The Epistemology of Environmental Journalists

Abstract

This paper offers a case study of the epistemology of Chinese environmental investigative journalists, drawn from 42 in-depth interviews conducted between 2011 and 2013. The study proposes that it is the knowledge that journalists form, rather than whether the knowledge is objective, which is important for understanding the epistemology of environmental investigative journalists. The analysis reveals that four types of knowledge are central to what participants come to know about environmental issues in the process of validating evidence and making judgments. The importance of experience, cognition and evidence-based judgment in the knowledge formation process means there is an inevitable (but covert) involvement of journalists’ subjectivity in their reports. This suggests that the participants practise an advocacy and ethnographic journalism, characterised by pragmatism, existentialism and particular standpoints, while making a strong claim to “truth”. These standpoints are generated in the pre-writing investigation stage rather than in the writing-up stage. Therefore, in this case study, the epistemology of environmental investigative journalism is concerned with how and when meanings and opinions are generated in the process of knowledge acquisition, rather than whether the knowledge is objective.

KEYWORDS:

• advocacy journalism
• China
• environmental investigative journalism
• epistemology
• ethnographic journalism
• experience
• knowledge
• objectivity journalism

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author would like to thank the reviewers for their helpful comments and all journalists for generously sharing their views with me. Thanks also go to Ji Lin and Jingwei for transcribing the interview recordings.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1 This point has emerged from the 42 interviews with environmental investigative journalists from 2011 to 2013.

Additional information

Funding

The research was funded by the British Academy [Ref: RV100029] and by the College of Social Science and the Department of Media and Communication at the University of Leicester (Research Development Fund). The writing of the paper was supported by a period of academic study leave granted by the University of Leicester in autumn 2013.