Author: PostVanCoco

You spend months as a journalist digging into a complex healthcare fraud investigation. The findings are powerful, the evidence solid. But the moment your 4,000-word draft lands on the desk, everything slows down. Feedback trickles in inconsistently, the story stalls, and deadlines start slipping.

Let’s call this ‘Shuffleboard Syndrome’.

Picture the editors desk as the narrow gate in a shuffleboard game: every puck (every story) piles up at the same point, at the same time. It’s one of the biggest hidden bottlenecks in modern newsrooms.

So how does this happen? And more importantly: how do we fix it?

The Situation: The Overburdened Gatekeeper

In many newsrooms, the editor sits at the very end of a linear process. Only at that final stage do they assess structure, tone, and legal risk. That setup creates a perfect storm:

• Information overload Editors must absorb months of reporting in a matter of hours.
• Reactive quality control Deep structural issues are discovered far too late when the story should already be ready to publish.
• Rising tension Journalists feel misunderstood; editors feel blamed for delays.

Example: A reporter submits an article backed by a 10,000-row spreadsheet. Because the copy editor wasn’t part of the process earlier, they must validate the logic themselves. The result? A three-day delay and a frustrated team.

The Approach: From end of the line to active partner

As a project manager in journalism, you know that not including major stakeholders in the process is crucial. Instead of dropping the final draft on the desk, the editor should become an active partner throughout the process, not a final checkpoint.

That shift requires three changes:

• Early involvement Bring editors in at the start, and again midway, not just at the finish.
• Transparent workflows Make the editorial pipeline visible to everyone.
• Clear expectations Define what “ready for copy” actually means before a draft is submitted.

Example: In a large European corruption investigation, the team scheduled brief bi-weekly check-ins with the copy desk. When the story pivoted from politics to corporate finance, the copy editor adapted immediately. The final draft fit perfectly: no surprises, no delays.

The Solution: Three Practical Steps

To permanently break the shuffleboard syndrome, you can implement these three project-based solutions today:

1. Introduce a “Pre-Read”: Share a one-page outline early. It aligns expectations on structure, tone, and angle.
2. Use a Kanban Board: Tools like Trello or Notion make the workload visible. Everyone can see what’s coming, so bottlenecks become predictable, not sudden.
3. Define a “Definition of Ready”: Establish a strict checklist. A story only goes to the editor when key criteria (fact-checking and legal review, for example) are already completed.

Example: A national newspaper implemented a rule: investigative pieces must include a fully completed “right of reply” matrix, approved by legal, before reaching copy. The result? Less rework, fewer last-minute pullbacks, and significant time saved.

By moving the copy editor upstream and embedding them in the process, you don’t just speed up publication, you reduce friction and restore flow across the newsroom.

How do you manage the flow of complex stories in your newsroom? Do you recognize the Shuffleboard Syndrome, or have you found another solution? Let me know in the comments!

Based on: Het Sjoelbaksyndroom (in Dutch) written by Maarten de Winter

Happy Collaborating!!

Many journalistic start-ups and networks begin with pure passion. A strong drive to hold power accountable and tell stories that matter. But attending the Dataharvest conference I notice a clear trend: the realisation that passion alone is no longer enough to survive.

Across multiple sessions on building and leading journalistic organizations, a tough but valuable lesson kept coming back. Almost every speaker framed it the same way: you start with the dream of shaping journalism, but only later realize how much more it actually involves.

The Reality of Running an Organization

At the end of the day, a journalistic organization is also just a business. And every business requires solid operations. That means success doesn’t depend solely on strong investigations, but on building a complete ecosystem of roles to support that organisation. What stands out is that some of these are not “nice-to-haves”, they are prerequisites for sustaining journalism over time.

The Blind Spot Is Structural

It’s actually not surprising that this side of the work often comes late. Journalists are trained to produce stories, not to build organizations. Their motivation is impact, not process.

As a result, many initiatives follow a familiar trajectory:

• First comes the mission and the content
• Then growth and visibility
• Then increasing organizational pressure
• And only then the realization: we’re actually running a business but without a solid foundation

That “blind spot” is not a lack of awareness, but a result of how the profession (and the sector) are structured.

The Real Tension: Newsroom or Business?

The core question may not be whether journalism is also a business, but when that reality is fully embraced.

Because with that recognition comes tension:

• When does an organization still feel like a newsroom, and when does it become a company?
• How do you prevent financial pressure from shaping editorial decisions?
• And should an editor-in-chief also be an entrepreneur or are those fundamentally different roles?

These are not abstract questions. In practice, they determine whether an initiative becomes sustainable or not.

What Actually Works

What became clear at Dataharvest: to be a successful journalistic organization you should not wait until it’s too late. Build your foundation from the start.

Three patterns consistently emerge:

• Business leadership sits alongside editorial leadership Not as a side responsibility, but as a core function
• Revenue streams are intentionally diversified From memberships and events to partnerships and core funding alongside grants
• Processes are standardized early Even before they feel urgent

In other words: build your organization deliberately, not reactively.

The Real Lesson

Perhaps the most important takeaway is this:

Build your newsroom like a business so you can practice journalism as a calling.

Without a solid foundation, even the best journalistic platform will eventually struggle to survive. Media innovation today is no longer just about data or AI, but equally about organization, structure, and leadership.

Does this resonate with other media makers and founders? How do you balance editorial drive with business reality?

Share your experience 👇

#Dataharvest #MediaManagement #Journalism #Entrepreneurship #MediaInnovation

“Journalism doesn’t fail on ideas, it fails on execution.”

This observation hits a nerve for anyone managing a modern newsroom. We live in a golden age of investigative ideas, yet even the most promising cross-border collaborations often struggle under their own weight.

As managers, we often focus on the “what”: the scoop, the data, the impact. But the “how” is where the risk lies. When ambitious projects meet the reality of daily operations, four silent killers often take over:

1. Unclear Decisions: When roles aren’t defined, consensus becomes a bottleneck.
2. Overloaded Workflows: We ask our best talent to investigate while simultaneously managing complex logistics they aren’t trained for.
3. Fragile Handovers: In cross-border work, information lost between desks is the quickest way to lose a lead.
4. Quality Under Pressure: When the deadline looms and the process is chaotic, fact-checking and legal rigor are the first to suffer.

From Chaos to Strategy

The shift from a “traditional” newsroom to a strategic project management model isn’t just about efficiency, it’s about survival. By implementing structured workflows and clear leadership roles, we don’t just protect the story; we protect our journalists from burnout and our organizations from reputational risk.

“The Lone wolf model of investigative reporting, in the time we are currently living, with the threats we are currently facing, is not actually the safest way to do investigtive reporting.” David Barstow, at the Logan Symposium in Berkley April 2026

The Path Forward

I believe that connecting journalists is only the first step. To truly deliver impact, we must:

• Develop Leaders: Train editors to be project managers.
• Streamline Complexity: Build systems that handle the weight of cross-border data and communication.
• Manage the Lifecycle: Ensure every project has a roadmap from the first tip to the final publication.

Investigative journalism is a high-stakes endeavor. Let’s make sure our execution is as bold as our ideas.

Happy collaborating!! starts with knowledge, training and experience. Training and workshops are available online and inhouse. Please contact me for more information.

Thank you, Laurent Richard for sharing the interview with David Barstow on linkedin.

#investigativejournalism #leadership #execution

As a trainer of project coordinators in investigative journalism, I see countless project plans and applications for funding fly across my desk. More and more people are downloading my projectplan template and get better at using it. On paper, they often look pretty strong: the scope is defined, milestones are marked, and budget allocation is set.

But the moment the first leaks come in or security protocols are tightened, reality proves far more stubborn. When I ask coordinators about the actual value of their plan, I often hear: “It was just a requirement for the grant application,” or “It’s sitting in a drawer at the editorial office.”

That’s the irony. Especially in complex, cross-border investigations with high stakes, the plan should be the backbone of the entire operation.

The MoU as ‘Checkbox Journalism’

In many newsrooms and consortia, the project plan (or the Memorandum of Understanding: MoU) is still treated as a mere administrative hurdle.

What I frequently observe in international collaborations:

• The template is filled out only because the funder demands it
• The lead reporter or coordinator drafts the document in a vacuum
• Partners in different countries only see the final version during the kick-off (or not at all)
• The commissioning editor signs off and never looks at it again

The result? The plan never enters the workflow. Expectations regarding exclusivity, deadlines, and risk management diverge between partners. As soon as an investigation comes under pressure, everyone navigates by their own compass, without consulting the collective roadmap.

The Shift: From Plan to Project Contract

The projectplan is not a bureaucratic monster, but a rock-solid, shared agreement between the coordinator, the investigative desk, and the client or funder.

This requires interventions, not just writing:

• What are we explicitly committing to and what is out-of-scope (what do we consciously not promise)?
• What is the feasibility given risks and limited resources?
• How do we safeguard editorial independence across borders?

Once there is consensus, all parties ‘sign on.’ That commitment becomes your anchor when an investigation takes an unexpected turn or faces legal threats.

Not a Blueprint, but a Compass

A plan isn’t a prediction; it’s navigation. In the world of elite special forces, teams prepare for missions down to the smallest detail, knowing full well that the first shot often renders the initial plan obsolete.

Journalism is no different. A plan is a compass used to re-contract under pressure: consciously revisiting and adjusting agreements as the investigation evolves and sources reveal more (or less) than expected.

From Static Document to Operational Instrument

When you co-create this project contract with your international team (ideally during a structured Kick-off) it becomes a living instrument. The goal isn’t to eliminate uncertainty, but to create clarity on how you steer when the pressure on the newsroom/investigation is at its peak.

A reflection question for your next editorial meeting: When was the last time you actually pulled out the project plan to resolve a difficult ethical or editorial dilemma in your investigation?

If the answer is “never,” it’s time to transform your MoU from paperwork into an active management method.

Are you coordinating a cross-border consortium? Make sure your next start-up isn’t a filing exercise, but a strategic session on commitment, risk, and re-contracting.

Let’s chat about how to strengthen your investigative workflow with a high-commitment project contract.

👉 If you’re leading or coordinating international investigative teams and want your project plan to function as a real working instrument rather than a formality, let’s connect or continue the conversation!

Happy Collaborating!! …

Investigative journalism is built on trust. Yet, when a new colleague joins a team, we often treat onboarding as an administrative footnote: credentials issued, tools unlocked, and straight into the fire.

That is a mistake.

In collaborative investigations, onboarding isn’t a formality, it is risk management, knowledge preservation, and culture transmission.

When onboarding is weak, teams fracture under pressure, security practices drift, and hard-won institutional memory vanishes. When done well, new reporters don’t just contribute; they strengthen the entire ecosystem.

The quality of your onboarding directly shapes the safety, quality, and resilience of your journalism. In investigative teams, trust isn’t assumed. It is designed.

Here are 10 ways to onboard investigative journalists without compromising the mission:

1. Treat the Tech Stack as a Security Briefing Never assume familiarity. Walk through CMS protocols, shared drives, and threat models. Technical confusion in an investigation is a vulnerability, not a nuisance.
2. Assign a Peer Anchor, Not just a Supervisor Pair new hires with an experienced peer (not their editor). This creates a safe channel for questions about workflow and unspoken norms, essential in complex, cross-border collaborations.
3. Make Ethics Explicit Don’t rely on “common sense.” Formalize standards for source protection, off-the-record rules, and collaboration agreements early. If it isn’t written down, it doesn’t exist.
4. Engineer the Source Handoff Facilitate warm introductions to key partners and sources. Context (past sensitivities, broken trust, or open leads) should never live only in one person’s head.
5. Enforce File Discipline From Day One Investigations fail through chaos. Teach your file-naming conventions and documentation standards immediately. This isn’t bureaucracy; it’s evidence preservation.
6. Let Them Observe Power in Action Invite new colleagues to editorial decision-making, legal reviews, or security debriefs. Listening accelerates cultural literacy: they need to see how your team weighs risk.
7. Lead With Safety and Mental Health Investigative work carries psychological and physical risks. Introduce trauma support and safety protocols early. Make it clear: endurance is no substitute for care.
8. Map the First 90 Days to the Mission Set milestones: 30 days (tools & people), 60 days (active contribution), 90 days (autonomous collaborator). Clarity prevents “pressure theatrics.”
9. Decode the Newsroom Language Every team has its shorthand: acronyms, project codenames, internal jokes. A simple glossary reduces exclusion and speeds up integration for international partners.
10. Build Feedback Loops While Eyes Are Fresh Check in weekly. Ask: “What slowed you down this week?” New colleagues see structural flaws that veterans have become blind to. Their frustration is a diagnostic tool: use it.

The Bottom Line: Effective onboarding shifts the focus from individual tasks to a shared culture of security and methodological rigor. It is the foundation of high-impact, resilient journalism.

How does your team handle the “human” side of security during onboarding?

Happy Collaborating!

Investigative journalism is teamwork — and teamwork needs maintenance.

Investigative journalism is rarely a solo effort. Whether you collaborate in a consortium, with freelancers, data journalists, editors, or international partners, long-term collaborations are often decisive for the quality and impact of your work. But like a solid investigation, collaborations are never truly “finished.” They require constant sharpening, recalibration, and sometimes course correction.

In this newsletter, we explore how continuous improvement techniques can be surprisingly effective in investigative journalism collaborations. Not as management jargon, but as practical tools for newsrooms or collaborating teams.

PDCA: from publication to the next scoop

The PDCA cycle (Plan – Do – Check – Act) fits naturally with how investigative journalists already work, often without calling it that.

• Plan Think of the start of an investigation: formulating hypotheses, mapping sources, dividing tasks, agreeing on embargoes and publication timing. In collaborations, this is also the moment to be explicit about expectations: who verifies what, who decides in case of doubt, and how deadlines and pressure are handled.
• Do The execution phase: interviews, FOI requests, data analysis, writing. This is where friction emerges: different working styles, paces, or interpretations of agreements. That friction isn’t failure; it’s valuable input for the next phase.
• Check After publication (or after a story that didn’t make it), this step is often skipped. That’s a missed opportunity. What worked well in the collaboration? Where did things stall: communication, source protection, fact-checking, decision-making? Don’t just evaluate the story, but the process behind it.
• Act Adjust agreements. Document them. Maybe a fixed editorial check-in works better than ad‑hoc coordination. Maybe sensitive source information needs clearer protocols. This step makes the difference between “we learned a lot” and actually collaborating better on the next investigation.

After Action Reviews: the structured debrief

Journalism is familiar with post-mortems, but they’re often informal. The After Action Review (AAR) adds structure with three simple questions:

1. What did we set out to do?
2. What actually happened?
3. What will we do differently next time?

Especially in sensitive investigations [think international data leaks or long-running follow-the-money projects] this helps identify patterns without slipping into personal blame. It’s not about who, but about how.

The OODA loop: collaborating in a shifting landscape

The OODA loop (Observe – Orient – Decide – Act) comes from strategic thinking, but it’s highly relevant when conditions change fast. A source pulls out, a competitor publishes first, new legislation affects your reporting.

• Observe: what has actually changed?
• Orient: what does this mean for our shared story and collaboration?
• Decide: stay the course or pivot?
• Act: and crucially — do we do this together and transparently?

Teams that explicitly discuss this loop respond less reactively and maintain trust, even under pressure.

Retrospectives: more than an evaluation

Inspired by agile working methods but well suited to newsrooms: the retrospective after completing an investigation or project. Short, structured, and safe.

• What should we keep doing?
• What should we stop doing?
• What do we want to try differently?

For collaborations that last years or are repeatedly reassembled, this helps surface simmering frustrations before they undermine the journalism.

Continuous improvement is not a luxury

In investigative journalism, the story always comes first. Rightly so. But strong stories depend on strong collaborations. By consciously making space for reflection and improvement, you increase not only efficiency but also the quality and resilience of your journalism. Even for ad hoc collaborations.

Continuous improvement doesn’t mean constant change. It means staying sharp: about your work, your partners, and yourself.

👉 What small adjustment could already make your next collaboration better?

👉 What practice has most improved your investigative collaborations?

After your next investigation, schedule a 30‑minute collaboration debrief. Document one concrete improvement and actually apply it to the next story. Then repeat.

Happy collaborating!!

In the world of investigative journalism, we are often so focused on the next leak, the next deadline, or the next data set that we forget to analyze the most important project of all: ourselves.

Whether you spent the past year deep in a cross-border collaboration with partners, or worked solo to uncover local truths, it’s time for a debrief. Here is your 12-step plan to audit the past and blueprint the future.

Phase 1: The Annual Audit

Before you open a new spreadsheet, look back at the old ones.

1. Review the Archives: Browse your diary, calendar, and photo gallery. Revisit the stories you published and the leads that went cold.
2. The Gut Check: What is your overall feeling about the past year? Was it a year of high-impact breakthroughs, or a grueling marathon of “slow journalism”?
3. YAY vs. NAY: Categorize your experiences.YAY: Think of successful FOIA requests, building trust with a key source, or a seamless international data share.NAY: Think of security scares, legal threats, or the “collaboration fatigue” that can come with large-scale projects.
4. The Top Three: Identify the three most significant items in each column. These are your core “lessons learned” for your next investigation.

Phase 2: Scouting the Horizon

Now, let’s look at the “leads” for the coming year.

1. Scan the Calendar: Do you have court dates, major summits, or scheduled a publication windows already marked?
2. Mission Brief: What do you want to achieve? What is your investigative mission? Is it holding a specific power structure accountable or mastering a new OSINT technique?
3. Setting Targets: Define clear goals (e.g., “Complete the [Project Name] series” or “Secure funding for a new cross-border desk”).
4. The Logistics: How will you get there? Who are your allies? Determine if you need a local fixer, a data scientist, or perhaps a more robust encrypted communication setup.

Phase 3: The Editorial Plan

1. The Six-Month Roadmap: Draft a plan for the first half of the year. Break your investigations into phases: research, verification, and production. Don’t forget evaluation and impact tracking.
2. Visual Reminders: Investigative work is long-term. Put a “Post-it” on your monitor or a reminder in your secure calendar to keep your mission visible when you’re stuck in the “middle-of-the-investigation” slump.
3. Continuous Peer Review: Evaluate and adjust throughout the year. If a lead dries up, don’t be afraid to pivot.
4. The “Kill Fee” Mindset: Not every investigation reaches a front page. If you don’t achieve a specific goal, no drama. Draft a new hypothesis and start again.

💡 Pro-Tip for Collaborators

If you are working in a team, take time to evaluate – change something if necessary – celebrate all the beautiful results you have achieved as a team!

To a year of impact and integrity, focus and party: HAPPY COLLABORATING!!

For those of you who couldn’t join us in Kuala Lumpur this November, I’d love to share some highlights from the Global Investigative Journalism Conference (GIJC25) and insights from my workshop, Best Practices for Leading Investigations.

One of the strongest themes of GIJC25 was collaboration.

In her opening keynote, Maria Ressa (Nobel Peace Prize laureate and co-founder of Rappler) urged journalists to embrace what she called “radical collaboration.” Across sessions, speakers emphasized the need to share resources, build alliances across borders, and stand together against political and financial pressures.

At the opening reception, Emilia Díaz-Struck (GIJN’s executive director) reminded participants: “We are alive, we are resilient, and we are doing the investigative journalism that is key for society, holding powers to account.”

✨ The Spirit of GIJC25

Walking into the conference halls in Kuala Lumpur felt like stepping into a buzzing newsroom that spanned the globe. More than 1,500 journalists from 135 countries gathered, from local reporters in small towns to investigative teams working on cross-border corruption.

• The energy: Conversations spilled out of sessions into hallways, cafés, and late-night dinners. Everywhere you turned, someone was sharing a tip, a tool, or a story of resilience.
• The diversity: Sessions ranged from AI-assisted investigations to safety protocols in hostile environments. The Global Shining Light Awards honored colleagues who risked everything to expose wrongdoing, a powerful reminder of why we do this work.
• The setting: Kuala Lumpur itself added a vibrant backdrop, with its mix of cultures and rhythms mirroring the diversity of the investigative community.

🕵️ Inside the Workshop: Best Practices for Leading Investigations

My workshop wasn’t a lecture; it was a conversation. Journalists from Nigeria, Brazil, Malaysia and other countries shared their personal experiences of both struggle and success. Together, we created a picture of what investigative leadership really looks like.

As I guided the attendees through the project life cycle, covering topics such as planning, budgeting, and risk management, we discussed various cases and situations they had encountered in their collaborations. Whether as a journalist or a coordinator.

There was a lot of interest in the division of roles between project manager and editorial coordinator: wearing two or three hats was considered a very good way to burn out because combining the roles took too much time and created several conflicts of interest, as a standpoint had to be taken either as a journalist (personally or professionally) or as a coordinator (for the team).

The room erupted with practical advice on everything from digital security tools to legal safeguards.

The workshop reminded me that leadership in investigations is less about hierarchy and more about creating conditions where truth can emerge collectively.

👉In summary

GIJC25 was remembered as a landmark gathering – not just for its scale, but for the spirit of solidarity, innovation, and courage it fostered. Online and offline reflections consistently highlight the mix of practical training, cultural exchange, and urgent calls to defend press freedom.

GIJC25 reminded us that investigative journalism is not just about uncovering facts — it’s about holding power accountable and doing so in ways that protect our teams and amplify diverse voices. For those who couldn’t attend, I hope these reflections spark ideas for your own work.

❤️ I’d love to continue the conversation:

• What leadership challenges have you faced in investigations?
• Which practices have helped you keep your team aligned and motivated?

Let’s keep building this collaborative space, even beyond the conference.

Happy Collaborating!

To be a successful project manager – especially in investigative journalism or cross-border collaborations like those described in the GIJN guide – you need a blend of soft skills, hard skills, and technical know-how. Here’s a breakdown of the essentials:

🧠 Soft Skills (People & Leadership)

These are the interpersonal abilities that help you lead, communicate, and adapt:

• Communication: Clear, empathetic, and timely communication across diverse teams and stakeholders
• Leadership: Inspiring and guiding teams without micromanaging; setting the tone and culture
• Problem-solving: Navigating unexpected challenges with calm and creativity
• Time management: Prioritizing tasks and keeping projects on track
• Adaptability: Pivoting when plans change or new information emerges
• Conflict resolution: Mediating disagreements and maintaining team harmony
• Emotional intelligence: Understanding team dynamics and responding with empathy

🛠️ Hard Skills (Project Execution)

These are learned competencies that help you manage the nuts and bolts of a project:

• Planning & scheduling: Creating timelines, setting milestones, and adjusting as needed
• Budgeting: Estimating costs, tracking expenses, and staying within financial limits
• Risk management: Identifying potential threats and preparing contingency plans
• Documentation: Keeping records, templates, and reports organized and accessible
• Negotiation: Aligning team goals with external partners, funders, or vendors

💻 Technical Skills (Tools & Systems)

These help you leverage technology to streamline collaboration and security:

• Project management software: Proficiency with tools like Trello, Asana, or Gantt charts
• Secure communication: Using encrypted platforms like Signal or ProtonMail
• Digital hygiene: Managing passwords, access controls, and secure file sharing
• Data visualization: Presenting findings or progress in clear, compelling formats
• Tool selection: Choosing the right tech stack based on team size, budget, and needs

🧩 Bonus Traits for Investigative Journalism Projects

• Cultural sensitivity: Navigating cross-border collaborations with respect and awareness
• Legal literacy: Understanding media law, defamation risks, and source protection
• Editorial awareness: Knowing when to defer to the editorial lead and when to step in operationally

Conclusion

Whether you are working on a cross-border investigative project or coordinating a local collaboration, the success of your role as a project manager depends on your ability to balance these diverse skills. By strategically deploying soft skills, hard skills, and technical knowledge, you can not only execute projects efficiently, but also create a safe, inclusive, and productive working environment. Keep learning, keep listening, and keep building trust – that is the key to impactful journalism.

Happy collaborating!!

PS interested in more and present in Kuala Lumpur during the GIJC25? Join my workshop! Project Management Best Practices for Leading Investigations – Session – #GIJC25