Investigative Journalism Intern

Investigative journalism rests on documents far more than on confidential sources, and most of the documents are already public for anyone willing to look.

This task builds that skill using only freely available online records.

Choose a subject of public interest that generates a documentary trail.

Suitable options include a government scheme and its implementation, a public infrastructure project, a regulatory decision affecting consumers, or the use of a public facility.

Now locate the records.

Government departments publish annual reports, budget documents, tender notices, and audit reports.

Regulators publish orders and decisions.

Courts publish judgments.

Companies publish statutory filings.

Legislative bodies publish questions and the answers given to them.

Work through these systematically rather than relying on search alone.

Build an evidence file as a structured document.

For every record, note what it is, who issued it, its date, the direct link, and the specific fact it establishes.

Quote the exact relevant passage rather than paraphrasing, because the precise wording often matters.

Then build a chronology placing every document in date order, which frequently reveals contradictions between what was promised and what was later reported.

Identify the gaps.

Note every question your documents raise but cannot answer, and record where that information would be held.

Read the documents for what is absent as much as for what is present.

A tender with an unusually short deadline, a report that omits a year, an audit observation with no recorded response, or a sudden change in how a figure is reported are all the kind of detail that only appears through careful comparison.

Record every such anomaly with the document reference.

Then cross check the documents against each other.

Where two official records cover the same matter, compare the figures and descriptions.

Discrepancies between a department's own documents are among the most productive starting points in any investigation, because they are difficult for the department to dismiss.

Also preserve everything properly.

Download and save each document locally with a dated filename rather than relying on a link, since public records are sometimes moved or withdrawn.

Submit the evidence file with all links and saved copies, the chronology, the anomaly list, the cross check findings, a gap list, and a two page summary stating what the documents collectively establish and what remains unproven.

The right to information is one of the most powerful tools available to a journalist, but badly drafted requests get rejected or produce nothing useful.

Drafting them precisely is a learnable craft, and this task is entirely desk based.

First, study the law.

Research how the Right to Information Act works, including who may apply, which bodies are covered, the statutory timelines, the exemptions commonly invoked, and the appeal process when a request is refused.

Read at least five published decisions of the Information Commission to see which refusals were upheld and which were overturned.

Also study rejected requests.

Find examples where applications failed because they asked for opinions, posed questions rather than requesting records, or were too broad.

Record the lesson from each.

Now draft four requests based on the gaps identified in your evidence file.

Each must request specific existing records rather than ask a question, since public bodies are obliged to supply documents, not explanations.

Specify the time period, the department, and the document type precisely.

For each draft, identify the correct public authority, state which records you expect to exist and why, anticipate the exemption most likely to be invoked, and write the argument you would make on appeal.

Finally, write a short note on what distinguishes a request that produces documents from one that produces a refusal.

Then write each request two ways and compare them.

Produce a broad version asking for everything that might be relevant, and a narrow version asking for one specific document.

Broad requests are frequently refused as disproportionate while narrow ones succeed, yet a request that is too narrow may miss what you need.

Explain for each pair which you would actually file and why.

Next, plan the sequence.

Experienced applicants file a first request to establish what records exist and how they are described internally, then use that language in a second, more precise request.

Set out how you would sequence your four.

Finally, research what is already published, since a surprising proportion of information sought through requests is available in annual reports or legislative answers.

Check each of your four and record what you found.

Submit the four drafts in both versions, the authority identification, the sequencing plan, the published information check, the anticipated objections with your appeal arguments, and the note.

Investigations require knowing who holds which piece of the truth and what each of them has at stake.

Source mapping makes that visible before any approach is made, and the mapping itself is entirely a desk exercise.

Using the subject from your evidence file, map every category of person connected to it.

Think systematically: officials who made decisions, staff who implemented them, people affected positively, people affected negatively, contractors and suppliers, auditors and regulators, elected representatives, campaigners, academics who study the field, and journalists who have covered it before.

For each category, record what they would know that others would not, their likely motive for speaking or staying silent, the bias their position creates, and how their account could be independently checked against your documents.

Now build the sequence.

Investigators approach sources in a deliberate order, starting with those furthest from the centre who are safest to speak, and reaching the main subject last once the facts are established.

Lay out your order and justify it.

Then prepare interview plans for three priority categories.

Write ten specific questions for each, built on the documents rather than general curiosity, so each question tests a particular fact.

Add a verification plan stating how you would corroborate anything a source tells you, since a single uncorroborated account is not a finding.

Think carefully about risk to sources.

Some people can speak without consequence while others would face retaliation for the same information, and a journalist who does not consider this before making contact can cause real harm.

For each category in your map, record the risk of speaking and what protection would be appropriate.

Then plan the approach itself.

Write out how you would introduce yourself and the story to two different categories of source, noting what you would disclose about the investigation at that stage and what you would hold back.

The approach to a whistleblower and the approach to an official differ substantially.

Also prepare for refusal.

Identify what you would do if your three priority sources all declined, including which documents could substitute for testimony.

Submit the source map with risk assessment, the sequencing rationale, the approach scripts, the three interview plans, the refusal contingency, and the verification plan.

Investigations are published only when every assertion can be defended, which requires an outline where each claim sits beside the document that proves it.

Building this outline shows you precisely where your investigation is strong and where it would collapse under challenge.

Using your evidence file, construct a detailed outline for a long form investigative piece of 1200 to 1500 words in length.

Structure it properly.

Open with the specific finding that justifies publication rather than general background.

Follow with a section establishing why this matters and to whom.

Then present the evidence in a sequence a reader can follow, usually chronological or thematic.

Include a section presenting the response or stated position of those involved, drawn from their public statements.

Close with what remains unresolved.

Now do the essential part.

Beside every single claim in the outline, record the specific document, record, or published statement that supports it, with the exact quotation and link.

Any claim without a source attached must be marked clearly as unverified.

Then audit your own outline adversarially.

Identify the three claims most likely to be challenged and write down exactly what a lawyer acting for the subject would say about each.

Where your evidence would not survive that challenge, say so and state what further proof would be needed.

Give particular attention to the right of reply, which is both an ethical obligation and the strongest legal protection available.

Draft the letter you would send to the main subject setting out every allegation specifically enough for them to answer, with a reasonable deadline.

Vague advance notice that does not state the allegations fails this test.

Then write the opening 300 words of the piece in full.

Investigations frequently fail at the opening, either by burying the finding under background or by overstating it.

Writing the opening properly at outline stage tests whether you actually have a story.

Also state the public interest explicitly.

Write a short section explaining why this matters enough to justify publication, since intrusion and reputational damage require that justification.

Submit the full outline, the claim to evidence mapping table, the right of reply letter, the written opening, the public interest statement, the adversarial audit, and a list of what you would need before publication.