Skills

Journalism Investigation and Editorial Review

10 weeks · 0 milestones

Produce a real investigative piece on a real, named story — documented facts, verified sources, and a clear public interest angle. Document your source methodology (how sources were found, contacted, and verified) and your fact-checking process. Publication is NOT required — the proof is the editorial process: a working journalist or editor with at least three years of experience reviews your piece, provides documented feedback (at least one specific sourcing issue and one editorial decision they would make differently), and you produce a revision with a written response to their feedback. The editorial review, your revision, and your written response to their feedback are the proof artifacts. A rigorous editorial process demonstrates journalism skill more reliably than publication, which depends on editorial decisions outside your control.

Part of: Social Sciences, Law & Humanities · Proves for: UG

Milestone map

3 milestones

Identify a real investigation topic and document the editorial brief

2 weeks

Identify a real investigatable topic — a policy implementation issue, a local government decision, a business practice, or a public interest matter — that can be investigated through documents and interviews available to you. Produce a formal editorial brief: the story premise (what you think is happening and why it matters), the evidence you expect to find, the potential sources (documents and people), the story's public interest justification, and the ethical considerations (source protection, right-of-reply, harm to third parties). The brief must be written before investigation begins, not constructed retrospectively.

Proof required

Editorial brief (500+ words) covering: story premise, expected evidence, potential sources (documentary and human), public interest justification, and ethical considerations including source protection, right-of-reply approach, and potential harm to third parties.

What gets checked

Story premise is specific enough to be verifiable or falsifiable — not 'I will investigate corruption in the council'
Ethical considerations address source protection, right-of-reply, and potential harm specifically for this story
Brief is clearly prospective — written before investigation, not retrospectively describing what was found

Common mistakes

Writing a brief after the investigation — a retrospective brief misrepresents the investigative process
Not addressing source protection — any journalism involving human sources must have a documented source protection approach
Story premise so broad it cannot be investigated with the resources available — investigative briefs must be scoped to what is achievable

Powstik Guide

An editorial brief for a real, checkable investigation.

Steps

Write the story premise in two sentences.
List documents you expect to find.
List people to approach, on each side.
Note legal and ethical risks.

Template

Premise:
Public interest:
Documents I expect:
People to approach:
Right of reply from:
Risks (legal/ethical):

What gets sent back

A topic that can't be checked.
No right-of-reply plan.
No risk section.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

What a verifier looks for

Review the brief — confirm it is prospective (written before investigation) based on internal evidence (future tense, speculative language)
Check the ethical considerations — confirm source protection, right of reply, and harm are each addressed specifically
Verify the story premise is specific and investigatable

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Conduct the investigation and document the editorial process

6 weeks

Conduct the investigation: gather documentary evidence (public records, filed documents, data), conduct interviews (minimum two human sources with their explicit consent documented), cross-check the evidence, and produce a draft story. Crucially, document the full editorial process: every key piece of evidence found, every interview conducted with date and consent record, decisions made about what to include and exclude and why, and the right-of-reply approach taken. The proof is the documented editorial process — not whether the story was published.

Proof required

Investigation package covering: draft story (any length appropriate to the topic), editorial process log documenting evidence gathered, interview records (dates, consent records, not names unless consented), key decisions with reasoning, and the right-of-reply correspondence or record.

What gets checked

At least two human sources are documented with consent records (not necessarily named if source protection applies)
Editorial process log documents key decisions — what was included, what was excluded, and why
Right-of-reply correspondence or record is present — subjects of allegations must be given an opportunity to respond

Common mistakes

Treating publication as the proof standard — the journalism rule for this outcome is that proof is the editorial process, not publication. A story that is not published can still satisfy the proof standard if the process is rigorous.
Not documenting right of reply — any journalism involving allegations about named individuals or organisations requires right of reply before publication
Single-source stories — journalism standards require corroboration for factual claims; a single source makes the story unverifiable

Powstik Guide

A draft story and a log of how each claim was checked.

Steps

Gather records, including information requests.
Interview sources and note what's on record.
Check each claim against two sources.
Offer right of reply before drafting.

Template

| Claim | Source 1 | Source 2 | Checked on |
|-------|----------|----------|------------|
Right of reply offered to:        Response:
Draft attached ☐

What gets sent back

Single-source claims.
No right of reply.
Anonymous sources with no reason given.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

What a verifier looks for

Review editorial process log — confirm at least two sources are documented with consent records
Check key decisions — confirm the log documents what was included/excluded and why
Verify right-of-reply correspondence or record is present

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Submit editorial process for review by an experienced journalist or editor

1 week

Present the investigation package — brief, editorial process log, and draft story — to an experienced journalist or editor for a structured Q&A. The reviewer must challenge specific editorial decisions — 'why did you include this claim with only one source?', 'your right-of-reply approach — did you give the subject enough time to respond?', 'how do you know the documents you have are authentic?'. The journalism rule applies: proof is the editorial process, not publication. The Q&A satisfies the ADVERSARIAL VERIFICATION RULE for social-* outcomes.

Proof required

Q&A notes (250+ words) documenting the reviewer's journalism background, at least three specific challenges to editorial decisions, your responses, and any editorial changes committed to based on the session.

What gets checked

Reviewer is an experienced journalist (5+ years) or professional editor
At least three specific editorial decision challenges are documented — not general feedback on writing style
At least one editorial change is committed to based on the session

Common mistakes

Presenting to a writer rather than a journalist — the review must be conducted by someone familiar with journalism ethics and practice standards
Not being able to explain a specific editorial decision under challenge — journalists must be able to defend every inclusion and exclusion decision
Not revising any aspect of the investigation based on the review — a genuine editorial challenge almost always surfaces something to strengthen

Powstik Guide

Your investigation, challenged by an experienced journalist.

Steps

Mark every inclusion and exclusion you made, with a reason.
Check each claim against at least one record.
Book an experienced journalist or editor.
Ask for three challenges to editorial decisions.

Template

Challenge session log
Date:            Duration:
Reviewer name:
Reviewer role and credentials:

Challenge 1 (an editorial decision):
  What they asked:
  My answer:
  Did it hold?
Challenge 2:
  What they asked:
  My answer:
  Did it hold?
Challenge 3:
  What they asked:
  My answer:
  Did it hold?

Update I am committing to:

What gets sent back

A writer who isn't a journalist.
A decision you can't explain.
No editorial change after the session.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

What a verifier looks for

Confirm the reviewer is an experienced journalist (5+ years) or professional editor
Review Q&A notes — confirm at least three specific editorial decision challenges are documented
Check that at least one editorial change is committed to based on the session

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Part of

Communication & Media Studies →

Related outcomes

Milestone map

3 milestones

Identify a real investigation topic and document the editorial brief

2 weeks

Proof required

What gets checked

Story premise is specific enough to be verifiable or falsifiable — not 'I will investigate corruption in the council'
Ethical considerations address source protection, right-of-reply, and potential harm specifically for this story
Brief is clearly prospective — written before investigation, not retrospectively describing what was found

Common mistakes

Writing a brief after the investigation — a retrospective brief misrepresents the investigative process
Not addressing source protection — any journalism involving human sources must have a documented source protection approach
Story premise so broad it cannot be investigated with the resources available — investigative briefs must be scoped to what is achievable

Powstik Guide

An editorial brief for a real, checkable investigation.

Steps

Write the story premise in two sentences.
List documents you expect to find.
List people to approach, on each side.
Note legal and ethical risks.

Template

Premise:
Public interest:
Documents I expect:
People to approach:
Right of reply from:
Risks (legal/ethical):

What gets sent back

A topic that can't be checked.
No right-of-reply plan.
No risk section.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

What a verifier looks for

Review the brief — confirm it is prospective (written before investigation) based on internal evidence (future tense, speculative language)
Check the ethical considerations — confirm source protection, right of reply, and harm are each addressed specifically
Verify the story premise is specific and investigatable

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Conduct the investigation and document the editorial process

6 weeks

Proof required

What gets checked

At least two human sources are documented with consent records (not necessarily named if source protection applies)
Editorial process log documents key decisions — what was included, what was excluded, and why
Right-of-reply correspondence or record is present — subjects of allegations must be given an opportunity to respond

Common mistakes

Treating publication as the proof standard — the journalism rule for this outcome is that proof is the editorial process, not publication. A story that is not published can still satisfy the proof standard if the process is rigorous.
Not documenting right of reply — any journalism involving allegations about named individuals or organisations requires right of reply before publication
Single-source stories — journalism standards require corroboration for factual claims; a single source makes the story unverifiable

Powstik Guide

A draft story and a log of how each claim was checked.

Steps

Gather records, including information requests.
Interview sources and note what's on record.
Check each claim against two sources.
Offer right of reply before drafting.

Template

| Claim | Source 1 | Source 2 | Checked on |
|-------|----------|----------|------------|
Right of reply offered to:        Response:
Draft attached ☐

What gets sent back

Single-source claims.
No right of reply.
Anonymous sources with no reason given.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

What a verifier looks for

Review editorial process log — confirm at least two sources are documented with consent records
Check key decisions — confirm the log documents what was included/excluded and why
Verify right-of-reply correspondence or record is present

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Submit editorial process for review by an experienced journalist or editor

1 week

Proof required

What gets checked

Reviewer is an experienced journalist (5+ years) or professional editor
At least three specific editorial decision challenges are documented — not general feedback on writing style
At least one editorial change is committed to based on the session

Common mistakes

Presenting to a writer rather than a journalist — the review must be conducted by someone familiar with journalism ethics and practice standards
Not being able to explain a specific editorial decision under challenge — journalists must be able to defend every inclusion and exclusion decision
Not revising any aspect of the investigation based on the review — a genuine editorial challenge almost always surfaces something to strengthen

Powstik Guide

Your investigation, challenged by an experienced journalist.

Steps

Mark every inclusion and exclusion you made, with a reason.
Check each claim against at least one record.
Book an experienced journalist or editor.
Ask for three challenges to editorial decisions.

Template

Challenge session log
Date:            Duration:
Reviewer name:
Reviewer role and credentials:

Challenge 1 (an editorial decision):
  What they asked:
  My answer:
  Did it hold?
Challenge 2:
  What they asked:
  My answer:
  Did it hold?
Challenge 3:
  What they asked:
  My answer:
  Did it hold?

Update I am committing to:

What gets sent back

A writer who isn't a journalist.
A decision you can't explain.
No editorial change after the session.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

What a verifier looks for

Confirm the reviewer is an experienced journalist (5+ years) or professional editor
Review Q&A notes — confirm at least three specific editorial decision challenges are documented
Check that at least one editorial change is committed to based on the session

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.