Observation and Reporting the Facts: Start with primary sources, documents, raw data, and direct evidence—not press releases, anonymous tips, or selective clips. Ethical journalism demands multiple independent verifications. Avoid framing that equates strong evidence with weak speculation. 

Hypothesis Formation: “What happened, why, and what does it mean?” Treat initial angles as provisional hypotheses, not predetermined stories. Actively seek disconfirming evidence and steel-man opposing views. This counters narrative capture, where advocacy precedes facts.

Testing and Verification: Cross-examine claims rigorously. Prioritize primary documents, full context, base rates, and causation over correlation. Attempt to falsify your own reporting. This aligns with core journalistic ethics (seek truth, minimize harm, act independently, be accountable) but adds methodological teeth. 

Analysis and Interpretation: Contextualize without injecting unearned certainty. Distinguish facts from inferences. Use probabilistic language (“evidence suggests…”) and acknowledge limitations. Update conclusions Bayesian-style as new data arrives.

Conclusions and Publication: Clearly label opinion, analysis, or speculation. Disclose methodology, sources, and conflicts. Publish corrections prominently. Transparency isn’t optional—it’s foundational to trust.

Iteration and Scrutiny: Follow stories longitudinally. Invite adversarial review. Revisit as evidence evolves. This mirrors open science: replication and critique beat one-and-done narratives.