How I report
Method & Standards
A standing account of the principles used to gather, test, publish and correct investigative journalism.
The reporting chain
Investigative principles
My journalism begins with a simple proposition: matters involving public power, public money and public institutions require scrutiny.
I investigate institutions, decisions, relationships and conduct where there is a legitimate public interest in understanding how power is exercised and how public responsibilities are discharged. My work is particularly concerned with governance, national institutions, security, public expenditure, accountability and the relationship between state power and the public.
Evidence before conclusion
An investigation is not a licence to assume wrongdoing.
I distinguish between established fact, information supplied by sources, documentary evidence, allegations, analysis and questions which require further investigation. Where the available evidence establishes only an association, relationship or institutional connection, I do not regard that, without more, as proof of misconduct. The scope of any conclusion should not exceed the evidence supporting it.
Cross-checking and corroboration
Information received during an investigation is tested rather than merely repeated.
Where possible, I compare information between independent sources, examine documentary and contemporaneous material, test chronology and internal consistency, and seek corroboration before publication. A source's access to information, proximity to the events concerned and the existence of supporting material are relevant considerations when assessing reliability. Confidentiality does not remove the obligation to scrutinise information.
Confidential sources
Some investigations cannot be conducted without people willing to disclose information on condition that their identities are protected.
I regard the protection of legitimate confidential sources as a fundamental journalistic responsibility. That protection exists alongside, rather than instead of, verification. Information provided confidentially should still be tested, cross-checked and assessed against other available evidence. I will not voluntarily expose a confidential source merely because the reporting becomes controversial.
Fairness and right of reply
Material criticism should be put fairly before publication where reasonably practicable.
Where reporting contains material criticism or allegations concerning an identifiable person or organisation, I seek to provide a fair opportunity for relevant parties to respond. A response is considered on its merits. It may alter, qualify or contradict the information under investigation and, where appropriate, the reporting should reflect that.
Public interest
Public interest is different from public curiosity.
I consider whether publication contributes meaningfully to scrutiny of government, public institutions, expenditure, national security, public safety, governance, accountability or another matter affecting the public. The more serious the assertion, the stronger the evidential basis I expect before presenting it as fact.
Accuracy, context and correction
Accuracy includes context.
Quotations should not be presented in a way that materially changes their meaning. Facts should not be separated from qualifications necessary to understand them. Reporting should distinguish clearly between what is known, what is alleged and what remains unresolved. Where I establish that I have made a material factual error, I believe it should be corrected transparently.
Independence
My journalism is not conducted on behalf of a political party, government, commercial interest, religious organisation or other institution.
Those I investigate may sometimes agree with my reporting and sometimes strongly oppose it. Neither reaction determines what I publish. The relevant questions are whether the matter is in the public interest, whether there is a sufficient evidential basis for publication and whether the reporting fairly represents what the evidence supports.
Accountability
Investigative journalists ask institutions to account for themselves. We must be prepared to account for our own work as well.
Where practicable, my investigations identify the documents, official records and other material on which significant factual propositions depend. Where legal or ethical obligations prevent disclosure—particularly the protection of confidential sources—I explain the limitation without compromising the person who supplied the information. My objective is not to be beyond challenge. It is to produce journalism capable of withstanding serious scrutiny.