Collaborative Journalism Is Our Only Future

Sign up for The Media Today, CJR’s daily newsletter.

From the White House to the Kremlin, we are witnessing the unfolding of a new international axis, united around a common vision: reporters are “the enemies of the people.” Though it may be more physically dangerous to be a journalist in Azerbaijan, Mexico, or Nigeria than in the United States, the actions of the Trump administration against the press on American soil and abroad compel us to rethink our work. Are we doomed to endure online harassment campaigns for investigations that displease those in power? Must we battle with lawyers to ensure the survival of our newspapers and networks, under threat of license revocation? Do we stop communicating within our newsrooms for fear of having our phones seized and searched?

In the face of threats, unity is our strength. More than seven years ago, I founded Forbidden Stories, an international organization based on a simple principle: if one of us falls—whether assassinated, imprisoned, or threatened—others rise and collectively continue their work. This is not merely about solidarity. It is an imperative need to inform the public on subjects as important as they are dangerous to cover—such as environmental crimes, corruption, and human rights violations.

Since 2017, our teams have collaborated with a network of a hundred and ten press organizations and three hundred journalists. In seven years, we have investigated the cases of more than twenty journalists who were assassinated or imprisoned, including those of Regina Martinez, a Mexican reporter, and Daphne Caruana Galizia, who was killed in a car explosion in Malta. If I have learned one thing during that time, it is that the killers of journalists, and the administrations that threaten the press, care little about statements. Not that advocacy work is not essential—it is vital—but what the enemies of journalistic freedom fear most is seeing their misdeeds and crimes exposed. Their greatest fear is knowing that we are unstoppable. Why kill or threaten one journalist if there are forty-nine others ready to take over that person’s project?

I developed this conviction thanks to the Arizona Project, the first collaborative experience among reporters in the history of journalism. In 1976, after the assassination of Don Bolles, a journalist in Phoenix, about thirty reporters spontaneously grouped together to continue his work, investigating suspicions of fraud involving politicians and individuals with links to organized crime. Their findings were published with the support of a nonprofit called Investigative Reporters and Editors, which had been recently established. It is now time for us all to adopt the Arizona Project mode.

Partnering between newsrooms and reporters when stories are dangerous provides protection and resources—and ensures that coverage reaches wide audiences. The possible subjects and pairings are numerous: Investigating across the Mexican border on migration by associating US and Mexican newsrooms. Documenting the assets and potential conflict of interest on American soil and abroad of people in power. Coordinating a global investigation into the consequences of the end of American financial aid on HIV, tuberculosis, and other diseases; researchers predict that, in the coming years, millions could die.

Crossing the American border as a journalist is likely to become more perilous than ever. If a reporter’s work or equipment is seized, their data and materials should be securely stored in advance and shared with other colleagues. Every day, around the world, a hundred and seventy journalists under serious threat currently use our “safebox network” and make it publicly known: “If you arrest me, know that my investigation will be continued by others.” We provide life insurance for information.

This approach necessarily requires us to change paradigms, and forget what has too often shaped us: We must move from the “lone wolf” model to that of partnership, serving an editorial project that goes beyond the scope of one’s own news outlet. We must work with colleagues who were yesterday our competitors, creating and respecting common rules, and sometimes setting our egos aside. It stings a bit at first to coordinate, but you get used to it.

This, I believe, is our only way to react if we want to continue reporting without being paralyzed by fear. Conspiracy theorists will see it as a corporatist pack reflex driven by the hidden hand of some obscure power. In reality, it is quite the opposite. It is about defending one of the fundamental pillars of democracy.

Has America ever needed a media defender more than now? Help us by joining CJR today.