write-investigative-piece

Write Investigative Piece

Produce a rigorously verified investigative journalism piece that uncovers wrongdoing, holds power accountable, and withstands legal and editorial scrutiny.

Why This Is Best Practice

Adopted by: IRE, ProPublica, The Guardian Investigations, ICIJ (International Consortium of Investigative Journalists), and Pulitzer Prize-winning teams. Impact: IRE-trained reporters produce investigations with fewer post-publication corrections; ICIJ's structured methodology enabled Panama Papers (11 million documents, 376 reporters, 80 countries) with no successful defamation suits. Why best: Investigative reporting carries higher legal and reputational stakes than daily news; systematic methodology protects both the reporter and the institution.

Sources: IRE tipsheets; Houston "Computer-Assisted Reporting" (2004); Kovach & Rosenstiel "Blur: How to Know What's True in the Age of Information Overload" (2010).

Steps

1. Define the hypothesis — state your investigative theory in one sentence: "We believe [actor] did [action] causing [harm] despite [obligation]." Everything you do tests this hypothesis.

2. Map document and data needs — identify FOIA/public records requests, court filings, financial disclosures, corporate filings, and datasets needed to prove or disprove the hypothesis.

3. Build a source matrix — categorize sources as: primary (direct knowledge), secondary (indirect knowledge), documentary, and expert. Identify who has motive to talk and who doesn't.

4. Conduct document-first reporting — obtain and analyze all available documents before interviews. Documents set the evidentiary floor and prepare you to challenge source claims.

5. Use computer-assisted reporting (CAR) — analyze datasets with spreadsheets or SQL to identify patterns, outliers, and anomalies. Document your methodology for reproducibility.

6. Interview in concentric circles — start with peripheral sources to build understanding, move toward key figures last. Confront the subject only after you have maximum documentation.

7. Apply the "two-source rule" strictly — every key factual claim must be verified independently by at least two sources or one source plus documentary evidence.

8. Grant right of reply — contact the subject (person or organization) with specific allegations and a reasonable deadline for response. Document all contact attempts.

9. Legal review before publication — have counsel review for defamation, privacy, and newsworthiness before submission. Keep an evidence file for every factual claim.

10. Structure the narrative — open with a scene or character that embodies the problem; deliver the nut graf high; build the case methodically; conclude with accountability or consequences.

Rules

• Never publish an allegation the subject has not had a reasonable opportunity to address.
• Protect sources who face retaliation risk; compartmentalize source identities.
• Maintain full documentation of every factual claim in the story.
• Distinguish between evidence of wrongdoing and evidence of incompetence or bad judgment.

Common Mistakes

• Confirmation bias — pursuing only evidence that supports the hypothesis; actively seek disconfirming evidence.
• Inadequate right of reply — sending a "no comment" request hours before publication rather than giving meaningful response time.
• Source over-reliance — building the investigation on one whistleblower without independent corroboration creates vulnerability.
• Burying the accountability — readers must understand by the end who did what and with what consequence.

When NOT to Use

• When the story is newsworthy but does not require systematic investigation (use standard news article format).
• When time constraints prevent adequate verification (delay or don't publish).
• When your organization lacks legal resources to support potential defamation claims.