Top Investigative Stories Are Models of Precision

By Dick Weiss
Nov. 5, 2007

I heard a commentator on Howard Kurtz’s CNN show, “Reliable Sources,” call investigative reporters “sociopaths for truth.” That conjures up an image of wild-eyed people hell-bent to get a story. In my experience, I have found many of the best investigative reporters understated in manner and approach, careful and precise in the way they write their stories. All these stories, while revelatory, stand out because they neither sensationalize nor assert anything beyond what the evidence clearly shows. Sociopaths? Hardly. Truth-tellers, to be sure.

Click here to send me an e-mail with some great business stories you’ve written or seen. You could see your story touted here as one of the best in the nation.
Note: Each headline contains a link so that you can read the stories online. Some sites will require you to register first. It's worth taking the time.   

3Hunt Oil Deal Could Help Shape Kurds’ Future

Jim Landers of The Dallas Morning News
Landers demonstrates in this story how reporters can share their skepticism with readers without going over the line into speculation or hyperbole. Oil executive Ray Hunt has struck an exploration deal with Kurdish officials that promises to be lucrative. It may also upset a delicate geo-political house of cards. And it all took place, supposedly without the knowledge or assistance of important officials in the Bush administration. This is despite the fact that Hunt sits on the White House’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. He is close to the president -- a key figure in finding the site for Bush’s presidential library. The connections or lack of them are just one part of an intriguing story that may or may help or hinder the war effort. Landers lays out the facts and lets readers decide what to make of them. 

2Front Airbags Don’t Inflate In Hundreds Of Crashes

Mike Casey and Rick Montgomery of The Kansas City Star
Casey and Montgomery found nearly two thousand cases in which air bags failed to deploy in head-on crashes. The story gets off to a riveting start, but then the two diligently roll out all the arguments against the case they are trying to make. They note that officials in the federal government dispute their findings and that it’s hard to pinpoint whether the airbags were always to blame because in many cases they could not determine how fast the vehicles were traveling. Instead of destroying their premise, though, it builds their credibility. They go on to say how they took a highly conservative approach to compiling their data and cite numerous outside experts who validated their methodology. The most damning aspect is that the federal government simply seems uninterested in studying numbers that at the very least should give cause for concern.

1$4.5 Million For A Boat Nobody Wanted

David Heath and Hal Bernton The Seattle Times
Heath and Bernton ramp up the outrage with tales of favors given to companies who produce products that the military doesn’t need or doesn’t want. And they assert boldly in one instance: “Blame it on Sen. Patty Murray and Congressmen Norman Dicks and Brian Baird.” The company involved provided them with thousands of dollars in campaign donations. But Heath and Bernton point out appropriately that these legislators are unexceptional. Many, if not all, attach special favors, called earmarks, to Congressional appropriations. Heath and Bernton do more than blame officials; they shine a light on the process and show how it works.

Copyright © 2008 Donald W. Reynolds National Center for Business Journalism