Abstract The purpose of this thesis is to examine what considerations journalists take regarding the use of expert sources, specifically in the health sections of Danish breakfast and morning newspapers. Furthermore, the thesis discusses the way in which journalists, through the choice of expert sources, can help to shape the public perception of a given case or situation and how this ability can be problematic. The thesis finds that the majority of those journalists surveyed believe that a good health expert is, first and foremost, an available source. In addition, he must be able to articulate difficult material in an easily accessible manner and have great knowledge in the health area, as the journalist would like to know as much as possible in order to be objective in their assessments of the specific case. Reporters have deadlines they must comply with. Therefore, it is smart if they can find expert sources that meet their criteria for a good expert source, as it makes their work easier and saves time. In this context, the thesis finds that journalists in general, including health journalism, to a certain extent repeatedly use the same expert source. This calls into question the nuances and validity of health articles, since some arguments may never appear in the media spotlight as expert sources holding other positions may never be heard. Furthermore, expert sources can have substantial interests in promoting certain views over others. Surveyed journalists are well aware of this danger, but some of the journalists in this context doubt their own abilities to be critical of expert sources. Thus this thesis concludes that journalists writing about health may be better served by taking a more critical approach to expert sources, as well as using several experts to capture a more complete picture of health issues.
|Uddannelser||Journalistik, (Bachelor/kandidatuddannelse) Kandidat|
|Udgivelsesdato||29 aug. 2013|