"Even a stone bridge should be tested before crossing." This proverb often comes to mind while conducting investigative reporting. In the field, the sturdier a stone bridge appears, the more it should be tested. Just because a tip is specific, the evidence seems credible, and the informant is confident does not mean it is true.
For journalists, tips are invaluable. Many instances of hidden injustices and power-related corruption begin with the courageous testimony of insiders. The ability to investigate issues that are difficult to access often stems from small clues provided by informants. Meeting informants and listening to their stories is undoubtedly the starting point of investigative reporting.
However, the starting point is not the finish line. An informant's explanation may provide a reason to begin an investigation, but it cannot serve as the basis for confirming an article.
People encountered in the field each have their own circumstances and interests. Some express grievances, while others seek to gain an advantageous position in long-standing disputes. There are also many who attempt to resolve difficult civil disputes or financial issues through the media.
This does not mean that everything they say is false. However, individuals tend to remember and explain the same event in a way that favors them. They may downplay unfavorable facts while emphasizing favorable circumstances. Sometimes, they convey stories they genuinely believe to be true. More challenging to discern than deliberate lies are confident misconceptions and selective statements.
Having data does not guarantee safety. A recorded conversation may serve as evidence that someone said specific words, but it does not prove that those words are true. A single photograph can convey entirely different meanings when taken out of context. Even public documents may have gaps between what they prove and what the informant claims.
The issue is that journalists are not free from desire either. Especially when faced with the terms 'exclusive' and 'scoop,' judgment can easily waver. The anxiety of potentially losing an exclusive, the reluctance to let go of a hard-won tip, and the urgency to complete a lengthy investigation can lower the threshold for verification. When an informant's explanation and evidence align to some extent, there is a temptation to fill in the remaining gaps with hope rather than facts.
The most dangerous thought at this point is the conviction that it is 'mostly correct.' The stronger the desire for a scoop, the more likely one is to seek only evidence that supports their hypothesis, while dismissing facts that contradict it as exceptions.
Therefore, verification in investigative reporting should not end with asking the same questions to the informant multiple times. It is essential to check whether the statements align with objective data and to listen to explanations from individuals with different interests than the informant. Above all, it is crucial to ask not only, "What evidence shows that this claim is true?" but also, "What traces should remain if this claim is false?"
The process of receiving counterarguments should not become a mere formality. If newly encountered facts conflict with existing reporting, the direction of the investigation must be reassessed. If necessary, one should be prepared to abandon the core hypothesis of the article and start over. If verification remains elusive, it may be necessary to delay or refrain from publishing the article. Even if the time and resources invested in the investigation seem wasted, that cannot justify proceeding with the report.
Journalists often aspire to be the fastest writers. However, what investigative reporters may need to learn first is not the skill of writing quickly, but the ability to pause. They must stop in front of unverified statements, take a step back in the face of enticing tips, and question the conclusions they wish to believe.
While they are testing the stone bridge, someone else may cross the river first. Still, there are bridges that are better left uncrossed. The value of investigative reporting lies not in being first but in the unyielding truth that withstands scrutiny. A journalist's notebook should contain not only articles that have been published but also those that did not pass verification. The courage to obtain a scoop must be matched by the courage to let go.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.