Deviance mitigation in the ethical discourse of journalists

Abstract

This article describes two discursive strategies that allowed journalists at a small Midwestern daily newspaper to make sense of the perceived ethical predicament arising when journalistic principles and business imperatives conflict. By using narrative context and grammatical markers, the journalists were able to take away some of the stigma of advocating or reporting beliefs deviating from norms displayed in focus groups with coworkers. The findings provide insight into how professionals define admirable moral identities in peer discourse and how these identities, in turn, also may influence acceptance by one's peers. Although the data were obtained by observing journalists, the findings are relevant to other professions.