What is investigative journalism?

Investigative journalism is the part of journalism that refuses to take things at face value. Where ordinary news reporting covers the fire, the accident or the press release, investigative journalism asks: Why did this happen, and who is responsible?

It is journalism that takes its time, asks the uncomfortable questions and systematically peels the facade off power. At ExtraFokus.eu this is the kind of journalism we strive for, because it is the most valuable to you as a reader.

Systematic, in-depth and original

The core of investigative journalism is three things: It is systematic, it is in-depth, and it builds on original research. Systematic means that you do not just phone a few sources and write what they say; you plan an actual investigation, collect documents, test hypotheses and work step by step.

• In-depth means that the work cannot be done in an afternoon, it takes weeks or months to understand the systems, structures and interests behind a story.
• Original means that the journalist finds new information themselves, rather than just rewriting other outlets’ work or repeating other people’s leaks.

It has to be said that without the systematic approach you end up, at best, with a superficial background piece and, at worst, with errors. It is worrying how much “analysis” today is really just opinion without real research.

Investigative journalism is the opposite: It is a working method where you proceed methodically to find out what is actually going on, even when the truth is messy, unpleasant or bad for the click economy.

Thinking like an investigator, the hypothesis as a tool

Good investigative journalists think like a skilled detective or a skilled prosecutor. You formulate a hypothesis: “We believe X is going on in this municipality / this company / this authority”, and then you start testing whether it holds. You look for evidence that either confirms or refutes the theory. If the evidence does not fit, you have to drop the hypothesis and be honest enough to say: “There was no basis for that suspicion.”

That takes integrity, because it is tempting to hold on to a good story even when it cannot quite be proven. The worst-case scenario is falling in love with your hypothesis and starting to fit the facts to it, instead of letting the facts lead.

This is where the real difference between investigative journalism and activism lies: An activist wants reality to fit the cause. An investigative journalist wants the story to fit reality, or else drops it.

The trails: money, people, institutions and accountability

Investigative journalists often talk about “trails”: money trails, people trails, institutional trails and accountability trails. It is about following paper trails and data trails, contracts, accounts, emails, databases, minutes, public registers, and asking the same simple question: Who did what, when, by what means and with what consequences? This is where freedom of information requests, data processing and systematic use of open sources come into play.

It sounds technical, but in practice it is very concrete: A fire where the hoses do not work; a school where the buildings are a health hazard; a municipality where the temp-staff budget explodes.

The ordinary reporter writes about the fire or the bill. The investigative journalist goes back into tender documents, supplier agreements, political decisions and money trails and may end up exposing a corrupt contract, a political deal or plain incompetence. In this kind of trail work, responsibility is rarely placed where it belongs.

Making the hidden public

Investigative journalism is about making the hidden public. It can be matters that someone with power has deliberately tried to keep secret, or information that is in principle open but buried in so much bureaucracy, data and chaos that no ordinary citizen can get an overview of it.

Investigative journalism is the work where someone sits down, lays out the pieces and shows the whole picture to the public.

It is cynical when those in power in that situation brush journalism aside as “old news” or “misunderstandings”, knowing full well that what has been dug up has never been systematically put together before. It is one of democracy’s cornerstones that someone still insists on opening the curtains and letting the light in, even when it is uncomfortable for those in power.

Social justice and accountability

Historically, investigative journalists have exposed everything from big-city corruption and medical fraud to environmental scandals and exploitation of workers. The common denominator is that you go after the strong to protect the weak. It is about righting injustices and showing where systems fail citizens.

That does not mean investigative journalists are judges or political activists, but it does mean we take the consequences seriously.

When you document that public funds have been misused, or that citizens are being exposed to unnecessary risk, it is not “neutral” news entertainment. It is a direct challenge to power. It has to be said that if this kind of journalism disappears, an important safety valve in democracy disappears with it.

What investigative journalism is not

An important, and often overlooked, point is what investigative journalism is not. First, it is not “leak journalism”, where you simply have a document thrown at you and throw it on online. A leak can be the start of an investigation, but is never the end product. Without systematic verification and context it is just raw material, not investigation.

Second, investigative journalism is not by definition stories about crime or corruption. You can do investigative journalism about health, education, climate, working environment or tech, the topic is not decisive. What is decisive is the method: systematic, in-depth and original research.

It is worrying how often perfectly ordinary critical articles or opinion pieces are marketed as “investigative”, simply because they are negative or about something serious. That dilutes the term and cheats readers.

From quick news to investigative story, a concrete example

Example: A reporter is sent to a fire. The normal news story answers the classic questions: Who, what, where, when, how many fire engines, were there injuries, and so on. The story is over when the fire is out and the article is online.

But the investigative reporter discovers that the firefighters are complaining about poor hoses and defective equipment. Instead of letting it be a quick quote story, the reporter goes back to city hall, checks contracts, tenders and suppliers, and perhaps finds that a friend of the mayor has received a lucrative contract for equipment that does not meet the requirements.

Suddenly the story is no longer “warehouse fire” but “political cronyism and life-threatening equipment in the fire service”. This is where the difference between news reporting and investigative journalism becomes crystal clear.

That kind of process is exactly what we strive for at ExtraFokus.eu: to start from reality, but refuse to stop where everyone else stops.

Why this matters at ExtraFokus.eu

For you as a reader the point is simple: Investigative journalism is more expensive, slower and more cumbersome than quick news, but the value is far greater. You get knowledge you can use: insight into systems, responsibility, power and abuse, not just another headline in the stream.

At ExtraFokus.eu we see it as our obligation to use these methods: systematics, hypotheses, trails, documents, data and a focus on accountability.

It is cynical, but true: If nobody bothers to do this kind of work, power will always have the upper hand.

That is why investigative journalism is not a luxury but a necessity in a democratic society, also in Europe, also at a relatively small outlet. It has to be said that trust does not arise by itself; it is built by showing your work, documenting your claims and being willing to admit when a hypothesis does not hold.

Remember that you can always support us by donating so we can keep the lights on and keep power in check!

ExtraFokus.eu: A deeper look at the world.

You can find more articles about our working methods here:

• OSINT
• Source method
• Critical Check