Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?

m28investigatesm28investigates

resource-lab

Proving your hypothesis



In investigative journalism evidence must be proven beyond all doubt, because doubt will be interpreted to the detriment of the hypothesis. If an investigation presents possibilities rather than facts, then it is not yet fully ripe.
If a journalist is unable to provide proof of the incident and connect the perpetrator to it, it will undermine the hypothesis as a whole. The assumption is that the event did not take place and that the perpetrator did not cause it. Disproving this assumption requires solid, provable evidence collected by the journalist. An investigation begins with a hypothesis. A hypothesis starts as a suspicion that something has happened and that somebody is responsible. A good journalist works to develop this suspicion or possibility into certainty. If, after exhausting all your options, you still are not certain, then you may have produced decent journalism but it will not be investigative journalism. Investigative journalism requires conviction, conviction requires certainty, and certainty requires the elimination of any doubt.
Doubt can only be eliminated by marshalling solid, reliable evidence. Suspicion is about events. Do the events make sense? Did they really happen as claimed? Is there evidence to support this? Is there evidence to suggest otherwise? What evidence? Are there official documents? Is there a single account or are there several logical accounts that can be woven together? Another kind of reasonable suspicion arises after study and inspection, after weighing up the evidence and deciding which is more solid and precise or free of problems. A good journalist looks for evidence refuting their hypothesis. This is the best way of avoiding guesswork. Contradictory evidence may demonstrate that the event did not happen as suggested in the hypothesis, and that the error was not deliberate – that it occurred because of a third party wanting it to. In this case you should be fair to the person and seek justice and precision. Evidence may prove that the error was the result not of collusion and bad intentions but dereliction of duty or neglect. This is a very different story, even if the ultimate result is the same.
What constitutes perfect evidence? What constitutes substantiated evidence? What makes evidence unusable? An investigative journalist proves their hypothesis using one or more of the following techniques, depending on the subject matter, the nature of the investigation, and the environment in which they are working.

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Your Donation to M28 Investigates is a Direct Contribution To our Research. With Your Support, We will continue to publish groundbreaking investigations and uncover wrongdoing in the sub saharan africa


JOIN OUR NEWSLETTER

Stay Updated! Subscribe to our newsletter and be the first to receive our latest content and updates.

You May Also Like

The Rwanda Classified Project

By Cécile Andrzejewski May 28, 2024 Samuel Baker Byansi (M28 Investigates) and Christina Schmidt (Die Zeit) contributed to this article.

Investigations

EXPOSED: THE RTDA EXTORTION AND BRIBERY SYNDICATE IN AFDB-FUNDED ROAD PROJECT A 51.54km road project in Northern Rwanda may have improved the lives of...

Investigations

Decades of oil drilling in West Kordofan province was linked to water contamination, environmental changes and health effects for citizens. The oil story in...

The Rwanda Classified Project

By Karine Pfenniger May 28, 2024 With Kristof Clerix (Knack)