On investigative journalism

Investigative journalism—investigations are initiated as a matter of personal conviction—responsible exercising of personal judgment required—practice of zero-interference methodologies—participation necessitates agreement with and understanding of policies that define the need—knowledge of what is right, what is wrong—is personal involvement necessary?—mandatory elimination of speculative convictions—investigation must not NECESSITATE the investigation

*

Scenario I

Scenario I - Investigation timeline vs. probability of occurrence of event vs. timeline of event

Conclusion of phase 5 of investigation: direct reporting

Conclusion of phase 4 of investigation: reporting predictions

Conclusion of phase 3 of investigation: investigative reporting

*

Scenario II

Scenario II - Probability of occurrence of event vs. timeline of event

Dotted line: projected probability of event as a result of interferential investigation

*

Scenario III

Scenario III - Probability of occurrence of event vs. timeline of event

Dotted line A: projected, and increased, probability of event as a result of interferential investigation

Dotted line B: projected, and decreased, probability of event as a result of interferential investigation

*

Conference of ethical value—moral value of personal judgment—what if P(ethical val. of B > ethical val. of A) = P(ethical val. of A > ethical val. of B)?—non-interferential investigation takes precedence takes overall precedence when ethical values of A and B are fuzzy—does lesser fuzziness validate interference?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: