As you may be aware, for around 18 months Nick (of this parish) has been contributing a monthly opinion column for MCN. The latest was due to be published today (27/11/19). The piece was pulled. Read the copy here and see if you can figure out why.
It’s easier than ever before to access information and opinion about bikes and biking. There are plenty of good journalists working in print media, and although you need to be your own ruthless editor when it comes to the torrent of online material available, you may find the odd diamond twinkling in the gutter.
But wherever you look, one thing you wont find is proper investigative journalism. This isn’t the same thing as topical reporting, or critical evaluation of product. It’s about getting to the heart of often highly complex issues, testing evidence and exposing the facts. Right now, Bikerglory has three investigations on the back-burner. Publishing just one takes weeks and sometimes months of preparation, and it goes way beyond mere research. Expert input is prerequisite, principally financial and legal, but a story may well require the advice of other specialists. All of which explains why only one will end up being posted: the resources simply aren’t available. Which is a shame, because all three are relevant to planet bike.
You might expect a part time, one man show like Bikerglory to struggle, but surely the mainstream bike press could get involved? Isn’t it part of their job description? Unfortunately, they can’t afford it either: at least, not without sacrificing coverage of something else. In reality, investigative stories generate reader interest and input: the very act of publishing often brings forth fresh information. But that’s not enough to tempt publishers from a well worn path…
They have the further problem that investigative work tends to seriously alienate the target, which might just happen to be an organisation you would prefer not to annoy. In this respect, a small website has an advantage: apart from being sued (see legal input above), Bikerglory has little to loose, and no vested interests – along with a nanogram of the resources available to disinterested media corporations. Tedious, painstaking pursuits need more than just sheer will to see them through. Support – practical, financial, whatever – is a key determinant in long haul operations, and crowdfunding something as profoundly unsexy as a Ponzi scheme investigation, even a motorcycle related one, is a tough call.
Investigative journalism is a royal pain in the arse for all concerned, but someone has to do it. Because if we just walk away, we’re enabling some very questionable practices – and questionable practices tend to have victims.
And that was it. No mention of specific publishers, no mention of organisations under investigation: just a plea for the bike press to get off its collective backside and start writing about the elephant currently relaxing in the office, a plea which evidently no one wanted to hear. It looks like we’re on our own when it comes to investigative stuff. We’re conflicted about that: on one level, we reckon if people are stupid enough to invest substantially in anything without doing due diligence, they deserve what they get. On the other, the scale of some of the stuff we’ve been looking into is frankly jaw dropping. We’re continuing to collect and evaluate evidence, even though a) we’re far less well equipped to do this than the people who should be doing it, and b) I’d much rather be concentrating on the day job (among other things). We’ll see. Watch this space.