Sociology of reporters: why journalists fail to live up to their whistleblowers' expectations

A respected American journalist once wormed his way into the trust of a convicted murderer by pretending against his convictions that he believed in the innocence of the man in prison;

With the faithful help of the prisoner, a non-fiction book was created that portrays him as a monster.

A no less famous professional colleague of the author stated two things in her critique of this book: that such an abuse of trust cannot be morally justified – and that it is in line with journalistic practice to commit it at any time.

In the more than thirty years that have passed since then, this provocative comment has made its way into American journalism textbooks, where it continues to be a source of much discussion to this day.

But do journalists really have to be willing to deceive those they want to cover?

A few years ago, the communication scientist Ruth Palmer, who teaches in Madrid, was inspired by this question to present it to the alleged victims of this practice for the first time and to evaluate the results.

83 people, some from the anonymous metropolis of New York and some from an unnamed medium-sized city, were asked about their personal experiences of being interviewed.

None of them had celebrity status, but before the reporters came and sought contact, they all came close to great and greatest mischief: whether as unemployed after years of unsuccessfully looking for a job, as victims or suspects of a serious crime,

Most of the disappointments of the interviewees apparently arose from the fact that, after speaking to the journalist, they expected him to adopt their concerns and publicly represent them, only to then read a text a few days later in which they did not quite recognize themselves and their own opinion on the subject, even with the most correct quotations and factual references.

A long-term unemployed woman, for example, had told the journalist her personal tale of woe in great detail, but in the newspaper, perhaps for the sake of the political effect, it had turned into a more or less typical fate of the masses.

Curiosity, personal interest and a lot of empathy

If you consider the complexity of the decision-making situation in which the journalists construct their articles, such an alienation effect is not difficult to understand.

Your story cannot be perfectly tailored to a single interlocutor's presentation needs and message intentions.

Because information from other sources, including professional standards, the reading habits of your audience and the personal demands you make on yourself must also be taken into account.

This large number of points of view, which are only poorly coordinated with one another, excludes the possibility that only one of them determines the text to be written.

According to Palmer, the journalist does not necessarily have to want to deceive in order to disappoint his informants.

On the other hand, the author cites two structural reasons why respondents erroneously expect the journalist to be their ally, both arising from how he seeks to engage them.

The textbooks advise the interviewer to be a good and attentive listener, in principle not much different than a host in front of his guests.

He likes to show off his unbiased curiosity, personal interest and a lot of empathy, and after such tactful treatment it is no wonder that at least those among his interlocutors who are inexperienced in contact with the media assume that they have found their unofficial spokesman in him.

Only then do they know, having learned from the damage, that the tact only serves as a door opener for the interviewer.

A second strategy used by journalists takes this effect to the extreme.

It is used primarily where informants threaten to refuse to cooperate.

The journalists then openly serve as messengers and mouthpieces for the unwilling, pointing out that this is the only chance to make your own point of view public;

otherwise others would decide what the public learns about the event.

And of course that leads to disappointment when the journalist's supposed clients have to read what he has done with their self-portrayal.