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

[caption id="attachment_3653" align="aligncenter" width="734" caption="Scenario I - Investigation timeline vs. probability of occurrence of event vs. timeline of event"][/caption]

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

[caption id="attachment_3654" align="aligncenter" width="734" caption="Scenario II - Probability of occurrence of event vs. timeline of event"][/caption]

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

*

Scenario III

[caption id="attachment_3655" align="aligncenter" width="734" caption="Scenario III - Probability of occurrence of event vs. timeline of event"][/caption]

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?