ABSTRACT

This paper examines how professionals define investigative journalism, which criteria they use to assess their and others’ work, and how they apply them. Based on 23 in-depth interviews with Swiss journalists, our research sheds new light on professionals’ normative assumptions, and provides insights on how to think about investigative journalism more generally. Implicit and explicit professional definitions reveal a shared conception of journalism, which has strong normative implications. According to their narratives, professionals rely on a gradual and multilevel definition of investigative journalism, while often talking about it as an absolute. Rather than a discrete category, “investigative journalism” is best seen as existing on a continuum between full-fledged investigative endeavor and the most basic reporting, with the main cursor being the personal commitment: professionals value the extent of efforts provided during the investigative process, as much as other constitutive elements such as exposing breaches of public trust. They built on a mix of various elements regarding what constitutes investigative journalism. We distinguished three types of defining criteria: motive, extent of efforts and technique involved. These criteria counterbalance each other in practice. Arguably, these gradual conceptions allow for adjustments between a clear-cut ideal and the real work context.

摘要

本文探讨了专业人士如何定义调查性新闻，他们使用哪些标准来评估他们和他人的工作，以及他们如何应用这些标准。基于对瑞士记者的 23 次深入采访，我们的研究揭示了专业人士的规范假设，并提供了有关如何更广泛地思考调查新闻的见解。隐含和明确的专业定义揭示了新闻业的共同概念，具有很强的规范意义。根据他们的叙述，专业人士依赖于对调查性新闻的渐进和多层次的定义，同时经常将其视为绝对的。最好将“调查性新闻”视为存在于成熟的调查工作和最基本的报道之间的连续统一体中，而不是一个离散的类别，主要指标是个人承诺：专业人士重视调查过程中提供的努力程度，以及其他构成要素，例如揭露违反公共信任的行为。它们建立在关于构成调查性新闻的各种要素的混合之上。我们区分了三种类型的定义标准：动机、努力程度和所涉及的技术。这些标准在实践中相互抵消。可以说，这些渐进的概念允许在明确的理想和实际工作环境之间进行调整。它们建立在关于构成调查性新闻的各种要素的混合之上。我们区分了三种类型的定义标准：动机、努力程度和所涉及的技术。这些标准在实践中相互抵消。可以说，这些渐进的概念允许在明确的理想和实际工作环境之间进行调整。它们建立在关于构成调查性新闻的各种要素的混合之上。我们区分了三种类型的定义标准：动机、努力程度和所涉及的技术。这些标准在实践中相互抵消。可以说，这些渐进的概念允许在明确的理想和实际工作环境之间进行调整。