Journalistiska arbetsmetoder - legitima eller kontroversiella? En kvalitativ studie av hur undersökande journalister förhåller sig till journalistiska metodval i förhållande till etiska riktlinjer

Abstract

Purpose: The main purpose of the study is to examine how investigative journalists motivate and legitimize their method choices in relation to professional ethical rules. The study has a qualitative approach and central to the empirical material from interviews with journalists. The study is aimed at both the public and journalists.

Method: Qualitative in-depth interviews with swedish investigative journalist.

Procedure: Eight interviews with investigative journalists were transcribed and analyzed using the theory of consequence neutrality and the social responsibility theory. Previous research on journalism’s socialbenefits and controversial methods was also used among others to analyze the empiricism in the study.

Results: The results of the study show that the journalists in the study believe that it is of the utmost importance to explain why certain methods are used. That careful consideration must always be made and that one can clearly justify journalistic method choices. By doing this, journalists can also legitimize the method choices. All journalists believe that method choice is a major responsibility for maintaining journalism, and it can therefore be concluded that investigative journalists must always to some extent consider the consequences of whether individuals can be subjected to exposure after a publication. Thus, it is an extremely difficult balancing act investigative journalists face when it comes to considering people’s integrity and fulfilling the primary mission of investigative journalism: to examine power.