Study smarter with Fiveable
Get study guides, practice questions, and cheatsheets for all your subjects. Join 500,000+ students with a 96% pass rate.
Investigative journalism isn't just about breaking news—it's about understanding how power operates, how institutions fail, and how accountability is enforced in democratic societies. When you study these landmark reports, you're learning to recognize patterns: how sources are cultivated, how documents are verified, how institutional resistance is overcome, and how public impact is measured. These cases demonstrate the full spectrum of investigative techniques, from cultivating whistleblowers to analyzing massive document leaks.
You're being tested on more than names and dates. Exam questions will ask you to identify methodological approaches, explain the relationship between journalism and legal precedent, and analyze how different types of sources shape investigations. Don't just memorize which outlet broke which story—know what made each investigation possible and what lasting changes it produced. Understanding the why behind these reports will serve you far better than rote recall.
These investigations targeted the highest levels of government, revealing how executive power can be abused and how journalism serves as a check on that power. The key mechanism here is the cultivation of insider sources willing to risk careers—or freedom—to expose wrongdoing.
Compare: Pentagon Papers vs. NSA Surveillance—both relied on insider document leaks exposing secret government programs, but Pentagon Papers established legal precedent for publication while Snowden's leaks sparked ongoing debate about whether whistleblowers are heroes or criminals. If an FRQ asks about the evolution of national security journalism, trace the line between these two cases.
War reporting faces unique obstacles: access restrictions, propaganda operations, and the tension between national security claims and the public's right to know. These investigations broke through official narratives to reveal uncomfortable truths about American military conduct.
Compare: My Lai vs. Abu Ghraib—both exposed military atrocities, both reported by Seymour Hersh, but My Lai relied on witness testimony while Abu Ghraib had undeniable photographic proof. Note how visual evidence changes the trajectory of accountability.
These investigations revealed how powerful institutions—religious, medical, corporate—protect themselves at the expense of vulnerable populations. The pattern: organizations prioritize reputation over victims, and exposure requires persistent documentation of systematic behavior rather than isolated incidents.
Compare: Boston Globe vs. Tuskegee—both exposed institutions exploiting vulnerable populations over decades, but the Globe investigation required building a case from scattered records while Tuskegee was a single government program. Both show how institutional power enables long-term abuse.
Following the money remains central to investigative journalism. These cases demonstrate how financial complexity can be weaponized to hide wrongdoing—and how document analysis and expert sourcing can pierce that complexity.
Compare: Enron vs. Panama Papers—Enron was a single-company investigation using traditional reporting, while Panama Papers required international coordination and data journalism tools to analyze millions of documents. Both exposed how financial opacity enables corruption.
When corporations prioritize profit over public safety, investigative journalism becomes a matter of life and death. These cases show how whistleblowers and document evidence can overcome well-funded industry denial campaigns.
Compare: Tobacco vs. Tuskegee—both involved institutions knowingly allowing health harm to continue for institutional benefit. Tobacco required a corporate insider willing to face retaliation; Tuskegee required a reporter recognizing the significance of an ongoing government program. Both transformed regulatory frameworks.
| Concept | Best Examples |
|---|---|
| Whistleblower-driven investigations | Watergate, Pentagon Papers, NSA Surveillance, Tobacco |
| Document leak analysis | Pentagon Papers, Panama Papers, NSA Surveillance |
| Photographic/visual evidence | Abu Ghraib |
| Database and pattern journalism | Boston Globe Spotlight, Panama Papers |
| Legal precedent established | Pentagon Papers (NYT v. United States) |
| Regulatory reform triggered | Tuskegee (informed consent), Enron (Sarbanes-Oxley), NSA (USA Freedom Act) |
| International collaboration | Panama Papers |
| Single-reporter investigation | My Lai, Tuskegee |
Which two investigations both relied on leaked classified government documents, and how did the legal outcomes differ between them?
Identify the common methodological approach shared by the Boston Globe's Spotlight investigation and the Panama Papers. What does this suggest about investigating institutional wrongdoing?
Compare and contrast how whistleblowers functioned in the Tobacco and Watergate investigations. What risks did each whistleblower face, and how did reporters protect them?
If an FRQ asked you to trace the evolution of government accountability journalism from 1971 to 2013, which three investigations would you select and why?
Both My Lai and Abu Ghraib exposed military misconduct—what was the key difference in the type of evidence each investigation relied upon, and how did that affect public response?