They build up a list of contacts, they trust over the years by working with them.
Their "network" will put them in contact with people who will divulge information on the topic they are investigating.
Information has to be credible. Plus evaluated for veracity. Backed up by facts. Not nudge nudge, wink wink.
Just in whose interests are those databases?
Sloppy journalists will regurgitate what is fed them by "off the record" i.e. government affiliated sources, who want to suss out the public's reaction to their policies. If blowback is unfavorable, the blame can't be placed on the government.
Nowdays mainstream medias ability to investigate is pretty much non existent, as they don't want to go out of business, as busting the many myths the government perpetrates would ensure they would get culled.
Or the right wing owners have an vested interest in peddling their own version of "truth". Which promotes their very own agenda for war, perpetual bailouts by government, no accountability for those higher up the food chain, the continuation of money laundering, off shore registration for businesses etc.
Those journalists who cover politics, come from the financially well off, so they share many of the same ideology as the politicians, i.e. imperialism now commonly known as "humanitarian intervention". Hence the demonisation of Corbyn. And Putin.
Three companies control 71% of national newspaper circulation and 5 companies control 81% of local newspaper circulation.
Also note, the various think tanks are ALL right wing leaning, thus when they espouse certain policies, that benefit ONLY the wealthy, highlighted by data, the data is extremely "selective", i.e. biased, so as not to bring into dispute, the policies they openly advocate. By setting up a think tank, the right wingers can claim to be a arms length!
Don't get scoops by using 'database'.
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2008/03/corr-m03.html Naomi Klein's Shock doctrine
· 12 months ago