When journalists venture into unknown territory

By Barnabé Fournier

Journalists are regularly called upon to cover subjects that they know relatively little about. This lack of knowledge influences the type of relationship they form with their sources. They are often specialists in their field.

In the common imagination, there is this idea that journalists are not experts in any field. That they should be able to react to any subject at any time. And then there is the opposite idea. The one that sees journalists as insiders in the field, sometimes even considered to be too close to their sources, and suspected of collusion with them (Marchetti, 2002).

Of course, the reality is not quite so binary. Every journalist is somewhere along a continuum, between strangeness and involvement, entangled in the relations of domination that structure each field. Journalists and their sources occupy unequal positions. Far from being insignificant, this aspect of the relationship influences the behaviour of both the interviewer and the interviewee. This can range from strong resistance to indifference to strong enthusiasm (Demazière, 2008).

Asymmetrical relationships

Didier Demazière has at least observed this type of reaction within the investigative relationship between sociologist and subject. For him, they are the result of the mismatch between the positions of the interviewer and the interviewee in the social space, which are themselves expressed in multiple dimensions (race, class, age, gender). And very often it is the sociologist who finds himself in a position of ‘social overhang’. According to Alain Blanchet (1991), any investigative relationship presupposes an asymmetry of roles: one person gives himself the right to question in order to feed his research, while the other must answer his questions. Once again, the advantage goes to the sociologist.

What about the relationship between a journalist and his source? Is it the same? It is true that the two figures, the journalist and the sociologist, have many similarities. Their aim is to report on a certain social reality, they use similar techniques, and they often come from the same academic backgrounds. However, there are significant differences between the two professions, particularly in the relationship they have with their sources. First and foremost because journalists regularly talk to the ‘dominant’: politicians, business leaders, scientists and so on. These are categories who do not ‘undergo’ the interview exercise, but rather seek to take advantage of it in order to spread a message (Dollé, 1998). The relational asymmetry, described earlier in favour of the sociologist, then tends to be reversed. All the more so when the journalist is not an expert in the field.

Staging yourself

In order to re-establish a certain balance in the relationship, the journalist must ‘impose himself on the imposers’ (Chamboredon et al., 1994). And this involves ‘self-presentation’ (Goffman, 1973). This is the idea that each stakeholder builds up a representation of their interlocutor as the interaction progresses. For example, a journalist working for a specialist magazine does not establish the same power relationship with his or her source as someone who advertises himself or herself as a generalist in a regional daily. Similarly, the label of trainee journalist does not have the same effect on the interviewer as that of editor-in-chief.

Other elements then counterbalance – or exacerbate – this initial situation of domination. Such is the case with the vocabulary used. When talking to a politician, the journalist uses technical terms specific to the world of politics, signalling to the interviewer that they both belong to the same field. The relationship tends to be balanced. On the other hand, if they ask the interviewer to clarify certain concepts, which are too technical for example, the journalist will reinforce his image as anoutsider to the political field. So vocabulary also plays a part in what Erving Goffman (1973) calls the ‘personal façade’. It ultimately helps to define the situation. In this case, that of an asymmetrical relationship.

The importance of a reflective perspective

One question remains. In what way is such a relationship of domination problematic for journalistic production? Jean-Pierre Olivier de Sardan (1995) suggests part of the answer in his reflections on the interview. According to him, ‘the interviewee does not have the same “interests” as the interviewer […]. Each, in a certain sense, tries to ‘manipulate’ the other’. It is therefore easy to imagine that the position of the two interlocutors within the field will have an influence on this game of negotiation. It is difficult, however, to control this aspect of the relationship.

It is not impossible, however, to pay attention to it. For example, to avoid approaching a source with too much naivety. But also in the opposite case, where the journalist, an expert in his field, finds himself in the dominant position. The pitfall then becomes that of being too familiar with the terrain (Beaud and Weber, 2003). In such cases, a reflective attitude will enable the journalist to avoid disconnecting from his or her main mission: informing the public. After all, a journalist’s strongest relationship is with his audience.

This article, When journalists venture into unknown territory, was originally published by the European Journalism Observatory on October, 28 2024.