Build an investigation from evidence
An investigation examines a disputed question through documents, witnesses and competing explanations. The reporter gathers evidence that supports and challenges the initial hypothesis. Publication should rest on a demonstrable account, not on the force of a suspicion or the reputation of a source.
The essentials
Start with a testable hypothesis. A general accusation such as corruption is not yet a reporting plan. A claim about a particular contract, decision or financial link can be proved, disproved or abandoned. The distinction matters: an investigation must remain open to findings that overturn its starting assumption.
Verify through documents as well as people. Contracts, budgets, company records, court decisions and financial statements can test what witnesses tell you. Follow the money where it is relevant. A source’s account can point you towards evidence; repeating the account does not turn it into proof or establish the full chain of events.
Seek a response before publication from people facing allegations. Put the relevant facts to them fairly and record their answers. This right of reply is not simply courtesy: the response is information that may change the story. Investigations require time and resources, and may carry risks. Keep a clear record of the evidence, what remains unverified and how you reached each conclusion.
Take it to the field
Keep three columns: hypothesis, available evidence and verification still needed. Add the responses of those concerned. An empty cell shows work to do; intuition or repeated claims cannot fill it in place of evidence.
Your turn
Turn three common suspicions in your environment into testable hypotheses. For each, name a precise fact that could be proved or disproved in writing and identify the first document you would seek.