Just for fun, I’m posting some of my notes for today’s workshop on investigative reporting at the Lesbian and Gay Bloggers Initiative in Washington, DC. –ef
Secondary Sources
Anything another scholar or journalist has written; this includes verified published materials from journals, blogs, newspapers, magazines, radio, television — as long as you can keep a copy for fact checking. These are used in investigative reporting but are not the basis of it. Secondary sources are subject to fact checking and must be used with the utmost care. Verification against one or two other secondary or primary sources, to avoid reporting errors by you and loss of your credibility, is highly recommended. On controversial issues, major newspapers can be some of the most dangerous sources of misinformation.
Primary Sources
Government or corporate documents, such as memoranda
Court records such as exhibits or transcripts of trials or depositions
Interviews with eyewitnesses or those affected by a situation, such as the residents of a contaminated neighborhood or citizen participants in an issue
Interviews with government officials whose job involves the subject you are writing about
Interviews with scientists (as long as they are not ringers, or identified as such), so you must personally verify the reputation of every expert
Your own eyewitness accounts of a situation
What is a “Ringer”?
A ringer is the opposite of a whistleblower. A whistleblower is someone with direct or indirect knowledge who risks his or her reputation or life to tell you the truth.
A ringer is someone who may be a scientist or other corporate or academic expert who is really paid by industry to take the viewpoint of industry. They may be someone who has in the past had a high reputation for integrity but has since sold out to a corporate position. They are scattered throughout academia, private laboratories and other places that the public would hold as credible.
Anyone identified by the media as a “scientist” needs to have their publications and CV scrutinized for government funding, and the truth is you may never find out. You need to check the validity of your scientific or expert sources through your most trusted community sources.
In investigative reporting, it is generally your non-expert sources who will give you your best leads, documents, tips and understanding of the issue.
What is Fact Checking?
Fact checking, essential to investigative reporting, is the process of verification or auditing of your reporting after the fact. It is best done by someone besides you. Fact checking includes everything from proofreading to checking the spelling of proper names; to knowing every source for every fact in your reporting, even if that source is not mentioned in the story.
Fact checking is an attribution audit. For example, if the Verrizano Bridge opened in 1964, you don’t need to say, “according to the New York Times, the Verrizano bridge opened in 1964,” but you do need to know you got that fact from the New York Times. If the story is about the bridge, you need that reference in your document collection; if it is a passing fact, you most likely do not.
As you work, prepare for fact checking by knowing the source of every statement of fact that you make.