Chilling at the grassroots? The impact of the Leveson Inquiry on journalist-source relations and the reporting of the powerful at local level

James Morrison
{"title":"Chilling at the grassroots? The impact of the Leveson Inquiry on journalist-source relations and the reporting of the powerful at local level","authors":"James Morrison","doi":"10.1386/ajms.6.1.17_1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"No sooner had the Leveson Inquiry opened in 2011 than journalists and politicians were warning of a 'chilling effect' on the willingness of the press to continue using informal avenues to research stories. A particular fear was that tougher regulation might deter newspapers from using off-the-record briefings - and occasional subterfuge - to legitimately investigate public-interest issues that would go unreported if they relied solely on official channels. But a wider concern was that a putative 'Leveson effect' could also discourage both journalists and sources from engaging in the day-to-day communications on which newspapers relied for routine content. Drawing on first-hand testimony from practising local journalists, this article argues that, while there is early anecdotal evidence for some chilling at the grassroots, this is affecting sources more than journalists. Moreover, their concerns are based on a (perhaps wilful) 'scapegoating' of Leveson for other factors hampering their relations with reporters: notably, longer-term institutional moves to regulate their relations with journalists and, perhaps more significantly, financial cutbacks.","PeriodicalId":119349,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Applied Journalism & Media Studies","volume":"69 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Applied Journalism & Media Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1386/ajms.6.1.17_1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

No sooner had the Leveson Inquiry opened in 2011 than journalists and politicians were warning of a 'chilling effect' on the willingness of the press to continue using informal avenues to research stories. A particular fear was that tougher regulation might deter newspapers from using off-the-record briefings - and occasional subterfuge - to legitimately investigate public-interest issues that would go unreported if they relied solely on official channels. But a wider concern was that a putative 'Leveson effect' could also discourage both journalists and sources from engaging in the day-to-day communications on which newspapers relied for routine content. Drawing on first-hand testimony from practising local journalists, this article argues that, while there is early anecdotal evidence for some chilling at the grassroots, this is affecting sources more than journalists. Moreover, their concerns are based on a (perhaps wilful) 'scapegoating' of Leveson for other factors hampering their relations with reporters: notably, longer-term institutional moves to regulate their relations with journalists and, perhaps more significantly, financial cutbacks.
在基层感到寒心?莱韦森调查对记者与消息来源关系的影响以及对地方权贵的报道
2011年莱韦森调查刚一开始,记者和政界人士就警告说,这将对新闻界继续使用非正式渠道进行新闻调查的意愿产生“寒蝉效应”。一种特别的担忧是,更严格的监管可能会阻止报纸利用非正式简报——偶尔还会使用托词——合法地调查公共利益问题,如果他们完全依靠官方渠道,这些问题就不会被报道。但更广泛的担忧是,假定的“莱韦森效应”也可能阻碍记者和消息来源参与报纸日常内容所依赖的日常沟通。根据当地执业记者的第一手证词,这篇文章认为,虽然有一些早期的轶事证据表明基层有些寒蝉,但这对消息来源的影响比记者更大。此外,他们的担忧是基于(可能是故意的)莱韦森将妨碍他们与记者关系的其他因素作为“替罪羊”:值得注意的是,监管他们与记者关系的长期制度举措,或许更重要的是,财政削减。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信