The “major mea culpa:” Journalistic Discursive Techniques When Professional Norms are Broken

ABSTRACT

The “corrections statement” is sufficient for media organizations to address small mistakes. When larger missteps occur, however, more substantive work is needed not only to correct the record, but also to protect the organization’s claim to an authentic journalistic identity. This study analyzes 30 of what it terms “major mea culpa” statements to explore how media organizations talk about their significant professional errors and the tools they use to maintain their journalistic identities when such errors occur. Using content analysis to explore the major themes of journalistic process and journalistic principle, this study concludes that the discursive techniques central to “major mea culpas” seek to assert and affirm journalistic identity when actions may suggest that an organization no longer reflects the ideals of the profession.

KEYWORDS:

• Fabrication
• retraction
• transparency
• boundary work
• paradigm repair
• metajournalistic discourse

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 The international samples that were ultimately included originated in Germany and in the United Kingdom. Appelman and Hettinga (2021) categorize both of those nations as relatively similar to the United States in terms of journalistic codes of ethics and related practices of correcting journalistic errors.

2 While not intentionally excluded, the sample did not include any pieces from newspaper ombudsmen or public editors. Several, however, were written by managing editors.