By Jessica Kunert, Luka Simon and Volker Lilienthal
Abstract: The journalistic cooperation in the investigative research network of the German public broadcasters NDR and WDR and the national daily Süddeutsche Zeitung has not yet been scientifically examined with regard to internal work processes (workflows and standards) and possible problems and conflicts (journalistic research, objectives and financing). In this article, we analyze the form of cooperation of the research network on the basis of its structures and degree of organization. We interviewed nine journalists in the network, using qualitative, guided interviews. The results of the internal work processes show that research teams within the network come together to work on specific topics and benefit from each other’s qualifications and approaches. In-depth discussions and firm agreements are essential. Problems and conflicts arise mainly from the different levels of human and financial resources required by the newsrooms, as well as from the high organizational effort involved. It is clear that the journalists value the network above all for the variety of topics and the high quality and quantity of the research results. As a form of cooperation, the investigative research network we examined is a success that is supported by a large number of implicit rules. In addition to the internal structures, the accusation of distortion of competition – raised due to the cooperation between two public and one private media – needs to be discussed.
The investigative research network of WDR, NDR and Süddeutsche Zeitung (SZ) is one of the best-known German inter-media journalism networks (cf. Schultz 2021: 338). Since it was founded 2014, there have been numerous joint investigations and publications by different constellations of the three investigative departments involved. For instance, in January 2023, the three media reported on inconsistent price negotiations for PCR tests between medical officials and health insurance companies; shortly thereafter they identified hotspots of the harmful chemical PFAS in Germany’s soil. In the summer of 2022, WDR, NDR and SZ published the »Uber Files« together with media in 28 other countries, uncovering that the US ride-hailing company Uber was trying to circumvent laws by using contacts to top European politicians such as Emmanuel Macron. In 2023, the network investigated allegations against German »Rammstein« singer Till Lindemann.
In investigative journalism in particular, uncovering abuses requires cross-editorial and even cross-border cooperation during research (Carson/Farhall 2018; cf. Schultz 2021: 339). Such collaborations can develop powerful publishing dynamics and provide great social benefits (cf. Schultz 2021: 339). Thus, even strong media competitors come together for such cooperations, making use of the division of labor (cf. Schultz 2021: 340) or – as in the case of the research cooperation discussed here – private and public media. This form of intermedia cooperation is sometimes criticized for media policy reasons, in particular for distorting competition and cross-subsidizing two types of media (e.g. Meier 2015). Meanwhile, collaboration between journalists from different newrsooms is not new. In recent years, various national and international journalistic networks have emerged (cf. Schultz 2021: 338). The USA is leading the way as researchers have seen a clear trend towards cooperation and collaboration in journalism there since the late 1990s (cf. Heft 2021: 454; cf. Schultz 2021: 338).
One reason for the increasing importance of research networks is the digital transformation and the amount of data that is stored online (cf. Lugschitz et al. 2024: 109). Investigative journalists in particular face new challenges in researching and verifying data, for instance when stemming from leaks (Kunert et al. 2022). Hence, the exchange and mutual support between investigative teams is becoming increasingly important, particularly in terms of landing scoops besides reporting the daily news, to stand out among competitors in the media market (cf. Schultz 2021: 341). The trend towards collaboration and research networks is also seen as a »contribution to saving and safeguarding quality journalism« (Schultz 2021: 341; original in German).
Despite these well-known developments in journalism, few academic studies have analyzed such cross-editorial collaborations thus far. We examine the investigative research network of NDR, WDR and SZ because in their case two public broadcasters cooperate cross-medially with a privately organized and more text-based press/online medium. The difference between the media houses is twofold: in terms of production processes and publication channels as well as financially (licence fee vs. sales and advertising revenues). These structural differences suggest certain work processes and internal cooperation conflicts, which are examined in this study.
Characteristics of investigative journalism
Investigative journalism is understood in academic research as a special journalistic discipline. Hoxha defines this professional field as a »particular way of reporting by relying on a rigid and systematic investigation and layers of verification of facts to the last detail […] with the aim to have an impact on the public« (Hoxha 2019: 1). In order to achieve their goals – be they personal or social in nature – investigative journalists are attributed a certain degree of professional self-sacrifice: »[…] journalists are likely to stir up a hornet’s nest bearing risks for their career, their whole profession and their own safety« (Hahn/Stalph 2018: 2). According to Hoxha, the basic goals of investigative work are to verify and thoroughly research topics (Hoxha 2019: 1; also Kaplan 2008: 115). Investigative journalists see themselves as »watchdogs« (Ludwig 2014: 171) and as the fourth estate in the state with a »claim to control power« (Cario 2006: 121; original in German). They are also driven by the potential social impact that journalistic work can have on changes to systems or laws and by standing up for the interests of the general public (cf. Kaplan 2008: 115f.; Lugschitz et al. 2024: 115).
Ludwig identifies three criteria that define investigative journalism: first, the topics are socially, politically or societally relevant and thus essential for public opinion (especially corruption, abuse of power, bribery, fraud or violations of the law) (cf. Ludwig 2014: 17); second, investigative research is an interplay between journalists and informants, whereby the roles of both can vary; third, compared to other journalistic beats, research is carried out under »more difficult conditions« (Ludwig 2014: 18; original in German), which leads to an increased workload (cf. Ludwig 2014: 17f.). Lanosga et al. (2017) distinguish between the self-image of investigative and non-investigative journalists: investigative journalists are, for example, more open to unconventional research practices such as the use of hidden cameras (cf. Lanosga et al. 2017: 283).
Forms of cooperation in investigative journalism
Since the late 1990s, researchers have observed an increase in collaborative journalism in the USA, including in the investigative beat and across national borders (see Carson/Farhall 2018: 1899f.; see Heft 2021: 457; see Krüger et al. 2019; see Schultz 2021: 338). A trend towards collaborative journalism can be observed especially in the case of major international topics (cf. Kayser-Bril 2018: 60; cf. Lück/Schultz 2019), as complex research and the evaluation and examination of large amounts of data require more resources, both human and financial (cf. Kayser-Bril 2018: 27; cf. Lilienthal 2017: 661; cf. Lück/Schultz 2019; cf. Lugschitz et al. 2024: 114). Researchers cite increased competition within the media industry and financial restrictions in media organizations as further reasons for an increase in willingness to cooperate in journalism (cf. Heft 2021: 459; cf. Konow-Lund et al. 2019: 2). In addition, Lilienthal recognizes an »increased focus on research« (Lilienthal 2017: 661; original in German) since the early 2000s, the aim being to enable exclusive research and thus asserting oneself against competitors in times of scarce resources. Other motives of journalists who collaborate across borders include the quality improvement of journalistic products, the possible political and social impact of journalistic research, addressing a larger audience and synergies in terms of resources, technologies, finances and expertise (cf. Cairo 2008: 181; cf. Heft 2021; cf. Sambrook 2018: 27). When collaborating, trust between the collaborators is just as essential as care in handling confidential data (cf. Sambrook 2018: 31). Yet, cooperation also harbors potentials for conflict, such as a lack of motivation and activity of individual partners or communication problems (cf. Konow-Lund 2019: 4). This in turn increases the effort required for coordination (cf. Kayser-Bril 2018: 62f.).
Investigative research networks are a formalized form of cooperation and team building, which are defined as »organizational alliances between independent newsrooms that enable planned cooperation between journalists from different media houses« (Schultz 2021: 338; original in German). In addition to the investigative research network discussed in this study, cross-border forms of cooperation have emerged, such as the European Investigative Collaboration (EIC, founded in 2016 and consisting of the German news magazine Spiegel and ten media partners), Investigative Europe (about 15 journalists from several European countries), the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) and the Global Investigative Journalism Network (GIJN). To date, there has been little research into the functions and characteristics of such networks in (investigative) journalism (cf. Heft et al. 2019: 1184). In the few studies that did research it, the focus was on the above-mentioned cross-border associations (cf. Krüger et al. 2019: 406), in which journalists from different countries work on a common topic, merge and review their research results, but then publish their stories depending on the media house and audience (cf. Alfter 2018: 41; cf. Lück/Schultz 2019; Rothenberger et al. 2023). The type of cooperation between media varies; for instance, cross-media research is increasing (cf. Carson/Farhall 2018: 1902). Although more and more public media are cooperating with private media players (cf. Grubenmann/Ruß-Mohl 2016: 1), Cairo (2006: 181), for example, identifies a potential for conflict if the potential cooperation partner is a competing medium.
The networks can be differentiated according to their organizational structure and the length and intensity of cooperation, which can be applied to both cross-border and national networks (cf. Heft et al. 2019: 1197; cf. Heft 2021: 458). Heft (2021: 458) distinguishes between »low degree« networks with little structure and flat hierarchies and »high degree« networks with a fixed organizational structure and a leadership that monitors compliance with the structures. »Medium degree« networks with a medium-strong structure and control form the middle ground. Heft also distinguishes between »top-down« and »bottom-up« initiatives: The former means that cooperation takes place on the basis of a fixed agreement between the newsrooms; these are long-term collaborations, i.e. high degree networks (cf. Heft 2021: 455f.). Bottom-up initiatives are created on the initiative of the journalists involved and are usually only temporary, i.e. in the form of low-degree networks (cf. Heft 2021: 455f.). According to Heft, intensive cooperation exists when there is close teamwork within a research team and research material and knowledge is exchanged and published at the same time (cf. Heft 2021: 458). In contrast, in loose collaborations little is exchanged and no binding joint publications exist (cf. Heft 2021: 458). This results in differences in the length and intensity of a collaboration, in the objective of the research (only one project or several projects) and in the form of publication (identical or individual). In addition, networks can differ in their composition, depending on how many media companies are involved and which type of media is represented, as well as in the length of a collaboration, its thematic focus and its form of publication (cf. Schultz 2021: 338).
This study focuses on the internal work processes and possible conflict potentials in the investigative research network of NDR, WDR and SZ. The research questions are:
RQ1: How does the cross-editorial cooperation in the research network of NDR, WDR and SZ work in terms of internal work processes?
RQ2: What problems and conflicts arise during collaboration?
Method
Nine people who worked as investigative journalists in the research network of WDR, NDR and SZ in the study period from December 2022 to May 2023 were interviewed using qualitative, guided interviews. It was important that the interviewees had already worked together for at least two years and were therefore familiar with internal work processes. For reasons of source protection, the interviewees’ names remain anonymous and are only noted by a letter and number combination (e.g. B3) in the findings chapter.
The members of the research network were identified on the basis of information on the websites of the participating media. Identifying journalists working for the NDR broadcastser was easier than for the WDR and SZ journalists, as it was not always clear who worked for the research network. Editorial managers and other journalists were asked who regularly worked for the research network. In addition, personal websites, Twitter profiles of investigative journalists and joint publications by WDR, NDR and SZ served as indicators of participation in the research network. Names of people were also requested via the personal working environment at NDR by of one of the authors.
The interviews were conducted via video call at the request of the participants and lasted 45 minutes on average. The interview questions concerned the internal work processes in the research network (workflows: selection of topics, division of work, exchange of information; standards: rules, agreements on publications, financing) and problems and conflicts in the collaboration (in research, objectives, financing).
The interviews were transcribed by hand. No transcription software was used to ensure that the sensitive information shared during the interviews was not stored on the platforms of commercial transcription service providers and thus potentially disclosed to third parties. The interview quotes were translated from German.
The evaluation followed the principle of qualitative content analysis according to Mayring, Fenzl and Gläser-Zikuda (cf. Gläser-Zikuda et al. 2022: 243; cf. Kuckartz/Rädiker 2022: 514). A category system is the basis of the evaluation. The deductive first category ›internal work processes‹ is divided into ›workflows‹ and ›standards‹. The following subcategories, among others, were formed and coded for ›workflows‹: selection of topics, division of work, exchange of information, each of which is intended to cover different assumed work steps. The second subcategory ›standards‹ is divided into research rules/standards, agreements on publications and financing rules. The second deductive category ›problems and conflicts during collaboration‹ was divided into the subcategories conflicts/problems during research, conflicts concerning objectives/problems and financing conflicts/problems.
The study is subject to some limitations. On the one hand, the deliberately open-ended interview questions ensured that the interviewees gave a wide range of answers. On the other hand, it was sometimes difficult to tell in retrospect whether certain things were not mentioned or were mentioned with varying degrees of clarity for reasons of confidentiality or whether they were simply forgotten to be mentioned. It is assumed that some aspects of the collaboration did not occur to the interviewees ad hoc. One limitation of the open questions is the fact that some interviewees already listed the advantages and disadvantages of research cooperation at the beginning of the interview. This inevitably led to a redundancy in the questions during the course of the interviews, but they were deliberately asked again so that the interviewees could once again think specifically about the disadvantages or advantages of intermedia cooperation, for example. Finally, it must be pointed out that the results are not universally valid. The data were already saturated after half of the interviews. However, due to the members’ individual assessment of the collaboration, it cannot be ruled out that new aspects would have come up if all participants in the research network had been interviewed.
The findings below shows the internal work processes in the research network as well as problems and conflicts in the collaboration.
Findings: Internal work processes
Research question 1 relates to the organization of internal work processes within the research network, focusing on the selection of topics, the division of work, the exchange of information, the rules, and agreements on publications and financing.
The internal work processes presented first concerns the selection of topics. All nine interviewees state that most of the topics are brought in from outside the newsroom. Almost all of them cite existing contacts as main sources for their topics. Many of the long-standing research network members are considered »specialists on various topics« (B2), have developed topics themselves through years of research, have built up a network in social areas and have thus gained »special access« (B9). According to B8, topics often come »from the political sphere from sources […] who are somehow involved, but who of course also pursue a certain interest«. It is important to maintain contact with previous sources and to hold background discussions that can lead to new topic ideas (B3, B4). In addition to the existing contacts of research network members, the majority of interviewees cite informants as sources who leak or anonymously transmit information to the newsrooms. This takes place via secure mailboxes of investigative journalists or anonymous mailboxes, as was the case with the reporting by the SZ on the ›Swiss Secrets‹ story (B2). As B9 explains, such secret data are often passed on to the research network members because the research network has »now made a name for itself«. Three interviewees (B6, B7 and B8) cited other cooperation partners such as the ICIJ or the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) as another important source of information from outside the newsrooms. These statements lead to the conclusion that such an exchange of topics between cooperation partners takes place either at joint conferences or through a member of WDR, NDR or SZ who is also connected to another network (B7). B8 states that although international research topics are rare, they are particularly powerful. Two thirds of respondents also consider the internal choice of topics to be worth mentioning. This is triggered by current events and the news situation (B8). These topic suggestions are then shared in conferences or among colleagues.
With regard to the division of work, the interviewees’ responses indicate that the distribution of tasks is decided »depending on the topic and occasion« (B9). Here, the journalists’ statements are similar in that there does not seem to be a fixed process, but rather the distribution of tasks sometimes takes place bilaterally between the network members, sometimes in conferences and sometimes at department management level. Each investigative newsroom decides independently with whom to cooperate from the other media houses. Above all, however, it is clear that investigative journalists contact each other independently and across newsrooms and come together to conduct joint research.
The decision as to which of the three investigative newsrooms or which of the colleagues should be involved in the journalistic research is not made according to fixed patterns, but rather depends on the subject area to be researched, the different competences and personal sympathies. If colleagues join forces for a joint project, the interviewees cite the factors of trust, journalistic skills (such as data analysis) and existing access to sources and contacts as particularly decisive; specialist knowledge also plays a role (e.g. B9). It is also important whether successful cooperation has already taken place in the past and whether there is sufficient time available (B4). It must be made clear that all those involved work primarily for their own organization and that collaboration within the network is decided on a case-by-case basis. As a result, not all three newsrooms are always part of a project, but sometimes only NDR and WDR, WDR and SZ or NDR and SZ, depending on availability, according to the majority of interviewees. Depending on the scope of a project, international cooperation partners such as the ICIJ are also brought on board.
With regard to the degree of the division of labor, the interviewees largely agree that they divide work mostly during the research phase and less so during writing up the story. Respondents said that each newsroom works independently on the same topic, but then shares its research results and uses the different qualifications and contacts of the other participants across newsrooms. In particular, large amounts of data from leaks are analyzed based on a division of labor to save time. Two interviewees from NDR and SZ stated that journalists take on different tasks during research: Some colleagues are mainly responsible for gathering information and others for evaluating the material or journalistic implementation (B7). As part of this division, some colleagues only get involved at the end of a project (B8). However, there is not always a complete division: some appointments are attended by employees from all three media houses (B6).
B3, B4 and B6 state that in the German national broadcaster ARD (of which the regional broadcasters NDR and WDR are member stations) one editorial department is often in charge. These responsibilities are reflected in fact checking and the approval of an investigation: While the SZ is responsible for its own fact checking according to most interviewees, at NDR and WDR the managing editor who is in charge of the investigation or the legal department is responsible for the fact checking for most of the investigations.
According to B3, B7 and B2, the final responsibility for the publications lies with each media house itself: »So since everyone writes their own story, everyone is also responsible for their own actions, so to speak.« (B2). Some of the interviewees point out that a contribution is sent to all those involved in the research process for approval in addition to the in-house fact checking – in other words, all three media can also be involved in the fact checking. It becomes clear that the approval process is not set in stone, but varies from project to project.
It is striking that many interviewees ascribed a different independence to SZ as a private-sector newspaper than to NDR and WDR: »SZ does its own thing.« (B3). The reason for this are the different research steps, production channels and the differing production times of print and television reports. With regard to the division of work, the statements of the interviewees therefore differ in that some emphasize the continuous independence of the three investigative newsrooms in the implementation while others state that the channels are divided between NDR and WDR in particular, with one newsroom taking over radio and the other one television.
To exchange information, all members of the research network take part in regular video conferences to discuss past and planned publications, offer criticism, collect and discuss topic suggestions and ideas and decide on joint research. In addition, the department heads meet in joint sessions, and bilateral conferences are held between project partners.
All interviewees perceive the exchange of material as intensive, cooperative and as an »ongoing process« (B5), in the course of which the participating journalists continuously share data, knowledge, documents and central research results with each other. There are no limits to the exchange – apart from a possible exception due to source protection. Everyone conducts interviews, exchanges the results, passes on contacts and »everything is shared« (B6). The exchange takes place bilaterally between colleagues and does not have to be approved at the manager level: B3 describes this exchange as an exchange of »many messages back and forth between colleagues«. Journalists often exchange information several times a day, especially towards the end of a project. Large-scale projects are perceived as particularly exchange-intensive. All interviewees agree that cooperation with another media house only makes sense if there is an intensive exchange during joint research and that the participants need all the information to enable them to conduct their own research and produce journalistic contributions. B4 says that the exchange of central research results is a »basic principle«. B8 adds: »And that’s also the case with such joint research, that you’re pleased if you can help somehow, everyone can do something and everyone brings some information and that’s why you’re happy to share with everyone.«
When sharing data with other colleagues two main restrictions remain. Three interviewees cite source protection: Documents that can provide information about sensitive sources are not shared with other colleagues, or only in a restricted form, for example in the form of excerpts. Contact details of sensitive sources are also not passed on: »If material cannot be passed on for reasons of source protection, then of course we adhere to this strictly, because source protection is really the be-all and end-all« (B5). Three other interviewees mentioned the restriction that SZ does not receive any video or audio material from NDR and WDR to refute the accusation of distortion of competition from the outset. NDR and WDR co-operate to develop moving image content (B3). The gathered information is then used to select the publication channel for SZ, NDR and WDR. Each media house decides for itself how a story should be published, as B5 describes:
»In general, we exchange everything, because every newsroom needs to have the basics to be able to decide whether to report and have all the facts together, because in the end, each media house always decides for itself what to do with the material.«
Internal work processes also include standards, i.e. rules, agreements on publications and the distribution of financing. The statements of the interviewees suggest that there are no written rules for cooperative research, but rather an informal code of conduct. When asked, the majority of the network members emphasized the individuality of the three newsrooms and the journalistic standards they had already internalized through their many years of work in the journalistic profession. Their research is based on »unspoken standards« and a »netiquette […] that is adhered to, which […] is not written down anywhere« (B1), but had become established over the years of working together. The information on research standards is correspondingly diverse. Most journalists mentioned basic standards such as journalistic due diligence, confrontation of all parties, trustworthy handling of sources, including keeping sensitive information confidential from third parties. According to B8, everything else is »very, very flexible«. B2 also mentions joint confrontation, which is then carried out on behalf of WDR, NDR and SZ, and consultation with the legal departments on sensitive publications. B4 and B8 state that there must be fair, sufficiently long response times for sources who are confronted. B4 adds that, in principle, all persons named in the research must actually be contacted and written evidence of oral statements must be collected.
With regard to agreements on publications or regulations for joint publications by the research network, all members agree that publications are generally published at the same time after a jointly set embargo period. However, a majority of the journalists emphasize that they sometimes deviate from these embargo periods depending on the topic of the research and accordingly discuss the publication date anew each time: »How we publish is something we discuss anew each time, because the question of when we make embargo periods varies from project to project« (B1). The embargo periods also depend on the planned format of a story.
Three interviewees say that consideration is always given to the respective editorial deadlines of the media houses and the upcoming broadcasts, so that no newsroom misses out on a publication because there is no suitable broadcast at the time (B7). This difference in the accessibility of the various target groups should be taken into account, especially in cross-media work (B3). Despite these statements, conflicts also arise (see below). In addition to the joint publication date, B3 in particular lists other aspects in the planning of publications: the orientation towards target groups depending on the topic, a joint press release on behalf of all media houses in the case of important research, the naming of those persons and their newsrooms as authors who were actually involved in the research (also B7), and fact-based and fully researched reporting. B8 also adds that only NDR and WDR can publish the same text (for example on Tagesschau.de), but not SZ.
With regard to financing, five interviewees said that financing agreements between the three newsrooms were not in place. In principle, there are no such agreements; instead, each media house provides its own staff and therefore its own financial resources. All interviewees stated that the research network does not have a joint budget. According to four interviewees, the different workloads and the use of different media formats prevent this. Care is taken to ensure that everyone contributes their fair share of research work from project to project. For freelance journalists who work for all three newsrooms, there is a separate regulation, which, however, is only cited by B5: »And there are people who work for [all three media houses], where everyone pays their fair share, so to speak, as far as the fee is concerned, so that it doesn’t fall apart here either.« According to B6, it is only between WDR and NDR that there are different levels of financing for research, depending on who is in charge. The only binding regulation is dividing the fee of the research network team leader fee between all three newsrooms.
Findings: Problems and conflicts during collaboration
The second research question relates to problems and conflicts in the collaboration. These are divided into the areas of research, objectives and financing.
When asked about possible problems or conflicts during the research process, the respondents’ answers varied. The greatest consensus was that there was potential for conflict if a newsroom wanted to publish research on its own without cooperating. For B6, B8 and B9 the reasons for such behavior are exclusivity in access to special sources, but according to B6 this is »super super rare«. B8 says: »It’s for reasons of source protection or a bit of exclusivity and access, so to speak, to protect your exclusive access from your colleagues, […] you’re happy for every great story that the other person does, but you’d actually like to have done it yourself.« A second frequently mentioned area of conflict, according to five interviewees, is the different workload of the newsrooms: B6 points out that it is an »insane coordination effort« to ensure an equitable division of labor. There are complaints and frustration when one newsroom believes it is doing and investing more in research than the others. Communication across the four locations of the newsrooms in Hamburg, Berlin, Cologne and Munich is also impractical (B6). Further uncertainties lie in the secure transfer of materials from location to location (B4). Four interviewees also say that human and personal conflicts between colleagues can make it difficult to come together as a team for research (B4 and B6) and to exchange materials (B7 and B9). B8 also sees a problem in the unclear responsibilities the larger a project team is:
»I would say that there is sometimes a kind of diffusion of responsibility, the feeling that ›Ok, if I don’t request the interview now, then someone else will do it‹ or ›If I don’t research this aspect, then someone else will do it‹.«
According to B2, B7 and B8, potential for conflict also arises from the different channels of the news media: As broadcasters WDR and NDR in particular need video or audio material whereas the SZ does not prioritize such considerations.
With regard to conflicts concerning the objectives of the research network, the interviewees mentioned a total of three different conflicts of objectives that can arise when publishing an investigative story. Three interviewees cite the cross-media-related different preferences in the publication times of radio, television and print, as each medium wants to reach its audience in the best possible way and in as many publications as possible (B3). B4 describes this as a »core conflict«. Three other interviewees state that the question of which type of publication should be chosen for cooperative research can also be a source of conflict. The reasons for this are different focuses on a topic to be reported on or different orientations of the publishing medium: »News plays a greater role at WDR, [which] SZ is not so interested in because it simply cannibalizes long-term research« (B7). For B8, the question of how big stories need to be to deserve the research network label at all also harbors potential for conflict, as well as the problem that one of the newsrooms would prefer to be the only one responsible for a publication. Despite the willingness to collaborate, B8 and B9 believe that each newsroom focuses on its own visibility.
When asked whether conflicts could arise with regard to financing, a third of respondents did not provide any information due to a lack of knowledge on the subject. Four respondents, however, do see problems: B1, B4 and B6 say different kinds of workloads are difficult to compare. Although B6 states that the workload for a newsroom is recouped through the publication and conflicts are therefore unnecessary, he also sees a problem in determining the workload per person: »So, if [a journalist] has some source in the BKA [German: Bundeskriminalamt; translation: Federal Crime Police Office] and then generates some information from it, do you pay for the half day he was there to meet the source, or do you pay for the 14 years of preparatory work he needed to get access to this source?« B7 mentions a problem that arises from the avoidance of cross-subsidization of the privately owned SZ: a lack of a common data platform for NDR, WDR and SZ on which information can be stored and shared. B7 expands on the problem: »And then, just for example, the SZ could make it available to others on a voluntary basis. But it would be expense that such a media house can only afford to a limited extent.« The reason why there is no shared data platform is that the SZ would otherwise be accused of working with material from public service media – in other words, the SZ would benefit indirectly from the broadcasting fees without having to incur the costs of its own research.
Discussion and conclusion
The objective of this study was to make the cross-editorial and cross-system cooperation of the research network of WDR, NDR and SZ comprehensible through the assessments of the investigative journalists involved from these media houses. The following conclusion can be drawn: The investigative network is nowhere near as firmly institutionalized as accusations against it suggest (see e.g. Meier 2015). Rather, the collaboration can be described as a media partnership for specific news events. There is no fixed set of rules, no permanently assigned staff and no joint project financing. The unifying elements are mutual trust, which is continuously strengthened through regular joint research, knowledge of colleagues’ skills, mutual enrichment through specialized competences and the mutual exchange of materials and information, as described in previous studies (cf. Cairo 2008: 181; cf. Heft 2021; cf. Sambrook 2018: 27, 31).
Research question 1 asked about cross-editorial cooperation in the research network of SZ, NDR and WDR with regard to internal work processes. It became clear that not all three media houses are necessarily always involved in a piece of research, but that the project teams are formed depending on topic and occasion. The findings show that the cooperation does not consist of WDR, NDR and SZ journalists together researching and writing journalistic products, but that selected colleagues from different newsrooms work independently on the same project and strive for an editorial publication. While doing so, they benefit from each other’s qualifications and access to sources and exchange of materials. It should also be noted that there do not appear to be any written rules, agreements or financial arrangements. Ambitious journalistic standards and a non-written code of conduct apply to the research network’s work, which has been established since it was founded and which each member has internalized through many years of work. This code of conduct includes the journalistic duty of care and the definition of when a publication receives the »WDR–NDR–SZ« label. The principle of simultaneity with a common embargo period applies to joint publications. However, as the journalists are aware that different target groups are reached depending on the time of publication precisely because of the cross-media nature of the publication, this embargo period can vary.
Based on the classification of journalism networks cited by Heft (2021), it can be concluded from these moderately strong structures and the flat hierarchy that the research network of WDR, NDR and SZ is a medium-degree network that lies in the middle between a top-down structure (fixed agreements) and a bottom-up structure (own initiative) (cf. Heft 2021). The cooperation structure can be described as intensive, based on Heft’s categorization of the intensity of cooperation, as there is a constant transfer of knowledge (cf. Heft 2021: 458): A regular exchange takes place in joint conferences, among other ways. The journalists perceive this exchange as intensive, cooperative and generous. Larger projects are described as particularly communication-intensive. Contact details and documents from sensitive sources are excluded from the exchange.
As shown in research question 2, areas of conflict and problems in the collaboration can be identified. During the research, these conflicts lay in the occasional solo effort of a newsroom, the different levels of resources required and the organizational effort. The feeling of investing more in research (people, time, finances) than the others is the main cause of frustration and dissatisfaction. This confirms Kayser-Bril’s (2018: 62f.) criticism of the lack of activity on the part of cooperation partners and the high coordination effort. However, low motivation and poor communication, as stated by Konow-Lund (2019: 4), do not play a role here. When asked about financing conflicts, the willingness to provide information was weakest – interviewees were unable or unwilling to provide much information here and limited themselves to naming conflicts in the fair division of labor. It is clear that there is no fixed procedure here either. Rather, decisions are made on a case-by-case basis and attempts are made to generate an even workload over the years. These results contradict those of Kayser-Bril (2018: 62f.): The costs of collaborative projects are not per se higher than those of individual research; rather, the equitable distribution of costs is the decisive factor. In contrast to Kayser-Bril, the interviewees believe that financial discrepancies are offset by the success of the projects, i.e. the benefits.
Accusations of distortion of competition and cross-subsidization were also a topic that was raised by some interviewees during the interview without the question being asked. The statements on this topic vary greatly. Sometimes the journalists only describe whether and how it is ensured that the accusations are not substantiated, sometimes they deny the criticism; two people show understanding for the accusations. In principle, all interviewees are aware of the criticism and can even understand some of it, but are convinced that sufficient care is taken within the research network not to offer any targets for attack. With regard to dealing with criticism in everyday journalistic work, seven people stated that particular care is taken not to offer any grounds for criticism, especially when it comes to the use of resources and their financing. According to the interviewees, the travel expenses of the ARD media houses on the one hand and the SZ on the other are strictly separated. There is no transfer of money from the public service media to the SZ; a »very high level of sensitivity« (B4) is displayed and »the utmost care« (B9) is taken to ensure that the SZ does not receive any advantages from NDR and WDR. However, all of this was not due to pressure from outside, but out of the research network’s own interest in not cross-subsidizing, says B4. In general, no other ARD station is allowed to be included in the research network so that there is no distortion of competition (B5). B5 and B6 in particular make it clear that the fair distribution of personnel resources is monitored and that each newsroom must actually contribute something to the research to be named in the publication. B3, B6 and B7 emphasize that the cooperation manifests itself particularly in the conference, that it is not a closed research cartel and that only the investigative newsrooms cooperate with each other. Four people point out that there are now many other collaborations and networks.
In conclusion, it can also be stated that the research network is highly valued by the interviewed journalists: The interviewees attach great importance to the diversity of topics and presentations thanks to the cross-media work and the high quality and quantity of the research results. According to the interviewees, quality and quantity result above all from the depth of the research, which is possible thanks to the division of labor and bundling of competences as well as the diversity of sources used, as also reported by Cairo (2008: 181), Heft (2021) and Sambrook (2018: 27): »Together we can simply go much more in depth and thus report much more precisely, report much more comprehensively and that is the great value of cooperation.« (B5). Five interviewees conclude that the three cooperating media houses have journalistic clout and a special reach due to the diverse publication channels and their track record: »And this clout arises on the one hand from the fact that you can go into the matter with a certain amount of manpower and then of course also […] from the fact that you have the opportunity to reach people through various outlets« (B2). For almost all interviewees, the diverse skills, competences, expertise and qualifications, but also ideas and perspectives, from which each individual person can benefit, are also essential for research. Here, the interviewees are aware of their own strengths and weaknesses and emphasize how helpful the skills of their colleagues are (cf. Kayser-Bril 2018: 27; cf. Lilienthal 2017: 661).
In view of current developments in journalism, it is clear that many media now consider it sensible to join forces with other newsrooms for research purposes. The research network examined here is just one example of the many cross-media journalistic teams that have been formed in recent years in Germany and previously, above all, in the USA. So far, journalistic networks appear to be a sustainable trend. But how effective is it for the media industry and journalism in the long run if more and more large media houses, such as German national broadcaster ZDF or magazine Spiegel, cooperate with the research network CORRECTIV, and the broadcasters Deutsche Welle or BR, no longer produce their reports exclusively for themselves and there is no longer any competition for the best story or the fastest publication between the media houses? Particularly in the case of cooperation between media houses financed by broadcasting fees and those financed by the private sector, the question must be raised as to what long-term effects this will have on the willingness of the audience to pay for media services. This represents an exciting new field of journalistic research, in which it could be investigated from the perspective of both the audience and journalists how the willingness to continue such cooperations develops. Whether research networks are actually a sustainable trend will probably only become clear in the coming years. A third scientific perspective should be mentioned: In future content analyses, the quality-enhancing effect of the described synthesis of multiple competences in research could be investigated.
About the authors
Jessica Kunert, Jun.-Prof. Dr. (*1988), has been Junior Professor of Innovation and Gender Research in Journalism at the School of Journalism at Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz since 2021. She researches innovation processes in newsrooms, such as the use and impact of artificial intelligence on journalism and journalists. Investigative journalism is particularly close to her heart. Contact: jessica.kunert@uni-mainz.de
Luka Simon (*1998) completed her Master’s degree in Journalism and Communication Studies at the University of Hamburg in 2023. After working at the Hamburger Abendblatt, ZDF and Tagesschau, she is currently a trainee at Norddeutscher Rundfunk. This article is based on her master’s thesis.
Volker Lilienthal, Prof. Dr. phil., Dipl.-Journ., has been Professor of Journalism and Communication Studies and holder of the Rudolf Augstein Endowed Professorship at the University of Hamburg since 2009. Previously editor in charge of epd medien, he is currently leading a research and skills transfer project on source protection in digital research. He is the editor of ›Sagen, was ist‹. Journalismus für eine offene Gesellschaft (Cologne: Herbert von Halem 2024) and a board member of Deutschlandradio as an expert. Contact: volker.lilienthal@uni-hamburg.de
References
Alfter, Brigitte: New Method, New Skill, New Position? Editorial Coordinators in Cross-Border Collaborative Teams. In: Sambrook, Richard (ed.): Global Teamwork. The Rise of the Collaboration in Investigative Journalism. Oxford [Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism] 2018, pp. 41-58. https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2018-03/sambrook_e-ISBN_1802.pdf (27 February 2025)
Cario, Ingmar: Die Deutschland-Ermittler. Investigativer Journalismus und die Methoden der Macher. Münster [LIT-Verlag] 2006
Carson, Andrea; Farhall, Kate (2018): Understanding Collaborative Investigative Journalism in a »Post-Truth« Age. In: Journalism Studies, 19(13), 2018, pp. 1899–1911
Gläser-Zikuda, Michaela; Stephan, Melanie; Hofmann, Florian: Qualitative Auswertungsverfahren. In: Reinders, Heinz; Bergs-Winkels, Dagmar; Prochnow, Annette; Post, Isabell (eds.): Empirische Bildungsforschung. Eine elementare Einführung. Wiesbaden [Springer VS] 2022, pp. 237–251
Grubenmann, Stephanie; Ruß-Mohl, Stephan: Zusammenarbeit statt Konkurrenz: Kooperationsmöglichkeiten zwischen der SRG, SSR und privaten Medienunternehmen in der Schweiz. Lugano [USI – Università della Svizzera italiana] 2016. https://www.schweizermedien.ch/getattachment/Artikel/Medienmitteilung/Private-Medienunternehmen-und-SRG-Zusammenarbeit-ist-moglich/160422_Studie_Zusammenarbeit_statt_Konkurrenz.pdf (27 February 2025)
Hahn, Oliver; Stalph, Florian: Digital Investigative Journalism. Data Visual Analytics and Innovative Methodologies in International Reporting. Schweiz [Palgrave Macmillan] 2018
Heft, Anett: Transnational Journalism Networks »From Below«. Cross-Border Journalistic Collaboration in Individualized Newswork. In: Journalism Studies, 22(4), 2021, pp. 454–474
Heft, Anett; Alfter, Brigitte; Pfetsch, Barbara: Transnational journalism networks as drivers of Europeanisation. In: Journalism, 20(9), 2019, pp. 1183–1202
Hoxha, Abit: Investigative Journalism. In: Vos, Tim P.; Hanusch, Folker (eds.): The International Encyclopedia of Journalism Studies. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118841570.iejs0134
Kaplan, Andrew D.: Investigating the Investigators. Examining the attitudes, perceptions, and experiences of investigative journalists in the internet age. Maryland [College Park ProQuest Dissertations Publishing] 2008
Kayser-Bril, Nicolas: Collaboration. One Tool among Many. In: Sambrook, Robert (ed.): Global Teamwork. The Rise of the Collaboration in Investigative Journalism. Oxford [Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism] 2018, pp. 26–40. https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2018-03/sambrook_e-ISBN_1802.pdf (25 February 2025)
Konow-Lund, Maria; Gearing, Amanda; Berglez, Peter: Transnational Cooperation in Journalism. In: Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication. Oxford [Oxford University Press] 2019, pp. 1–19
Krüger, Uwe; Knorr, Charlotte; Finke, Florian: Cross-Border Non-Profit Investigative Journalism Networks. A Structural Analysis of the Field. In: Academic Track Reader. A Collection of Research Papers Submitted for the Global Investigative Journalism Conference September 2019, Hamburg, Germany. Hamburg [Investigative Journalism Education Consortium] 2019, pp. 404–428
Kuckartz, Uwe; Rädiker, Stephan: Datenaufbereitung und Datenbereinigung in der qualitativen Sozialforschung. In: Baur, Nina; Blasius, Jörg (eds.): Handbuch Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung. Wiesbaden [Springer VS] 2022, pp. 501–516
Kunert, Jessica; Frech, Jannis; Brüggemann, Michael; Lilienthal, Volker; Loosen, Wiebke: How Investigative Journalists Around the World Adopt Innovative Digital Practices. In: Journalism Studies, 23(7), 2022, pp. 761–780
Lanosga, Gerry; Willnat, Lars; Weaver, David H.; Houston, Brant (2017): A Breed Apart? A comparative study of investigative journalists and US journalist. In: Journalism Studies, 18(3), 2017, pp. 265–287
Lilienthal, Volker: Recherchejournalismus für das Gemeinwohl. Correctiv. Eine Journalismusorganisation neuen Typs in der Entwicklung. In: Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft, 65(4), 2017, pp. 659–681
Lück, Julia; Schultz, Tanjev: Investigative data journalism in a globalized world. A survey on ICIJ journalists. In: Journalism Research, 2(2), 2019, S. 93–114
Ludwig, Jan: Investigatives Recherchieren. Munich [UVK-Verlagsgesellschaft] 2014
Lugschitz, Renée; Klinghardt, Korbinian; Schützeneder, Jonas; Graßl, Michael; Körner, Maike: Collaborative-investigative journalism. From the ›lonely‹ wolf to the ›power of the pack‹. In: Meier, Klaus; García Avilés, José Alberto; Kaltenbrunner, Andy; Porlezza, Colin; Wyss, Vinzenz; Lugschitz, Renée: Klinghardt, Korbinian (eds.): Innovations in journalism: comparative research in five European countries. Abingdon, Oxon [Routledge] 2024, S. 109–117
Meier, Christian: »Potenziell vielfaltsverengend«. In: Welt, 09.09.2015, https://www.welt.de/kultur/article146199160/Potenziell-vielfaltsverengend.html (27 February 2025)
Rothenberger, Liane; Löffelholz, Martin; Weaver, David H.; Tribusean, Irina (eds.): The Palgrave Handbook of Cross-Border Journalism. Cham [Palgrave Macmillan] 2023
Sambrook, Richard (2018): The Elements of Collaboration. In: Sambrook, Richard (ed.): Global Teamwork. The Rise of the Collaboration in Investigative Journalism. Oxford [Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism] 2018, pp. 26–40. https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2018-03/sambrook_e-ISBN_1802.pdf (27 February 2025)
Schultz, Tanjev: Die Rechercheverbünde. In: Prinzing, Marlis; Blum, Roger (eds.): Handbuch politischer Journalismus. Cologne [Herbert von Halem] 2021, pp. 337–341
About this article
Copyright
This article is distributed under Creative Commons Atrribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0). You are free to share and redistribute the material in any medium or format. The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms. You must however give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits. More Information under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en.
Citation
Jessica Kunert, Luka Simon, Volker Lilienthal: Cooperation despite competition. Work processes and potentials for conflict in an investigative research network. In: Journalism Research, Vol. 8 (2), 2025, pp. 130-148. DOI: 10.1453/2569-152X-22025-15334-en
ISSN
2569-152X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1453/2569-152X-22025-15334-en
First published online
July 2025