What is the difference between investigative and interpretative reporting?

Answer 1

· It's about digging deeply into an issue or topic: As the word 'investigative'

implies, simply relaying a simple 'bite' of information - "A cattle fair will be held

in X village next month" - cannot count as investigative journalism.

· The issue or topic has to be of public interest: 'Public interest' means that either

a community will be disadvantaged by not knowing this information, or will

benefit (either materially or through informed decision-making) by knowing it.

Sometimes what benefits one community may disadvantage another. Forest16

dwellers can demand better prices if they know the world market value of trees

that logging companies want to fell. But the logging industry may not want this

information spread, as logging will then cost it more. Reporters need a clear sense

of what their mission is and whom they serve, and this can involve heated

newsroom debates. 'Public interest' means the interest of the community affected.

It does not have to be the whole country, and, indeed 'public interest' may be

different from 'national interest'. That term is sometimes used by governments to

justify illegal, dangerous or unethical acts on the excuse of 'my country, right or

wrong,' - or, indeed, to discourage journalists from reporting on a real problem.

· It's a process, not an event: Investigative journalism never provides an instant

story. It goes through recognized stages of planning and reporting, and has to work

to accepted standards of accuracy and evidence.

· It's original and proactive: Investigative stories have to be based on the work of

the journalist and (where resources permit) his or her team. Although an

investigative story can start with a tip, simply reporting the tip, or printing the

secret document that is anonymously faxed through to you, is not investigative

journalism. In fact, doing such a thing may be both lazy and careless. It carries

huge risks, since you have not investigated the identity, bona fides or motives of

your source or the authenticity of the evidence. You may end up defaming

someone, printing lies or being framed by somebody's agents. Instead, you must

develop hypotheses about what the tip means and plan additional research, decide

on the relevant questions, and go out to ask them. You must see evidence, and hear

and analyze answers for yourself, and go beyond simply verifying the tip.

· It should produce new information or put together previously available

information in a new way to reveal its significance: If the information, or the

understanding of its importance, isn't new, what exactly are you investigating?

· It should be multi-sourced: A single source can provide fascinating revelations

and (depending on who the source is) access to insights and information that

would otherwise be hidden. But until the story from that source is cross-checked

against other sources - experiential, documentary and human - and its meaning is

explored, no real investigation has happened.

· Because of its in-depth nature, it calls for greater resources, team working

and time than a routine news report: Most of the case studies presented of

investigative reportage are the result of team investigations. But this poses

problems for small local and community publications with small staffs and limited

time, money or specialized skills. A journalist may need to seek grants to support

an investigation, and learn to tap the skills of others outside the newsroom to help