ABSTRACT

Numbers have long been central to the practice of journalism. But most journalists use numbers with relatively little critical engagement. This practice presents journalists with a dilemma: how can they, and their stories, maintain their credibility when such key pieces of information are not verified? This article takes a mixed-method approach to journalists’ use of numbers in their coverage of seven humanitarian crises in 2017. This includes a content analysis of news articles (n = 978) and semi-structured reconstruction interviews with journalists (n = 16). The findings highlight how journalists rarely verify the numbers they use. In place of verification, they engage in two processes. First, the constant construction of a hierarchy of trustworthy sources. Second, the discursive twinning of data with certainty – elevating databases above the most trustworthy institutional source. These two practices are aimed at ensuring the credibility of the numbers they use and maintaining the credibility of their profession by hiding behind trusted sources. These findings provide a rationale for why journalists trust certain sources over others, a detail lacking in the existing literature. It also puts forward a numbers-specific take on “strategic rituals” in the idea of “quantification as strategic ritual”.

摘要

长期以来，数字一直是新闻实践的核心。但大多数记者使用的数字很少有批判性参与。这种做法让记者陷入两难境地：在这些关键信息未经核实的情况下，他们和他们的报道如何保持可信度？本文采用混合方法分析记者在 2017 年七次人道主义危机报道中使用数字的情况。这包括新闻文章的内容分析（n = 978）和对记者的半结构化重建采访（n= 16). 调查结果强调记者很少核实他们使用的数字。他们不进行验证，而是进行两个过程。首先，不断构建可信赖来源的等级制度。其次，数据的话语孪生与确定性——将数据库提升到最值得信赖的机构来源之上。这两种做法旨在确保他们使用的数字的可信度，并通过隐藏在可信赖的来源后面来维护他们职业的可信度。这些发现提供了为什么记者信任某些消息来源而不是其他消息来源的理由，这是现有文献中缺乏的细节。它还在“量化作为战略仪式”的思想中提出了针对“战略仪式”的特定数字。