Who watches the watchdogs?

Abstract

The British press is notable for its longstanding resistance to accountability. However, the Leveson Inquiry, formed in response to the 2011 phone-hacking scandal, has opened up a dialogue on the culture, practices, and ethics of the British press and, by extension, the roles and responsibilities it is expected to bear. Taking the position that analyzing journalistic “metadiscourse”—journalism about journalism—is critical to understanding how the press views its role in a democracy, this study analyzes editorial comment in mainstream national daily and Sunday newspapers on the Leveson Inquiry from its inception to the conclusion of its hearing phase. We find four central discursive strategies: catastrophization (the slippery slope to state control), self-affirmation (affirming journalism's value to a democratic society), minimization (downplaying the significance of the phone-hacking scandal and therefore questioning the legitimacy of the inquiry), and localization (localizing the damage to the community to acts committed by a handful of members). We argue these findings are indicative of an institutional ideology that is quick to assert rights but largely resistant to notions of attendant responsibilities.