Pandora’s Box of Papers is Empty
The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists(ICIJ) just released what it is calling, The Pandora Papers, a follow up to the group’s Panama Papers, which were published in 2016 and exposed the financial dealings of the world’s elite. I wrote about the Panama Papers when they were released and even outsourced an info-graphic as supporting content, calling out the Papers’ Dirty Dozen offenders.
The problem with that article and its supporting content, however, was that neither could be completed just based on the ICIJ’s data alone. Rather, the bulk of the data presented was sourced from Transparency International’s annual Corruption Index. The Panama Papers were more about the headlines than real substance. They were lauded as, “the world’s largest investigative journalism partnership in history”, but ultimately this partnership’s product failed to cause much more than a dent in the ongoing issue of the wealthy hiding funds in off-shore accounts.
No congressional investigations or hearings took place, and no one went to jail as a result of the Panama Papers investigation. That is because in the US it is not illegal to move money into off-shore accounts. It might be unethical, but it is certainly not illegal, making the Panama Papers’ existence somewhat of a wash.
Are we looking at more of the same with the Pandora Papers? According to the ICIJ, the Pandora Papers too are the result of the “biggest journalism partnership in history” and promise to expose the financial secrets of 35 current and former world leaders, more than 330 politicians, and public officials representing 91 different countries and territories, plus, “a global lineup of fugitives, con artists and murderers.” What the Pandora Papers actually deliver is an empty box of useless information. As with the Panama Papers, I sense a huge amount of money and energy was once again wasted in simply exposing the financial dealings of the rich.
No one is laundering money. There will be no arrests, minus those that have already happened. There will be no congressional hearings in the U.S., and ultimately no charges. As with the Panama Papers, nothing will come from the time and money that was invested into the Pandora Papers. It is about as digestible as entertainment content and just as forgettable. Yet, 99 percent of the media headlines related to the Pandora Papers’ release infer that criminality has taken place and is being revealed in these Papers, or that the Papers’ actually contain shocking data points that prove the world’s elite are guilty of robbing the rest of us blind. The American public is simply being sold a bit of clickbait.
Here is a sampling of these headlines:
New York Times: Pandora Papers: A Money Bomb With Political Ripples
Associated Press: Leaked records open a ‘Pandora’ box of financial secrets
Washington Post: Secret Money, Swanky Real Estate and a Monte Carlo Mystery
BBC: Pandora Papers: Secret wealth and dealings of world leaders exposed
And those stem from some of the world’s most credible news sources. As we stroll down the long tail of media credibility the headlines get even more sensational, such as this one from Rolling Stone Magazine — Elton John, Ringo Starr, Shakira Named in Pandora Papers Leak Exposing Offshore Financial Dealings!
There is even a sensational Pandora Papers movie.
It all gives me flashbacks to 2016. I suppose if I dug a bit deeper into the Pandora Papers and sourced some 2020 data from Transparency International I could produce a nice piece of content that replicates what we did in 2016. Some of the names and faces might change, but ultimately it would be a replica. Why would I spend those resources and expect different results? Isn’t that the definition of insanity?
Not to pass judgement here, but perhaps we should wait and see how the Pandora Papers turn out before launching a third investigative report? As for the report’s actual headline, I am a firm believer that words matter and I do my best to be impeccable with my word, per the Four Agreements. Perhaps it is just me, but it feels like the use of the term ‘Pandora’ to label the report was a little ironic? Maybe we should not open them? Ironic or not, I must concur with the word choice. These Papers’ are, once again, much ado about nothing.
-end-
