New survey reveals state of investigative journalism

By Gerry Lanosga, Indiana University, and Brant Houston, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Continued expansion in the nonprofit sector, a diversifying investigative workforce, and growing pessimism about the future of journalism are among the main takeaways from a broad national survey of IRE members conducted in 2023. Our survey of membership — made possible through the organization’s cooperation — was a replication of a survey we did 10 years earlier¹, allowing us for the first time to chart significant longitudinal changes and continuities in practices and attitudes among those working in the field.

A few key findings:

• More than a third of the respondents reported working in nonprofit news organizations, up from about a fourth in the previous survey. Moreover, nonprofit journalists reported higher levels of job satisfaction and autonomy than their commercial counterparts. Further, respondents of all backgrounds agreed with the statement that more investigative reporting is being done by nonprofit organizations today than for-profit ones.
• The ranks of investigative journalists have grown more diverse over the past decade, with more than 20% identifying as non-white, compared to 13% in 2013. Yet large percentages of survey respondents rated diversity in their newsrooms poorly across factors including race and ethnicity, political ideology and sexual orientation.
• While investigative journalists reported a high level of job satisfaction and general satisfaction with their own news organizations, they are more pessimistic about the state of investigative reporting and the broader field of journalism than they were in the past.

Methodology

IRE provided us with access to the email addresses of professional, academic and associate members (excluding retirees and students). The survey was sent to 3,520 members (3,112 professional, 250 academic, 158 associate). We received 541 completed questionnaires for a response rate of 15.4% (the rate for professional members was 15.9% with 497 respondents, including full- and part-time paid employees as well as freelancers).

As an incentive to complete the lengthy questionnaire, we offered participants the opportunity to submit their names for a drawing with a chance to win either an IRE national conference registration (valued up to $500) or a two-year IRE membership (valued at $150). We are pleased to announce the winners: David Corder of The Villages Daily Sun, who received the conference registration, and Helen Santoro of The Lever, who received the two-year membership. We are grateful to them as well as everyone who completed the survey and to IRE for its assistance.

What follows here is a descriptive summary of the survey results. We are also working on more in-depth reports targeted for publication in academic journals. 

Personal demographics

Looking at respondents overall, the average age was 47, and about 54% were women (compared to 59% men in 2013). Educational attributes revealed a highly educated workforce of investigative journalists: nearly all college graduates with a little less than half attending or completing graduate school. Similar to the previous survey, about 56% reported majoring in a journalism-related field.

There was little change in religious orientation this time, either: About 60% of respondents were raised Christian, but about the same percentage said religion is not important in their lives. Turning to politics, nearly 64% consider themselves to be Democrats or independents closer to Democrats, a figure significantly higher than the 49% describing themselves that way in 2013. Only 4% consider themselves to be Republicans or independents closer to Republicans. Looked at another way, 73.8% described their political views as liberal or very liberal, compared to 65.5% in 2013.

Diversity of pool — and perceptions of diversity

About 70% of respondents identified themselves as white, with Hispanic/Latino respondents at 8.1%, Black or African American respondents at 6.7%, Asian or Asian American respondents at 6.7%, and multiethnic respondents at 6.3%. These numbers track closely with 2023 member demographic data provided by IRE, leading us to conclude that the respondent pool is representative of the membership across key diversity indicators.

These racial and ethnic demographics, with more than a fifth of respondents identifying as non-white, appear to be a substantial change from the 2013 survey, when 87% of respondents self-identified as white. However, when asked about perceptions of diversity in their own newsrooms (on a five-point scale from outstanding to poor), respondents saw much room for improvement. Nearly half (47.5%) rated racial and ethnic diversity as fair or poor, while 58.7% rated political diversity fair or poor and 32.5% rated their newsrooms as fair or poor in terms of diversity of sexual orientation. Breaking these figures down further, fewer women respondents than men rated their newsrooms high (very good or outstanding) on gender diversity (15.6% vs. 24.5%). In terms of racial/ethnic diversity, fewer white respondents rated their newsrooms as very good or outstanding than other groups (23.3% vs. 31.3% of Black or African American respondents, for example).

Professional demographics

Considering professional attributes, about three-fourths of survey respondents (75.4%) were paid employees, with 16.4% freelancers and 15.0% educators — proportions roughly similar to the 2013 survey. Also similar to the previous survey: years working in the business, with an average of 20.6 years overall compared to 12.6 spent doing investigative work. Of the 392 paid employees who responded, 45.4% were assigned full-time to an investigative team while 11.2% were part-time on a team and 43.4% do investigative work alongside other duties such as beat reporting. When asked if their news organization has a standing investigative team, 68.3% answered yes (up from 60% in 2013).

The primary medium of respondents’ employment reflects a continuing shift away from print newsrooms (25.6%), which were even with broadcast but lagged significantly behind digital-only (37.4%). It is also clear, as observed in the 2013 survey, that investigative journalists — at least as reflected in the IRE membership — tend to be concentrated in larger media markets. More than half of the respondents (53.8%) reported working in markets of a million people or more, with 23.2% in markets between 100,000 and a million and only 9.2% in markets under 100,000.

Income levels are reflective of this concentration, as well as the high levels of education reported. Only 13.6% reported incomes less than $40,000 (compared to 16% in 2013) conversely, 34.6% reported incomes above $100,000 (versus 23% in 2013). Women respondents were higher across many income categories, but not in the highest, with 27.7% reporting earnings greater than $100,000 versus 43.1% of male respondents. One other area of note: Broadcast salaries remain at higher levels than other media platforms: 43.6% of broadcasters reported earning more than $100,000, compared to 34.7% of digital respondents and 30.5% of print respondents. Overall, income levels reveal the continuing weakening of the print sector, with 58.3% of print respondents reporting earnings of $60,000 and above. Comparable figures for broadcast and digital-only were 80.3% and 78.5%, respectively.

A notable finding of the 2013 survey was the migration of investigative journalists from commercial newsrooms to nonprofit organizations. In the earlier survey, about a fourth of the respondents reported working for nonprofit organizations, with nearly two-thirds of those having moved to their jobs from positions at commercial news organizations. In the latest survey, 35.7% said they work at nonprofits, with a slightly lower number (60.8%) reporting they had moved from commercial newsrooms. Those figures reflect the growing strength of the nonprofit sector, including the fact that many respondents apparently are starting their careers in nonprofit.

More evidence of that trend can be seen in the average number of years working at a nonprofit, which was 4.6 this year compared to about 6 in 2013. Moreover, reported income levels for those in nonprofits were comparable to those as commercial outlets. Although investigative journalists at for-profit organizations were more likely to report income at the highest tier (greater than $100,000), roughly similar proportions are earning $60,000 or more (80.6% nonprofit, 78.6% for-profit). Notably, those who work at nonprofits reported significantly higher positives on measures related to satisfaction with their jobs and the news organizations where they work. Further, respondents of all backgrounds agreed with the statement that more investigative reporting is being done by nonprofit organizations today than for-profit ones.

Health of investigative journalism today

A key line of inquiry in research about investigative journalism is concerned with practitioners’ perceptions about the state of their field as well as the broader practice of journalism. As in 2013, the latest survey yielded mixed results in that regard, with generally positive sentiments toward individual working conditions and organizations but some markedly negative attitudes about conditions in the field generally.

We asked IRE members to identify the biggest complaint about their own jobs. For 20.5%, it was having insignificant or little impact with their work. Other leading complaints were a lack of opportunity and the daily grind (16%), too many hours (14.8%), and low pay and benefits (14.2%). In spite of those complaints, the survey revealed high levels of job satisfaction and perceived autonomy. A large majority of IRE members in the survey (82.9%) reported having a great deal or complete freedom in selecting the stories they work on. Overall, 82.9% of respondents reported being very or fairly satisfied in their jobs (versus 84% in the previous survey).

Respondents were also quite sanguine about conditions within their own news organizations, with more than two-thirds (67.9%) saying they are headed in the right direction. That’s about the same as in 2013. When asked about their organizations’ commitment to investigative reporting, 60.5% agreed that it is as strong as it was a year ago, down slightly from 67% in 2013. Regarding their own work, the number of respondents who indicated the time they have spent on investigative work has increased or remained stable over the last five years has remained high: 76.5%, which tracks with the earlier survey. And, perhaps related to that, fully two-thirds of the sample (66.3%) reported being very or fairly optimistic about the future of investigative reporting.

Conversely, just 36.2% of current survey respondents agreed that the news media in general are as committed to investigative journalism as they were a year or two ago; that is a major drop from 2013, when the comparable figure was 68%. And asked whether doing investigative work is becoming more difficult, 45.2% agreed it is harder to get resources to do so while 52.9% agreed it is harder to get time; those numbers are comparable to the 2013 survey.

Another major change for the worse was observed in respondents’ assessments about public attitudes toward their work. Just 15% in 2013 agreed that the public is becoming increasingly antagonistic toward investigative journalism, but in 2023, that figure had more than doubled, to 36.7%. And nearly half of respondents (49.2%) expressed a belief that the public is also becoming increasingly indifferent to the field.

Such pessimism regarding investigative reporting extended to assessments of journalism as a whole. More than half of the respondents (55.9%) agreed that the field is heading in the wrong direction. That is a significant increase from 2013, when 45% expressed that sentiment. And while investigative journalists are unanimous in their agreement that the news media play an important role in democratic life, more than a fourth of them (27.3%) think news organizations are doing a poor job supporting democracy. Further, 41.4% think news organizations are doing a fair or poor job in informing the public (the other choices were good, very good or outstanding).

Reporting practices and attitudes

The survey also explored some typical reporting practices of investigative journalists. In proportions fairly similar to those gathered in the 2013 survey, respondents reported doing the following once or more per month:

• Downloading raw data sets, 55.5% 
• Requesting raw data from government sources, 55.5%
• Making formal public records questions, 68.2%
• Using spreadsheets or database management software, 70.4%
• Using statistical, geographical or network analysis tools, 23.1%
• Using Google tools, 41.7%
• Using programming language, 16.6%
• Using social media for crowd-sourcing, 45.7%

In spite of the robust use of social media, there was a notable drop in the number of respondents reporting that social media have been beneficial to investigative journalism: 74.7% agreed strongly or somewhat with that statement this time, versus 83.6% last time.

Also similar to the 2013 survey: the ways in which investigative stories get started. On average, respondents estimated stories stem from reporter enterprise or curiosity about 42% of the time, 23% of the time based on tips from the public, 20% based on tips from sources, and just 14% based on editors’ assignments.

The results of the recent survey showed some declines in reported impact resulting from investigative stories. While 58.9% of the respondents said their stories led to official investigations some or most of the time, that figure was 69.3% in the 2013 survey. Similarly, 23.6% reported seeing criminal charges filed based on their stories versus 29.8% last time. Reported civil action was about the same in the recent data, as was symbolic action only, and no action.

As in the previous survey, we also asked IRE members about their views of investigative journalism as a moral pursuit and about the place of objectivity. This year, 84.6% of respondents agreed strongly or somewhat that investigative reporting requires moral decision making, a slight drop from the 88.4% who answered similarly last time. However, when asked about the statement “Investigative reporting requires setting aside objectivity at some point and taking a position on stories,” nearly half (49.8%) disagreed somewhat or strongly, roughly similar to the previous survey (52.1%).

Safety

New in the survey this year, we included a battery of questions probing investigative journalists’ perceptions of their own safety in their jobs. More than half (59.5%) reported feeling safe or very safe, compared to 11.8% who said they feel unsafe or very unsafe. Here, however, there were some notable differences based on gender and race/ethnicity. In terms of gender, 68.3% of male respondents reported feeling safe or very safe versus 52.5% of women. Broken down by race/ethnicity, the same figures were 62.1% for white respondents, 54.0% for Hispanic/Latino respondents, 52.0% for Black or African-American respondents, and 47.6% for Asian or Asian-American respondents. 

When asked whether they had experienced threats, abuse or violence — either online or offline — 43.1% of respondents said not at all, but 12.9% said once, 36.3% said a few times, and 7.6% said monthly or more frequently.

Educators

Finally, we were interested in exploring whether there are any systematic differences in attitudes between practitioners and academic members of IRE. Forty-three full-time educators responded to the survey. Twelve of those (14.8%) reported teaching a stand-alone, required course on investigative reporting, 43.2% teach a stand-alone elective course, 28.4% teach investigative reporting as part of another course, and 13.6% teach in an institution that does not offer investigative reporting instruction. These numbers were somewhat similar regarding data journalism instruction: 16% teach a stand-alone required class, 34.6% teach a stand-alone elective, 32.1% teach data journalism as part of another course, and 17.3% are at institutions that don’t offer data journalism instruction. For many educators, their work extends beyond classroom instruction, with 64.2% reporting that they work with their students to produce investigative reports for presentation in non-student media.

While we found many similarities in views between educators and working journalists, some major differences stood out. For instance, while a large majority of both groups agree that investigative reporting requires moral decision-making, more than half of educators (51.2%) agree or strongly agree that it also requires setting aside objectivity sometimes, nearly double the figure for practitioners. In keeping with that perception, educators were significantly more likely to see the following active roles for investigative journalists as quite important or extremely important:

• Motivating ordinary people to get involved — educators 92.5% vs. reporters 77.0%
• Pointing people to solutions for societal problems — 95% vs. 78.0%
• Motivating policymakers to adopt reforms based on investigative stories: 92.5% vs. 84.7%
• Cooperating with officials in resolving problems — 61.1% vs. 45.3%.

When asked whether an important investigation could justify various controversial newsgathering practices, practitioners tended to be more cautious than educators. For instance, 58.9% of working journalists would not approve of getting employed to gain insider information about a company, versus 48.8% of educators; 85.3% would not approve of claiming to be someone else, versus 79.1% of educators; 32.6% would not approve of using hidden cameras, versus 26.2%; and 77.9% would not approve disclosing the names of rape victims without their consent, versus 60.5%. On only one of these measures were the proportions reversed, with 23.3% of educators saying they would not approve of using confidential documents without authorization, versus 16.0% of reporters.

¹ Detailed analyses of the previous survey are available from the authors or at these references: G. Lanosga and B. Houston, 2016, “Spotlight: Journalists’ Perceptions of Investigative Reporting and Its Role in Society.” Journalism Practice 11(9), 1101–1120, https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2016.1228472); G. Lanosga, L. Willnat, D. Weaver, and B. Houston, 2015, “A Breed Apart? A Comparative Study of Investigative Journalists and U.S. Journalists.” Journalism Studies, 18(3), 265-287, https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2015.1051570.