EVALUATING RESOURCES, METHODOLOGY, POTENTIAL RESULTS AT PLANNING STAGE

Center for Public Integrity

Lord Acton once said, "Life is a matter of application." The 19th century British historian's comment, of course, was not made in reference to investigative journalism and developing, managing and editing major reporting projects, but the timeless observation applies nonetheless.

Any reasonably good, published, enterprise research and reporting means that, by definition, sufficient time was given to talented, committed professionals and the final story or stories were written and presented fully and unflinchingly, as needed. Ultimately, quality begets quality; good people and working conditions usually result in good journalism. The most respected print, broadcast or online publications - regardless of size, audience, market or traffic - all have one key characteristic: a commitment to excellence in journalism and all that that requires. All Pulitzer Prize and IRE Award-winning investigative journalism has this as the bedrock newsroom principle at the onset of any project.

Simply stated, an editor must hire good people, and then give them the time, space and resources to do their jobs well - necessarily including such fundamentals as traveling in the field; calling long distance; utilizing reasonably up-to-date computer technology and the high-speed, astonishing access to data and other information that it offers; suffident hours or even days, as needed, for exhaustive fact-checking and legal vetting, all of which costs money.

By space, I mean not only that reporters and editors must have the editorial independence and trust from the highest reaches of management to investigate the powerful, whomever they are, as needed, but when they are finished, they must be given ample column inches or airtime to explain their findings to the public.

The right project

While an overall commitment to excellence and quality investigative reporting are essential at the onset - which admittedly is so basic it sounds like a Forrest Gump banality - life still might not be a box of chocolates for reporters and editors. To succeed in committing high-impact, public service journalism, an editor, with his or her reporters, of course must choose the right project.

The wisest choices, resulting in significant, groundbreaking stories, have the following characteristics:

1) Their telling is timely and important to society.

2) They are, by definition, new, unique and original in approach, the methodology fair and compelling.

3) They obviously are feasible logistically and can be written within the confines of time, money, available information, existing staff expertise and other realities.

At the Center for Public Integrity in Washington, when we received source information that the Clinton White House was rewarding major Democratic Party donors with overnight stays in the Lincoln Bedroom and other upstairs rooms at the White House, it was immediately clear to us that this was potentially an important story. But we had absolutely no interest in anecdotal, gossipy material easily dismissed or "spun" by the White House press office - a publishable Center report thus would require hard documentation demonstrating a macro pattern.

Fortunately, we were able to obtain internal, private "usher records" of White House overnight guests for one entire year, and match those names against Federal Election Commission campaign and party contribution records. We contacted more than 75 men and women party donors who had stayed overnight in the Clinton White House before publishing their names in "Fat Cat Hotel," written by Margaret Ebrahim.

Similarly, in February 2003, when I received a telephone call and hours later, like manna from heaven, received a secret, 100-plus page draft of "The Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003" - better known as the Patriot II legislation, an apparent sequel to the controversial 2001 USA Patriot Act - we instantly recognized its potential significance.

The measure would audaciously increase the government's domestic intelligence-gathering, surveillance and other law enforcement prerogatives, while simultaneously decreasing judicial review and public access to information. We quietly and quickly ascertained that the document was authentic and that no other news organization had reported on it. But more astonishing, we discovered that for at least half a year, Attorney General John Ashcroft and his top aides had refused to answer dozens of questions posed by members of Congress overseeing the implementation of the USA Patriot Act, and worse, had not even revealed that a sweeping expansion of the Patriot Act was being drafted.

We posted the full draft online, over the strenuous objections of the Justice Department, resulting in hundreds of news stories all over the world; the more than 300,000 "unique visits" and millions of "hits" in traffic very nearly crashed our Web site.

With both the Lincoln Bedroom and Patriot II Center reports, the Clinton and Bush White Houses were singularly unhelpful prior to publication and breathtakingly deceptive afterward in their damage-control dances. We stood our ground and were subsequently vindicated by later documents or public statements, but some news organizations apparently suffered spinal lapses, literally talked out of pursuing these subjects by the powers that be. Part of conceiving, managing and editing successful investigative reporting - by definition information that powerful folks don't want told - has got to be an imperturbable willingness to withstand the inevitable flak upon publication, which might even include frivolous libel litigation.