Drousiotis case a new point of departure

Drousiotis case as a new point of departure

Investigative journalism demands discretion, strict scrutiny, delicate handling and cross‑checking of sources, endless hours of research and fact‑verification, painstaking protective measures against surveillance by malicious actors, institutional or otherwise, and constant editorial and legal support. But while it has become entrenched in the public consciousness as a solitary process, it does not mean that it should be the undertaking of a single individual. Quite the opposite. Investigative journalism should never be the undertaking of just one person.

In Cyprus, where the systemic mass media — our mainstream — at worst serve, and at best accommodate, the dominant political‑economic system, investigative journalism — the kind that requires months of work — has ended up being carried out by a handful of solitary journalists who feel a moral obligation to investigate matters of public interest.

This is mainly because the mainstream lacks the tradition, structures and resources to invest in such work, but more depressingly, because it lacks the willingness or even the courage to risk finding itself in the dilemma of exposing issues that might create conflicts with its political or economic interests; or, even, with the ideological fixations of its owners or major sponsors and advertisers.

For years, Cypriot society only came to know of serious corruption cases in the country when they were revealed by international investigative media. Most of the time, the public’s patriotic instincts were steered toward questioning the intentions of international outlets, diminishing their impact and blurrring their findings. Wrongs were rarely corrected, and the guilty were rarely held accountable.

There are, of course, pockets of good local journalism — as well as many good journalists — and serious scandals are often uncovered. But these tend to form part of partisan exchanges between political or commercial players who exploit the decaying media landscape as part of their game.

To a large extent, this trend was recently confirmed not by any reluctance for investigative journalism but, unexpectedly and curiously, by the Cypriot media’s inoffensive coverage of the genocide in Gaza by Cypriot media, in which an uncomfortable yet clearly strategic indifference prevailed. Aimed, it appeared, at not to offending the government’s chosen policy and narratives, or the economic interests of those who support it.

Inevitably, some journalists, almost quixotically, are forced to operate on the margins, taking risks without the requisite support of the mechanisms of a robust and independent media organisation. The support of a publisher who, within the framework of oversight and adherence to journalistic ethics, could encourage and support journalists and assume final responsibility for their investigations.

Or, as perhaps should have happened in the case of Mr. Makarios Drousiotis’ most recent investigation, to articulate what the Washington Post’s editor‑in‑chief, Ben Bradlee, said to Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein while striking out sentences from a draft text in the early stages of the Watergate investigation: “Get some harder information next time.”

Mr. Drousiotis, in the case of his Mafia State investigation, had secured the necessary “hard information,” because he was, as he claims “in the room” when events unfolded. The confirmation of a significant part of his findings by the report of the Anti‑Corruption Authority is telling.

His most recent flawed investigation, however — which, strictly speaking, cannot even be considered journalistic — cost him personally but, more importantly, eroded public trust in journalism at a time when democracy needs it so urgently. The gravest blow against the public interest and democracy, however, came from the brazenness of the state establishment which, having been exposed by Mr. Drousiotis’ first investigation, weaponised the weaknesses of the second and activated an unacceptable persecution against him.

A state which with comfortable hypocrisy utters hollow declarations in favour of press freedom and freedom of expression, but with the same ease chose to intimidate the journalistic world by going after Mr Drousiotis. A shameless warning to all those who might dare to investigate any next case of corruption. A sly move aiming to widen and obscure the distance between executive power and citizens by neutralising the intermediary — the media.

Perhaps it was to be expected from a state that has just handed over the presidency of the Council of the EU but has still not ratified the European directive on the protection of journalists and journalistic sources (EMFA). Something it was obliged to do since August 2025.

Against all this, however, the Drousiotis affair must serve as a new beginning for Cypriot journalism. Instead of — as seems to be happening — dividing the journalistic world, it should unite it so that investigative work does not end up being the trial of one but the effective collaboration of many.

Note: A first relevant effort is the Cyprus Investigative Reporting Network (CIReN), an initiative of the Institute of Mass Media (IMME) with the strong support of the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP). Since 2024, CIReN is an autonomous, independent non‑profit organisation under the editorial direction and ownership of its journalists. Without any commercial dependancies, without advertisements, funded by foundations supporting independent journalism, by subscriptions and donations from its readers, and, most importantly, by partnerships with other journalistic and research bodies: www.ciren.cy

Read the full article on Policy Press