Longreads Best of 2017: Investigative Reporting

We asked writers and editors to choose some of their favorite stories of the year in various categories.

我们要求作家和编辑在不同类别中选择一些他们今年最喜欢的故事。

Here is the best in investigative reporting.

这是最好的调查报道。

Rachel MorrisExecutive editor, HuffPost Highline

雷切尔·莫里斯 (Rachel Morris) 赫芬顿邮报 Highline 执行编辑

## Harvey Weinstein Paid Off Sexual Harassment Accusers for Decades (Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey, The New York Times)

## 哈维·韦恩斯坦几十年来付清了性骚扰指控者的钱（乔迪·坎特和梅根·图伊，《纽约时报》）

## From Aggressive Overtures to Sexual Assault: Harvey Weinstein’s Accusers Tell Their Stories (Ronan Farrow, The New Yorker)

## 从攻击性提议到性侵犯：哈维·韦恩斯坦的指控者讲述他们的故事（罗南·法罗，《纽约客》）

For Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey to expose Harvey Weinstein as a serial sexual predator was a feat in itself, one that reporters had been attempting for years.

对于乔迪·坎特和梅根·图伊来说，揭露哈维·韦恩斯坦是连环性掠夺者本身就是一项壮举，也是记者们多年来一直在尝试的一项壮举。

But the culture-bending force of these stories was their dissection of how sexual harassment works, psychologically and operationally.

但这些故事的文化弯曲力量在于它们对性骚扰在心理和操作上如何运作的剖析。

Ronan Farrow’s raw, complex account of the experiences of women like Annabella Sciorra and Asia Argento, among many others, created a deeper, truer understanding of why women don’t come forward after an assault, or why some women may even maintain a relationship with their abuser in an effort to recover some sense of agency.

罗南·法罗（Ronan Farrow）对安娜贝拉·西奥拉（Annabella Sciorra）和阿莎·阿根托（Asia Argento）等女性的经历进行了原始而复杂的描述，让人们更深入、更真实地理解为什么女性在遭受性侵犯后不挺身而出，或者为什么有些女性甚至可能与施虐者保持关系，以努力恢复某种代理感。

That these women were willing to tell their stories in such intimate, unsparing detail is a testament to their courage — more than that, to their generosity — and Farrow’s exceptional care and sensitivity in gaining their trust.

这些女性愿意以如此亲密、毫不留情的细节讲述她们的故事，这证明了她们的勇气——更重要的是她们的慷慨——以及法罗在赢得她们信任方面的非凡关怀和敏感。

This deeply personal reporting has been coupled with extraordinary work by both publications on the machinery of power in New York and Hollywood.

这种深刻的个人报道与纽约和好莱坞权力机器的出版物的非凡工作相结合。

You hear about powerful men who can quash stories and crush critics; rarely do you get to see how they do it, with the intention plainly spelled out on a contract for a private spy agency.The New York Times‘ most recent piece, on the people who were complicit in Weinstein’s predation, is like some warped Harvard business school case study of systematic manipulation and intimidation.

你听说过有权势的人可以压制故事并粉碎批评者；你很少能看到他们是如何做到这一点的，他们的意图清楚地写在私人间谍机构的合同上。《纽约时报》最近发表的一篇关于韦恩斯坦掠夺行为同谋的文章，就像哈佛商学院关于系统性操纵和恐吓的扭曲案例研究。

I keep thinking about the multiplier effect these stories have had, and I think it’s because they so meticulously laid bare patterns of predation.

我一直在思考这些故事所产生的乘数效应，我认为这是因为它们如此细致地揭露了掠夺模式。

Despite the grotesque scale of Weinstein’s abuses, many women saw something familiar in the way he leveraged fear and shame, ambition and talent.

尽管韦恩斯坦的虐待行为规模十分荒诞，但许多​​女性在他利用恐惧和羞耻、野心和才华的方式中看到了一些熟悉的东西。

They decided to come forward because their own experience now seemed more believable, or because they could now see how one experience might fit into a larger picture.

他们决定挺身而出，因为他们自己的经历现在看起来更可信，或者因为他们现在可以看到一种经历如何适应更大的情况。

It’s hard to think of a body of reporting that has unleashed anything quite like this.

很难想象还有哪一篇报道能引发如此大的轰动。

Katie J.M.

凯蒂·J.M.

BakerReporter at BuzzFeed

BuzzFeed 的贝克记者

## Foster Care as Punishment: The New Reality of ‘Jane Crow’ (Stephanie Clifford and Jessica Silver-Greenberg, The New York Times)

## 寄养作为惩罚：“简·克劳”的新现实（斯蒂芬妮·克利福德和杰西卡·西尔弗-格林伯格，《纽约时报》）

I can barely remember anything I read this year that wasn’t about Donald Trump, Harvey Weinstein, or other powerful, terrible men.

我几乎不记得今年读过的任何内容不是关于唐纳德·特朗普、哈维·韦恩斯坦或其他有权势、可怕的人的。

So I feel even more strongly about highlighting this crucial and devastating report on how the New York City foster care system is used to punish poor black and Hispanic women.

因此，我更加强烈地想要强调这份关于纽约市寄养系统如何用来惩罚贫穷的黑人和西班牙裔妇女的至关重要且具有毁灭性的报告。

Stephanie Clifford and Jessica Silver-Greenberg profiled a number of mothers whose children were taken from them without any proof their safety was actually at risk; their parenting choices were criminalized in ways those of wealthier, white mothers are not.

斯蒂芬妮·克利福德 (Stephanie Clifford) 和杰西卡·西尔弗·格林伯格 (Jessica Silver-Greenberg) 介绍了一些孩子被带走的母亲，但没有任何证据证明她们的安全确实受到威胁；她们的养育选择被定为犯罪，而富裕的白人母亲则不然。

“There’s this judgment that these mothers don’t have the ability to make decisions about their kids,” one lawyer said, because “society both infantilizes them and holds them to superhuman standards.”

一位律师表示：“有一种判断认为，这些母亲没有能力为自己的孩子做出决定，”因为“社会既让她们变得幼稚，又让她们遵守超人的标准。”

Francesca MariSenior editor, The California Sunday Magazine

Francesca Mari《加州星期日杂志》高级编辑

## The Uncounted (Azmat Khan and Anand Gopal, The New York Times Magazine)

## 不可计数的人（Azmat Khan 和 Anand Gopal，《纽约时报杂志》）

Imagine waking up in the middle of the night to the taste of blood, surrounded by rubble.

想象一下半夜醒来时闻到了血的味道，周围都是瓦砾。

Your bedroom roof has been blasted off, your home has been demolished, and your brother’s home next door has been demolished too.

你卧室的屋顶被炸掉了，你的家被拆了，隔壁你哥哥的家也被拆了。

Your wife, daughter, brother, and nephew are dead, wiped out in an airstrike.

你的妻子、女儿、兄弟和侄子都在空袭中丧生。

Later, after a months-long hospital stay, imagine finding an aerial video of the explosion on the American military’s YouTube channel.

后来，经过几个月的住院治疗后，想象一下在美国军方的 YouTube 频道上找到爆炸的航拍视频。

Your home in a residential neighborhood of Mosul was mistaken for a car-bomb factory.

您位于摩苏尔住宅区的家被误认为是汽车炸弹工厂。

This is the story of Basim Razzo, and in “The Uncounted,” journalists Azmat Khan and Anand Gopal explore how often mistakes like this occur and what happens next.

这是巴西姆·拉佐 (Basim Razzo) 的故事，在《无法计数》中，记者阿兹马特·汗 (Azmat Khan) 和阿南德·戈帕尔 (Anand Gopal) 探讨了此类错误发生的频率以及接下来会发生什么。

Over 18 months, Khan and Gopal visited 150 airstrike sites across northern Iraq, interviewing “hundreds of witnesses, survivors, family members, intelligence informants and local officials.” They found that one in five coalition airstrikes killed at least one civilian—“a rate more than 31 times that acknowledged by the coalition.” It’s a deeply troubling finding, all the more memorable because we see how this mistake comes to define a surviving victim.

在 18 个月的时间里，汗和戈帕尔走访了伊拉克北部 150 个空袭地点，采访了“数百名目击者、幸存者、家人、情报线人和当地官员”。他们发现，联军五分之一的空袭造成至少一名平民死亡——“这一比例是联军承认的比例的 31 倍多”。这是一个令人深感不安的发现，更令人难忘，因为我们看到这个错误如何定义幸存的受害者。

Khan and Gopal tell Razzo’s story with almost Tolstoyan humanity and breadth, taking readers on a sweeping journey that covers personal evolutions with geopolitical consequences: How Mosul gravitated toward extremism, how Razzo’s views of the United States changed after his family members became casualties of an American war, and how America’s views toward condolence payments shifted after being forced to confront particular mistakes.

汗和戈帕尔以近乎托尔斯泰式的人性和广度讲述拉佐的故事，带领读者踏上一段涵盖个人演变与地缘政治后果的全面旅程：摩苏尔如何走向极端主义，拉佐的家人在美国战争中丧生后对美国的看法如何改变，以及美国在被迫面对特定错误后对哀悼金的看法如何转变。

Anna MerlanSpecial projects reporter, Gizmodo Media

安娜·梅兰 (Anna Merlan) Gizmodo Media 特别项目记者

## What a Fraternity Hazing Death Revealed About the Painful Search for an Asian-American Identity (Jay Caspian Kang, The New York Times Magazine)

## 兄弟会欺凌之死揭示了寻找亚裔美国人身份的痛苦（Jay Caspian Kang，《纽约时报杂志》）

The finest feature I read this year was by Jay Caspian Kang, an investigation into a hazing death of a young man at an Asian-American fraternity.

我今年读到的最好的专题文章是杰伊·凯斯皮安·康 (Jay Caspian Kang) 写的，他对亚裔美国兄弟会一名年轻人被欺凌致死的事件进行了调查。

The piece is closely observed — the trial, the fresh haircuts and new suits of the defendants, the way Kang himself was mistaken for one of the fraterniy brothers.

这篇文章受到了密切关注——审判、被告的新发型和新诉讼，以及康本人被误认为兄弟之一的方式。

(“One of the TV cameramen who had gathered in the parking lot began following me,” he writes about arriving at the courthouse.

（“聚集在停车场的一名电视摄影师开始跟踪我，”他在抵达法院时写道。

‘I’m not on trial,’ I said.”) It’s also huge in scope, about Asian-American identity, about the political tides that made the phrase “Asian-American identity” exist at all, about belonging, about outsiderness, about family history, about the relationships of immigrant parents with their children, watching them disappear into a country that both absorbs and alienates them.

我说，“我没有受审。”）它的范围也很大，关于亚裔美国人的身份，关于使“亚裔美国人身份”这个词存在的政治潮流，关于归属感，关于局外人，关于家族史，关于移民父母与孩子的关系，看着他们消失在一个既吸收又疏远他们的国家。

Kang also manages the near-impossible task of humanizing the perpetrators of a crime without diminishing the impact on its victim and his family, the place where many true crime features fail at least one of its subjects.

康还完成了一项近乎不可能的任务，即在不减少对受害者及其家人的影响的情况下，将犯罪者人性化，而许多真实的犯罪特征至少有一个主题失败了。

Brooke JarvisContributing writer to The New York Times Magazine and The California Sunday Magazine.

布鲁克·贾维斯（Brooke Jarvis）是《纽约时报杂志》和《加州星期日杂志》的特约撰稿人。

## How the Elderly Lose Their Rights (Rachel Aviv, The New Yorker)

## 老年人如何失去权利（Rachel Aviv，《纽约客》）

Rachel Aviv managed to write not one but four of my favorite stories of the year: One about refugee children in Sweden who suffer from a mysterious disease of unconsciousness; another about a bizarre murder case in Nebraska in which law enforcement fingered a string of people they considered socially deviant, despite a stunning lack of evidence against them; and one about a Muslim cop in New York who grappled with the force’s approach to Muslims in the aftermath of 9/11.

雷切尔·阿维夫（Rachel Aviv）成功地写了我今年最喜欢的故事，而不是一个，而是四个：一个是关于瑞典的难民儿童患有一种神秘的昏迷疾病；另一个是关于瑞典的难民儿童。另一个是关于内布拉斯加州发生的一起离奇谋杀案，执法部门指控了一系列他们认为有社会偏差的人，尽管他们惊人地缺乏针对他们的证据；还有一个故事是关于纽约的一名穆斯林警察，他在 9/11 事件后努力应对警察对穆斯林的接近。

(That last one also opens with surely the cutest meet-cute you’ve ever read.) This fourth story, an investigation into a legal system that allows “guardians” to declare elderly people incapacitated, and then take over their money and their lives, was shocking and totally infuriating—a brazen abuse of power that had flown under the radar.

（最后一篇文章的开头肯定是你读过的最可爱的相遇。）第四个故事是对一项法律制度的调查，该制度允许“监护人”宣布老年人丧失行为能力，然后接管他们的金钱和生命，令人震惊且完全令人愤怒——这是一种在人们的关注下肆无忌惮地滥用权力。

The line that sticks with me is a conversation between a couple’s daughter, who believed her parents were kidnapped, and the guardian that would eventually strip them of their home, liberty, and most of their possessions: “‘You can’t just walk into somebody’s home and take them!’ Belshe told her.

令我印象深刻的是一对夫妇的女儿和监护人之间的对话，她相信自己的父母被绑架了，最终剥夺了他们的家、自由和大部分财产：“‘你不能走进某人的家并带走他们！’贝尔舍告诉她。

Parks responded calmly, ‘It’s legal.

帕克斯平静地回答：“这是合法的。”

It’s legal.’”

这是合法的。’”

Tom HuangAssistant managing editor for features and community engagement, The Dallas Morning News

Tom Huang《达拉斯晨报》专题和社区参与助理总编辑

## In Harm’s Way (Kathleen McGrory and Connie Humburg, Tampa Bay Times)

## In Harm's Way（凯瑟琳·麦格罗里和康妮·洪堡，《坦帕湾时报》）

This series sheds light on a problem I read about every day, but have never been able to get my head around: the gun deaths of children.

这个系列揭示了一个我每天都会读到但一直无法理解的问题：儿童枪击死亡事件。

I’ve wondered about how serious a problem it is (incredibly serious, to the point of being a public health issue), whether the problem is getting worse (it is), and what’s driving the problem (the availability of and access to a growing number of guns).

我想知道这个问题有多严重（非常严重，以至于成为一个公共卫生问题），这个问题是否变得更糟（确实如此），以及是什么导致了这个问题（越来越多的枪支的供应和获取）。

The Times focused on Florida’s children, examining millions of hospital discharge records, as well as data collected by the state’s medical examiners.

《纽约时报》重点关注佛罗里达州的儿童，检查了数百万条出院记录以及该州体检人员收集的数据。

The main finding: Between 2010 and 2015, nearly 3,200 kids 17 and younger were killed or injured by firearms.

主要发现：2010 年至 2015 年间，近 3,200 名 17 岁及以下儿童被枪杀或受伤。

In other words, a Florida kid was shot, on average, every 17 hours.

换句话说，平均每 17 小时就有一名佛罗里达州儿童被枪杀。

From 2010 through 2015, the number of children killed in gun-related incidents rose nearly 20 percent.

从 2010 年到 2015 年，在枪支相关事件中丧生的儿童人数增加了近 20%。

There’s more, but let me just say that the series marries hard data with strong narrative writing about the families affected by these gun deaths.

还有更多，但我只想说，该系列将确凿的数据与有关受枪击死亡影响的家庭的强有力的叙述结合在一起。

Azmat KhanInvestigative journalist and a Future of a War Fellow at New America

阿兹马特·汗（Azmat Khan）调查记者和新美国战争研究员的未来

## Across the U.S., Police Contracts Shield Officers from Scrutiny and Discipline (Reade Levinson, Reuters)

## 在美国各地，警察合同保护警察免受审查和纪律（Reade Levinson，路透社）

Over the last three years, we’ve seen extraordinary investigations involving police abuse and black communities.

在过去的三年里，我们看到了涉及警察虐待和黑人社区的非凡调查。

Some might consider it a thoroughly reported subject — that would be wrong.

有些人可能认为这是一个被彻底报道的主题——这是错误的。

Reade Levinson’s investigation for Reuters digs deeply into data from police contracts across the country to show why so many officers with disciplinary records are able to operate with impunity while their victims struggle to report them.

里德·莱文森 (Reade Levinson) 为路透社进行的调查深入挖掘了全国各地警察合同的数据，以揭示为什么这么多有纪律记录的警察能够逍遥法外，而受害者却很难举报。

To put it simply, the data analysis is extraordinary, an enormous contribution to the public, and the investigation itself is a much-needed lens on police unions.

简而言之，数据分析非常出色，对公众做出了巨大贡献，而调查本身就是警察工会急需的镜头。

Michelle LegroSenior editor, Longreads

Michelle LegroLongreads 高级编辑

## Public-Radio Icon John Hockenberry Accused of Harassing Female Colleagues (Suki Kim, The Cut)

## 公共广播电台偶像约翰·霍肯伯里 (John Hockenberry) 被指控骚扰女同事（Suki Kim、The Cut）

When Suki Kim appeared as a guest on WNYC’s The Takeaway, she spent eight minutes in discussion with the host, John Hockenberry.

当 Suki Kim 作为嘉宾出现在 WNYC 的 The Takeaway 节目中时，她花了八分钟与主持人 John Hockenberry 进行了讨论。

Afterward, he began to email her, “to brainstorm” and kept trying to get in touch for dates, even though she stopped returning his emails.

之后，他开始给她发电子邮件，“集思广益”，并不断尝试联系约会，尽管她不再回复他的电子邮件。

Kim would eventually report her experience to the station’s HR, and after the Weinstein reporting broke, she began to contact producers who had worked with Hockenberry to see if they had similar experiences.

金最终将她的经历报告给电视台的人力资源部，在韦恩斯坦的报道曝光后，她开始联系曾与霍肯伯里合作过的制片人，看看他们是否有类似的经历。

Kim’s reporting unraveled WNYC from the top down, revealing that Hockenberry bullied female producers on the show, and had driven away its cohosts, all women of color.

金的报道从上到下揭开了《纽约时报》的真相，揭露了霍肯伯里在节目中欺负女性制片人，并赶走了节目的共同主持人——所有有色人种女性。

It was a reckoning for a liberal news outlet out of touch with its female employees, and a reminder that harassment is endemic within the workplace, no matter the values that workplace espouses.

这是对一家与女性员工脱节的自由派新闻媒体的清算，并提醒人们，无论工作场所拥护什么价值观，骚扰在工作场所都普遍存在。

The article also was a reckoning of women’s experiences at work that included not just sexual harassment, but also degradation, anger, and resentment.

这篇文章还对女性在工作中的经历进行了反思，其中不仅包括性骚扰，还包括堕落、愤怒和怨恨。

Almost every woman who crossed Hockenberry’s path was minimized and worn down.

几乎每一个走过霍肯伯里道路的女性都被贬低并疲惫不堪。

In the end, he always stayed, and they always left.

最后，他总是留下来，他们总是离开。