« All articles from this issue

Javnost - The Public, Vol. 31 - 2024, Suplement

Guest Edited by Jernej Kaluža and Sašo Slaček Brlek

Čuvajsko novinarstvo na sodišču: metanovinarski diskurz v slovenski sodni praksi

, , pages: S67-S84[open access]

Članek proučuje diskurzivni boj med različnimi akterji v postopkih na sodiščih kot pomembnih in ne dovolj raziskanih prizoriščih, ki sooblikujejo dopustne novinarske prakse in meje. Analiza sodb iz obdobja 2013–2022, temelječa na Carlsonovem analitičnem okviru metanovinarskega diskurza, prikazuje, kako potekajo interpretativni procesi za vzpostavljanje definicij čuvajskega novinarstva in (de)legitimiranja novinarjev za izvajanje čuvajske novinarske vloge v sporih, povezanih z novinarskim sporočanjem o temah v javnem interesu, pred slovenskimi višjimi sodišči ter vrhovnim in ustavnim sodiščem. Rezultati ne razkrivajo jasne artikulacije čuvajskega (watchdog) novinarstva; prevladujejo negativne definicije in razlikovanje od popularnega (tabloidnega) tiska. Kljub monološkosti diskurza, v katerem udeleženci sodnih postopkov z zagovarjanjem lastnih stališč poskušajo sodnike prepričati o svojem prav, se celo ob nasprotnih argumentativnih pozicijah pojavlja soglasje, da imajo novinarji čuvaji, ko obravnavajo zadeve javnega pomena, dokajšnjo svobodo pri izbiri jezika, posegih v zasebnost in poročanju o nepreverjenih govoricah. Pri tem članek pokaže odločilno vlogo interpretacij sodišč, saj pri novinarjih lahko sprožijo zastraševalni učinek, ki slabi demokratični dialog in družbeno razpravo.

Watchdog Journalism in Court: Metajournalistic Discourse in the Slovenian Case Law

The article examines the discursive struggle between different actors in court proceedings as important and under-researched arenas that co-shape acceptable journalistic practices and boundaries. The analysis of judgments from the period 2013–2022, based on Carlson’s analytical framework of metajournalistic discourse, shows how the interpretive processes for establishing definitions of watchdog journalism and (de)legitimizing journalists for performing the role of watchdog journalists in disputes related to journalistic reporting on topics of public interest take place at the Slovenian higher courts, together with the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court. The results do not reveal a clear articulation of watchdog journalism; negative definitions and differentiation from the popular (tabloid) press prevail. Despite the monologic nature of the discourse, in which the participants of the court proceedings try to convince the judges of their right by defending their own positions, there are occurrences of consensus, even in cases of opposing argumentative positions, that watchdog journalists, when dealing with matters of public interest, have considerable freedom in the choice of language, intrusions into privacy and reporting unverified rumours. Here, the article points to the decisive role of court interpretations, as they can have a chilling effect on journalists, which weakens the democratic dialogue and social debate.

Full text PDF (in Slovene) | Export Reference |

« All articles from this issue