SAMPLE — Accountability Journalism, Not Sloganeering

This is a placeholder article showing the structure and tone for this beat. Replace it with your own reporting.

Watchdog journalism holds up best when it separates two things that often get merged: documenting what happened, and prescribing what should happen next. You can do rigorous, credible work on the first while disagreeing with any advocacy group — including ones whose broader mission you respect — on the second.

A structure that keeps both halves honest:

1. Establish the facts independently. Primary documents, court filings, government data, on-record sources. Don't rely on any single organization's press release as your evidentiary base, including ones you're sympathetic to.

2. Name who is asking for what, precisely. If you're going to say a specific demand is misguided, quote it directly and attribute it, rather than gesturing at "activists" broadly.

3. Explain the disagreement on the merits. Is the demand impractical, likely to backfire, based on a factual error, or simply a values disagreement? Each requires a different kind of argument — be clear which one you're making.

4. Keep the accountability target and the policy critique separate. You can conclude an institution acted wrongly while also concluding a proposed remedy is the wrong one. Collapsing the two into a single verdict is where these pieces usually lose credibility.

Replace this file with a real piece following the same shape: independently-verified facts → precisely attributed demand → merits-based disagreement.