Disclaiming, Mitigating, and Character Boosting—How Targets of Investigate Journalism Negotiate Guilt, Excuses, Justification, and Morality

Abstract

ABSTRACT This article analyses how objects of investigative journalism challenge journalistic authority and knowledge production from the textual space of their own platforms. Drawing on theories of image repair discourse, legal defense strategies, and socio-moral meaning making, a thematic analysis is used to research how the defenses criticize the investigations, what type of dialogical socio-moral meaning making they initiate, and what challenges that meaning-making poses to journalism. The article identifies three positions vis-à-vis the accusations: disclaiming, mitigating, and character boosting. The positions represent journalism respectively as either malevolent adversary, legitimate censor, or associate moral champion, and the stances criticize investigations for being either wrongful, exaggerated, or a distortion of character. The defenses challenge investigative journalism to substantiate accusations, justify methods, renegotiate guilt, acknowledge the validity of excuses and justification, and give credit for alleged moral qualities. The study ends with a discussion on the importance for journalism to engage seriously with defenses to uphold its role as a just and fair institution of accountability, and as a relevant actor in the construction of societal moral.