As a journalist, you have a special role in life: to figure out what is happening, document it, and tell people about it. This can involve learning what has happened, though that would only be to size up its influence of the past on the events of the present. Every decent journalist must have a touch of historian to them, and respect for history.
But journalism is about now. Therefore, the proper mental posture of the journalist is attentive: self-aware, situationally aware, and paying attention to the wider environment around you at all times. This includes the human environment of who is who in any circumstance you may find yourself.
Usually, most people filter out the abundant information that their surroundings are providing to their senses, and the suppress cognitive process that might put them together (commonly known as thinking).
As a journalist, your first task is to come out of the foggy trance that has most of humanity in its grip. From there, you’re halfway to enlightenment.
A journalistic mental posture combines a circumspect view of life with the ability to drill deep into a topic without losing the context of what surrounds it.
This requires a diversity of skills, all of which are driven by some motivation. You must know what your motives are, and what your goals for the story are. The only legitimate journalism is in the public interest. That is of course a broad statement; what for some is information gold is to others malicious disinformation. There are objective standards by which you might judge the nature of your work, the first of which is truth as you know it and the second of which is relevance. Bu truth I don’t mean your opinion but rather, whether it is plainly so.
Your best motivation is the essential element of curiosity, which provides the desire to know, to learn and to understand. And there is the judicial ability to weigh and balance the facts and see which way they may lean.
There are two main standards: clear and convincing evidence; and the preponderance of the evidence, meaning which way the results of the investigative lean.
Judicial also means preparing your work to the standards of what may go to a judge and jury: impeccable records, documents, recordings and transcripts. I was trained in investigative reporting by editors and writers who were also litigators — meaning attorneys or citizens in the process of suing companies. So naturally, in a legal context, an extremely high standard of proof is essential. That is the one I take with me and no other.
Handling information, data and analysis
When you are handling a lot of information, data and analysis from multiple sources, it is inevitable that you will make mistakes. Your goal is to keep them out of print. The sooner you catch them, the better.
This means that you must constantly check yourself and triple-verify facts and data as you go — not saving it for the end. Any time you discover a discrepancy, chase it up, and call any source who may be able to offer clafirication before you are in the final publishing squeeze.
The last step, final fact checking, should be more like an audit to make sure that you have your sources and your notes in order. It will help if you keep them that way.
People are people — treat them that way.
Throughout your working life as a journalist, you will be engaging with people— all kinds of people from every imgainable background and stage of life. Therefore, you must collect people, and consider them important to you. If you don’t like people, you will be a terrible journalist. You have to appreciate people to be able to learn about and report on their activities sincerely.
Far from being an aggressive activity, journalism requires you to bring your humanity to everything you do, and look for it in others.
It is essential that you be interested in who people are in the role they come to you through your work — that is, in their official capacity. What exactly who is their job, and who are their higherups? Understand that as best you can, and ask what questions come to mind, if you have the opening. Part of being forthcoming in interviews is that it puts people to the test of their sincerity. How they respond to your sincere questions will tell you a lot about them.
Maintain awareness that behind the facade of fame, wealth, power or notoriety, the person you’re speaking to is a person. If you treat them in a courteous and sensitive way, they are likely to respond to you positively. This does not mean kiss their ass. Mostly, it means be respectful and forthright. When there is a human-to-human element present in your working relationships, what you write about people as story subects will be all the more compelling.
I was once offered an opportunity to meet the district attorney of my county. The person introducing us was a high official in his office. We went upstairs to a stately, antique section of the building. My friend and I sat down. It was holiday time, and the DA offered me some fudge candy made by his wife.
I asked, “Does it have wheat in it?”
He was stunned. He thought I asked, “Does it have weed in it?” This was the top law enforcement official in the county — I asked him if his wife sent him to work with pot brownies. “Wheat! Wheat! I have celiac.”
We all got a good laugh. It was one of those perfectly human moments that you cannot plan for, but if you’re relaxed and remember that you’re among your fellow earthlings, you can be ready for them when they show up. To be forthight, you must not mind being embarrassed a bit if you say something awkward. Just keep rolling.
Be this way with the mighty and the humble and everyone in between. You are engaging with your fellow and inherently equal humans. Once you’ve noticed that about one another, your relationship shifts.
Everyone is a potential source.
Everyone, no matter who they are, is a potential source, ally, facilitator or supporter of your work. One of your most vital resources as a journalist is knowing people in many fields, to whom you can go for information or contacts. There are certain individuals who have the magic Rolodex, and who have far-reaching contacts in many fields or specific ones. If you find those networker-types, cultivate trusting relationships with them. Never underestimate the power of someone taking a shine to you, and you conducting yourself impeccably in gratitude for their help.
I suggest that it’s dharmic to be available to assist those who support you — as long as there is no compromise to your journalistic integrity. As a journalist you will be a wealth of contacts and lines of access to information. You will have many opportunities to help people, especially younger journalists you evaluate as honest.
Your most helpful sources will include people such as the guy who landscapes the courthouse grounds, or a campus minister, or a reader, or someone who says something randomly to you on the street. These are unlikely to be quoted sources, or named sources, but the purpose they serve is to tell you something that is potentially helpful, which you then verify elsewhere (and that becomes your official, named or quoted source).
There is an old expression that “a journalist never reveals their sources.” However, for credibility, you will need to reveal certain sources and not others. When someone says, “Look over there,” or “ask that person,” you may reveal what you found over there, or what that person says. But you are unlikely to reveal the identity of someone who suggested you do so.
To work with people in this way requires you to have a congenial nature, and you must both be and seem trustworthy. Most journalists who are considered “bulldogs” meet that definition (they tend to be extremely friendly canines) — they are polite but persistent people who know how to engage their fellows and seek the assistance of seeming strangers. You must also be trustworthy. People you speak with must know that you are going to keep their confidence.
In journalism, seemingly adversarial parties are among your best resources. So you will benefit from finding something about them that is at least interesting, or something that you like. In any adversarial relationship, the ground you must stand on is that you will treat them fairly.
One example is the secretary or personal assistant of one of your investigative subjects. When you call their office, there must not be a trace of hostility to your presentation. First, the secretary is not your subject. But they are the gatekeeper to your subject. And you do not now their viewpoint or how they feel about their boss. They should not now yours.
While you must make no assumptions, such a person may refer you to someone helpful, provide a confidential tip, or provide documents confidentially.
The rules of fair play.
As a journalist, you take people’s reputations into your hands. Just like feathers that get loose from a pillow, incorrect information and gossip cannot be recalled. There are two sides to fair play, and both involve integrity. Of course, this is all predicated on the fact that you get the story right.
The first aspect of integrity is making sure that people you are writing about have the ability to express their viewpoint in your article. That means you email and call for comment, identifying yourself as a member of the press. You may not get a call or email back, but you will be surprised how often you will. When you have the conversation, make sure you record, and then represent their viewpoint fairly.
Readers may do a good impression of a propagnada junkie, but most are smart enough to be looking for this angle — the other side of the story. As a journalist, you have unusual influence, and you must use it judiciously and judicially. Like a judge, you must weigh and evaluate the evidence carefully, and show the reader which way it leans.
The other aspect of integrity involves protecting your reputation, and also covering yourself legally. If you are going to reveal damaging information about someone (a person or a company), you are on much better legal ground if you gave them an opportunity to respond, even if they did not take it.
While this is not the place for a detailed discussion of libel, you will generally avoid that if you cite your sources, give opportunity to respond, and do not write statements in an accusatory matter.
The essence of investiative reporting is stacking up one fact on top of another, till you have a struture where it is clear what you have discovered. Investigative reporting is not about your opinion; it is about your factual discoveries, and sources quoted in the story who comment on them. It is best to keep your commentary and opinions out of the article.
With rare exceptions, usually where security is a legitimate concern, article about someone should surprise the subject with its appearance, or its viewpoint. However, giving the story subject the opportunity to respond usually makes it obvious what is going on.
Here is how that might look in print. This is quoted from my article Charlatan’s Web. This statement basically contains most of what you need to know about the rules of fair play, and the article is an excellent example of how to handle an investigation into the conduct of an individual person.
In an email sent to Wagh Monday morning, Aug. 29, I wrote: “Under the rules of journalistic fair play, which are our editorial policy, you are entitled to give your best defense in your own words to accusations made against you and your reputation. Our investigators can find no trace of your doctoral degrees, or your thesis or dissertation.”
Wagh did not respond.
Note, I gave her 12 hours to respond, and told her I would be waiting. This was reasonable because I had interviewed and corresponded with her recently, and asked her the same questions; she knew I was doing the story; and she generally answered my emails within a few minutes. In most instances, is best to call and email. In one instance, I was reporting on someone who had four places of employment; I emailed him at all of them, and called at least two of them.
How to when you don’t know.
The difference between a genius and a fool is that a fool does not know when he does not know something. A fool assumes they know, and does not question how or why they came to their conclusion. I will call this “false clarity.” It is one of the most vexing enemies of humanity.
False clarity is revealed by its unquestioning nature.
We could also call this “false certainty.” All of journalism requires a bit of scepticism, including of your own findings and observations. There are steps along the way to demonstrating the veracity of something, and demonstrating something. You get there by a process of learning, noticing the gaps in your learning, and then filling them in. But if you don’t notice the gaps, your findings will have little integrity.
It is helpful to be able to argue — without notes — two or three sides to any issue you are working on, and some variations. It does not mean that those other sides are true, though you are responsible for knowing the alternative viewpoints because you are responsible for knowning why they may lack validitiy.
How to know when you know.
There are several stages of knowing, which is never absolute. Genearlly, you know when you’ve verified each fact in your fact pattern three times, and have considered the implications from several points of view.
Knowledge may never be 100% certain, meaning there is always the possibility of being wrong no matter how hard you work on the story. But it is possible to never get a story wrong, by having a high standard for accuracy and relevance.
The first sign that you are gaining an understanding of a topic is that you can construct a reasonable question about it, and understand the ansswer. When you ask a question, I consider it elementary to keep asking it again and again until I understand. I will say something like, “I’m not following you. Can you say that a different way?” or “Let’s recap the basic facts, help me out here.” I have found nearly all the time that highly knowledgeable sources are not meekly annoyed at my persistence, but rather find it reassuring that I’m trying to get their story right. And you may always remind them if they forget.
The most knowledegable person on any topic, even a pioneer, will have questions about what they are doing. To have questions means that you are on a quest.
There comes a point in gaining understanding when you can take two or three facts or observations and assemble them into a kind of probe. It is often as simple as the “one of these things doesn’t belong here” song from Sesame Street.
How to park your car — get up close.
It is better to show up at events early, so that you have a better sense of the room as it gathers, and have the advantage of choosing your place to work. But if you are late, and trying to find parking, I suggest you start close to the scene. The same is true with taking a picture.
Let’s start with parking. When you go to an event, if you are traveling by car, it’s a good idea to research the parking situation in advance. Contact the venue and ask; look up parking garages in the area; do whatever you can to avoid a ticket or getting towed.
I have found that if you arrive at a public event and are looking for parking in a lot or on the street, start close and work your way back. The usual solution would be to approach the event and park the first place you see. However, people frequently leave events, and if you start close by, you have a pretty good chance of finding a parking space no matter how crowded it is. Presumably those parked closest arrived first, and some might be the first to take off.
It can help to have a press tag for your vehicle. I’ll cover that under the proper use of press credentials.
Camera and car both imply going somewhere. Journalism involves some getting up and going places, and bringing your body to the secene. We will discuss how close you want to get to certain things, but generally, photos are better when taken up close.
How to conduct an interview — it should never seem like one.
There are several kinds of interviews, the first of which is casual conversation. The key to conversing with people is to know enough about the world to ask an engaging question to someone in any field, within the first few minutes of doing so.
This may seem like a tall order; there are lot of fields. However, if you read, and have a diversity of conversations with people random, and learn a little from them all, you will be ready when you meet a particle physicist, a dairy farm owner, or a vaccine injury attorney.
Once you get someone talking, which you can do merely by taking an interest in their thoughts, it will be easy to find something you can ask about. Never assume that a question is too obvious to ask. The obvious questions are almost always the most relevant, and the most often overlooked because they seem unsophisticated. You know, things like, “Is there really a pandemic?”
The other kind of interview is the one you might prepare for days, weeks or months to do. This is the kind for which you want to be prepared and go in with a game plan. Both of those things will only get you so far.
Jimmy Breslin was right
Jimmy Breslin (1928-2017) was a famous collumnist for the New York Daily News. He is reputed to have told a journailsm class, when you see a crowd, go the other way. He did not mean because a crowd is dangerous; he understood that the better story is likely to be elsewhere, where the crowd is not gathered.
He demonstrated this when, during the funeral service for John F. Kennedy (where everyone else was), he went to Arlington National Cemetery and interviewed the gravedigger, Clifton Pollard, thereby writing one of the most touching and noteworthy pieces of modern American journalism.
The message here is that you’re going to find a more original angle away from where the mob is gathered, where nobody is looking, or from people who others are not interested in talking to.
The same is true for hanging out in the press area. You may want to do that to check in with your colleagues, but where you want to be is among the particpants, the audience, or backstage. Move around and get every viewpoint that you can. Don’t just sit in one place like you’re in church. Poke around. Strike up a conversation with the maintenance staff, the security guard, or a technician (if they are not too busy).
One thing I’ve found is that at an event where other members of the press are gathered, photographers and cameramen are often the most helpful and knowledgeable. They are generally not writing or researching articles, but they tend to be extremely observant and experienced. Yet they know plenty, and nobody asks them what they think. If you take a light touch, you can learn quite a bit. This is another situation where you must never reveal your source.
What to do when you’re not welcome somewhere.
You will not be welcomed everywhere, including places you need to be. There are a diversity of ways to get in. If you must sneak in or be allowed in a back door by a friend or ally, first, size up the risks of being charged with trespassing. They are usually pretty low; most people don’t want the police at their event, so they will probably just kick you out.
If you are questioned by the police, simply say that you’re a reporter on the job. (If you were concealing that fact, you will have to come up with something.) Trespassing is not a serious violation and at some point many reporters, especially independent ones, will get charged. If you work for a news organization, your editors might not like this very much.
Tools of the trade.
Your notebook, pen or pencil. Despite many advances in technology, I remain partial to using a notebook and a pencil to do most of my off-line reporting work. Because there will be situations where you cannot record, it is essetial that you be able to take reasonably accurate handwritten notes, including of quotations.
Use of the telephone.
Use of digital recorders.
Call the cops.
Just like ordinary citizens know there are cool cops and less cool cops, that’s how they feel about reporters. The cool reporter is generally the one who is intersted in getting the story right, from the standpoint of the police. The asshole reporter is pesumptuous, pushy, chilly and not so clever.
I am not talking about investigating the police, which is a whole other subject and will not happen so often. This article is about working with agencies to get basic information and facts for your news report or investigative feature. For this, it’s best to present yourself as someone who is courteous and who follows protocols.
How to work with the police is a complex subject, though there are some initial lines of approach that will help in nearly all cases. I can sum this up in two words: be sincere.
Most of what you want from the police is a police report or press release. This is usually easy to get. If an agency is involved, there will almost always be a report (blotter entry). If you are dealing with the lead agency in a situation, there may also be a press release. The lead agency is the one that’s in charge of a multi-agency operation. It is always fair to ask, “Who is the lead agency?” For example, the local police chief might send you to the state police.
Be kind and reasonable with everyone, especially to admins, dispatchers and secretaries. If you’re working on a story, write down their names; there is a high proability you will be calling back. Always, always, always proceed on the basis of “perhaps we shall meet again” (which is why I usually end my phone calls with the sign off, “Thank you, ____. Bye for now.”
The police are genearlly accustomed to working with the press. Most realize this is an important skill for them to have. Some agencies and police chiefs are even concerned how little local coverage of thier activities gets into the paper, particularly in smaller areas where they feel under-appreciated by the public.
One skill is to know people in advance of when you need them. In my area, we have a local police chief who knows this about reporters. He regularly sends out press releases, telling reporters the kinds of incidents his department responds to. This builds trust and familiarity. They get to know him before they need to; he has a sense of who might be calling when a real story breaks. This basic familiarity becomes very helpful under conditons of serious breaking news, or a crisis.
If you think you might be covering an agency, see if they have a press list. This will give you the opportunity to get to know both the agency and the people who work for it.
The most important thing that the police provide are police reports. This does not take much legwork or magical contacts. You just email and/or call up and politely ask.
This is easier in small cities and towns than it is in big cities like LA, though even in big cities and state police agneices, it’s possible to collect names, phone numbers and associatations with press representatives.
How you are treated will depend on how you conduct yourself, the nature of the agency and the nature of the case. Proceed in a respectful and professional manner. It’s always good to convey the feeling that you don’t want to waste anyone’s time. This is one of the best ways to convey respect.
Genearlly, the worst posture to take is the one that feels like “you guys owe me something.” Keep it light. It’s fair to expect them to do their jobs. Never make them feel like they are the subject of an investigation. Even if they were you would not just be calling them up on the phone.
Approach them in a calm, professional manner of simply needing some help and you’re likely to get it. Remember that every person you have on the phone or are emailing with has the ability to help you more, or to help you less. They are likely to help you more if you are friendly and courtesous.
When you call an agency, always find the non-emergency number. If you’re calling someplace like the dispatch desk (you will know because you get someone who sounds more official than the average person answering the phone), start the call, “Good evening. This is not an emergency.”
When you call them up or email them, it’s usually going to be about one of their subjects. That is a helpful word. Part of communicating with the police is to use a little of their lingo but not sound like you’re trying to impress anyone. A person whose name exists within police records (such as in an arrest record or incident report) is usually called a subject.
Remember that the only people you will be quoting are those such as the chief or the official spokesperson for a department or agency. Always be clear about this. Among the very best ways to burn a relationship and piss people off are to quote the wrong person. And that wrong person is someone like an admin, a dispatcher or a secretary. Anything they say can go in your notebook for
Speaking of the cops, all about scanners.
Press credentials and their use.
FOIA FOIA, Pants on FOIA: That Woman in Canada
The beauty of investigative reporting — you’re unlikely to get scooped.
The stories tend to take a long time to develop, and require some courage to come out with. Proper timing of publication is of the essence
This is a great guide for me and I thank you for giving us tools to investigate thing for ourselves.
WOW ! Eric !
That was a Rich Cornucopia
Of Knowledge, based on advice.
Wait a sec'. Reverse that.
Anyway...
Informatively,
& Beautifully...
WRITTEN !
~ Sincerely.