchy's future, it feels quite
prescient in some way.
Speaker 2 (07:59):
It really does, very forward thinking for the time. So
what do you find most striking about that? Looking back?
That willingness to question it all?
Speaker 1 (08:06):
Absolutely, the critique, the vision for change, it was unprecedented.
Speaker 2 (08:11):
Okay, So with all these bombshells landing, what did it
all mean for the royal family right then? How did
this raw outpouring actually hit them inside the palace and
how did the public react?
Speaker 1 (08:23):
Well, the reaction inside the palace was pretty explosive, immediate
and severe. We've learned that the Queen Mother, who was
very much a traditionalist, apparently brought forward hip surgery. Really
why the thinking was apparently that if she happened to
pass away during recovery she was ninety five, it would
dominate the news and push Diana's interview off the front pages.
(08:44):
Shows the lengths they'd.
Speaker 2 (08:45):
Consider goodness, that's quite something.
Speaker 1 (08:48):
And ironically some quite derogatory things Diana supposedly said about
the Queen Mother were actually cut from the final broadcast.
There was some editing going.
Speaker 2 (08:55):
On, interesting, and the Queen herself.
Speaker 1 (08:57):
Furious, reportedly absolutely furious about the inn direct criticisms of
the institution. She apparently even complained directly to a top
BBC executive. It was seen as a massive breach.
Speaker 2 (09:06):
Of trust, understandable from their perspective. And the public, how
did they take it? Oh? The public reaction was huge,
described as sensational, but it was really divided, very polarized.
Oh so well, many people saw Diana as incredibly brave,
her honesty or vulnerability it won her enormous sympathy. They
saw her as standing up to a stuffy institution speaking
(09:29):
her truth, a real champion for some right. But then
there was another large group who felt she did the
wrong thing, very protective of the monarchy, you see. They
saw her actions as disloyal, damaging, maybe even undignified. They
might have viewed her as a kind of royal pariah
and anti establishment figure breaking all the rules.
Speaker 1 (09:49):
So a real split in opinion. Was it seen as
more shocking than say, the Andrew Morton book that had
come out earlier.
Speaker 2 (09:55):
That's an interesting comparison. Some felt the Morton book, which
first revealed a lot of the troubles, had a bigger
initial shock, but many others felt the Panorama interview was
absolutely massive, precisely because it was her her own voice,
her face on TV saying these things directly to millions.
Speaker 1 (10:11):
Yeah, that makes a difference seeing and hearing it herself, definitely.
Speaker 2 (10:15):
People often compare its impact to the Harry and Megan
Oprah interview more recently, but many who remember ninety five
say Diana's was that but multiplied by a thousand times,
especially because it was before social media, before the twenty
four to seven news cycle really kicked in. It dominated
conversation globally in a way that's hard to imagine now.
Speaker 1 (10:34):
It really was a moment in time. You know, we'd
love to hear what you listeners think. What royal interview
or revelation sticks in your mind is having the biggest impact.
Let us know. And Hey, if you're finding this exploration
of history and ethics interesting, please do consider giving Beyond
Infographics a five star rating. It genuinely helps us bring
more stories like this to you. It's just such a
compelling story, isn't it, Diana's words, the public split, the
(10:56):
palace reaction, It's got everything. But just when you think
the dramas are over, years later, this other shoe drops
a really shocking truth about how that famous scoop of
a generation was actually obtained. Suddenly, the whole thing, the candor,
the revelations, it all gets cast in this much darker light,
an ethical breach that would end up shaking the BBC
to its core.
Speaker 2 (11:15):
You're absolutely right. The whole narrative shifted dramatically when the
results of that independent inquiry came out in twenty twenty,
Lord Dyson's.
Speaker 1 (11:23):
Report, Right, the Dyson Report. What did it find?
Speaker 2 (11:26):
Well, it was pretty damning. It found unequivocally that the
journalist Martin Basher used deceitful behavior to get the interview,
and worse, that he'd broken fundamental BBC guidelines in the process,
a serious ethical violation.
Speaker 1 (11:40):
Deceitful. How exactly what did he do?
Speaker 2 (11:43):
The main thing was he commissioned and used forged bank statements.
Speaker 1 (11:47):
Forged like fake documents.
Speaker 2 (11:50):
Exactly, fake bank statements designed to look like people close
to Diana were being paid off, supposedly by security services
or others, for spying on her.
Speaker 1 (11:58):
Wow, who were these peoples?
Speaker 2 (12:00):
Alan Waller who worked for Diana's brother, Earl Spencer, Patrick Jeffson,
her former private secretary, so when she trusted, and even
Richard Ailard who used to work for Prince Charles.
Speaker 1 (12:10):
So he used these fakes to convince her she was
being spied on, to make him paranoid.
Speaker 2 (12:15):
Precisely he showed them to Earl Spencer first, Diana's brother
used them to build this false sense of trust, to
spin these elaborate paranoid tales that played right into her
existing anxieties. That's how Spencer introduced him to Diana. The
documents were the key to unlocking that introduction and convincing
her to talk. It was pure manipulation.
Speaker 1 (12:35):
That's deeply unethical, predatory almost.
Speaker 2 (12:39):
It certainly looks that way. Yeah, But with just as troubling,
maybe even more so for the BBC's reputation, is how
the institution handled it back then. Ah.
Speaker 1 (12:48):
Yes, there was an earlier investigation, wasn't there?
Speaker 2 (12:50):
In ninety six, there was an internal one led by
Tony Hall, who ironically later became the Director General of
the BBC, and that inquiry cleared Pasheer completely.
Speaker 1 (12:59):
Clear to despite the forgery claims, yes.
Speaker 2 (13:02):
But the Dyson report found that the BBC had basically
papered over it. They'd sought to evade scrutiny, they didn't
investigate properly so well. For one thing, the graphic designer
Matt Weisler, the guy who actually made the fake documents
at Basher's request, he felt totally scapegoated, lost work, felt
like he took the fall while Bisher got promoted. And incredibly,
that nineteen ninety six internal BBC inquiry they never even
(13:25):
interviewed Weisler.
Speaker 1 (13:26):
They didn't talk to the guy who made the forgeries.
Speaker 2 (13:28):
Nope, Which just screams lack of thoroughness, doesn't it. It
points to a serious failure of internal accountability, letting this
massive ethical breach just fester for decades.
Speaker 1 (13:39):
That failure, that internal cover up, it feels almost as
bad as the initial deception. It just destroys trust. And
the impact of all this it must have been profound,
not just on Diana, who was already vulnerable, but on
her family and on public trust in the media, especially
the BBC.
Speaker 2 (13:55):
Oh Absolutely, the personal impact was huge, and you really
heard that in the reactions from her. William and Harry,
their statements were incredibly powerful.
Speaker 1 (14:03):
What did they say?
Speaker 2 (14:03):
Prince William launched this really scathing attack on the BBC.
He said his mother was failed not just by a
rogue reporter, but by leaders at the BBC. He directly
linked Bashir's deceit to the fear, paranoia and isolation she
felt in her final years, basically saying the BBC made
her suffering worse.
Speaker 1 (14:22):
That's a heavy charge, huge.
Speaker 2 (14:24):
And Prince Harry echoed it, but broadened it out. He
praised his mother's courage, but then connected the culture of
exploitation and unethical practices that led to the interview directly
to her death.
Speaker 1 (14:34):
Wow, he linked it to her death, He did.
Speaker 2 (14:37):
And he argued those practices are still widespread today, saying
nothing has changed, pointing to a systemic problem in the media,
not just this one incident. A really strong condemnation.
Speaker 1 (14:47):
So powerful hearing it from them and the BBC's How
did they respond once the Dyson report came out?
Speaker 2 (14:53):
Well, eventually they took significant steps, a full unreserved apology
for Bashir's conduct and the cover up. They paid substance
damages to Patrick Jeffson and also to Tiggy Legberk. The
former nanny who Bashir had also made false allegations about.
Speaker 1 (15:06):
Okay, apologies and compensation anything else.
Speaker 2 (15:09):
Yes. Significantly, they announced they would never screen the Panorama
interview again ever, and they urged other broadcasters not to either,
effectively trying to erase it from the record. That's a
big move, it is y And later they donated all
the money they'd made from selling the interview rights about
one point four million, to seven charities linked to Diana,
(15:29):
a gesture of redress, I suppose, but it came very late,
it certainly did.
Speaker 1 (15:34):
It just raises such big questions, doesn't it. When you
have a breach of trust, this massive, involving someone so
iconic and an institution like the BBC, how does that
affect how people see journalism overall, especially when top figures
were involved in covering it up.
Speaker 2 (15:49):
That really is the core issue, isn't it. Public trust
is everything, especially for a public broadcaster, and this whole
sorry saga becomes this really stark, uncomfortable lesson in journalistic ethics.
When you see how badly Bisher strayed, it highlights the
principles that should have guided.
Speaker 1 (16:04):
Him right and our own explorations into ethical frameworks show
that really it boils down to basics objectivity, balance, accuracy,
and always always acting in the public interest exactly.
Speaker 2 (16:15):
And it underscores the huge responsibility that comes with the
power of the word. It's not just about getting the story,
it's about how you get it and the impact it has.
The integrity the whole process matters.
Speaker 1 (16:26):
So let's dig into some of those key ethical ideas,
especially seeing them contrasted so sharply with what Bisher did.
First off, the purpose of journalism itself right, It's not.
Speaker 2 (16:35):
About seeking power or fame or even just getting the scoop.
It's fundamentally about serving the public's right to know. It
means being rigorous about accuracy, avoiding even unintentional errors because
they can be fatal to credibility. And it absolutely means
never using deceit. The power is in the word used truthfully.
Speaker 1 (16:55):
And then there's self regulation.
Speaker 2 (16:57):
How does that fit in It's crucial. The idea is
that the profession itself establishes and appholls ethical standards accuracy, fairness, privacy, responsibility,
while protecting editorial freedom. Things like press counsels, Omnisman Codes
of ethics. They provide ways for the public to complain
for errors to be corrected, for journalists to be held
accountable by their peers, not just.
Speaker 1 (17:17):
The state, like IPSO in the UK or similar bodies elsewhere.
Speaker 2 (17:21):
Exactly, They foster dialogue, build trust, and insure accountability from within.
It helps maintain credibility.
Speaker 1 (17:28):
Okay, and transparency that seems like a big one missing
in the Basher case hugely.
Speaker 2 (17:33):
Ethical codes like the Motfenegron code, for example, really stress
using open methods of gathering information, being clear you're a journalist,
not hiding behind deception. The public needs to trust how
the information was obtained. Basher's methods were the exact opposite
of that.
Speaker 1 (17:49):
And finally, trust in sources. That relationship seems so fundamental.
Speaker 2 (17:53):
It is you have to build trust with sources professionally
through honesty and integrity and protect them. It takes years
to build that reputation where people know you won't betray them,
even if you have to report difficult troops. Basher completely
destroyed that trust with Diana and her brother thir Lies.
It undermines the whole basis of good journalism.
Speaker 1 (18:11):
Okay, So if Martin Bashcheer's actions were such a clear violation,
such a damaging breach of ethics. What does good investigative
journalism actually look like? What's the standard we should be
looking for? The kind of work that genuinely serves the
public and upholds those principles we just talked about.
Speaker 2 (18:28):
That's a great question. We need to move from the
cautionary tale to the well, the potential, the positive side
of this work. I really like a definition from Robert Green,
a Pulitzer winning investigative journalist. He said, it's the gathering
of information that would remain secret if it were not
for the journalists.
Speaker 1 (18:46):
I like that. It's not just reporting, it's uncovering, digging
for what's hidden, exactly.
Speaker 2 (18:50):
What someone, often someone powerful, wants to keep hidden, and
its purpose is vital for democracy. It's about revealing corruption,
exposing illegal acts, highlighting a uses.
Speaker 1 (19:00):
Of power, correcting injustice too, perhaps.
Speaker 2 (19:02):
Yes, absolutely correcting injustice where other systems might have failed,
and explaining really complex problems that affect society. It's about
informing the public based on solid gathered facts and analyzes,
not just chasing headlines or entertaining people.
Speaker 1 (19:15):
So it requires a different mindset.
Speaker 2 (19:17):
Totally a different way of thinking than daily news. Setting
high goals, being skeptical, really diving deep into the why
behind things, not just the white I've often thought it's
like solving a really intricate, high stakes puzzle. Every piece
needs meticulous checking and placing to see the full picture.
Speaker 1 (19:36):
That puzzle analogy works well. It sounds incredibly dedicated, but
also really difficult. It can't be straightforward, can it. There
must be huge pressures and challenges, ethical rogue blocks, even
for the best journalists.
Speaker 2 (19:48):
Oh. Absolutely, it's far from easy. There are significant hurdles. First,
just the practicalities, time and money.
Speaker 1 (19:54):
Right, These things don't happen overnight, not at all.
Speaker 2 (19:57):
Investigations can take several months, even years. They need serious
resources for travel, data analysis, legal advice, just freeing up
reporters time. That's tough in today's newsrooms with budget pressures.
Speaker 1 (20:09):
And even if you do the work, does it always
have an impact.
Speaker 2 (20:12):
That's another huge challenge. Its effectiveness often depends on public reaction.
Many journalists say their biggest frustration is when no one
is reacting to the discoveries. You can expose something huge,
but if the public doesn't demand change, or if authorities
ignore it, it feels.
Speaker 1 (20:32):
Well futile, like shouting into the wind.
Speaker 2 (20:34):
Pretty much. Then there's just getting the information in the
first place. Access varies hugely how so well, in places
like Norway with strong transparency laws, you might get company
ownership details or even politicians tax info really quickly. But
in other places, maybe like Serbia or parts of the Balkans,
even with official bodies meant to help, it could be
(20:54):
a real struggle bureaucracy resistance. It takes incredible persistence.
Speaker 1 (20:59):
Okay, Ethically, what about dealing with the people you're investigating?
When do you confront them?
Speaker 2 (21:03):
Ah at the confrontation interview, that's a big ethical debate.
Do you go early Their response might guide you, but
it also risks them shutting down, destroying evidence or attacking you.
Speaker 1 (21:13):
Or do you wait until the very end.
Speaker 2 (21:14):
Right, go late, when you have all your ducks in
a row to minimize interference. Some even argue if the
evidence is totally overwhelming, maybe you don't need to confront
them directly before publishing, though that's very controversial.
Speaker 1 (21:26):
Regarding fairness, tricky, balance and safety. That must be a
constant worry.
Speaker 2 (21:32):
It really is. Investigative journalists annoy powerful people, sometimes criminal organizations.
The threats are real digital spying, physical threats, harassment of family,
psychological pressure, bribery, attempts. It's terrifying, it can be. There's
a grim kind of rule some follow publish the dangerous
information as soon as possible. The idea is once it's
(21:53):
out there, attacking the journalist becomes riskier because the motive
is obvious, A strange sort of protection. Maybe.
Speaker 1 (22:00):
Wow, that really drives home the risks. But sometimes even
with good intentions maybe or just through sloppiness, things go
wrong ethically, don't they even without the kind of outright
deception Basher used.
Speaker 2 (22:10):
Unfortunately, Yes, we see lines blurred. Ethical lapses happen. One
area is what gets called tabloid journalism, which can sometimes
turn into a tabloid lynching.
Speaker 1 (22:20):
What do you mean by that?
Speaker 2 (22:21):
It's when media run these sensational campaigns, often based on
anonymous leaks, maybe from state officials with an agenda. It
completely violates professional rules, invades privacy, and essentially tries and
convicts people in the media before any proper process.
Speaker 1 (22:36):
Like prejudging someone based.
Speaker 2 (22:38):
On leaks exactly. We've seen examples like in Serbia, where
confidential personal data, really private stuff was systematically leaked from
authorities to certain tabloids. It creates this dangerous blurting of
lines between investigation and smear campaigns. It erodes trust in
both the media and the state.
Speaker 1 (22:57):
That sounds incredibly damaging. What other pitfalls are there?
Speaker 2 (23:00):
The other major one is simply failing to check your
sources properly, using fake.
Speaker 1 (23:03):
Experts, fake experts. How does that happen?
Speaker 2 (23:06):
Well, we found this case in the Balkans involving a
guy let's call him DJ. He was all over the media,
TV appearances, conferences, always introduced as the executive director of
the European Economic Institute in Brussels. Sounded very official, EU funded,
he claimed. But then a diligent independent publication, Novy magazine
did some digging. Turned out the institute didn't exist, it
(23:30):
was completely made up.
Speaker 1 (23:32):
No way, and media outlets were quoting him as an expert.
Speaker 2 (23:35):
Frequently without checking. It just shows how vital that basic
principle is, checking, checking, and more, checking every source, every claim.
Otherwise you're just spreading misinformation and destroying your own credibility.
Speaking of checking, please do check out Beyond Infographics on
your podcast platform and give us that five star rating.
If you're finding this valuable, it really helps us keep
(23:55):
doing these deep dives.
Speaker 1 (23:56):
Those examples are quite chilling, showing how easily things can
go wrong. But despite all these challenges, the risks, the
potential pitfalls, investigative journalism done right is still so crucial,
isn't it. Can you share some examples where it really
made a difference, where it didn't just reveal something, but
actually led to change, maybe even delivered justice.
Speaker 2 (24:15):
Oh, definitely, when it's done with integrity and persistence, the
impact can be immense. It really can act as that
vital watchdog. For instance, we looked at a case uncovering
systemic loopholes. A journalist in Croatia investigating money laundering stumbled
upon something huge. Oh was that they found a law
related to financial crime that had been active for four
(24:37):
years but had no sanctions, no penalties for offenders written
into it.
Speaker 1 (24:41):
Seriously, a law with no punishment exactly.
Speaker 2 (24:44):
It effectively legalized massive corruption by providing no way to
prosecute it. The journalist's work exposed this gaping systemic loophole,
forcing politicians to actually fix the law. It wasn't just
about one crime, it was about fixing the system that
allowed it.
Speaker 1 (24:59):
Incredible what else.
Speaker 2 (25:00):
There's also holding power directly accountable moving from individual to general.
We saw a great example again in Croatia with an
assistant minister of finance.
Speaker 1 (25:08):
What happened there?
Speaker 2 (25:09):
Persistent reporting uncovered a clear conflict of interest. He had
a private company doing business with the state, and his
company got this dodgy loan from a state bank using
falsified documents. Then it turned out his wife was also
unofficial involved in related dealings. No whole network seemed like it.
The sustained reporting, digging deeper from the initial story revealed
(25:31):
this pattern, and the pressure eventually forced both the assistant
minister and the actual Minister of finance to resign. It
shows how focused journalism can expose wider corruption and demand
accountability right at the top.
Speaker 1 (25:44):
That's powerful stuff.
Speaker 2 (25:45):
Then there's exposing things like human trafficking, which often operates
in the shadows. The Showdown at Arizona Market project, for.
Speaker 1 (25:52):
Instance, what did that uncover?
Speaker 2 (25:53):
It looked at this post war market in Bosnia and
Herzegovina that had become this smuggling haven, including trafficking women
forced into prostitution. The investigation even found plans for casinos
and nightclubs hidden within reconstruction proposals, pointing to corruption. Facilitating
it all just awful, and related stories about women brought
(26:13):
from Eastern Europe as dancers on work permits but then
forced into prostitution. Investigations revealed this was only possible because
of corruption and state institutions, even consulates issuing visas systemic
failures enabling exploitation.
Speaker 1 (26:29):
It shines a light where authorities maybe aren't looking or
don't want to.
Speaker 2 (26:32):
Look precisely, and sometimes journalism can directly lead to justice.
There was this harrowing case of a convicted child abuser
from Croatia. He'd been convicted, but because no international arrest
warrant was issued, a massive systemic failure, likely due to
corruption or negligence, he was operating freely elsewhere.
Speaker 1 (26:51):
Oh my god.
Speaker 2 (26:52):
It was journalistic work, relentless digging and pressure that finally
forced the authorities to act, leading to his eventual conviction.
Journalists essentially initiated the investigation where the justice system had failed.
Speaker 1 (27:03):
That's amazing journalists stepping in where the system breaks down
it happens.
Speaker 2 (27:07):
There's even this bold learn from own experience method. One
journalist deliberately got arrested over an unpaid speeding ticket.
Speaker 1 (27:14):
Why would they do that to expose.
Speaker 2 (27:16):
Corruption and rights violations in how minor offenses were handled.
They spent four days in prison documenting everything poor conditions,
denial of rights, legal violations by judges guards. It showed
how systemic errors, not just individual bribes, create this chain
of corruption affecting ordinary people. Wow. That takes guts, It
(27:38):
certainly does. And finally, the power of international collaboration is
huge now.
Speaker 1 (27:44):
Like journalists working together across borders exactly.
Speaker 2 (27:47):
Projects like the In the Name of the State trilogy,
which looked at illegal arms dealing during the wars in
former Yugoslavia, Journalists from multiple countries collaborated to untangle these
complex corrupt.
Speaker 1 (27:58):
Networks and the big lead projects.
Speaker 2 (28:00):
Right like the Aushar Leaks project from the ICIJ, over
one hundred journalists in sixty countries digging through millions of
leak documents. Their combined work proved the massive abuse of
offshore companies for tax evasion and money laundering would have
been impossible without corruption, getting it all globally, exposing patterns
that no single journalist in one country can see alone.
Speaker 1 (28:20):
So what's the common thread in all these successful investigations.
Speaker 2 (28:24):
I think it comes back to that core principle, don't
write what you know, write what you can prove. Rigorous
dedication to facts, evidence, verification, that's the bedrock.
Speaker 1 (28:34):
But it's not always easy to publish even with proof.
Speaker 2 (28:37):
No, and that leads to that saying you sometimes hear
the best stories have never been published. It's a reminder
of the huge legal threats, financial risks, personal dangers, meaning
some crucial truths might remain hidden simply because the cost
of revealing them is too high.
Speaker 1 (28:53):
Wow, what an incredible journey we've been on today here
on beyond infographics. We started with those dramatic, real, the
emotional revelations from Princess Diana's Panorama interview, her personal truth
just laid bare for.
Speaker 2 (29:05):
Millions, Such a huge moment.
Speaker 1 (29:07):
But just as compelling. We ended up exploring the whole
ethical mindfield around how that scoop was obtained, and that
led us into this wider world of investigative journalism, often dangerous,
always difficult, but so essential.
Speaker 2 (29:19):
Yeah. And if you connect it all up, these stories,
both the flawed interview and the examples of great investigations,
they remind us that finding and telling the truth it's messy, yes,
often risky, but it's absolutely crucial for any healthy society.
Speaker 1 (29:35):
Whether it's a princess telling her story even in compromised circumstances,
or a journalists digging into hidden corruption.
Speaker 2 (29:42):
Exactly the value is in bringing light to what powerful
people might want to keep secret. It's about demanding transparency,
demanding accountability.
Speaker 1 (29:51):
Well, you've joined us on Beyond Infographics, where we try
to sift through all those details, look at the ethical complexities,
and find the real meaning. So the next time you
come across a big news story, maybe pause for a second,
think not just about what they're saying, but how did
they get that information? What unseen efforts or maybe missteps
lie behind that headline.
Speaker 2 (30:10):
And here's maybe a final thought to take away with you.
That phrase we mentioned the best investigations have never been published.
What does that really tell us about the truths we
don't get to hear, the injustices that stay hidden, the
corruption that carries on, And what responsibility does that put
on all of us as citizens, not just to seek
out and support good ethical reporting, but maybe to demand
(30:31):
the kind of transparency that allows those stories to be told.
Speaker 1 (30:35):
That's a powerful thought to end on. Thanks so much
for tuning in to Beyond infographics. If you found this
session insightful, please please do us a favor, leave us
a five star rating on your podcast app, and maybe
share it with someone else who appreciates the story with
a bit more depth. Until next time, keep asking those questions.
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.