Abstract
ABSTRACT In the last two decades, numerous scholars and professionals have argued that people need more assistance than provided by conventional reporting. Hopes have been placed on a new genre, most commonly known as explanatory reporting. This type of reporting provides context by answering “how” and “why” questions, going beyond conventional reporting’s focus on “who/what/when/where”, novelty and immediacy. Its proponents have argued that explanatory reporting makes it easier for audiences to understand an issue, develop well-informed opinions and attitudes, and arrive at accurate attributions of responsibility. Yet, whether this is truly the case has barely been investigated. This study addresses this gap in knowledge. The 46 qualitative interviews reported here suggest that explanatory reporting fulfils the hopes placed on this new genre. Interviewees viewing an explanatory report (1) understood the issue at hand better than those who watched conventional news instead and (2) reported more nuanced attributions of responsibility. Furthermore, contrary to most studies to date, explanatory reporting (3) elicited an emotional response, discrediting the notion that backgrounders are dull. Potential variations relating to (4) attitude change were inconclusive, perhaps because the topic of the videos used as conversation starters—organ donation—induced social desirability.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
