Interpreting expertise: Finnish journalists’ accounts on journalistic judgement of expertise on healthy eating

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

Abstract

Previous research on journalism and expertise has tended to point out the shortcomings and biases in how journalists consider expertise and use expert sources. Such analyses, however, rely on a substantialist preconception of expertise and treat the issue of expertise and journalism as a normative issue. Based on 10 in-depth interviews with journalists drawn from a broader interview study, this study draws on the notion of interpretative repertoire as an analytical tool and investigates how journalists account for journalistic judgement of expertise in the context of healthy eating. The article identifies four different repertoires, in which each journalistic judgement of dietetic expertise is interpreted and constructed in different terms. It argues that this interpretative variability in journalists' accounts might be less telling of an incomplete understanding of expertise than of the complexity and tensions involved in how expertise in the context of health is judged in journalism.

Original languageEnglish
JournalJournalism
Volume20
Issue number11
Pages (from-to)1547–1563
Number of pages17
ISSN1464-8849
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Nov 2019
MoE publication typeA1 Journal article-refereed

Fields of Science

  • 518 Media and communications
  • Expertise
  • health
  • interpretative repertoire
  • journalism
  • judgement
  • knowledge
  • normativity
  • sources
  • 3RD WAVE
  • SCIENCE
  • NEWS
  • FAT

Cite this

@article{9c634f3ae0ae4d8c8cecb8ffea3cb4f2,
title = "Interpreting expertise: Finnish journalists’ accounts on journalistic judgement of expertise on healthy eating",
abstract = "Previous research on journalism and expertise has tended to point out the shortcomings and biases in how journalists consider expertise and use expert sources. Such analyses, however, rely on a substantialist preconception of expertise and treat the issue of expertise and journalism as a normative issue. Based on 10 in-depth interviews with journalists drawn from a broader interview study, this study draws on the notion of interpretative repertoire as an analytical tool and investigates how journalists account for journalistic judgement of expertise in the context of healthy eating. The article identifies four different repertoires, in which each journalistic judgement of dietetic expertise is interpreted and constructed in different terms. It argues that this interpretative variability in journalists' accounts might be less telling of an incomplete understanding of expertise than of the complexity and tensions involved in how expertise in the context of health is judged in journalism.",
keywords = "518 Media and communications, Expertise, health, interpretative repertoire, journalism, judgement, knowledge, normativity, sources, 3RD WAVE, SCIENCE, NEWS, FAT",
author = "Sampsa Saikkonen",
year = "2019",
month = "11",
doi = "10.1177/1464884917708865",
language = "English",
volume = "20",
pages = "1547–1563",
journal = "Journalism",
issn = "1464-8849",
publisher = "Sage",
number = "11",

}

Interpreting expertise : Finnish journalists’ accounts on journalistic judgement of expertise on healthy eating. / Saikkonen, Sampsa.

In: Journalism, Vol. 20, No. 11, 11.2019, p. 1547–1563.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Interpreting expertise

T2 - Finnish journalists’ accounts on journalistic judgement of expertise on healthy eating

AU - Saikkonen, Sampsa

PY - 2019/11

Y1 - 2019/11

N2 - Previous research on journalism and expertise has tended to point out the shortcomings and biases in how journalists consider expertise and use expert sources. Such analyses, however, rely on a substantialist preconception of expertise and treat the issue of expertise and journalism as a normative issue. Based on 10 in-depth interviews with journalists drawn from a broader interview study, this study draws on the notion of interpretative repertoire as an analytical tool and investigates how journalists account for journalistic judgement of expertise in the context of healthy eating. The article identifies four different repertoires, in which each journalistic judgement of dietetic expertise is interpreted and constructed in different terms. It argues that this interpretative variability in journalists' accounts might be less telling of an incomplete understanding of expertise than of the complexity and tensions involved in how expertise in the context of health is judged in journalism.

AB - Previous research on journalism and expertise has tended to point out the shortcomings and biases in how journalists consider expertise and use expert sources. Such analyses, however, rely on a substantialist preconception of expertise and treat the issue of expertise and journalism as a normative issue. Based on 10 in-depth interviews with journalists drawn from a broader interview study, this study draws on the notion of interpretative repertoire as an analytical tool and investigates how journalists account for journalistic judgement of expertise in the context of healthy eating. The article identifies four different repertoires, in which each journalistic judgement of dietetic expertise is interpreted and constructed in different terms. It argues that this interpretative variability in journalists' accounts might be less telling of an incomplete understanding of expertise than of the complexity and tensions involved in how expertise in the context of health is judged in journalism.

KW - 518 Media and communications

KW - Expertise

KW - health

KW - interpretative repertoire

KW - journalism

KW - judgement

KW - knowledge

KW - normativity

KW - sources

KW - 3RD WAVE

KW - SCIENCE

KW - NEWS

KW - FAT

U2 - 10.1177/1464884917708865

DO - 10.1177/1464884917708865

M3 - Article

VL - 20

SP - 1547

EP - 1563

JO - Journalism

JF - Journalism

SN - 1464-8849

IS - 11

ER -