Investigative Journalism Studying

In class we discussed Investigative reporting. We had two different case studies that looked into how reporters dealt with stories that involved actually doing investigation to find the story and report facts that are hidden from the public and find out facts that affect the public. 

In the first case study from chapter one, the story is about a reporter who is very well-liked on his police beat. Two officers approach him anonymously about reporting a story that the Sheriff was hiring people for campaign donations. The reporter gave the story to an investigative reporter, who in turn found out through documents that this was true. The story was taking place during election season. Some information the reporter could not get before the election, so he decided it was his public duty to run the story before the election. He then gave the Sheriff the opportunity to respond to the allegations, but he refused the interview. This added to the story and resulted in the Sheriff losing the election. 

The second case study is about a reporter who was very good at finding information from public records. It also discusses the ethics of withholding sources. She finds information on the Mayor using city workers for free, private enterprise work. She has a hard time though finding concrete evidence, thanks to a former reporter who works for the mayor. The mayor declined an interview, and the story was ran with just a pre-written statement from the mayor. While there was calls for his resignation, the mayor continued in office. 

Along with the case studies, we had to find an example of investigative reporting ourselves. I chose one written for the Charleston Gazette by Eric Eyre, written in the April 21 2005 edition. A link to the original story can be found here; http://wvgazette.com/News/WebofDeceit/200504210003.

The story is about how former House of Delegates Education Committee Chairman Jerry Mezzatesta was indicted on the charge lying to an Ethics Commission during an investigation about him soliciting grants for Hampshire County schools. 

He originally was cleared of this, but the Gazette found a letter actually soliciting money for the school.  He also cleared his computers and sent fake letters to Erye that showed him not soliciting money, but investigation done by Erye showed the letterhead from the letter was actually ordered after he supposedly wrote the letter. 

Some people might ask why this is and investigative report.  According to the book Investigative Journalism, an investigative report has to have one or more of four guidelines in a story. 

1. Reveal information that someone is trying to hide or that otherwise would not have been known.

2. Are a matter of importance to the public well-being. 

3. Are the work product of the reporter rather than a leak from a government agency investigation.

4. Expose a waste of tax money caused by mismanagement or corruption in government, dangerous conditions posing safety hazards or fraudulent conduct in the private sector that preys on the consumer. 

This report follows the first guideline because Mezzatesta tried to hide the fact that he was soliciting money for the schools by wiping out his computer and sending fake letters to the reporter and the government. 

It follows the second one because it should be known that a trusted elected official is using dishonesty to gain money for the school. The money could have went to something more important that what the school system was going to use it for. 

The reporter was the one originally to break the story which led to an investigation by Federal government, so that adds to the third point of investigative journalism. 

When asked if the reporter gave the subject a fair chance, he did, but Mezzatesta used his lawyer to give a statement on the subject. In the story the quote appears in the sixth paragraph of the story. Mezzatesta was given the chance but Eyre said he did not talk to him, but went on public radio and called Eyre a liar. 

The reporter does point to a key document. The document in question is an actual letter from Mezzatesta to the Hampshire county schools' Superintendent David Stewart. The letter was soliciting department grant money for Hampshire schools. While graphics and pictures do not accompany the story, a graph on the money spent by the school would have helped. 

The public of West Virginia would be interested in the story because of one the trusted elected officials was caught breaking the law. This would be passed around by a lot of people wanting to know what the government was doing about it. A lot of people would be affected by the story because if affects the whole state of West Virginia. It really makes people look at how they look at the government officials they hire. 

There was a follow up story, it was mainly what happened in the court case. Mezzatesta was found not guilty, but his reputation was given serious damage.

The headlines were very straight forward and featured no harsh words. It was just a straight news lead headline that gave the information and did not put too much judgement into the story. The headline was very unbiased. 

You can determine where the reporter got his information from because he said where he got it from in the story. When the reporter downright tells where he got the information from it's easy to trust what he is saying and believe the sources from the story. 

Erye in an interview about the story said he originally got the idea from a tipster inside the house of delegates. After the tip he looked into the subject finding letters and documents supporting the claim of the tipster. This investigative report was very well done because it used actual documents in finding the true story.