I've always thought that the work of journalists and auditors is similar in many ways. Reading the Sunday Oregonian confirmed that today. Both write public reports that shine a light on a situation that needs changed. Both seek facts and have standards to ensure quality of the report. The auditor is looking for the elements of a finding - condition, criteria, effect, cause, and recommendations. What is happening, what should happen, what is the result, why did it happen, and what should be changed.
First case in point - "Getting disability payments can be a fight to the death" on the front page. The reporters describe the struggle of several individuals over many years to received social security disability payments. A few die before payments are received (condition). Several individuals talk about how they paid into the system and believed that the government would support them when they legitimately needed help (criteria). The length of time of the struggle results in some going on welfare, becoming homeless, and dying (effect). What the story lacks is the cause and recommendations, something an audit would provide. It alludes to one cause - the baby boomer generation and its demand on the system. But perhaps it is also cutbacks in funding or a system over-proceduralized because of concerns about abuse.
Second case in point - "State parole board finds itself up for review" again on the front page of the Oregonian. This has been an ongoing story at the Oregonian and began with a decision by the Parole Board to release an offender who had been convicted of one rape but had admitted several others. In September the Board voted to release the offender and cut his 30 year sentence in half (condition). Because of a mix-up they failed to notify the victim so that she could attend the hearing (criteria). The Board conducted another hearing but again voted for release. The victim sued and another hearing was conducted. Since then several other victims have come forward and there has been a public outcry. The fear is the possibility of future victims. (effect). The series of stories have highlighted what may be some causes - poor notification of victims, hearings that were conducted inside the prison, and a closed-door policy. An audit might take on more systemic causes such as overall lack of transparency and whether the Board should be appointed.
Between the work of the journalist and the auditor, which is more likely to effect real change in government? Both. The work of journalists can put incredible pressure on government to change and have significant results. I think the difference though is time. Journalists face a deadline. Auditors can spend time in the audit process to craft realistic recommendations and to work with the auditee and encourage change. The difference is that found between a surgeon and your physician. One removes a diseased part of your body and the other works to improve habits and prevent or delay disease.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I agree that both can be catalysts for change. I am much more satisfied with the public office auditor's process, than that of a journalist (even being trained as one myself). There is the pressure of the deadline (you mentioned) on top of the commercialization (which can put financial pressure on a news outlet) and also (with TV news) there is the constraint of time as well (often news pieces have to be 30-60 seconds in length). In these days with blogs, things are starting to look more promising for comprehensive coverage, but then you start seeing a lack of credibility, as stories become more op-ed. I would be more apt to compare NPR or the BBC to auditors, because at least they lack some of the most oppressive pressures as far as journalism goes.
Post a Comment