Write Investigative Piece

---
name: write-investigative-piece
description: Use when planning or writing a long-form investigative journalism piece that requires document analysis, source development, and multi-stage verification
source: IRE (Investigative Reporters and Editors) tipsheets and methodology; Houston "Computer-Assisted Reporting" (2004); Kovach & Rosenstiel "Blur" (2010) verification standards
tags: [journalism, investigative-reporting, verification, long-form]
verified: true
---

# 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.