Borderline journalism: Why do journalists accept and justify questionable practices that establish scandals? A quantitative survey

Abstract

The shift from descriptive reporting toward an interpretive style of journalism can be regarded as one factor to explain the rising number of reported scandals in Western democracies. While most of these critical reports are based on actual misbehaviors, there are scandals triggered by violations of journalistic norms. This article examines the question of how many journalists accept such violations of norms and what arguments they use to justify them. To answer these questions, we conducted a quantitative online survey among German journalists in June and July 2015. Participants were confronted with descriptions of factual violations of the German press codex that triggered major scandals. For each case, the journalists rated the acceptability of the questionable practice and gave their opinion on arguments for and against the violation. The majority considers the violations of norms as unacceptable and rejects arguments defending them. Nevertheless, some journalists express opposing views. The acceptance of norm violations is linked to agreement with two arguments. First, defenders of the violations claim to have a privileged insight of the story. Second, they refuse to accept responsibility for readers and the protagonists of the misleadingly reported scandals.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 6 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.