Five Questions with...Kathleen Johnston

By Kanupriya Vashisht

Associate editor Kanupriya Vashisht conducted this interview with CNN Producer Kathleen Johnston. To view Johnston's in-depth investigative story on auto insurance fraud, click here.

1 How would you select a concept for an investigative business story? How does putting together a broadcast investigative business journalism story differ from a print or online investigation?

We do not set out to do a business investigative story. When deciding a story to tackle we don't say, 'Well it's time to do a good crime investigative story or a terrorism investigative story.' We look for stories that are compelling, affect a number of people, and usually involve a topic that is not well known. There are not a lot of unique stories in journalism. We think, however, stories like auto insurance fraud impact millions of people and that's what we keep in mind when pursuing such projects.

As for the difference between print and broadcast, it's harder to get video to tell your story. I worked in newspapers for 15 years and if I had done this story for the paper I would not have to worry about how to make 6,000 plus documents into good television, as we did in this case. Also, since we weren't present for these crashes - and do not believe in staging crashes - we had to figure out a way to get video to cover a 25-minute series. Part of our solution was to use the companies' own commercials under fair use rules.

2 Do you ever feel threatened when pointing the finger at corporations involved in financial fraud? Does the very thought of cameras and on-air reports intimidate them more than print would?

I think every good journalist is cognizant of the fact that our work can anger people, including those who run corporations. In all cases we need to be careful with our facts, careful with our storytelling, and conduct ourselves with the highest of ethics. When I was in print it was much easier to interview people. I carried a pen and a notebook; now I have a camera crew. Cameras intimidate some people we interview but in this era everyone seems to be fairly video savvy.

3 Do budget constraints at your company hamper your efforts? Do you ever bypass some stories because they don't seem as visual or aren't as dramatic as others?

I have never been told not to do a story at CNN because it will cost too much. The company is more than willing to pay what it takes to get a good story. For the auto insurance story, we traveled to about a dozen states several times, collected more than 6,000 documents, and interviewed a number of folks over an 18-month period. This was a project that cost money to do but we were never told "don't do that" or "cut that corner" because of costs in this case -- or for that matter on any other story I've done here.
 
I can't recall bypassing a story because the visuals are difficult. But we really have to decide where to devote our resources, and if the video is going to be more readily available for one story over another. We might pursue the video-rich story first.

4 How do you deal with the fact investigative stories about financial fraud aired on a powerful network such as CNN could affect people's lives, careers and livelihood? Does this make you more concerned about doublechecking everything or potentially being wrong?

I think every story you do -- whether daily or investigative -- can affect lives and careers. You don't have one set of ethical standards for investigative stories and another for daily or enterprise. I think all journalists should be consistent in the care they take with the facts of every story, regardless of the subject. The auto finance story just happened to involve major businesses but most investigative stories involve money components and often have a business angle so the approach to getting the story is the same we would undertake in reporting on a political earmark. Find compelling people to interview, document your case, connect the dots.

5 What advice would you give broadcast reporters thinking about working on an investigative piece?

Don't give up. Sometimes the homerun story can be found in the every day routine things. We never gave minor car accidents much of a thought until tipped off that courts were being tied up because of this policy. That tip about a routine matter resulted in a three-part series. In this tough media environment, few can devote a full 18 months to any one story. We couldn't. We spent months working on Katrina stories and other projects but kept working on the auto insurance fraud when we could find the time. If the story is good enough, you'll make the time for it. Viewers still want journalists to do good investigative work. I see that from the emails and calls we get every time we do a series like this. There is still value in this work and there are a lot of good journalists out there doing this work.

Copyright © 2008 Donald W. Reynolds National Center for Business Journalism