Researching Water Stories

Before researching

When new information reaches the newsroom:

1. Check the relevance:

Is this information important enough to be called “news” and to warrant further research?

2. Check the sources:

Is the source of this information trustworthy? What are the source’s sources, so to speak? Did the source observe this incident personally? Or did he or she hear it from someone else? Did the source have this experience personally? How did the information become known to him or her? And if it was not a personal experience, then who is the first source?

3. Ask yourself:

Is this source a neutral one? Is the source an expert? How is the source related to the topic of research? What the source’s vested interest in the water sector?

• Is this information true and correct? Is everything there? Are the five ‘W’s (What, Who, Where, When, Why) and one ‘H’ (How) questions answered?
• Is data that is relevant for the story (e.g. on coverage, water availability and usage, etc.) solid and consistent? Does data vary across different sources?
• Does the information make sense? Is it logical? Is there a clear chain of events, or causality? Does this information seem like it could be true?

1. Collect all the potential information that’s already been published on the topic – for example, from sector reports (e.g. by relevant ministries or regulators), libraries, data banks (e.g. JMP, WASHwatch, UN GLAAS), the Internet, and professional or industry publications.

2. Ask questions: conduct interviews with witnesses, water users, experts, critics, and other protagonists. It is best to speak to more neutral individuals first – for instance, experts on the topic. Later you can speak to less neutral individuals – say, water users or protagonists like staff from a relevant ministry with an agenda. Once you have the general, neutral information it becomes easier to critically assess what you are being told by other, more biased interviews. It also makes it easier to pose difficult questions to the non-neutral interviewees. When conducting interviews, it’s best to stick to a well-defined topic or angle.

3. Personal observations or research on-site: the journalist’s own experiences can be a valuable part of research and also give the journalist the opportunity to add colour and character to the writing.

• Is this new information relevant? Does it come from trusted sources? Are the facts correct and does the information seem logical and make sense?
• Is data solid and consistent across different sources?
• Does the new information warrant further research?
• Is the procedure for research being followed as closely as possible?
• Has enough research been done, using information that’s already been published, to get a broad overview of the subject and to conduct knowledgeable interviews?
• Have all relevant individuals – witnesses, experts, victims, critics – been interviewed?
• Have the neutral interviewees been spoken with first so that hard questions can be asked of others later?
• Have all sources been double-checked for accuracy and trustworthiness?
• Has the most important information been verified by at least two sources? Has the journalist maintained the professional distance of a trained observer?
• Would the information be enhanced by the journalist’s own experiences on-site? Could the journalist’s own experiences be useful for storytelling?