The Interpretive Interface: Where Journalistic and Pluralistic Discourses (Don’t) Meet

Abstract

This article identifies the interpretive journalistic styles and forms used by four Flemish digital news startups and presents a theoretical and empirical exploration of their potential implications on media pluralism. Considering the various manifestations of interpretive journalism (i.e., from analytical-advisory to overtly advocacy), this study was designed to (i) operationalize the different degrees in which journalists openly intervene in, and reflect upon, the construction of their news stories, and (ii) investigate the dynamic between the former and the pluralistic character of news discourse. Theoretically, this article draws from (i) journalism as a performative discourse and (ii) the concept of agonistic pluralism. Methodologically, it offers an empirical framework guided by three analytical focal points: journalistic voice, scrutiny and reflexivity. Our study identified three interpretive interplays: (i) a detached form of subjectivity, (ii) the concurrence of personal-storytelling practices and a conversational register and (iii) the thin line between advocacy, dogmatism and conspiracy. The paper concludes by discussing the implications of these interpretive interplays on media pluralism with a specific focus on reflexivity as a key enabler for broad and engaging meaning-making processes.