'There’s always a bigger story.'

Paul Radu is co-founder and co-executive director of the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP), a global network of investigative journalists exposing high-level corruption, financial crime, and the transnational systems that enable them. 

As a journalist exposing corruption, where do you see the line between storytelling and activism and how does that line shift when facing powerful public actors?

As an investigative reporter who co-founded the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Act, I don't see our work as activism. Investigative reporting is not activism, but it is part of a bigger, more comprehensive story that involves activism.
So at my organization, what we do in order to maximize the impact of investigative reporting is to cooperate with activists — to go for what is called evidence-based activism.
Investigative reporters can supply the evidence, and activists can use that evidence to build their cases, their advocacy, their activism.
This synergy — this mix between investigative reporting and activism — is very powerful and is part of the storytelling at the end of the day. But investigative reporting in itself is not activism at all.

What's one essential principle journalists should keep in mind when their stories expose powerful interests and create a real-world impact?

I think the most basic question that you should ask yourself as an investigative reporter at the start of your process is: Is the story that I'm working on in the public interest? How does it serve the public?
This is a very important question to ask before you even initiate the process. And it's a story that builds up — you don't do a piece of investigative reporting today and then run to another one tomorrow. You try to build up. Let's say you've exposed one case of corruption in Berlin.
You always think: Well, maybe I exposed this case, but there might be out there tens of thousands of similar cases, not just in Berlin but in other cities in Germany, Europe, and the world.
So the idea is to always think: How can I work better in the public interest? If you can answer that question clearly — this is how the public will benefit from my work — that makes your work more impactful and more worthy of your time and effort.

In your work uncovering corruption, what patterns of power and impunity have you seen repeated across different countries?

The reality is that with crime and corruption, there are patterns that repeat themselves at all times.
If a criminal sees that something works in a country, they will apply the same method — the same way of doing things — over and over again.
This goes for corrupt politicians, corporations, hackers, and unfortunately, even journalists. Corruption in the media happens quite a bit too.
Once you identify a pattern, it's very important to communicate that pattern to other journalists and investigative reporters, and to work together across borders to expose the larger story.
There's always a bigger story. The corruption you're investigating is usually part of something larger — a system of corruption, a system of looting public money and interest.
So it's always important to try to fit your investigative reporting into the larger picture — one that includes not just other reporters but also activists and others who can work together towards a better society.

Where do you see the biggest blind spots in how governments and international institutions respond to corruption?

From our point of view, things are quite simple. When you talk about high-level corruption — the kind that loots countries and robs people of billions — it's always transnational.
The problem is: you have nation states with their own law enforcement agencies, but those agencies stop at the border because they don't have the mandate to investigate across borders.
They’re paid by the taxpayers of their specific country.
This means that when a politician uses a network to steal money from country A and invest it in countries B and C, there's no force that can expose that case — except for investigative reporters and activists.

So our biggest weakness is the lack of meaningful cross-border collaboration. This gives a lot of space for criminals who do collaborate across borders.
Can you imagine Iranian and Israeli law enforcement working together against someone stealing money between their countries? Of course not — but criminals are doing this with impunity.
We saw it in the Balkans: while there was conflict between Serbians and Kosovars, weapon and drug traffickers from both sides worked together.
These people care only about money. So the lack of international cooperation allows these networks to flourish — and again, it's mostly journalists and activists who try to stop them.

What role does journalism play in fighting corruption?

Investigative reporting plays a very important role.
We are the ones who can expose corruption. We use data and stories to explain the context — the why behind corruption.
Take the example of $1 billion stolen from Ghana. If that money goes through a Swiss bank, you realize — wait, this bank handles trillions; how much other corrupt money went through here?
So investigative reporters are the ones who can build the blueprint for stopping high-level, systemic corruption — corruption enabled by banks and systems not designed to serve the public.

When does a journalist's role shift from observer to advocate — and should it?

This is a very difficult question. At OCCRP, we don’t shift from investigative reporters to activists or advocates. At the same time, OCCRP consists of 70 investigative reporting centers around the world — and cultures differ. Some investigative reporters may be activists locally, and that’s not wrong, I believe.
It depends on the context, on the moment, on the culture of a country. We do become activists more when our own industry is hurt — when journalists are harassed, arrested, detained, or killed. Then, we allow activism at OCCRP. That being said, it’s not like we forbid people from becoming activists. That wouldn’t be right. It’s really important to have these discussions.
Why did this reporter in Peru or Ecuador become an activist in a particular case? We don’t kick someone out of the network for that.
There are various types of situations and stories. We sometimes even have fights — just verbal ones — about what counts as activism, what counts as investigative reporting.
This is a very important conversation because there’s no golden rule. Things are changing. At the end of the day, we’re all working in the public interest. If the public interest is served — that’s what matters most.