Investigative Reporting Chapter 10-11

by Kevin Clang

As the book states, the judicial system and law enforcement are equally two of the most complicated but rewarding things an investigative reporter can write stories about.  Both are steeped in their own set of rules and guidelines, which are important to understand before you start your investigation.  Both are inseparable from politics as well, something that any story will take into consideration.    For the seasoned reporter, though, they are not impenetrable institutes.  Anyone who has done their research will be able to find corruption or injustice.

Like in investigating anything, at the beginning of research the reporter must decide whether they are looking at the whole system or just a handful of people.  The judicial system in particular is huge, and it would be nearly impossible for one reporter to constantly monitor all of it at once.  To do their job most effectively, one should pour over the weekly local beats, hoping to spot oddities  or anything that doesn’t feel right.

The Seattle Times ran a piece in 2006 that delved into certain judges’ improper sealing of at least 420 civil suits, which kept everything about the suits locked away from the public before they were heard in trial.  The reporters needed a keen ear to listen to the complaints of their readers and realize that this particular case was worth investigating, and a keen eye to find that judges were indeed mistreating the readers.  Taxpayer dollars pay for the courts, but the public cannot possible hold the court system accountable.  The public is entitled to know exactly what is going on, and it is often up to reporters to tell them.
The reporters found that 97 percent of the sealing orders administered by the judges disregard specific rules by offering little or no explanation, applying the wrong legal standard, or failing to acknowledge public interest.  In order to discover this, the reporters needed to be experts in the field of law. 

In Seattle, the reporters knew the rules and could accurately see when they were being ignored.  They successfully saw through the double-talk judges used to lead them away from the case, and as a result they brought light to 420 suits that otherwise would have been lost in history.
Like the court and police systems, the newspaper industry is also dependant on the money that is spent by the citizens that use it.  Because of this, a newspaper has a certain responsibility to its readers to offer them the news they need and to investigate corruption in the institutes that the public often does not have the time or money to do so themselves. 

More importantly, since it is not required that the public buy newspapers (unlike paying taxes), this responsibility is a constant need both to keep readers happy and interested and to make sure they keep buying a copy of the paper.

Investigative Reporting: Chapter 6

by Kevin Clang

Investigative stories are the foundation of journalism. Since the invention of the newspaper, it has been every journalist’s dream to uncover the next big scandal, prejudice or special issue. Likewise newspaper readers who don’t have the time to go out and research every little story that interests them enjoy reading about these important topics. Investigative stories keep everyone informed and honest. Unsurprisingly, they are a very tricky thing to get perfectly right.

Like any written piece, the setup and outline of an investigative story is very important. Before they begin writing, the journalist must ask themselves “What is the story here? What is my focus?” Ron Meador of the Star Tribune in Minneapolis encourages writers to “keep the outrage in sight,” “put people in the foreground,” and to “talk to readers; do not lecture them.” A writer must always keep their reader in mind: what will interest them, what may lose their attention and how to keep them interested throughout the entire story.

In an investigative piece, the “So what? Why do we care” is just as important as the who, what, where, when, and how. If for instance a reporter was writing a story on the economy, they would have to decide just what their story was. It is not enough just to say “the economy,” they need to set their story apart from others. Instead, the reporter may want to focus on one person, family or company that has been greatly affected by the market. People, not organizations, should always be the focus.

A writer must decide where to put the most important information, whether it be at the beginning of the piece or the end. There are several tried and true formulas to write a good story. For example, in the inverted pyramid structure, one organizes information from the most important to the least important, giving readers the best stuff right away. The Wall Street Journal formula organizes information from the specific to the general. A pyramid story is the opposite of the inverted pyramid, going from a lead to foreshadowing to storytelling to the climax. One can use sections to compel readers to read the whole piece.

The leads and endings of an investigative piece are the two most important areas. They must work together; bookends for the reader to gauge the story by. The lead must draw the reader in and give them incentive to read the rest of the piece, but it must also foreshadow the ending. They must be interesting and informative, and can take the form of a narrative, anecdote, or description. Endings need to make the reader keep thinking about the story long after they finish it, leaving deep thoughts and emotions in their minds.

Tone is also central to any investigative story. The reader cannot feel that they are being manipulated, talked down or lied to. The writer can’t make the piece seem too serious or too light, as it would take away from its overall effectiveness. Tone is a tricky thing to grasp, and can make or break your article. Put all of these things together and you have a good investigative piece (easy stuff, right?). It seems like a lot, and it is, but each aspect is central to a story’s success or failure.

Investigative Reporting: Chapters 4, 5, & 7

by Kevin Clang

The process of investigative reporting has become both simpler and more complicated with the emergence of the internet.  With online records and archives, any public information can be easily found with the click of a mouse if the reporter knows where to look.  E-mail allows a reporter to stay in touch with important sources across great distances.  With all of this convenience, however, the line between what is ethical and what is not becomes grayer every day.  It is the job of the journalist to decide what is ethical and what is not.

When one considers a big story like the collapse of Enron just a few years ago, it is crazy to think just how far technology has come since then.  Back in the archaic days of 2001, most organizations did not have public records archived online for anyone to view.  Back then the press had to rely on a few brave whistle blowers (a practice admittedly still employed today).  It was up to the reporters to decide which information the whistle blowers gave them would be ethical to print and which they should leave out in order to protect their source.
Enron was eventually found guilty of obstruction of justice after it was discovered that they destroyed documents related to their audit.  Now evidence like this is much harder to get rid of.  What was true then is still true now, however.  Before a reporter digs into any investigative report they must ask themselves “does this matter?” and “can the potential harm to an individual or company be justified because it benefits society?”  If the answers are yes, then a reporter has license to continue.  It is always important to investigate both sides of any story, being sure to at least offer to interview the accused.

Today a reporter would be able to go even more in depth into a story like Enron.  A quick search of any newspaper’s online archives will bring up any story the paper has ever printed on the company, which could be useful if trying to find specific numbers or quotes.  While most of a company’s accounting numbers are kept secret, a reporter should be able to find quarterly profit announcements, government tax returns or stock prices.  Surveys are also much easier to issue and analyze today, giving the average person a voice.  A survey can be quickly administered online, and when complete one can analyze votes by any variety of demographics, including race and income.

One thing that will always stay the same is the process one uses to interview a potential source.  A reporter always needs to be honest and forthright with their source, telling them exactly what they plan to do with the information the source has.  The journalist must do their homework before the interview, finding exactly what questions to ask so that they don’t waste time.  They must make their source feel comfortable, no matter what the source’s opinion of the press is.  They must understand the motivation of the source to speak to the press as well, and how it might fit into their story.

Investigative Reporting – Chapters 1-3

by Kevin Clang

Contrary to popular belief, stories do not just fall into the laps of journalists. Yes, sometimes a catastrophic national event occurs and causes everyone to stop what they are doing in order to cover it, but more often than not it is the journalist’s job to go out and find their own stories.

There are stories everywhere around us, from somewhere as obvious as the police station to somewhere as inconspicuous as a supermarket. It is up to the journalist to do the investigative reporting: realize the story, find people to talk to, ask them the tough questions, and finally scope the location out. Nobody else is going to do the work for them; the journalist must put in the hours.

The classic example of modern investigative reporting is and will likely forever remain Watergate, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein of the Washington Post uncovering a Presidential cover-up of break-ins at the Watergate Hotel. The two reporters were the only two to recognize that something was odd about the crime and decided to probe deeper than everyone else.

In doing so, they found “Deep Throat,” a disgruntled government worker who knew privileged information that greatly aided the two reporters in their investigation. With his information, the two compiled their story largely from records and documents that were available to the public, things like meeting minutes and budget reports, things that anyone could take out and look at. Some did, for sure, but Woodward and Bernstein were the only two people to put all of the information together and uncover the epic story.

As the book states, the two reporter’s work towards uncovering Watergate began long before a bunch of crooks broke into hotel rooms. Bob Woodward spent his time working for a couple of small to medium sized newspapers in Maryland and D.C. suburbs, before landing a job at the Washington Post. He worked his way up the ladder by assigning himself to investigate small local scandals, such as a butcher selling fatty meat to customers. These stories not only made the Post notice him, they also provided Woodward with the investigative reporting tools he would need to sufficiently report on the Watergate break-ins and thus change our country forever.

Today we have much more tools available at our disposal than Woodward and Bernstein ever did. Many public records can now be found online, saving the time and hassle it takes to drive down to a public office and check papers out. Primary sources can easily be kept in touch with using e-mail, whereas before a reporter may often fall out of touch with a source after his story is done with.

This also makes it much easier to follow up a story with new information and insight. Articles are archived and cataloged online where they can be easily searched. Sources from all over the world, from newscasts to newspaper stories to blogs, are available at the click of a mouse, giving us nearly limitless access to information. What used to take years to research is now readily available.

While all of this technology makes the job more convenient, it does not make it any easier to do. An investigative reporter will still have to have a keen eye and ask themselves the questions “how should the system work, how well is the system working, and who is benefiting and who is suffering because of the way the system works” if they ever want to uncover the next Watergate. They still need to do their time with small issues at small papers, putting in several sleepless nights if they ever want to work their way up to the big leagues.