As a member of La Sociedad Clave and a participant in the breakfast held in Madrid, I was able to see first-hand how investigative journalism and private detectives share far more than common ground: they share the responsibility of providing evidence and context at a time when information has become fragile, fast-moving and, all too often, distorted.
A breakfast to talk about investigation, with names attached
At the Breakfasts with La Sociedad Clave, under the title “Journalists and Detectives: Investigation”, the following sat around the same table:
• The journalists Beatriz Parera (El Confidencial), Daniel Montero (Mediaset), José María Olmo (El Confidencial) and Esteban Urreiztieta (El Mundo)
• And the directors of two of the most renowned detective agencies in Spain: Julio Gutiez (Mira Detectives) and Francisco Marco (Método 3)
From my position as an attendee, the meeting was a highly illuminating opportunity to understand how the legal, ethical and methodological frameworks of journalists and detectives intersect, complement one another and also differ.
Evidence versus sources: two ways of upholding the truth
One of the central themes of the debate was the difference between the burden of proof placed on detectives and the way investigative journalism operates.
Francisco Marco recalled that, in his line of work, suspicion is not enough: if a detective claims that someone enters a political party's headquarters, they must be able to back it up with a photograph or objective evidence, because they depend on the reliability of their reports and are required by case law to prove every assertion.
By contrast, he explained that journalists can rely on one or several sources and invoke the protection of professional confidentiality, a tool that detectives do not have. Even so, Marco himself stressed that both worlds ultimately converge, to the point where a detective can be seen as a hybrid of journalist, investigator and lawyer.
He also highlighted that, in the current context of alleged corruption cases, thanks to investigative journalism and, in many instances, to the work of private investigators, it is once again becoming possible to turn the spotlight on those in power and demand renewal.
The value of detectives' behind-the-scenes work
Daniel Montero used his contribution to highlight the largely unseen work of private detectives. He recounted that, from his early years at El Mundo, he learned to appreciate that behind-the-scenes effort, sometimes discreet and little known, which at times supports complex journalistic investigations.
Montero also spoke about the ethical and personal limits within which journalists work: there comes a point at which the profession rests on one's word, on agreements sealed with a handshake and on mutual trust with sources.
A productive collaboration between investigative journalism and agencies
Esteban Urreiztieta was very clear in stating that journalists can collaborate with investigation agencies and that the results speak for themselves. He noted that there is a common thread between journalists and private investigators: the pursuit of the truth, which “moves mountains” and can change the course of events.
He cited the case of Francisco Paesa, also mentioned by Marco, to illustrate how the combination of journalists and investigation agencies can go further than some of the State's own mechanisms when it comes to tracking down key individuals.
Urreiztieta also highlighted a recent case: the assignment received by Mira Detectives in connection with an internal Partido Popular investigation into the brother of Isabel Díaz Ayuso. There, as explained during the breakfast, Julio Gutiez turned down an assignment linked to obtaining the “modelo 347” tax form, a confidential and highly sensitive fiscal document. That refusal, as recounted, triggered one of the party's biggest internal crises, and was presented as an example of professional ethics in the field of private investigation.
Paying for information: an open ethical frontier
Beatriz Parera focused her contribution on a delicate and highly topical issue for investigative journalism: the possibility of paying for information.
She pointed out that this opens up a line that is hard to draw, because it involves a commercial relationship that goes beyond the traditional exchange between sources and journalists. For her, paying for information is “questionable”, though she qualified that it could be done provided it is transparently explained that the published result is the outcome of a contracted investigation service.
The truth has a price: the case of the PSOE's “fixer”
For his part, José María Olmo recalled that the truth is not always paid for with money alone: sometimes, offering information that is “too good” brings problems.
He shared the case of Leire Díez, known as the PSOE's “fontanera” (“fixer”), whose photographs entering the party's Ferraz headquarters were published as proof of her links to the party. Olmo explained how those images were obtained and the subsequent challenge of defending their authenticity, especially when the person in question even suggested they might have been generated using artificial intelligence.
This part of the breakfast was especially revealing for those of us who value investigative journalism: it showed the extent to which doubt about technological manipulation can today become a weapon used to try to erode facts that are in fact true.
Olmo also returned to the debate on paying for information and warned that, when payment becomes recurrent, the risk is twofold:
• You may end up buying data that is not entirely reliable.
• And you may damage the trust of other sources when they know that the journalist pays to obtain information.
“I'm a journalist, not a moralist”: ethics in practice
In the closing stretch of the meeting, Daniel Montero neatly summed up the tension between ethics and the craft with a phrase he shared during the debate: he considers himself a journalist, not a moralist.
He stressed that the morality behind the origin of a piece of information matters to him because it “colours” it, but it does not invalidate it in itself. The crucial thing, he insisted, is to check whether the information is good and whether it is true. Behind much of what is leaked lie interests of every kind —from those who want to make the world a better place to those seeking to settle scores— but for the journalist the key lies in the accuracy of the fact, not in the purity of the motive.
The new digital ecosystem and the pressure on investigation
The breakfast closed with a reflection shared by Esteban Urreiztieta and José María Olmo on the current context. Both pointed to the proliferation of digital media and the “information overbooking” that means many readers no longer distinguish so clearly between what is relevant and what is spectacular, instead being swept along by whatever grabs their attention most.
Urreiztieta lamented that this has disrupted the “slow cooking” of information:
• Newsrooms work under constant pressure to publish before the competition.
• Exclusives spend less and less time in the spotlight.
• The risk of making mistakes increases when the time a good investigation demands is not respected.
Hence his defence of the importance of landing solid journalistic exclusives, with a life of their own, that survive the accelerated flow of news.
Montero added that today it is “very important to tell things better than others”, because simply telling them faster is noticed less and less.
An enriching experience at La Sociedad Clave
As an attendee at the breakfast, I left with the feeling that these kinds of gatherings are essential to understanding the role of investigative journalism and private detectives in today's society.
The exchange of real cases, ethical dilemmas and professional experiences made one idea clear:
When journalists and private investigators collaborate with rigour, respect for the law and professional ethics, the truth gains depth, citizens gain transparency and democracy gains oversight over those in power.
From the perspective of La Sociedad Clave, this breakfast was not just another activity: it was a positive, useful and highly illuminating experience of how the truth is built in times of noise, speed and disinformation.
