A before and after in global journalism and in my professional career

The Panama Papers, a global research carried out by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) which was published on Sunday April 3, 2016 simultaneously worldwide at 6:00 PM Greenwich Mean Time was a before and after in my journalistic career. And I am also thinking of global journalism. The reasons are various.

The first, obviously, by the impact the investigation has had on a global level by involving the names of over a dozen political leaders and over a hundred public officials across the globe.

Despite being on a Sunday an hour away from the prime time local, and initially only participate in the journal The nation and Channel 13In less than an hour, the revelations were replied by most of the Argentinian media the same day, and the following ones. They involved no less than then brand new president Mauricio Macri. It wasn’t the only one, but it was the most relevant to us.

On the other hand, in my professional career I had never lived before a collaborative journalism experience as the Panama Papers, never seen before locally or globally. And at this point, I continue to be deeply grateful to Marina Walker, former Executive Director of ICIJ, a Mendoza reporter based in Washington many years ago. She was the one who summoned me, even though I was not yet a member of the Consortium, for the research she had carried out for the program. Journalism for all more than a hundred shell companies created in the state of Nevada, which justice linked to the so-called “K-money route” used by businessman Lázaro Báez to launder money.

Much of these screen signatures were created by the study Mossack Fonseca dedicated to the provision of services offshore of the Panamanian Caribbean. This law firm was the protagonist of a leak of millions of internal documents which would be the basis of the Panama Papers. The files had been disclosed to two journalists from the German newspaper South German newspaper,, Frederik Obermaier and Bastian Obermayer, who, due to the volume and number of countries and well-known people involved, decided to share them with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists.

Joining the network of colleagues that made up the Consortium was a source of pride and a huge learning. And he also demanded to strictly adhere to a series of rules: absolute confidentiality of the project (we could only tell our boss), keep it safety instructions in established communications, and respect the global publication date set by the Consortium. In addition, the ICIJ would define which documents could be shared or uploaded to the Internet, and which could not.

The number of journalists – nearly 400 from more than 80 countries – who we work in secret for a year it was unpublished until this moment. We operate in English – due to the diversity of languages ​​spoken by colleagues summoned for research – through an encrypted communication platform.

Collaborate instead of competing

At the local level, there was something that broke the usual rules of Argentine journalism: collaboration instead of competition. To be at this moment in Channel 13, of Clarín Group, I worked with Hugo Alconada Mon, Iván Ruiz, Maia Jastreblansky and Ricardo Brom from the newspaper The nation – a means of competition – something unthinkable until that time in Argentina. And we did it with absolute trust between us and a spirit of collaboration. The discovery of one, among millions of documents, was the discovery of all. We didn’t compete, we helped each other not to break down into eternal dawns while looking at documents and emails. We generated something that we couldn’t tell anyone outside at that time.

And we didn’t do it just for Panama Papers in collaboration, but we formed what would become the Argentine ICIJ team for the following international investigations, with the incorporation of Sandra Crucianellli – today in Infobae – and Emilia Delfino, at the time of Profile.

This experience would mark a new direction for us in the way we do journalism and in our future investigations.

Personally, I also immersed myself from that moment on issues related to money laundering, business offshore and international financial crimes, which are very complex to fight without a certain amount of knowledge on the subject.

Finally, Panama Papers This allowed me to meet many colleagues from other countries with whom I have established links and I have been able to count on them in other surveys. This regional and international alliance is enriching and gives another dimension to our daily work.. This allowed me to consult, for example, a colleague from Paraguay to verify the properties of an Argentinian official. Or ask another Venezuelan colleague for details of the relationship of an Argentinian financier who has done business with the Nicolás Maduro regime.

Bittersweet flavor

However, Panama Papers It left a bittersweet taste to the Argentinian journalists who participated in this investigation.

Product of the “crack” that took hold in society during Kirchnerism, they accused us of this sector of having “delayed” the publication until Macri won the elections and took office in December 2015.

And we were honored for supposedly “helping” him in his triumph for not disclosing the company offshore of his family before. We tire of repeating over and over with Alconada Mon that the publication date was set by the ICIJ, in agreement with the German journalists who obtained the documents.

At the second in-person meeting we had in September 2016 in Munich, Germany in the newsroom of the South German newspaper, it was decided that the publication, initially scheduled for November 2015, would be postponed until March 2016, as the “anonymous” source who leaked the documents to German colleagues continued to provide information.

Finally, it was set for April 3. It goes without saying that from Argentina we did not have the power to influence the publication date, given that priority was given to Germany and European colleagues from such prestigious media as The Guardian where the BBC.

And finally, the Kirchnerists “questioned” us by having supposedly “warned” Macri himself before the launch of the investigation. What we did was contact him the week before to give him his version, something that is an essential practice of professional journalism.

And on the other hand, from the macrismo, they also pointed out to us for “having given a letter” to Kirchnerism to assimilate Macri to other corrupt officials convicted of being corrupt such as José López or Amado Boudou.

As journalists, we have to search for information, data, documents. Do our best to corroborate, consult with those involved to hear their side and, on several occasions, try to rebuild the missing parts to assemble the movie, not just the photo. And finally, say it. Don’t close it. Without speculating or thinking who favors or who doesn’t.

KEEP READING: