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.
Milestone map
Milestone map
3 milestones
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