Between harm and sensationalism: Court reporters negotiating objectivity when reflecting on ethical dilemmas in the Submarine Murder Trial

The trial of amateur submarine builder Peter Madsen for the murder of the Swedish journalist Kim Wall was one of the most publicised trials in recent Danish history. Through in-depth interviews with ten prominent Danish reporters who covered the trial, this study examines how court reporters negotiate and struggle with ethical dilemmas related to objectivity as both an institutional ideal and an ethical rule under the Media Liability Act. I demonstrate how reporters negotiate and strategise to maintain objectivity in relation to facts, relevance, the telling of both sides, and the avoidance of prejudging. I further highlight the dispute between fact-based reporters and a minor group endorsing interpretive and narrative reporting and advocating for a more pragmatic approach to objectivity. A core finding is how technological advancements and massive public interest have paved the way for new ethical practices, referred to here as "strategic ritual 2.0".