give all your informations to me
October 4, 2009 8:54 AM Subscribe
In this New York Times article about E. coli in processed hamburger meats, the reporter interviewed employees and unearthed documents to get his scoop. How does an investigative journalist accomplish these feats? How does a reporter get people to divulge critical information?
Journalists' main tool is their address book. When they know a whisteblower they get confidential info/documents.
posted by Baud at 9:08 AM on October 4, 2009
posted by Baud at 9:08 AM on October 4, 2009
Sometimes (often?) people who want to get a story out will contact the reporter first.
posted by frobozz at 9:15 AM on October 4, 2009
posted by frobozz at 9:15 AM on October 4, 2009
You start with academics and activists and have them hook you up with their grass-roots sources.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 9:20 AM on October 4, 2009
posted by PeterMcDermott at 9:20 AM on October 4, 2009
The Investigative Reporter's Handbook is a pretty solid reference, if you really want to learn the details of how it works.
Some of it is knowing how to work the system, and some of it is knowing how to work people. People leak documents for all kinds of reasons: because they feel it's the right thing to do, due to internal politics, to make a rival look bad, or just to feel important.
posted by meta_eli at 9:26 AM on October 4, 2009 [4 favorites]
Some of it is knowing how to work the system, and some of it is knowing how to work people. People leak documents for all kinds of reasons: because they feel it's the right thing to do, due to internal politics, to make a rival look bad, or just to feel important.
posted by meta_eli at 9:26 AM on October 4, 2009 [4 favorites]
"William Marler, a lawyer in Seattle who specializes in food-borne disease cases and is handling the claims against Cargill."
Page 6. I would say that much of the materials and the witnesses would have been delivered by the lawyer. You have to look for motive and opportunity in stories like these.
Journalists take the shortest route. Many government workers and Cargill employees would not speak to a journalist because they aren't authorised, are afraid to lose their job and also because many people just don't like to spit in the soup, as it were.
Lawyers usually have access to documents, to names and addresses of employees who might talk (from depositions and official papers), and incentive to spread info through newspapers. If you want to find more victims who want to sue Cargill for a few million, what better way than to announce your case - and as much evidence as you can bring to show it's a strong case - in a national newspaper? Although usually lawyers aren't allowed to leak, there's very little enforcement of this rule, also because it's hard to prove.
In this case, it seems like Cargill itself had ample motive to work with the journalist too, as it tries to shift the blame to one of its meat suppliers ('Great Omaha'). So I wouldn't be surprised if those "confidential logs" that magically appeared on the journalists desks were supplied by the highest Cargill echelons.
posted by NekulturnY at 9:28 AM on October 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
Page 6. I would say that much of the materials and the witnesses would have been delivered by the lawyer. You have to look for motive and opportunity in stories like these.
Journalists take the shortest route. Many government workers and Cargill employees would not speak to a journalist because they aren't authorised, are afraid to lose their job and also because many people just don't like to spit in the soup, as it were.
Lawyers usually have access to documents, to names and addresses of employees who might talk (from depositions and official papers), and incentive to spread info through newspapers. If you want to find more victims who want to sue Cargill for a few million, what better way than to announce your case - and as much evidence as you can bring to show it's a strong case - in a national newspaper? Although usually lawyers aren't allowed to leak, there's very little enforcement of this rule, also because it's hard to prove.
In this case, it seems like Cargill itself had ample motive to work with the journalist too, as it tries to shift the blame to one of its meat suppliers ('Great Omaha'). So I wouldn't be surprised if those "confidential logs" that magically appeared on the journalists desks were supplied by the highest Cargill echelons.
posted by NekulturnY at 9:28 AM on October 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
If you have a weekend to spare, read All The President's Men.
Aside from being a thrilling account of the Watergate scandal, it gives you a very good picture of how investigative journalism works. i.e. how you finds sources, how you trick uncooperative sources into revealing information, how you help anonymous whistleblowers say what they wish they could say without getting fired/sued/jailed, how to cut through all the BS from flacks (non-denial denials), etc.
posted by randomstriker at 10:38 AM on October 4, 2009
Aside from being a thrilling account of the Watergate scandal, it gives you a very good picture of how investigative journalism works. i.e. how you finds sources, how you trick uncooperative sources into revealing information, how you help anonymous whistleblowers say what they wish they could say without getting fired/sued/jailed, how to cut through all the BS from flacks (non-denial denials), etc.
posted by randomstriker at 10:38 AM on October 4, 2009
« Older What were other people's foot surgery experiences... | Surely those old newspapers go somewhere Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
Just a guess, but the documents were probably provided by disgruntled or concerned employee(s). The source may have offered the documents to the reporter before the reporter even got started on the story, or the source may have decided to come forward after having had a conversation with the reporter.
posted by notyou at 9:05 AM on October 4, 2009