Covering news is not just about reporting on unexpected and pre-planned events, it’s also about investigating beyond what is happening to find out why it has happened. And that is where ‘systems thinking’ comes in.

Journalists have a responsibility to report about the stories behind the news. We do this by adding in-depth research which adds context and helps the audience understand the issues being covered.

The team at Journalism + Design has created a free systems thinking toolkit for journalists based on exercises “developed through years of research and running workshops for news organisations”.

The toolkit contains an introduction to systems thinking for journalists, along with activities and ideas that reporters, editors, and newsroom leaders can use to explore new angles in their news coverage and help them explain complex situations simply and in a way that informs the public debate.

Media Helping Media is happy to recommend these free resources to all those who want to produce thorough, in-depth, and accurate journalism that enhances the understanding of the audience.

The Journalism + Design toolkit includes the following sections, each with exercises and corresponding slide decks that you can work through alone or with your team members. There is a helpful ‘how-to’ guide for those wanting to use the toolkit.

Apply a systems lens to your journalism

Journalism + Design says the tools have been created …

“… to help reporters and editors brainstorm creative opportunities to cover entrenched problems that don’t have easy fixes. Use them to explore the systems at the heart of your reporting and expand the possibilities for your journalism”.

Exercise 1: Visualise the systems in your reporting

“This exercise offers a simple tool called the iceberg model to help you dig deeper into individual events you’re reporting on and trace the underlying patterns, structures, and ideas that are producing them” – Journalism + Design

Exercise 2: Create a guiding vision for your reporting

“This exercise is geared to help you reflect on your own metrics for success, the motivations driving your reporting, and the potential for impact within the systems you’re reporting on” – Journalism + Design

Exercise 3: Identify key stakeholders + information needs

“This exercise can help you whether you’re starting a new project or beat, want new ideas for sources, or are interested in understanding the different people, organizations, and communities who can inform your reporting and help you understand the system you’re covering” – Journalism + Design

Exercise 4: Map your story as a system

“This exercise offers a simple tool for mapping an issue or beat you’re covering to look for new angles for your reporting and connections to explore. It can help you visualize the many forces at play in the systems you’re covering and the connections that drive them” – Journalism + Design

Exercise 5: Uncover patterns in your story

“During the reporting process, we see how the issues we cover are often perpetuated by cyclical patterns. We call these patterns feedback loops, which are a series of forces that connect to one another in a cyclical way. Feedback loops are the foundations of many systems and dictate how they function. While feedback loops can be hard to see and articulate, this exercise can help you identify core patterns that are at the heart of a problem you’re reporting on. Once you start uncovering feedback loops, it’s likely that you will start seeing them everywhere” – Journalism + Design

Exercise 6: Uncover assumptions + beliefs driving the system

“This exercise is a way to surface and interrogate our own assumptions, and those that fundamentally drive the nature of the systems we cover” – Journalism + Design

Exercise 7: Questions to ask and habits to build

“We’ve put together this list of habits you can build and questions to ask throughout the reporting process to help you take a systemic view and strengthen the impact of your journalism” – Journalism + Design

The post Systems thinking for journalists first appeared on Media Helping Media.

There may be many reasons why someone will agree to open up to a reporter, and some will be beyond their control. It’s worth taking time to try to figure out the motives of the person you want to interview before you start talking to them. It may help you get a better interview.

Why would someone want to talk to a journalist and what might be their motives for doing so? The following tips are offered to try to help investigative journalists understand those they are interviewing.

• She doesn’t really want to, but it’s her job – she has to.
• He believes strongly in his cause.
• She wants to get the facts right – to set the record straight.
• He’s outraged at something or someone.
• She wants to defend someone else.
• His ego is so big he can’t resist the exposure.
• She feels guilty and wants to confess.
• He wants to defend himself against what others are saying or doing.
• She wants to give the impression she’s not guilty.
• He’s deluded – doesn’t have a clue how foolish he’ll look.
• She’s a sociopath and thinks she can con the journalist.
• He has a hidden agenda.
• She’s obedient and believes that journalists have some kind of authority.
• He thinks it’s just the right thing to do.
• She’s getting paid by someone to talk.
• He’s trying to divert the journalist’s attention from something.
• She’s punishing another journalist or news outlet.
• He hopes the exposure will further his career or help his reputation.

What would motivate a person to talk to a journalist?

• He believes that the journalist really cares.
• She believes that the journalist really understands the story.
• He believes that the journalist is likely to agree with his point of view.
• She believes that the journalist will somehow pay her for the interview.
• He’s rewarding the journalist who is more persistent.
• She’s rewarding the journalist who hasn’t pestered her.
• He wants to talk to a journalist of a particular race, sex, religion, alma mater, etc.
• She co-operates with a journalist who isn’t of a particular race, religion, etc.
• He is impressed with the journalist’s patience.
• She believes that the journalist will be more accurate than the others.
• He believes that the journalist is somehow more sympathetic or empathic.
• He believes that the journalist is more experienced.
• She believes that the journalist is more trustworthy.
• The journalist came highly recommended.
• She’s read/seen/heard the journalist’s work and likes his/her work.
• He believes the journalist is naïve and can somehow be hoodwinked.
• She believes the journalist’s publication/program will reach more people.
• He believes that the journalist is just plain nice.
• She likes the anchors on the journalist’s newscast.
• He believes that he might be able to score with the journalist.
• She believes that the journalist might help her get a job as a reporter.
• He believes that the reporter might have information that could be helpful.
• She supports the perceived editorial position of the publication/station/network.

The investigative journalist should look for the telltale signs of certain feelings, emotions or conditions that may play a part in someone’s decision to co-operate – such as gratitude, trust, responsibility, fear, guilt, greed, curiosity, sport, lunacy, sex, ego and/or pleasure.

The post Why would anyone want to talk to a journalist? first appeared on Media Helping Media.

The investigative journalist never takes things at face value. They probe and question in order to get to the truth. Some journalists accept official documents without question; not so the investigative journalist. If you are to uncover the story you need to keep asking questions.

1: Who’s your daddy?

Find out who created the document and why. Somebody had to have a reason to create a form or document. Figure out which person or agency went to the trouble of making a form.

2: When were you born?

Find out the issue date and ask about updates. In most bureaucracies, the form will change to adapt to conditions the makers never anticipated. There are times when earlier versions of the same form asked for different information.

3: What language do you speak?

Make sure you understand the terms. Agencies and departments and ministries love jargon, acronyms and codes. If you don’t understand what everything means, you’re missing out.

4: Where do you live?

You might need to make another visit. If you didn’t get the document from its regular source, it’s important to know where it resides. Sometimes you can meet its family.

5: Who else is in your family?

Find out what other documents may be on file. Government agencies are never content with just one form. When you learn everything about the function of the form, you’ll find others with even more information.

6: Are you married?

Is there another document that is wed to this one? Purchase orders always lead to bills of lading and receipts. When you know to look for the related documents, you will always discover more details and new leads.

7: Why are you here?

Figure out the need for the document at the time of issuing. Usually it came about because of some need – maybe a crisis. Sometimes it’s a law or regulation that required it. Get to the bottom of why someone conceived it.

8: Just what is your job anyway?

Understand its purpose today. As crazy as bureaucrats are, they still wouldn’t make a form or document that has no purpose. When you understand what it’s supposed to accomplish, you will figure out the system – and that’s the key to knowing what’s really going on.

9: What information do you have?

Ask about every piece of information. Make sure you understand what every speck of ink on the document means. This applies to what was on the blank form as well as the information someone filled in.

10: Who told you this stuff?

It had to learn the information from someone. Did someone actually weigh the person getting the driver’s license or did they rely on what the applicant told them? If you don’t know how they came up with the information in a form or document, you leave yourself open to making errors.

11: Who else are you allowed to talk to?

Find out if it’s a public record. The more personal or sensitive a document is, the more restrictions there may be on who is allowed to possess it, read it or process it. Always find out who’s allowed to see it and, even more important, who’s not allowed to see it and why.

12: Did you verify the information?

People can write whatever they want on a form. Forms are, in essence, questionnaires. Find out what systems are in place to ensure that the information is incorrect. If the agency or department is lazy in this situation, it could be an invitation for corruption and misuse.

13: How do I know you’re telling me the truth?

Yes, documents can also lie to you. Think about your own resume. Do you really know how to use those machines and systems you claim you’re efficient at operating? Just because it’s in print doesn’t mean that it’s true. Be suspicious. Verify the information independently.

14: What other secrets are you keeping?

Look for codes and fine print. Too many investigative people look only at what’s filled in on a document, and not what the document is specifically asking for. Some journalists request blank copies of every document or form an agencies uses. Then, they ask for the documents or regulations that explain the encoded information.

15: Who else have you been talking to?

Maybe there’s a log of who’s seen the file. Some documents are so important or sensitive that anyone who looks at it, copies it or checks it out must sign a register of some sort. Get that register.

16: If you don’t know the answer, who might?

See if it leads you somewhere else. So the document provides someone’s date of birth but not the place of birth. Figure out which related document (documents are often members of families) might have the missing information. Maybe even an earlier version of the same one.

17: Are you legal?

Make sure you don’t have a fake or altered document. Never trust someone who introduces you to a document. Interrogate the document and be alert to answers that just don’t sound (or look) right. Sure, you want to believe that someone gave you an official document, but don’t get lazy. Find its twin and look for things that don’t match.

18: How did you get here?

Find out how a document gets from A to B. If you ask the officially recorded death certificate how it got to that file cabinet, you might learn that it spent a month or so being processed somewhere else. Next time, you can look for newer documents while they’re in transit.

19: Are you retired?

Some documents have become obsolete. Bureaucrats love to redo documents. Always check to ensure that the information in one document hasn’t been superseded by a newer version. Sometimes the issue date of the document is at the bottom of the form.

20: What’s your life expectancy?

Check records-retention policy. It’ll happen to you for sure, unless you’re careful. You look at documents in some public office and later decide you want copies. But when you get there, you discover that someone decided to put it in the bin or the shredder. Know how long they’re allowed to exist.

21: Who have you been intimate with?

Find out who has processed or handled it. Signatures, check boxes, initials, rubber stamps and even metadata will give you clues as to who had reason to have contact with the document. Be suspicious of the signatures of top-level officials. They hardly ever sign documents themselves. Find out who really signed or initialed it.

22: Are you really a blonde?

Make sure someone hasn’t altered the document. Many a journalist has lost his or her credibility because they didn’t verify every piece of information in a document. Sometimes the changes are obvious to the eye if you examine it closely enough. Don’t trust them.

23: Do you have any twin brothers or sisters?

There may be copies in other offices. Before computers, people made a fortune selling carbon paper to government agencies. It seems that they want everyone to have a copy of just about every document. If the distribution list isn’t printed on the form, look to the laws, policies or directives to find out where all those copies go.

24: Would you be willing to testify in court?

A certified copy will save court time. When you can get a government official to certify that the copy is true and correct, you’ll prevent a lot of potential problems. If it turns out that something is not correct, the burden falls on the official who certified it.

25: You’re not planning on leaving town, are you?

Put your copies in a safe place. There’s nothing more devastating than to lose the actual evidence you had that proved the corruption. Always scan your documents and keep digital copies in various safe places. There are forces out there who don’t want you to be able to share the evidence you’ve found.

The post How to investigate official documents first appeared on Media Helping Media.

The investigative journalism dossier checklist

Discipline, order and a well thought out plan are essential for successful investigative journalism. It starts with the compilation of a solid dossier, built with meticulous precision and executed with an attention to detail that ensures all key facts are thoroughly tested.

Compiling a good dossier is like constructing a good building – you need well thought out plans, the right tools and supplies, and a strong foundation. All your work must be solidly build with precision. And when you’re done it must be leak-proof.

Consider these 10 simple steps for preparing a thorough piece of investigative journalism:

1: Identify the person

Ensure that you have the correct spelling of the first, middle and last name. Find a date of birth, or at least an age. Use online credit-header services, maintain indices of voter records, drivers’ licenses, employment checks, friends, lovers, relatives, or just ask him or her.

2: Locate the person

Once you nail down the most permanent domicile for the person, you’ll be laying the foundation for later steps. Use telephone directories, city directories, voter records, property records, online credit-header services, interview friends, former neighbours, visit the morgue.

3: See what’s already been written

There is no point in reinventing the wheel. Check your own story archives first. Search online for articles about the person. Then hit every local newspaper site, any Who’s Who that match his or her profession, region or specialty.

4: Check local public records

Whether or not the person is from your local area, do a thorough search at your town or city hall, county clerk’s office and local branches of state and federal offices. Look specifically for business permits, animal licenses, building permits, recorded deeds, trust deeds, conveyances, notices of sale, powers of attorney, liens, local, state and federal tax, bonds, agreements and other documents, property tax records, unsecured property tax records, local vehicle tax records, renters’ tax records, fictitious business (assumed name) filings, birth, marriage and death certificates, consumer affairs licenses, UCC filings, state driving records.

5: Search the courts for lawsuits

Use the online services to search the party indices, but eventually you must try to look at the actual case files at the courthouse. Don’t miss any level of court – small claims, justice, municipal, metropolitan, district, superior, divorce, state, appeals, U.S. District Court, U.S. Tax Court, naturalisation court and most importantly, U.S. Bankruptcy Court.

6: Check for criminal activity

Depending upon your own state’s open records laws, you might be able to check with local police and sheriffs, state police, courts, from justice court all the way up to U.S. District Court. Then check with local, county, state and federal jails and prisons – including the probation department and the parole department. This is a good time to plug in any aliases.

7: Look for employment information

Make direct calls to his or her current and past employers. Many times they won’t ask who you are if you simply ask for the personnel department and then matter-of-factly say, “employment verification please.” If they ask who you are, of course tell the truth. Try to get a copy of the company, corporate or government phone directory for his or her work establishment. Ask current or former employers for a copy of his or her resume. Ask your subject for it. Check state corporation and federal SEC records for involvement in corporations. Look for the legal owner of his or her car. Is it his employer’s credit union? The Postal Credit Union, etc.?

8: Verify professional licenses, credentials, degrees and awards

If the person is a physician, dentist or any other type of licensed healthcare worker, you must verify the license. If you’ve asked him or her for their resume, check out every claim. If there’s a Who’s Who listing for the person, check out every claim. Many such directories don’t check. Check high schools and universities for graduation verification. Get copies of theses and dissertations from the Library of Congress. And don’t forget to check out any claims of military service, actual combat, injuries and awards for valor.

9: Check campaign contributions, filings and conflict of interests

Not just for the current office they are holding or the most recent election. Check them out as far back as you can. And don’t forget to see if they or any other potential interviewees contributed to others’ campaigns.

10: Look for family members, friends, victims and enemies

Along the way, don’t forget to talk to people who would know him or her. Don’t overlook current or former neighbours, ex-spouses, former lovers, business associates, school mates, teachers, supervisors, even babysitters.

The post Compiling an investigative journalism dossier first appeared on Media Helping Media.

Seven investigative strategies

The investigative mindset is responsible for solving more information mysteries than probably any other factor. If you haven’t already started writing down your best strategies, now might be a good time to start. I’ve been able to whittle my list down to seven basic concepts which I use whenever I need to solve an information problem.

Think of what has worked well for you in the past and the lessons you picked up from your last investigation. If you didn’t learn a new lesson or a new tool or a new danger signal, you’re not growing.

You should certainly compile your own list. But while you’re doing it, I’m happy to share mine with you.

Feel free to use or reject any of them. If you can improve them, or if you can come up with something that has worked for you and that might work for me, please add a comment using the comment form at the end of this module.

1: Just Doesn’t Look Right (J.D.L.R.)

How often have you looked at something and felt deep inside that it just didn’t look right? You can’t put your finger on it, but let it resonate within your brain for a few seconds. Just doesn’t look right. J.D.L.R.

It seems every investigative reporter has a different name for the phenomena – “What’s wrong with this picture?” “Something fishy is going on here.” “I smell a rat.” Whatever you call it, the important thing is that you first recognize it and, even more importantly, you act on it.

If you’re a good investigator, you won’t sleep until you can figure out what’s out of place. You’ll shake you head each time you look at it.

It’s a lot like the official at the border crossing between two friendly states who, every day, lets the same man on a bicycle pass to the other side.

The man says he has nothing to declare, but the official “feels it in his bones” that the man is up to something. But every time he searches the man, he comes up empty. No drugs, no jewellery, no large sums of money – nothing.

But he could still swear the guy was up to no good. Finally, he described the man to his evening replacement.

“Yeah, I know which guy you’re talking about,” the other official said. “But when he comes back into the country, he’s always on foot.” It was only then that the first official figured it out – the man was smuggling bicycles.

J.D.L.R.s are great for coming up with new story ideas. Why do we never see our mayor on Mondays or Fridays? Could he be taking long weekends at taxpayers’ expense?

Why does every person charged with being a drug dealer get a light sentence in one particular judge’s court? Could the judge be on the take?

Why is there an arson-set fire in every city the prominent arson investigator is visiting while he’s visiting there? Could he be actually setting the fires?

These may seem hard to prove or outrageous in nature, but they would never come to light had some investigator not scratched his or her head and said, “Hmmm. That just doesn’t look right.”

If you’re a good investigator, you won’t sleep until you can figure out what’s out of place.

2: Who would know?

It seems like such a simple concept. Before you go off in search of something, why not consider that someone else might already know the answer?

Personally, I think it’s a genetic thing. I think that after millions of years of evolution, any hunter who couldn’t find a way around the forest ended up starving to death and, as a result, dropping out of the evolutionary process.

It makes sense – if there was only one animal around at the time, the competition would be fierce. The gatherers, however, were probably more likely to share information about forests abundant with fruit trees.

Is it our job to know everything? No, it’s our job to learn stuff quickly and accurately.

So to fight the genes in me that make me want to pretend I already know the answer or that it will come to me through divine telepathy, I always remind myself to ask myself who would know.

Don’t ignore the unexpected source of information

A great example was when I was working as a producer/reporter for an investigative news magazine for a Public Broadcasting Station housed on the campus of Arizona State University.

The advantage of being there was that we could use journalism students as interns and assistance. It was great for them, because they could learn from us.

One evening I sat with an intern who was frustrated because he could find no trace of bird smugglers in Phoenix. I had given him the assignment knowing there was an active underground ring that was bringing parrots across the border from Mexico and avoiding both the customs fees as well as the required quarantine.

There was no one else in the building at the time except a student from Nigeria who was making a few extra bucks by sweeping floors. As my intern sat, discouraged, I listened to him bemoan that there was probably no smuggling going on.

“I asked every pet store owner in Phoenix if they knew about smuggled parrots, but they all said ‘no’ I give up. There’s no way to get to the truth.”

About that time the Nigerian student was sweeping past us. “Excuse me,” I asked politely, “but do you know anything about bird smuggling?”

“Do you mean the parrots they bring across the border in pickup trucks?”

“Yes,” I said.

“Yes, I know about them. My room mate smuggles them.”

It could be just about anyone. They don’t have to be government officials or university professors or anyone special – just people who know more about something than you know.

Keep in mind what you are looking for

It’s pretty simple. What’s the thing you’re searching for? Say it aloud and then ask yourself who would know.

Doing a story about a doctor who seems more like a butcher than a surgeon? You’ll need an expert in his field to put his performance in perspective and help you with the questions you should be asking or the red flags to which you should be alert.

How do you find that expert? Who would know about medicine? Doctors. Any doctors. Call any doctor and ask what the name is of the specialist about which you’re curious.

When you learn that, call one of those specialists in your area and ask where the best university is that teaches physicians that specialty.

Then call that university and ask who the very best, most famous, on-the-cutting-edge specialist is anywhere in the world.

Then call that top expert and ask him or her who in your area is the next best. The expert will surely name a colleague you can trust.

Then call that local expert and buy him or her lunch. Soon, they’ll be your mentor on that particular story. And chances are they’ll know the butcher all too well. People probably regularly call on them to correct the damage done by the butcher.

And don’t forget about friends, relatives, neighbors, co-workers, running partners and others who would know where someone might have gone.

Someone in hiding isn’t going to tell a lot of people where he is, but his mother probably knows.

The people in his industry probably know. Don’t be afraid to ask someone to help you.

Keep thinking of possible links

The FBI and I were both looking for the same former employee of a multi-national oil company that was suspected of price fixing. I looked for lawsuits against the company and contacted a former employee who was suing the company and only asked for one thing—their old copy of the company directory.

It didn’t take long to find the name of the guy I was looking for in the directory. I called his old number and asked some really innocent questions, such as: “Who might know where Mr. X. Employee is now?”

The person suggested I might look for the man’s brother in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. He works for the police department there, he told me. I quickly got the guy’s brother on the phone and learned that the man I wanted was in Miami, Florida. His brother even gave me his address.

After that, it wasn’t difficult to get a phone number and call him. He was shocked that I had found him, but happy the FBI wasn’t quite as efficient.

And you might consider deputizing people. You don’t have to be a policeman or sheriff to deputize someone. You simply tell them about the exciting story you’re working on and tell them they could play an important role. Tell them they might see their work on the front page of tomorrow’s paper or on the six o’clock news. You’ll be amazed at how they’ll help you.

A friend of mine was doing a story in the desert community of El Centro, California and was having difficulty getting certain information about a physician who was accused of molesting his female patients.

None of the victims wanted to admit to journalists or government investigators what they had allowed this man to do to them under the guise of authority. Few of the victims were willing to discuss with journalists or police what the man had done to them. But that doesn’t mean they didn’t talk to their friends. Who would know? Beauticians.

My friend went to several of the beauty shops in El Centro and “deputized” the people working there. Soon, they were calling my friend at home and reporting on the gossip they were hearing from customers. Of course, my friend could only use the information as information leads, but it worked nonetheless.

Keep asking yourself the most important question – who would know?

What’s the thing you’re searching for? Say it aloud and then ask yourself who would know.

3: Figure out the system

One of the biggest mistakes young or inexperienced investigators make is that they fail to look at the system in which they’re working. They fail to put the information they’re finding in the context of the system from which they obtained the information.

It’s very easy to make assumptions about how a system works. And it’s very easy to get egg on your face when you draw an incorrect conclusion from information you received from a system you didn’t understand.

Case in point. An investigative reporter was investigating rumors that people close to the President of the United States had played a hand in the death of a woman who had claimed she had incriminating evidence on videotape about one of the cabinet members.

When the reporter requested a copy of the death certificate of the murdered woman, he immediately went about verifying the information on the document. When he got the box that asked for the name of the “informant” he found the name of the dead woman’s best girlfriend. She put down her true address – about 100 miles from the scene of the murder.

Study the words

When he dug deeply into the story, he learned and accurately reported that the informant had not been anywhere near the area where her friend died for a month before the murder and not at all afterwards. Then how was she able to be the informant?

He was 100% accurate in his reporting, but he was wrong in his interpretation. He allowed the reader to conclude that, indeed, government officials had doctored the death certificate to cover up for their own sinister wrongdoing. On the surface, it sounds logical – unless you seek to figure out the system.

Just what does “informant” mean on the death certificate? At first glance it means “the name of the person who informed the authorities that someone had died.” If that were the case, it would, indeed, be quite difficult for the best friend to first discover the body when she was 100 miles away. It would sure appear that someone was lying. And it was the government officials who issued the death certificate.

Sounds like corruption, doesn’t it? But a phone call to the County Recorder or the Coroner would have led the reporter to information he hadn’t considered – that the “informant” is the person who informed authorities of all the personal information about the dead person that they needed to complete the form.

What was her full name? Where was she born? Who are her parents? What is her profession? Address? Date of birth? Get the picture? Imagine how embarrassing it would be to send your readers or viewers down such a path.

There are other reasons for figuring out the system. When you understand everything about the system you can often learn of other places to find more information.

If someone gets a speeding ticket, the state motor vehicle department will release the information they have regarding the citation. But how does that fit into a system?

The person with the citation had to go to a local court to either fight the ticket, pay the fine or both. That means there is probably something on file at the local court that could be helpful to you. Many times you’ll be able to view the actual citation the police officer issued.

Here’s a chance to see exactly where someone was at a precise time on a particular day. Could that be important? Would it help to know there were three other people in the car at the time? That is was raining? That the person was supposed to be wearing glasses?

It’s easy to draw an incorrect conclusion from information you receive

4: Ensure you understand

My rule of thumb is that I will not read beyond any line on a document until I understand it. I make it a point to read not only what’s filled in on a form, but what the form is requesting.

If the form asks for “supporting evidence” but “oral evidence” is typed in instead, does that mean that the applicant simply swore the information was true? Probably not. It had to be someone else giving oral evidence.

Otherwise, why would the form ask for “supporting evidence”? Why go to the trouble of printing up a form that asks for supporting evidence if it would also accept the person’s sworn statement?

It’s more likely that someone else provided the oral evidence on behalf of the applicant. Their word would be the same as a document or other supporting evidence. By figuring out the system, it gives you a clue that here may be someone else with whom you should talk.

But how would you know who it was that provided the oral evidence? There’s probably another document somewhere that would show that—there almost always is. That’s when you need to know the system.

Use logic to try to understand systems

It’s easy to ask someone what the system is, but a good investigator will try to quickly figure out the system by using logic. If you’re looking at the cross-referenced index to civil case files and you discover there’s an asterisk next to some of the alphabetized names in the left column and no asterisk next to any of the names in the right column marked “other party”, what’s going on?

What would make some of the people in the left column different? Could it be that those with the asterisk are the plaintiff while the ones without the asterisk are the defendant? Probably. That would mean that when you identify the role of the person on the left, the person on the right must be the opposite—or other party.

But which one is the plaintiff—the one with the asterisk or the one without? You could go ask the clerk or you could simply look up the name of a case you already know. Were you divorced? You’ll know the answer when you see your own listing. Since you know which of you was the plaintiff and who was the defendant, you’ll be able to tell which uses the asterisk.

Do not read beyond any line of a document unless you understand it.

5: Look for victims and enemies

Victims and enemies are usually more apt to want to talk to you and much less likely to report back to the person you’re investigating that you were poking around. They make great sources.

Granted, they’re angry and hateful and filled with vengeance, but they’re usually happy to spew out their hatred to anyone who will listen. And, of course, the information they offer will almost always be exaggerated – sometimes to the point of being a fairy tale – there will always be nuggets of gold you can take to the bank.

Victims and enemies are not hard to find. Look for former employees or employers, ex-spouses or ex-lovers, people who were on the other side of lawsuits, actual victims of crimes committed, former in-laws, business rivals, the list goes on and on.

If you do a complete enough public records search and a complete enough newspaper and magazine search, you’re likely to find situations where there may be victims and enemies. Talk to associates and ask them who would be a person’s enemy.

Sometimes you can even ask the person you’re investigating. There’s nothing wrong with asking a politician or government official or corporate head this simple question: “What do your critics have to say about this?” Often, they’ll name the critics for you and then tell you why you shouldn’t believe them at all.

Opponents are often willing to help

A great person to help you find victims and enemies of people holding elected office is the campaign manager of the greatest opponent. Many candidates hire “opposition research” specialists—private investigator who dig up every piece dirt imaginable on the opposing candidate. They almost always find information they won’t end up using.

For example, they may find that the opposing candidate had an affair or once used drugs or was once arrested. But if their own candidate also had an affair or once used drugs or was once arrested, the information will remain a secret. While the former opposition research person or the former campaign manager will probably never speak on the record, there’s a great chance they’ll point you to where you can find the information on your own.

Also keep in mind that some of the people closest to the person you’re investigating may, in their own ways, feel victimized.

I was once hired to look at the travel expense accounts of a judge who was so incompetent that defense attorneys would often request a different judge. A state law allowed a defendant to “paper” one judge one time during their trial.

Since this particular judge was the only judge for miles, the presiding judge would have to continually fly in another judge to sit on the trial. That means the incompetent judge would also have to be flown somewhere else to cover for some absentee judge—you can’t just let the bad judge not work. My job was to find out how much money the taxpayers were spending to send this goof-off judge to distant cities.

His clerk was nearly three times his age and had clearly run the courthouse for decades. When I asked her if I could see the judge’s expense accounts she looked at her watch and pointed to a file cabinet.

“Look, it’s almost noon and I’m going to lunch,” she said, matter-of-factly. “The expense accounts are in that file cabinet. The photocopier is over there. You can either come back in an hour or let me lock you in the office while I have lunch.”

Her rare invitation to browse through anything I wanted told me instantly that she was a victim or enemy. After I finished copying everything and she returned, I invited her to dinner so she could tell me all about how incompetent her judge was.

Don’t overlook them—victims and enemies. They can be the cat’s meow!

Some of those closest to the person you’re investigating might be prepared to assist

6: Follow the money

I’m certainly not the first journalist to recommend you follow the dollar, the euro or the pound. As trite as it sounds, you must always remember to follow the money trail.

There’s almost no investigation where their isn’t a distinct and separate money trail.

The murderer had to buy the gun from someone. The minister who ran off with the church funds had to buy a plane ticket from someone and will no doubt spend the money somewhere. The child molester had to have phone bills so he could call his victim. The profits from the drug sale had to be laundered somewhere.

This is where public records can often be helpful. It’s not difficult to find out how much the car he’s driving cost, how much the house he’s living in cost, what the taxes are on that plane he owns.

Maybe he filed for bankruptcy or was sued and his income tax records ended up in the case file as exhibits.

Look for pay offs

Keep in mind that money can come in the form of other things.

A nice piece of property, for example makes a great bribe. Want to pay off a politician for signing legislation favorable to your business? Just give him some land that will one day be valuable.

Of course, you need to put the title in the name of his brother-in-law or his cousin or his attorney—as long as his name isn’t on it. When he’s out of office and the statute of limitations is past, you can then transfer the title directly to him.

And don’t forget the family trust. The name of the trust doesn’t have to be the same as the family surname. John McMillan can call his family trust the Butterfly Family Trust.

It’s not the easiest thing to do, but try to imagine the flow of money and then imagine who might see it, touch it, process it, store it, manage it or spend it.

As trite as it sounds, you must always remember to follow the money trail.

7: Don’t embrace obstacles

Too many young journalists or investigators carry bad habits from school or from home into their new profession.

It was really easy to say “My dog ate my homework” if you didn’t do your work. The computer always seems to crash with all of your investigative notes irrecoverably inside.

There’s always a traffic jam on the freeway when you were supposed be somewhere you didn’t want to be.

Admit to it. You were happy your alarm clock didn’t go off and you had to miss that event you really didn’t want to attend.

We’ve all done it. What I want to alert you to is the time you did it because you were afraid you’d fail at whatever you were doing. If you complete the assignment and fail, they’ll find out you’re not as good as you told them you were.

But if some other independent obstacle appears and prevents you from completing the job, you can never fail. It wasn’t your fault.

This can be a deadly practice – deadly to your career anyway.

It’s up to you to ask yourself if you really want to risk failure. Are the excuses you’re telling yourself something you actually believe? When others do it you recognize it right away. It takes a lot of effort to do it yourself.

“I’d have ridden that bull for 20 seconds,” you might say, “if I hadn’t come down with the flew that morning. Too bad I wasn’t able to ride.” See how this statement can make people think you’re a rodeo king. But if you get on the bull and he immediately stomps you into the ground, the world will know you’re not that good.

There’s no reason you shouldn’t be good at gathering information.

I like to think of finding the answer to the mystery as being like a martial artist putting his hand through a stack of wood. I’m told he visualizes his hand on the other side of the boards and it goes there. If he visualizes the board—the obstacle—it will always hold strong and he’ll have broken knuckles.

Don’t say to yourself, “I wonder if I’ll get the information.” If you say that, you’ll surely not get the information. Rather, say to yourself, “I know I’ll find the information. I’m anxious to see how I do it.”

Happy hunting.

The post The mindset for investigative journalism first appeared on Media Helping Media.

Sources are one of the most valuable resources for a journalist. Without sourced information, the reports produced may end up being padded with rumour and personal opinion. The following is my tip sheet – “The Source Whisperer” – where I set out how I have interviewed suspects or criminals in the course of my investigative journalism in order to unearth valuable information.

20 source scenarios

Or, the importance of not giving up – but please stay safe.

• He gives you videotapes of the crime taking place, confesses on camera and names his accomplices.
• She confesses on camera, names her accomplices and takes you to the scene of the crime.
• He confesses on camera and names his accomplices.
• She confesses on camera and takes you to the scene of the crime.
• He confesses on camera with full face.
• She confesses on camera in silhouette or otherwise disguised.
• He confesses off camera and gives you permission to use the confession.
• She gives you important information about the case, but off camera.
• He goes on camera, full face, but doesn’t confess. He either lies or refuses to answer.
• She goes on camera in silhouette or otherwise disguised, but she lies or refuses to answer.
• He allows you to videotape him walking or working, but doesn’t sit down for an interview.
• She provides you with photographs or video of herself and gives you permission to use them.
• He confirms information unrelated to his actual involvement, i.e. information about others.
• She confirms that, indeed, there’s an investigation, but will not comment on it.
• He will not talk on the record, but draws you a map that leads you to important information.
• She will not talk on the record, but confirms that she is, indeed, the person you’re looking for.
• He will not talk on the record now, but leaves the door open to talk later.
• She will not talk on the record, but will allow you to call again.
• He will not even talk to you, but doesn’t threaten your life.
• She will not even talk to you, except to threaten your life.

The post 20 ways a suspect can help a journalist first appeared on Media Helping Media.

Plotting the geometry of bribery, determining the currency of influence, documenting the paper trail, dealing with threats and retaliation, and knowing the obstacles within are just some of the essential considerations when investigating corruption.

The following are some tips from my work as an investigative journalist. These tips, and others, are used in my media training worldwide.

1: Bottom-up approach

Essential for identifying the results of corruption and the fast-track pathway to the top levels – the evidence is always visible at the street level.

2: Plotting the geometry of bribery and influence

Corruption always involves more than one person or point or a simple line between two entities. Understanding the flow of bribery, influence and extortion requires mapping the triangles, trapezoids, pentagons, etc., of relationships between the parties.

3: Developing and protecting essential sources

They are out there wishing they could find someone to trust with their information. Journalists must learn that the seduction process involves creating maximum trust, a fertile environment of factual verification and an understanding of the intrinsic rewards that sources require.

4: Determining the currency of the influence

The more sophisticated the laws and enforcement, the more sophisticated are the vehicles of bribery. It’s rarely only money that changes hands. Journalists must learn to follow the trails of property, promotion, protection, privilege, payola and employment (of even distant family members).

5: Documenting the paper trail

Public records are essential, but alone they rarely map the complete picture. They’re an essential beginning. They can provide subtle, telltale indications of the other documents or the people who can fill in the blanks.

6: Obstacles from within

Journalists in every country will encounter a certain amount of resistance from within their own media outlet. Unfortunately, many owners and managers of newspapers and radio/television stations and networks are either on the fringes of organized crime and corruption or they are card-carrying players. These situations require great awareness and delicate planning.

7: Getting it on the record

More than any other area of reporting, corruption investigations require unending verification and cross-checking. Reporters are easy targets of officials and operatives who are bent on using, manipulating or discrediting reporters.

8: Teaming up with trusted allies

There are countless ways of tapping into existing investigations and teaming up with groups or individuals who have already gathered valuable information. The internet provides reporters with a worldwide network of experts and potential allies. Plus, there are local organizations who are already investigating the people and organizations you’ll encounter.

9: Dealing with threats and retaliation

This is not a line of work for everyone. Journalists must always be aware of how vulnerable they and their family members are. It’s essential to know how to respond quickly and directly to threats – without throwing in the towel or immediately going into deep hiding.

10: Making the story relevant to the readers and viewers

Reporters tend to want to write about the elite, for the elite. The stories must, of course, zero in on the players at the top, but they must address the victims and accomplices at every level. In the end, the stories must be about people and they must paint pictures of the visible results of this often invisible force.

The post 10 tips for investigating corruption first appeared on Media Helping Media.

The following are some of the points from a training session given by Marcus Tanner to the Balkan Fellowship for Journalistic Excellence. The text sets out some of the main points to remember when embarking on producing a piece of investigative journalism.

Hook the reader

• If possible, try an introduction that illustrates a fact, rather than just stating the fact. Find a person/family/scene/human interest story to illustrate the dilemma/phenomenon about which you’re writing.
• If you are writing about women starting to have children in their 40s, introduce us to one such woman, rather than just stating that “20 per cent of women giving birth to their first child are now aged 40 and above”.
• Make sure that the introduction illustrates the rest of the story. It must provide a relevant lead in to that story.
• Don’t forget your introduction. If we meet Julia, aged 41, having her first baby in the introduction, it will be unsatisfactory if we never encounter her again. The reader will want to know what happened later, so plan on saving some material/quotes from/about her for the conclusion.
• It is easy to fall in love with some scene or incident that is interesting but which is not relevant to the rest of the story.
• A colour intro is a good way to hook in the reader. Don’t push it too far. It should not be more than one or two paragraphs. Then you must outline the substantial point of your story.
• This second section should contain a concise explanation of the topic under discussion. It must be accompanied by relevant facts, figures and percentages.
• The second section of your story needs to contain as much hard fact as possible. It is essential that nothing in this section is vague, unsourced, uncontextualised or imprecise.
• Contextualise all the facts relevantly. Don’t say, “100,000 people have lost jobs in the country recently”. Say, “According to the Chamber of Commerce, in its figures for 2009, 100,000 people lost their jobs over the past 12 months, mostly in mining and transport sectors. As a result, the total jobless figure at the start of 2010 stood at 350,000, which is nine per cent of the working-age population.”

Keep titles short

• Long titles take up valuable space. Don’t waste words by writing out professional and political titles in full.
• No need to say “John Smith, State Secretary for Economy, Exports, Imports, Businesses and Trade,” just say “John Smith, the economy minister” – that’s four words instead of 12.
• Avoid the title president unless it is the head of state or someone occupying a similarly grand function, for example “president of the supreme court”. Use director, manager, head, chief, chair, chairman.
• Don’t call people doctor unless they are medical doctors.

Get your facts right

• Check all your facts, and credit the sources unless it is unsafe to do so.
• If it ever looks as though you are being careless or evasive with your facts, it may well demolish your story.
• Don’t waste words by sourcing facts that are universally agreed.
• Some statistics, such as unemployment statistics, need to be sourced, but only briefly. For example say, the chamber of commerce, the ministry for employment, etc.
• Give detailed sources for more complex, controversial or debatable facts.

Get the tone right

• Try to avoid sounding dry and official or sensationalist.
• No present tense. (“The nurse is walking towards me.”)
• No triple dots (“I looked into her eyes… “)
• Avoid exclamation marks (He looked crazy!)
• No italics/repetitions/capitals (“Someone is screaming… Someone is SCREAMING!”)
• No exaggerated comparisons; do not compare a badly-run hospital or prison to a Nazi concentration camp.
• Do not suggest that angry, unpleasant officials are like Hitler.
• Do not call people fascists unless they use that term for themselves.
• Do not patronize: Never refer to old women as granny, or refer to them by their first names as if they were children. The same goes for old men, peasants/rural people/ poor people, etc.

Don’t get personal

• There is a place for the author in his or her story. But it should be as discreet and neutral a place as possible – and not in the foreground.
• If the word “I” appears in every paragraph, something is going wrong. The only exceptions for this are if you make yourself the subject of your own story.
• Don’t use quote marks without attribution.

Winding up

• Don’t just tail off or let it look like you ran out of steam.
• It is often best to end with a quote.
• The ending must in some way refer back to the beginning.

The post Tips for investigative journalism first appeared on Media Helping Media.

Producing a piece of investigative journalism to international standards can be a daunting prospect. This guide is to help journalists avoid some of the pitfalls and problems often encountered when writing a detailed and complex investigation.

Proper research will give you focus and help you to decide who best to interview. If you haven’t done your research, it will be obvious when you start interviewing. You will lose credibility and those you are interviewing will be less likely to open up.

Make sure you are up to speed with new developments; know the background; know the main players and people who will talk; know what has been reported already. You should be looking for a new angle, new information – something different that will take the story forward.

Sources

Begin with background reading.

Check out official documents, such as laws, regulations, court documents, the records of an individual’s, organisation’s or institution’s dealings, such as correspondence, meeting minutes or transcripts, internal reports, contracts or financial records, and original materials on which other research or reports are based, such as the first publication of the results of scientific investigations, surveys, fieldwork or interviews.

Consult government or parliament documents and records – laws and legal acts are also often accessible on government websites. Check websites of NGOs or international organisations before calling them for an interview. Their reports and documents posted online will help inform your questions.

Be careful with opinion polls. Often, they are commissioned by government or political parties. Check carefully the background of the organisation that produced the poll and the methodology used.

Always spread your net wide. It is important to represent the interests of different groups, even if minor and/or unpleasant. Doing so means that your article will be balanced.

But beware. It is easy to get lost in piles of research material and to lose your focus. Know when to stop researching and start interviewing. As you accumulate material, think constantly of your angle. If you’re following up a story that’s already had an outing, what do you have to add?

Setting up interviews and interviewing

Interviews in person are always preferable. If that’s not possible, then speaking by phone is also fine but never – unless there is no other option – interview by email. If you do, make clear in the copy that any quotes you use were obtained by email.

If you’re recording also take notes at the same time. It forces you to listen and acts as a back-up if the recorder fails. It can also save time later, meaning you may not need to transcribe the entire interview.

Save all notes and tape recordings until well after the story is published. If anyone challenges your work, your notebooks will back you up.

Experts

Start off with the so-called experts. Expert sources will include journalists, activists, independent researchers, scientists, government investigators, academics and authors.

Experts may have an agenda so check and double-check everything you are told. Examine their links with political parties, governments, business interests and check their previous statements/reports to judge how reliable their analysis is.

Former officials who have left a company can be a great source of information. They have the inside track and no longer fear losing their job if they speak out. They may also be able to connect you with current insiders. But again question their motives. Why did they leave?

Don’t focus entirely on experts. Each story needs a human face, someone personally affected by the problem, a victim. NGOs or local media outlets might be able to help you find someone, but in the case of NGOs also be careful of their motives and agenda.

Schedule interviews with potentially hostile or evasive subjects for near the end of your research as you will be better prepared to question and challenge their remarks. This is particularly true when interviewing governmental representatives. Always do them last as they will be among the trickiest interviews.

Interviewing the vulnerable

Be extra sensitive when interviewing trauma victims. Set up the interview through someone they trust. Take extra time. Find a secure place to interview them.

If the person refuses to speak to you, don’t insist. Respectfully explain why you feel that their story needs to be told (for example, that it may help other survivors). If they still refuse, leave your contact details in case they change their mind later.

Proceed with special caution when dealing with children. Your overriding concern must be to protect the child from harm.

Decide first if the interview is strictly necessary in telling your story. If possible obtain permission from a parent, guardian, school or local authority before beginning an interview.

Be particularly careful when speaking to minors involved in court cases. There are usually strict prohibitions on identifying them and you could find yourself in contempt of court.

Adjust your style for children. Direct questions often don’t work and a more effective approach is to allow the interviewee to speak in a less-structured way, ideally in a child-friendly environment. Children often tell adults what they think they want to hear, so be patient.

Children who have suffered trauma will need extra time to tell their story. Get down to their eye level. Proceed slowly and carefully and be alert for signs of anxiety.

Asking the right questions

It may emerge after several interviews that your original premise doesn’t stand up. If this is the case, adjust your focus or change the idea completely. Don’t struggle to make the original angle work. If this happens, notify your editor.

Prepare a list of basic questions about the main points you want to cover. It may seem obvious, but many journalists don’t do it. However, always be ready to improvise and adapt – don’t stick rigidly to your list. If the interview turns in an unexpected direction, be ready to drop your original line of questioning.

Always be ready to improvise and adapt – don’t stick rigidly to your list of questions.

Many interviewees will want to see your questions in advance. Decide on a case-by-case basis whether you will comply. Technical questions that require some research are examples of when this approach could be useful.

However, giving too much away might kill spontaneity. It could also inhibit you if you feel you must stick to an agreed list of questions.

While interviewing, remember to listen. Thinking about what you will ask next while the subject is still answering the previous question is a common mistake and means you could miss important information.

Avoid leading questions – questions which subtly prompt the interviewee to respond in a particular way. For example, ask “what did you see”, not, “you saw the soldier shoot the man, didn’t you?”

Use open-ended rather than closed-ended questions. An example of a closed-ended question: “Who will you vote for this election?” An example of an open-ended question: “What do you think about the two candidates in this election?”

Long and rambling questions will often elicit long and rambling answers, or allow the interviewee to duck the question entirely, so be short and precise.

At the end of the interview a good question to ask can be, “Who else should I speak to about this topic?” and “What have I not asked you that I should have asked you?”

An informal chat at the end, tape recorder turned off and pencil put down, often produces useful background information. Quickly check your notes before walking away or hanging up. If you don’t understand, ask again. If you don’t get it, how will the editor or the reader?

On and off the record

Make sure the interviewee has given informed consent and understands the meaning of the terms “on the record” and “off the record”. Check several times throughout the interview what information is on and what is off the record – especially if the interviewee starts giving details that could put them, or others, at risk.

Try to stay “on the record” where possible.

Use anonymous sources sparingly. There may be times when it is the only way to get someone to speak, but be aware that too many unnamed sources will weaken your story. If you do use an anonymous source, be as specific as possible in identifying their relationship to the issue at hand.

Avoid quoting just “diplomats”: it should be a senior UN official, an EU diplomat, an international expert for justice in Kosovo and it should be clearly stated where they are based.

Never make up a quote. It’s a lie and it ends careers and taints the profession. You can always find a good source. Truth is always better than whatever you could make up. You will always be found out.

Never pay for information or interviews

Familiarise yourself with local laws and customs relating to your topic.

It is your responsibility to inform yourself about the political and social terrain in which you will be working. For example, in some countries, covert use of a tape recorder is illegal.

Stay within the law when reporting your story. It may be tempting to break the rules to illustrate your point, or to get the story, but this will leave you vulnerable and could even undermine your credibility in the long run.

Telephone taps, breaking and entering, and hacking should not be used.

Journalists are observers and reporters of events, not active participants: spectators at the match not supporters of one team or the other.

Going undercover

There may be times when you wish to conceal your identity as a journalist in order to gain a different perspective on the story.

Undercover journalism can be a force for social change, uncovering a problem that would never have been brought to light by any other means. But by sacrificing transparency and honesty you could leave yourself open to criticism about your methods or even your conclusions.

When deciding whether to go undercover, to obtain information through deceptive means, you should ask yourself various questions.

Is the information you will obtain strongly linked to a broader social purpose and is it of vital public interest? Does the public value of this information outweigh the deception and potential violations of privacy? Could you obtain this information through straightforward means, and have you exhausted all other ways of getting this information?

Always inform your editor in advance who you will be meeting, when, where and when you will be back. Agree a time by when you will check in, and then make sure you do.

Leave a list of contacts with your editor detailing who you would like to be contacted in the event of an emergency.

If you plan to be gone for more than a day, work out a plan to call a designated person (editor, spouse, partner, parent) every 24 hours. Your failure to call by an appointed time should trigger phone calls to emergency contacts.

Several people – including colleagues in the field and back in the office – should also be provided with the list of emergency contacts, as well as instructions for how to get in touch with them.

Ideally, set up interviews via people you know and trust, but social networking sites and online forums can be useful in developing new contacts. Always meet contacts obtained this way in a public place, informing your editor of who you will be meeting and when you will be back.

Staying safe during your investigation

Always carry press identification. In some countries a signed and stamped letter from your editor outlining your mission could be useful. Carry a mobile phone with emergency numbers pre-set for speed dialling.

If travelling in the countryside, or far from medical help, carry a first aid kit (know how to use it) and a torch.

Sensitive files, documents, discs, video and audio recordings should be stored in a secure place.

Always be cautious when using mobile telephones and email to communicate; they may not be secure. Limit phone interviews to non-sensitive information: phones can be tapped. Similarly, emails and letters may be intercepted and read. Sensitive conversations should be held face to face.

Journalists should be aware of local sensibilities. Dress in a manner which is appropriate to the local culture.

Ideally, journalists who do not know the local language should travel with a qualified interpreter who can help them communicate and understand local customs. Journalists should also learn and be able to pronounce the words for press or journalist in local languages.

Organising your material

You must always work from a detailed article outline. An outline is a roadmap; a logical and schematic summary are essential when writing a long piece.

Begin by transcribing recordings and typing out hand-written notes so that all material for your story is in front of you in a clear, easy-to-read format.

Then highlight the most relevant sections in your interview notes and all other documents to which you will refer, for example reports, web pages or emails. The highlighted information should then be slotted into an article outline. Time spent preparing a good outline will cut many hours from the writing process.

The more detailed and carefully thought-out your outline is, the more organised the piece will be.

The first sentence in the outline should be your intro. This is the point from which the entire outline, and article, will flow. Each paragraph in the outline must then support the intro, with each paragraph flowing logically from one to another.

The basic structure of the outline is simple and mirrors the structure of the story itself – beginning (lead)] – middle (body) – end (conclusion). This may sound oversimplified, but it is depressing how often journalists forget these basic components of a story.

As with the outline, time spent working out the intro long before you start writing the article will save hours later and help prevent an unfocused final product.

Writing your story

Keep your structure in mind at all times – beginning, middle, end. The forumula is simple: “Tell them what you are going to tell them; tell them the story; tell them you have told them.”

The intro must grab the reader’s attention, explain what has happened and why it is important. If you have no lead then you will have no focus and the story will not work..

A good intro should capture the mood, create an image, appeal to the imagination, instantly transport the reader to the location.

The body of the story draws readers into the piece. Each paragraph follows on logically from the previous one, building the argument, referring back to the main point.

Each new paragraph should introduce a new point or topic but keep these transitions smooth. Use linking words such as however, soon after and meanwhile.

Be selective with the information you include. You don’t have to use everything in your notebook. Avoid duplication, repetition, and non-essential information.

Avoid long, rambling quotes. Used sparingly, quotes can have a more dramatic effect. Select the poignant sentence, the meaningful or relevant phrase.

Emotive words

Watch your words and avoid sensationalism and sensational language. Avoid heavily slanted adjectives such as arrogant or warlord. Always be precise about what you know and be temperate when describing what you see. Avoid demonising adjectives like vicious, cruel, brutal, barbaric. These always describe one party’s view of what another party has done. To use them puts the journalist on that side.

Instead, report what you know about the wrongdoing and give as much information as you can about the reliability of other people’s reports or descriptions of it. Avoid presenting an opinion or claim as an established fact.

The conclusion

The conclusion is the end, not a place for any new information or surprises. Remind the reader why the story is important. Give them a feeling of having read a complete article.

The post Avoiding the pitfalls of investigative journalism first appeared on Media Helping Media.