Have AI evaluate your working timeline with this prompt (fill in your timeline on the fifth line):

# GOAL:

Help me formulate a newsworthy, logical, and investigable journalistic timeline.

# INPUT:

My working timeline is: 
[TIMELINE]

# INSTRUCTIONS:

Conduct a strengths-and-weaknesses analysis of my working timeline, as formulated in the prompt, according to the principles under the “Method” heading.

Pay specific attention to:

- the **concreteness and investigability** of the words used;
- whether each event describes a concrete, visible, measurable, or documentable action;
- whether vague, judgmental, or hard-to-prove words occur, such as "many", "large", "benefit/profit", "fail", "insufficient", "corrupt", "unjust", "guilty", "always", "never", or "too little";
- whether events follow each other logically and whether there are missing links between cause, action, consequence, and reaction;
- whether the timeline is sufficiently defined in terms of actors, location, and time period;
- whether all relevant stakeholders appear in the timeline: responsible parties, affected parties, beneficiaries/profiteers, witnesses/regulators, and parties working on a solution.

Do not secretly improve or rewrite my timeline. Provide targeted suggestions and explain why a suggestion is more concrete, neutral, or easier to investigate.

# OUTPUT:

Present the analysis in this table:

| Event / word from my timeline | Strength | Weakness or investigative risk | Missing actor, event, or link | Suggestion | Why the suggestion is more investigable |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| [event or word] | [what is already concrete, logical, or usable] | [what is vague, normative, too broad, unproven, or hard to test] | [which stakeholder, cause, consequence, reaction, or solution is missing] | [direction for sharpening; do not rewrite implicitly] | [which documents, data, comparisons, observations, or witnesses make this testable] |

Use reliable, up-to-date internet sources to add relevant factual context. Specifically search for causes, consequences, and/or existing solutions that I may have overlooked.

Always make an explicit distinction between:

- **Knowledge:** verifiable and sourceable facts, with citations.
- **Working assumption:** plausible, but not yet proven events or links that need to be tested.

## Additions from sources

After the table, provide a maximum of five potential additions. Use this structure:

| Potential addition | Role in the timeline | Knowledge or assumption | Why relevant | Potential sources to test |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| [concrete event] | [cause, means, opportunity, consequence, reaction, or solution] | [knowledge / assumption] | [connection to hypothesis and timeline] | [documents, registers, datasets, interviews, or observations] |

## Stakeholder check

Then create a short table:

| Role | Actors already in my timeline | Actors that may be missing | Why they are relevant |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Responsible parties |  |  |  |
| Affected parties |  |  |  |
| Beneficiaries / Profiteers |  |  |  |
| Witnesses / Regulators |  |  |  |
| Problem solvers / Alternatives |  |  |  |

## Proposed timeline

Finally, provide a **sharpened sample version** of my timeline. Keep the content clearly separated between established facts and elements that are still only assumptions:

- Mark verifiable facts with **[Knowledge]**.
- Mark assumptions to be investigated with **[Assumption]**.
- Formulate each line as a concrete event with an identifiable actor and a demonstrable action.

**Do not show a full research plan or a fully developed article. Only provide the analysis, additional events, stakeholder check, and proposed timeline.**

# METHOD:

## How to create a timeline?
Whoever started their investigation with a hypothesis already has the beginning of an imaginary timeline in hand. The hypothesis is the most important event in your story: the revelation, the heart of the matter. That is why it deserves a central place in the timeline: type it in the middle of a text document, leaving space above and below. Then try to imagine what else must have happened.
Line up all events related to your hypothesis: examples, causes, consequences, and solutions. Start with events that are already known, which you know (from media or documents) have taken place. Then continue with events that you suspect took place.
The technique is to ask yourself for each event: what must have happened before this, and what after this? Most events have a cause and consequence; one cannot happen without the other, and one inevitably leads to the other.
The list that emerges is what we call a timeline, storyline, or scenario. It serves multiple functions. To begin with, it is an in-depth analysis of the problem you want to address. Furthermore, you can use it as an action plan for your investigation. And finally, it can serve as a script for your ultimate story. A scenario provides guidance in your work from start to finish. Of course, depending on the facts you encounter, things will change in your scenario, but that is fine. The utility is that from the beginning of your investigation you have a storyline in mind that delineates your topic, indicates a direction to search in, and can be tested against facts. It is like hacking a path for yourself through an apparently impenetrable jungle.

The following eight questions have proven useful for identifying the various events and actors (stakeholders) in a story:

1. Problem: Who performs an unlawful, unjust, or dangerous act? Who is the primary responsible party (‘perpetrator’)? And how do they intervene in their environment?
2. Motive: What drives the perpetrator to act? Which decision, measure, or intervention by others? Or: which discovery or stated ambition of their own?
3. Means: What means (money, permits, knowledge, materials, manpower) does the perpetrator use in their action? How did they obtain those means?
4. Opportunity: What circumstance (e.g. physical proximity) or negligence (e.g. deficient oversight, political backing) makes it possible for the perpetrator to carry out the act?
5. Victims / Affected parties: Which individuals or groups are affected? How do they react physically (fleeing, fighting back, seeking protection), verbally (protesting, reporting), or socially (collaborating, isolating)? What adjustments do they make (moving, changing lifestyle)? What resources do they deploy (legal actions, technology, recruitment, fundraising)?
6. Beneficiaries / Profiteers: Which individuals or groups benefit from the situation? How do they react physically (expanding property, investing, increasing production), verbally (boasting, demanding), or socially (expanding network, helping others)? What adjustments do they make (changing consumption patterns)? What resources do they deploy (investments, donations, political influence, technology, people)?
7. Witnesses: Which individuals, authorities, or organizations observe the problem? How do they observe it (testing, inspecting)? How do they record it (drafting reports, writing publications)? How do they help the affected parties (physically, legally, financially)?
8. Solution: Which individuals, authorities, or organizations contribute to a solution for the problem? How do they prevent the problem (alternative courses of action)? How do they repair the damage? How do they search for alternatives or solutions (advocacy, investing, researching)?

## EXAMPLE: THE DEADLY DRINKING WATER PIPES

The investigation into the plastic drinking water pipes (see chapter 4) would never have succeeded without a timeline. None of the journalists in the collaborative partnership had significant experience with stories about hazardous chemicals. Toxicology is a minefield, because the effect of substances depends on concentration and scientists often argue fiercely over so-called threshold values. Moreover, we quickly realized that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to find victims: chemical poisoning happens insidiously, and when someone dies prematurely, a link to drinking water is unlikely to be investigated.
However, creating a timeline does not require specialized domain knowledge. How can an ordinary journalist prove that people are dying from chemicals in their drinking water? Simple: by verifying every detail of the process. To do that, you break the hypothesis into smaller steps and investigate them one by one. This is what our timeline for the water pipes investigation ultimately looked like (the italicized sentence in the middle is the hypothesis):

- Pipe manufacturers decide to use the cheapest chemicals for the production of their plastic water pipes.
- Chemical companies sell these chemicals to pipe manufacturers.
- The government inspects drinking water for substances other than the deadly chemicals.
- *Pipe manufacturers produce their goods using deadly chemicals that leak into drinking water.*
- Plumbers install more plastic drinking water pipes than pipes made of other materials.
- Scientists determine during experiments that chemicals from plastic pipes end up in drinking water.
- Biologists observe during tests that the chemicals deform human cells.
- Doctors record numerous deaths as a result of diseases caused by these chemicals.
- Scientists advise the European Commission to ban the use of these chemicals in consumer products.

An effort was made to formulate all steps in the process as concretely as possible, so that they are investigable. Just as we did with the hypothesis (see the previous chapter). We looked for actions that have a visible or noticeable impact on the environment.
Furthermore, a number of choices are worth explaining, as they frequently arise when creating timelines:

- ‘Pipe manufacturers decide’: a timeline always begins with a recent change that sets everything in motion; in this case, the decision to start using cheaper raw materials.
- ‘The government inspects drinking water for substances other than the deadly chemicals’: why don't we simply write that the government does not test for dangerous chemicals? Because it is impossible to conclusively prove that something does *not* happen — you would be trying to describe a void. A better alternative is to state what *does* happen instead: the government inspects based on a list that does not include the dangerous chemicals.
- ‘More plastic drinking water pipes than pipes made of other materials’: instead of writing ‘many’ or ‘increasingly more’ plastic pipes — which is vague — it is better to make a concrete comparison.
- ‘Biologists observe during tests’: while brainstorming the timeline, we realized that biologists might also play a role in the story. Instead of wasting our time hunting for victims, we searched — in the scientific literature — for biologists who had investigated the effects of the substances on the human body. And we found them! That way we managed to prove our hypothesis after all, even though we could not show concrete individual victims.

The story was also ‘saved’ by the timeline in another way. We did not succeed in proving in black and white that the pipe manufacturers used the chemicals in their production process. According to experts, phenols can make pipes more durable. But there were also studies showing that some phenols only form *after* production, through contact with water or through the breakdown of other substances in the pipe wall. The companies did not cooperate and kept their formulas secret. But by proving all the other elements of the timeline, the journalists could still make it plausible that manufacturers added phenols to the plastic, or at least other substances from which phenols can form.

### A note on solutions
Isn't it dangerous to end a story with solutions? Aren't we stepping into the shoes of a politician or a preacher?
It would indeed be very strange if a story that otherwise relies on indisputable truths concluded with subjective opinions or slogans. That is not what we aim to do. Instead of making statements about the future (“We must…”), we look at the present: do alternatives to the problem perhaps already exist? Who has managed to prevent the problem, and who has already managed to solve it? We cannot investigate the future, but we *can* investigate the present and the past. So we investigate solutions in the same way we investigate problems: by looking at concrete, existing facts. Only when we find concrete evidence that a solution works, or at least is imminent, does it deserve a place in our narrative.
First of all, look for people who are doing better than the rest. Who can show results. And investigate them thoroughly! Is their success a fluke? Or is it the result of a systematic approach? In the latter case: can this approach be replicated elsewhere?
Second best are people who have taken concrete steps toward a solution: repairing or compensating for damage, intervening, taking action, sticking their necks out, conducting research on solutions, or demonstrating alternatives. People who only voice opinions without getting their hands dirty are not relevant. Their ‘solutions’ cannot yet be verified.
One reason to end stories with a concrete solution — where possible — is to motivate readers. If you only dump problems on them, they become depressed (if they finish reading the story at all!), and depressed people do not take action. Psychologists say people are more motivated to tackle a problem (or demand a solution) when they see that there is genuinely a way out. Moreover: if solutions exist, isn't it simply our duty to point out that part of reality too? (See also the section ‘Solution-oriented’ on solutions journalism in chapter 1.)

## FILL THE GAPS

Check whether each event in your imaginary timeline logically follows from the events before it. Can each event be explained by the events preceding it? Have you perhaps omitted a step? For example: if your timeline states that someone publishes a study, it might be important to also mention that earlier in time someone else commissioned that study.
Or do you see something strange that cannot be explained by earlier events, as in the Watergate timeline at the beginning of this chapter? What might have preceded the ‘strange’ event to make it less puzzling?
Next, also check whether each step in the timeline is followed by consequences: what reactions does each event trigger? To stay with the example: what happens to the study *after* it is published?

## DETERMINE THE EMPHASIS
All investigative stories contain a timeline. Every investigative story is about a problem. And every problem has causes, consequences, and solutions. (Investigative journalists do not waste time on problems for which no solutions exist.)
It is difficult to compose a convincing journalistic story while omitting one of these four basic elements (problem, causes, consequences, solutions). But there is no rule dictating that you must give all four equal weight. You can choose to emphasize one of the elements, for example by dwelling on it longer or dedicating more sentences to it in the timeline. Where do you want to place the emphasis in your timeline? For example:

- Revelation: if you are writing an investigative exposé, you will dedicate a large portion of the timeline to events regarding the wrongdoing and the different ways it manifests. But the other three elements also deserve mention: the consequences (to show the gravity of the wrongdoing), the causes (to explain how it could have happened), and the solutions (to show there is a way out).
- Reportage / Account: if the wrongdoing is already known but people don't seem to care, it is time to report on the consequences and convince readers of their severity. Take them to unfortunate places they have apparently never visited and introduce them to victims they have never met. Think of stories about climate change, refugees, or poverty. Most events in these timelines will concern consequences, but it is useful to also touch upon the problem and causes.
- Reconstruction: if the problem is known, but not how it originated, you might write a reconstruction. Briefly touch upon the wrongdoing and consequences, but piece together how things got this far: what the trigger, causes, and motives were; what decisions were made, what choices were taken; what alternatives were ignored; where things went wrong… Most events in these timelines relate to causes. Stories that begin in the past and slowly build toward the climax in the present create a powerful suspense arc. Fate hangs like a looming sword over the events.
- Constructive story: if the problem is known, but people are unaware that there is a way out, you can decide to focus primarily on solutions. Use the wrongdoing as the premise, but quickly shift focus to the future by investigating how things can be done differently and better. Such stories fall under ‘constructive journalism’ or ‘solutions journalism.’ Both movements promote investigating solutions and alternatives and provide practical tips. (Constructive journalism, however, is not limited to tools for journalists, but also seeks to engage the public.) Such a story begins in the future and shows what the world could look like if existing solutions were implemented on a large scale. The timelines of constructive stories are especially rich in events related to solutions; the problem, causes, and consequences are only briefly touched upon. A variation on this is an investigative story demonstrating what the future will look like if we do nothing. You sometimes encounter this in environmental reporting. A famous example is Indian investigative journalist Rajkumar Keswani, who spent two years drawing attention to leaks and unsafe conditions at the Union Carbide pesticide plant in Bhopal, warning of disaster before the city's name became synonymous in December 1984 with the worst industrial mass killing in history.

## TRAVEL THROUGH SPACE AS WELL
Every story contains a chronology in which events follow one another. But with two important caveats:

1. Events in a story can also occur simultaneously, in different locations with different people. In the timeline, still list these events below each other rather than side by side.
2. The fact that every story contains a chronology does not mean there is always a (strong) cause-and-effect relationship between events. Sometimes the common thread between events is a shared theme or the same central figure. Such stories have what we call a ‘spatial’ structure rather than a chronological one.

Most investigative stories — think of exposés and reconstructions (of single events) and process stories (recurring events, such as the manufacture and installation of toxic plastic pipes), policy failures, and crime — have a distinctly chronological structure. But you can also encounter topics that lend themselves better to thematic or spatial storytelling.
A story with a spatial structure takes readers from one location to another. At each location, a different aspect (feature or example) of the problem is addressed. Take this example of students at a university where we taught: they wanted to show that the buildings where they had classes were unhealthy and unsafe. Their initial hypothesis, ‘Management threatens student health,’ prompted our question: how? In response, the students provided a whole series of examples, from windows that couldn't open and blocked emergency exits, to loose carpets and mold on the walls. They subsequently chose to describe the problem by examining its different aspects one by one. Each identified defect in the buildings became a story in itself, with its own history, perpetrator, and victims. They essentially ‘traveled’ across their campus in their story.
The cherry on top of a spatial structure is when you can also introduce an interesting new central figure (‘perpetrator’) to readers at each new location. A brilliant example of this is the 2017 *NRC* investigation ‘The Manure Plot’ (Het mestcomplot), which won several awards. It places one protagonist (fraudster) after another in the spotlight. By the end of the ‘journey,’ the reader has met all the human links in a fraudulent chain.
Both structures, chronological and spatial, are classical. Both trace back to Homer (c. 800 BC – c. 750 BC). Two major epic poems are attributed to Homer, the *Iliad* and the *Odyssey*. The first is a chronological account of the final days of the Trojan War, describing one battle after another. The second is the account of a journey: the *Odyssey* follows Odysseus, another Greek hero, as he sails back across the Mediterranean after the war to his home and hearth on Ithaca, tested along the way by gods and monsters. Odysseus's adventures are held together not by time, but by a theme: in this case, homesickness and loyalty. The chronological order in which he experiences them is secondary.
You encounter spatial structures more often in investigative reportage than in exposés or reconstructions, and more often in film/video than in print. A master of the genre is Michael Moore. Most of his films have a spatial structure; he takes the viewer on an adventure. Visual media lean toward spatial editing because it is easier to show space (locations) on screen than time.
Here are three ways to give a story a spatial structure:

### 1. Address different aspects
If you want to draw attention to the many aspects of a problem, move in your timeline from one aspect to the next. Aspects are different faces, features, qualities, manifestations, or examples of a problem. Perhaps you can even present this as a sequence of discoveries about the problem. Detective stories are often structured this way, but an investigative journalist's ‘quest’ can serve the same purpose. The condition is that the quest is exceptional, with unexpected hurdles; reading how a journalist googled all the pieces together on their laptop at home is not compelling.
A variation on the quest is a journey of discovery. Here, the focus is not on the sleuth (the investigative journalist), but on other characters making discoveries. This is a useful format for science reporting and investigative stories featuring many (scientific) discoveries.

### 2. Visit different places
Let each event in the timeline take place in a different location. Describe what happens there and what impact that has on the problem, on other events, or on the main character. It is especially strong if you can have readers travel alongside one protagonist who visits all these places. But you can also introduce a different character at each location. This is an ideal format when the problem is the result of interaction between characters and their environment, or when the environment influences the problem. This structure is often chosen, for example, in stories about the effects of climate change.

### 3. Visit different characters
Introduce a new character to the reader in each part of the timeline. Describe what they do, think (motives), and feel (emotions), and what impact that has on the problem, on other events, or on other characters. The story reads like a series of encounters. This is a meaningful structure when individual choices strongly influence the problem, or when you want to show that the problem is caused by multiple perpetrators, or that the effects impact different victims in different ways. A brilliant example is the 2017 *NRC* story ‘The Manure Plot,’ which won several awards. It puts one protagonist (fraudster) after another in the spotlight. By the end of the ‘journey,’ the reader has become acquainted with all the small fraudulent steps that together constitute one massive fraud.
List simultaneous events in the timeline below each other, as if one follows the other — only we know that is not the case. The events are connected not by causality, but by a theme. For example, they all share being consequences of the problem.
If you choose a spatial structure for your story, you can't strictly speak of a ‘timeline’ anymore. ‘Storyline’ or ‘scenario’ are better terms. Whatever you call it, what matters is that at the beginning of your investigation you make a list of the key events in your story — events you know or suspect took place. They form the coat rack upon which you can later hang your investigative findings.

## EXAMPLES

### Polluting barns

For the background on this story, see chapter 4:

- EU grants agricultural subsidies to farmers based on land ownership.
- EU stipulates that a percentage of that money must be used by the farmer for greening measures.
- EU confirms that it does not monitor the use of the subsidies.
- Provinces issue permits en masse for barn expansions.
- Livestock farmers in Europe use European agricultural subsidies to build larger industrial barns.
- Scientists point out the health effects of nitrogen and ammonia.
- Local residents protest against barn expansions.
- Environmental groups demand a reform of EU agricultural policy.
- Some livestock farmers turn a profit with small-scale circular agriculture.

### Blind girls

For the background on this story, see chapter 4:

- Role models wear cosmetic contact lenses.
- Lens manufacturers sell far more cosmetic lenses than a few years ago.
- The legislature mandates that risks be listed in package inserts, but ignores doctors' advice to also mandate risk warnings in advertising.
- Lens manufacturers decide not to warn about the risk of blindness in their package inserts and advertisements.
- Drugstore sales staff also do not warn customers about the risks.
- Scientists observe that young people usually do not read the instructions inside the boxes.
- A young woman with severe eye inflammation waits in the emergency room, terrified of going blind.
- Ophthalmologists treat dozens of young women each year for blindness caused by cosmetic lenses.
- Parents of young girls warn their daughters about the dangers of the lenses.
- Optometrists sound the alarm within their professional association and to health authorities.
- A lens manufacturer takes steps to include a clear warning in its advertisements.

### Substandard football academies

We created the following timeline in 2021 together with investigative journalists from British television network ITV, for a broadcast they were preparing at the time. This timeline stands out for its level of detail and the number of conceivable solutions to the problem:

- Premier League clubs have less money to spend on transfers than in the past.
- FIFA and the government establish rules that complicate transfers.
- More parents than in the past enroll their young children in football academies.
- Football academies admit more young children (under the age of five) than in the past.
- The Ministry of Sport admits that it does not inspect or regulate the academies.
- Premier League football academies spend far less time on the general education and development of their young pupils than regular schools and similar academies elsewhere (for example in the Netherlands and Belgium).
- Academies release more pupils than before without a valid diploma.
- Pupils complain to their parents and to us about the pressure, monotony, and lack of free time.
- Parents complain to Premier League clubs, the Minister of Sport, and on social media about the treatment of their children.
- Former pupils blame academies for deficits in their education.
- Former pupils testify that after turning eighteen they have no diplomas and no (suitable) jobs.
- Some former pupils sue the academy for neglect.
- Some former pupils commit suicide.
- Academy coaches break ranks and resign out of discontent.
- Child psychologists studying effects on children conclude that pressure at the academies is too high and/or that children lack normal development.
- Sponsors express concern to club management about treatment at academies.
- Dutch and Belgian football academies devote more time to pupils' development off the pitch and receive no complaints.
- One exceptional Premier League club treats its young pupils well, providing the education and attention they need.
- A Premier League star campaigns to improve education at academies.
- The Minister orders an investigation into Premier League academies.
- Several MPs introduce a bill to ban the enrollment of children under the age of seven.
- Club management promises to reform the academy regime.

The four timelines outlined above involve ongoing processes, which is why events lack specific dates. However, if you are reconstructing unique (historical) events, you can assign a date and/or timestamp to each event. As in the following example of the Watergate scandal (see the beginning of this chapter):

### Watergate

- 17 June 1972 Police arrest burglars at the Watergate building.
- 19 June 1972 The Washington Post reveals that one of the burglars works for the Republicans.
- 20/21 June 1972 The White House issues contradictory statements.
- 23 June 1972 Nixon asks one of his advisors to order the CIA to thwart the FBI investigation.
- 26 June 1972 The White House press secretary dismisses the incident as a ‘third-rate burglary’.