Bill W:
Chad G:
#2 of 21 in a series: Building SOAPSzone
Story Idea #094 – Why We’re Doing These Investigative Series: What Prompted Them and What We Plan to Explore
Most of our investigative series did not begin with a grand editorial calendar.
They began with questions.
A strange email from Uber led to the UFCW series. A short DoorDash offer timer led to driver-safety questions. A frustrating app interaction led to a broader investigation of why obvious software problems survive inside large organizations. A restaurant delay led to questions about who controls delivery demand when a kitchen is overwhelmed.
This article will explain the origin of those series before the reporting is complete.
That matters because we want readers to see the distinction between a question and a conclusion. The starting question may be skeptical, irritated or even suspicious. The reporting then has to earn whatever conclusion follows.
For each series we will describe what prompted our curiosity, what we already know, what we do not know, which records or people we hope to reach and what evidence could change our initial impression.
The approach is deliberately transparent. If a company explanation turns out to make sense, that belongs in the story. If our first assumption was wrong, that belongs there too. If the evidence reveals a larger problem than the one we started with, we follow it.
Readers will also be invited to add questions we missed and provide firsthand experiences or documents that can be checked.
The point of publishing these previews is not to announce that we already know the answer. It is to open the notebook early enough that people can see where the investigation came from and where it might go.
A good series should not be a conclusion looking for evidence.
It should be curiosity with enough discipline to survive being wrong.
