Preiskovalno novinarstvo, ustvarjanje škandalov in novinarska etika

Abstract

Avtorica obravnava vprašanje, kako razlikovati verodostojno preiskovalno novinarstvo od aferaško in senzacionalistično naravnanega množičnosporočanjskega diskurza. Ugotavlja, da aferaški diskurz oz. kvazipreiskovalno novinarstvo primarno ni zavezano normi resničnosti, ampak je bistvena medijska objava - ne glede na resničnost in verodostojnost informacij. Novinar premalo preverja informacije, kar se kaže v odsotnosti njegovih vprašanj, in nekritično sprejema "preiskave", ki jih namesto njega opravljajo drugi subjekti. Sporočanje pogosto ni ali je pomanjkljivo utemeljeno: manjkajo dokazi, viri informacij v besedilu niso prepoznavni, novinar se sklicuje na govorice. Besedilo je neuravnoteženo, pogosto predstavlja le "eno stran" zgodbe, uporablja vire, ki jo potrjujejo, viri informacij bodisi niso navedeni ali pa so zgolj uradni viri. Domnevne akterje svojih zgodb pogosto prikazuje kot storilce oziroma krivce. Temelji na odkriti pristranskosti, vnaprejšnjih prepričanjih, pričakovanjih in stereotipih, v skladu s katerimi izbira ali "ustvarja" dokaze, ki postanejo ogrodje njegovega konstrukta. Ugotovitve avtorica ponazarja z analizo serije prispevkov o "mafijskem uvozu zdravil" iz Nedeljskega dnevnika, ki se kažejo kot poskus preiskovalnega novinarstva.

Keywords

informacijski viri;Novinarstvo;Preiskovalno novinarstvo;Afere;Novinarska etika;

Data

Language:	Slovenian
Year of publishing:	2003
Typology:	1.01 - Original Scientific Article
Organization:	UL FDV - Faculty of Social Sciences
UDC:	070
COBISS:	22000989
ISSN:	0040-3598
Parent publication:	Teorija in praksa
Views:	820
Downloads:	193
Average score:	0 (0 votes)
Metadata:

Other data

Secondary language:	English
Secondary abstract:	The author deals with the question how to distinguish between credible investigative reporting and sensationalistically oriented mass communication discourse. She finds out that what matters at affaire discourse or quasi-investigative reporting is in fact not the norm of truth but the fact ofmedia publication - irrespective of truth and credibility of information. A journalist does not verify information well enough, as we can see in a lack ofhis/her questions and in an uncritical acceptance of "investigation", carried out by other subjects instead of the journalist himself/herself. Reporting often lacks arguments or is not well argued: there is lack of evidence; sources of information in the text are not transparent; the journalist refers to rumors. The text is unbalanced, often it presents only "one part" of the story, based on the sources confirming it; sources of information are not stated or there are only official sources. The supposed agents are usually presented as perpetrators or guilty persons. The text is based on clear bias, a priori conviction, expectations and stereotypes as a basis for choosing or "creating" evidence, which become an instrument of its construct. The arguments in the article are illustrated by analysis of series of articles on "mafia import of medicaments" published in "Nedeljski dnevnik" as a case of an attempt of investigative reporting.
Secondary keywords:	Journalism;Investigative journalism;Affaires;Journalistic ethics;
Type (COBISS):	Not categorized
Pages:	str. 207-228
Volume:	ǂLet. ǂ40
Issue:	ǂšt. ǂ2
Chronology:	marec/april 2003
Keywords (UDC):	science and knowledge;organization;computer science;information;documentation;librarianship;institutions;publications;znanost in znanje;organizacije;informacije;dokumentacija;bibliotekarstvo;institucije;publikacije;newspapers;the press;journalism;časniki;tisk;
ID:	1467278