Investigative journalism has always occupied an uneasy space in society. It is praised as a vital instrument of accountability yet criticised for disrupting the comfortable status quo. To those who benefit from secrecy, it is an unwelcome force, shining light where shadows are preferred. But the truth is this: investigative journalism doesn’t create scandals—it reveals them.
This work, however, is rarely without opposition. Legal threats, harassment, and accusations of bias are familiar tools used to suppress uncomfortable truths. When reporters uncover significant events that companies fail to disclose—whether through negligence, oversight, or intentional omission—the resistance can be fierce. Yet, the role of investigative journalism remains steadfast: to uncover, to question, and to inform the public.
NDAs and the Selective Disclosure Problem
One particularly troubling trend is the misuse of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) to justify withholding material information. In one notable case, a company cited an NDA to excuse its failure to report a material event—the cancellation of a major contract. The company had previously disclosed the existence of the contract and even publicised shipments made to the customer. Yet, when the contract was cancelled, the company claimed it could not reveal this event due to confidentiality provisions.
This inconsistency raises significant questions. If the NDA did not prevent the company from announcing the contract’s existence or related shipments, why would it suddenly apply to the cancellation? Such selective disclosure suggests the NDA is being used not to protect legitimate trade secrets but to avoid revealing negative information that could harm the company’s stock price or reputation.
Public companies have a legal obligation to disclose material events—developments that a reasonable investor would consider important when deciding whether to buy, sell, or hold stock. NDAs, while binding in private agreements, do not supersede this responsibility. Transparency isn’t optional—it’s foundational to maintaining trust in financial markets.
The Role of Investigative Journalism
When companies fail to fulfil their obligations, investigative journalists step in to bridge the gap. By uncovering and reporting on material events—often through public court records or whistleblower accounts—they provide critical information that the public and investors have a right to know.
For example, during the Theranos debacle, it wasn’t regulators or auditors who exposed the fraudulent practices—it was journalists. The revelations didn’t destroy Theranos; the company’s deception did. Similarly, investigative reporting on Wirecard, a German fintech company, uncovered years of accounting fraud despite lawsuits and intimidation tactics aimed at silencing journalists. These stories highlight why reporting on material events isn’t just ethical—it’s necessary.
Accusations often follow such reporting. Companies claim journalists manipulate stock prices, harm shareholders, or act with bias. These attacks aim to deflect attention from the underlying issues, shifting the narrative from “What is wrong?” to “Why are you saying this?” Yet, a drop in stock price following an exposé is not evidence of harm—it’s a correction to reflect reality.
The Weaponisation of Intimidation
Legal threats and NDAs are increasingly being used as tools of intimidation. In some cases, lawsuits are filed not to correct falsehoods but to suppress the truth. These are often strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs), designed to exhaust journalists’ resources and create a chilling effect that deters future investigations.
Even when such lawsuits fail—and they often do—their purpose is served. The delays, costs, and stress they impose can force smaller outlets or independent journalists to think twice before publishing. But this intimidation rarely works in the long run. The truth has a way of emerging, and suppression efforts often backfire by drawing more attention to the story.
The Public’s Right to Know
The importance of transparency grows even more critical when public resources are at stake. Companies that receive government contracts operate with taxpayer money, and their actions have broader implications. Investigative reporting on defence contractors, healthcare providers, or infrastructure companies often reveals systemic inefficiencies or ethical lapses that would otherwise remain hidden.
During the Iraq War, Halliburton faced scrutiny for overcharging the U.S. government on no-bid contracts. Investigative journalists uncovered details that regulators and auditors overlooked, leading to public outcry and reforms. Similarly, during the COVID-19 pandemic, journalists exposed delays and profiteering among government-contracted companies, ensuring accountability for how public funds were spent.
These stories underscore why transparency isn’t just a financial issue—it’s a public one. When companies fail to disclose material events, it isn’t just shareholders who are impacted—it’s everyone who depends on ethical corporate behaviour.
The Futility of Suppression
Efforts to suppress the truth often achieve the opposite effect. When companies attempt to silence journalists through legal threats, accusations, or intimidation, they inadvertently create more scrutiny. Suppression becomes part of the story, raising further questions about what is being hidden and why.
Journalists are trained to follow these trails, turning the obstacles meant to stop them into stepping stones for deeper discovery. In this way, suppression attempts often expand the scope of the truth rather than narrowing it.
Commitment to Transparency
Investigative journalism isn’t an act of aggression—it’s a commitment to accountability. It exists to ensure that those entrusted with power, whether corporate or governmental, remain answerable to the public. The work is not without risk, but the alternative—unchecked secrecy—is far more dangerous.
For every threat issued, every lawsuit filed, and every attempt to suppress reporting, the need for transparency grows clearer. Facts don’t disappear because they’re inconvenient, and truth isn’t diminished by efforts to obscure it. If anything, such tactics strengthen the resolve of those committed to bringing the facts to light.
The role of investigative journalism is not to harm but to inform. By uncovering the hidden and asking uncomfortable questions, it ensures that no entity operates beyond scrutiny. And in doing so, it reinforces the public’s right to know—a right that no NDA or lawsuit can ever erase
