Ange Lavoipierre spoke to Telum about her rewarding and varied work as an Investigative Reporter at ABC Radio National.

What drew you to investigative journalism, and how is it different from previous roles you've held?
It’s massively rewarding to do original work and have the chance to add something to the sum of our public knowledge. Not all newsrooms or roles are equipped for that, and the financial pressure on news publishers is only becoming more acute. So, being given the resources and support to put something genuinely new on the record is a privilege. I also like the longer formats that often come with investigative work because there’s more opportunity for nuance and context than what’s usually possible in news and current affairs.

I’ve worked in lots of different teams within the ABC over the last 15 years, but the great thing about Background Briefing is that there’s a longstanding culture of investigations. That means there’s plenty of experience in the team I can learn from, and a sense of ambition in terms of the real world impact our stories can have. I pinch myself frequently that I get to do this job.

What does a typical day or week look like for you?
Part of the appeal of this job for me is that it’s massively varied and that no two weeks or days look the same. Maybe the only fixed point in my day is my media consumption in the mornings, which is increasingly newsletter-based. The first thing I open every day is my inbox, which these days is primarily full of AI, tech, and internet culture updates from Substack and US digital media (e.g. The Verge and 404 Media). Then I read Australian and US headlines and I listen to RN Breakfast. NYT’s Hard Fork podcast is another mainstay. Social media is last, but it’s compulsory viewing because, increasingly, it’s the only place people are going for their news intake. The rest of the day is some blend of phone calls, interviews, writing, editing, live crosses and pre-records, too many emails, and not enough reading. The best bit is speaking with a contact, where you find out something completely surprising and get excited about what kind of story it could become.

How do you and your team decide what stories to cover?
I’m not on the commissioning side, but it has always seemed to me as if Background Briefing’s story selection is very reporter-driven, in that the idea is usually generated and pitched by individual journalists. The benefit of that approach is that you get stories that the journalist cares deeply about, about subject-matter they know intimately, and I think it shows in the quality of the storytelling.

What is the most memorable story you’ve been involved with?
Honestly, it’s probably AI, and it’s ongoing. It feels like we’re on the cusp of a truly mind-bending change, and the challenge of communicating that to a population with wildly disparate levels of understanding in this area is huge, but it feels crucial. I can’t think of a time when I’ve found myself trying to narrate a more consequential moment in human history. It was also pretty wild being in Myanmar for the elections in 2015, but for completely different reasons.

What impact do you hope to achieve through your investigative reporting, and how do you measure that impact?
My focus areas at the moment are AI and ADHD, and the measures are different. With AI, whilst it’s being "covered" a lot, I think there’s an undersupply of critical and quality reporting in the Australian market. I’d like to do more to put the issue on the map here, especially the stakes and the risks. Impact journalism in AI is hard to measure objectively, but one good metric is when people who don’t follow the news talk to you about your story. The truest metric for impact always changes. But because tech is so led by the private sector, and so specialised as a field of knowledge, achieving change is a whole media effort, and rarely the result of just one or two individual stories.

With ADHD, the metrics for impact are a bit more concrete. There are major ongoing challenges when it comes to access, industry ethics and quality of care, and there’s a mood for change at the moment. I think the impact probably looks like accountability within the industry, better care for patients, and regulatory reform.

What advice would you give aspiring investigative journalists wanting to pursue a career in this field?
Based on my own experience, I would tell them to become as knowledgeable as possible on the topics where they see the biggest problems. Particularly areas that are underserved in coverage, and find out everything you can about the subject by talking to people. That might sound basic, but I suppose what I mean is to be broadly curious, rather than seeking to confirm your existing conclusions.

The stories I’ve been most proud of have come about because of a combination of curiosity and the trust people have placed in me. I’ve found that people will trust you with their information and give you the access you need if they believe you know what you’re doing, that you practice journalism thoughtfully and responsibly, and that you, therefore, won’t mishandle their story. Also, never burn a bridge if you can possibly help it.