NPR's Cheryl W. Thompson: "Don’t leave an interview without getting what you need"

National Public Radio's investigative correspondent Cheryl W. Thompson is no stranger to the journalism world. She has spent over 20 years working in the field, reporting for The Washington Post before joining NPR. Thompson has won dozens of awards for her work and was a member of the Post team that won the 2002 Pulitzer Prize for national reporting. She is currently an associate professor of journalism at George Washington University and serving her third term as the first Black president of the organization Investigative Reporters and Editors. Thompson spoke with the Foreign Press of the AFC-USA (Association Foreign Press Correspondents) about her career as an investigative reporter.

As an investigative reporter, what are the first steps you take when working on a new piece? How do you discover and choose new cases to report on?

The first thing I do when starting a new investigation is to research everything I can about the individual, the issue, or the institution. You want to know what has been written and when. I call it secondary sourcing. I look for audits, budgets, inspector general reports,  congressional committee reports, public meeting minutes, etc. I then make a spreadsheet and include everyone I want to talk to and what they can bring to this story. I also figure out what records are relevant and then get them through sources first or FOIA—the Freedom of Information Act. Then I start digging. 

You have worked on some really emotional stories, like your Howard University Hospital piece. When reporting on cases so devastating, how do you prevent your emotions from getting the better of you and influencing your reporting?

 Listen, we’re all human, right? But I just stay focused on the reporting and telling the story. I can’t get emotionally attached. Do I sometimes sympathize with my subjects who have been through tragedy? I think empathize is a better word.

 What are the differences in investigating current events versus something that happened in the past, like the murders of six young black girls in the '70s? Why do you believe it's important to revisit old unsolved cases?

Going back in time allows me to revisit places, events, issues, and things like that.   Because years have passed since an event, such as the killings of those six Black girls, people have had time to think about things; remember things. I think it was important to tell that story of those unsolved murders. It was a way to keep the case alive, to remind people that these young girls were daughters, granddaughters, nieces, and sisters. Their lives mattered. They were loved. And their families never got closure. It’s also important to tell their stories and other cold cases because sometimes people feel less threatened years later and want to share information. Or maybe they want to get something off their chest—clear their conscience, if you will before they die. Besides, I felt compelled to revisit the case. I stumbled across a police news release with the black-and-white photos of those six girls. Maybe it was meant for me to delve back into it. I also thought that if I, as a Black woman and journalist, had the chance to write about it, why wouldn’t I? 

As a teacher of investigative reporting, what's the most important lesson you teach your students that you believe all journalists should practice?

There are so many important lessons: be honest with people; don’t tell people the story is about one thing just to get them to talk to you when it’s really about something else. Be polite but insistent. Be persistent. Don’t leave an interview without getting what you need. For me, the most important thing to remember is that at the end of the day, credibility is all you have as a journalist, so it’s crucial that you get it right. Check your facts. Double and triple-check them if you have to. What’s the point of being first with a story if you get it wrong? Trust, but verify, the great Bob Woodward once told me. And those are words I live by.