Disclaiming, Mitigating, and Character Boosting—How Targets of Investigate Journalism Negotiate Guilt, Excuses, Justification, and Morality

ABSTRACT

This article analyses how objects of investigative journalism challenge journalistic authority and knowledge production from the textual space of their own platforms. Drawing on theories of image repair discourse, legal defense strategies, and socio-moral meaning making, a thematic analysis is used to research how the defenses criticize the investigations, what type of dialogical socio-moral meaning making they initiate, and what challenges that meaning-making poses to journalism. The article identifies three positions vis-à-vis the accusations: disclaiming, mitigating, and character boosting. The positions represent journalism respectively as either malevolent adversary, legitimate censor, or associate moral champion, and the stances criticize investigations for being either wrongful, exaggerated, or a distortion of character. The defenses challenge investigative journalism to substantiate accusations, justify methods, renegotiate guilt, acknowledge the validity of excuses and justification, and give credit for alleged moral qualities. The study ends with a discussion on the importance for journalism to engage seriously with defenses to uphold its role as a just and fair institution of accountability, and as a relevant actor in the construction of societal moral.

KEYWORDS:

• Investigative journalism
• accountability
• crisis communication
• societal moral
• excuses
• guilt

Introduction

Although there is a formal judicial system in most countries, there are also other institutions, formal and informal, that handle questions of transgression, culpability, guilt, responsibility, accountability, and sanctions at different levels in society (Garland 1990, 17, 18; Schedler 1999). In most democratic systems, journalism acts as such an institution by investigating and exposing wrongdoing of societal importance (Waisbord 2016; Christians 2009; Schlosberg 2013). In the early 1960s Swedish journalists came to consider the investigation of power as a professional ideal (Djerf-Pierre and Weibull 2013). This development was a result of the professionalization of journalism, the dismantling of the party-press, and the influence of American journalistic ideals (Strömbäck 2003). Investigative journalism has since held a strong position in the Swedish media landscape. In Hallin and Mancini’s (2004) classification of media systems, Sweden belongs to the Democratic Corporatist Model, which is characterized by substantial journalistic autonomy, developed professionalism, and a strong recognition of journalism’s accountability function (144). A 2011 survey showed that Swedish journalists reckon investigating power to be the most important of all professional ideals, and that this viewpoint has been constantly strengthened (Wiik 2011, 34). Both journalists, politicians, and the public acknowledge the scrutiny of power as one of the media’s most important democratic functions (Strömbäck 2003), and it has been recognized as such in several consecutive governmental reports (SOU 1975, 78; SOU 2000, 1; SOU 2016, 80).

Journalism studies have shed light on how journalism’s practices and communicative conventions perform authority (Zelizer 1992; Usher 2018) by claiming “legitimate discursive knowledge about events in the world for others” (Carlson 2017), how repeated and established story forms, and moral interpretation of events offer journalists “the possibility of asserting moral authority, and as a result, obtain power” (Broersma 2010, 30), and how morally charged journalism has the power to alter socio-moral relations between audiences and objects of journalistic investigation (Mølster 2007; Wigorts-Yngvesson 2008; Danielson 2019). Researchers have also shown how investigative journalists legitimize their practices and methods by referring to social and political change purportedly resulting from their reporting (Protess 1991). But research has also shown how that authority is fluid, provisional, and under constant negotiation (Hanitzsch 2018; Carlson 2016). Despite journalists’ strong influence on the public perception of their profession (Dahlgren 1992, 4), the discursive justification and legitimation of journalism is to some extent dependent upon external social actors who “publicly engage in processes of establishing definitions, setting boundaries, and rendering judgements about journalism’s legitimacy” (Carlson 2016, 350).

An under-researched social actor contributing to this “metajournalistic discourse” (Carlson 2016, 353) is the targets of investigative journalism. Most existing research on interactions between investigative journalists and their objects has focused on journalistic productions and interviews with journalists (Danielson 2016; Protess 1991; Ettema and Glasser 1998; Knoble 2018). Some studies highlight negative consequences for objects of media scrutiny, particularly in connection to media scandals (Hammarlin 2015; Johansson 2006; Allern and Pollack 2012). From a communication studies perspective, responses to negative media attention have been studied as strategic crisis communication (Coombs 2022; Benoit 2015; Burns and Bruner 2000; Benoit and Drew 1997). However, relatively little is known about how targets of journalistic investigations construct journalism as an object of social and moral evaluation, and their defenses have rarely been studied as a part of a dialogical socio-moral meaning process concerning societal justice, guilt, excuses, and morality, or as a challenge to journalistic methods, authority, and legitimacy.

This article addresses that research gap by examining how 44 organizations subject to journalistic investigations in Swedish media between 2001 and 2022, outline their defenses in media channels under their own control. The study examines how the defenses negotiate guilt, excuses, and morality, and in the process construct journalism as an object of social, professional, and moral evaluation and contribute to the ongoing metajournalistic discourse “through which journalistic practices, norms, and institutions come to be legitimated or contested” (Carlson 2016, 354). Moreover, the study adds to our knowledge of how targets perceive, assess, and react to investigative journalists exercising the power of their institutional accountability role.

In the following, I start by presenting a literature review that descriptively and critically outlines and assesses journalism as a societal institution of accountability. The review also elaborates on the rationale of the study, leading up to the section on aims and research questions, which is followed by the outlining of the study’s theoretical framework. In the methods section I give contextual background to the empirical material and present the research method. I then work through the analysis before discussing the findings and concluding by suggesting some areas of further research.

Literature Review: Investigative Journalism as an Institution of Accountability

By a process of “habitualization” (Berger and Luckmann 1966, 53), the repeated exposure of transgressions at a societal level has established journalism as an informal institution of public accountability (Schlosberg 2013; Schedler 1999), and performatively typified and institutionalized the professional role (Berger and Luckmann 1966, 71) investigative journalist, a role that has been accorded social legitimacy in Western democratic discourse through acceptance and validation by actors within and outside of journalism (Christians 2009). Even though there is no conceptual consensus of what exactly is meant by investigative journalism (de Burgh 2008a; Strömbäck 2003; Carson 2020), the prevailing notion, both among practitioners and researchers, is that it is a “distinct form of reporting, requiring special efforts beyond reporting the daily news” (Carson 2020, 52), that fulfils a societal function consisting of “critical scrutiny over the powerful, be they in government, business or other influential spheres of society” (McNair 2003, 239). Christians (2009) state that “the purpose is not simply to report events that are public and have public importance but to systematically discover social problems or abuses of power and to use rhetorical resources to move the public to act on these problems” (57). Eide (2016) estimates that this mission is “a major normative feature of modern journalistic ideology” (100). Investigative journalism involves a high degree of personal commitment (Cancela, Gerber, and Dubied 2021), is often motivated by virtues of justice, truth, and courage (Aucoin 2005, 204; Lanosga et al. 2017; Eide, 2016), and entails a high professional status (Bjerknes 2020).

Investigative journalists attribute guilt and demand accountability from individuals, institutions, and organizations along the entire spectrum of societal actors (Aucoin 2005). In the process they assume the authority to make inquiries, identify victims, interview witnesses, search for proof, piece together evidence, confront suspects, pass moral judgements, and expose transgressors (Danielson 2016; Mølster 2007; Ettema and Glasser 1998). de Burgh describes the investigative journalist as:

A man or woman whose profession it is to discover the truth and to identify lapses from it in whatever media may be available. The act of doing this is generally called investigative journalism and is distinct from apparently similar work done by police, lawyers, auditors and regulatory bodies in that it is not limited as to target, not legally founded and usually earns money for media publishers. (de Burgh 2008a, 10)

The investigations have the potential of tarnishing the reputation and moral status of the organizations and individuals investigated (Wigorts-Yngvesson 2008; Carson 2020), and may even escalate into “media scandals”, in which several media actors in concurrence, and for a longer period focus on a certain alleged misconduct (Allern and Pollack 2012; Thompson 2000).

Taking this into account, Schedler (1999) argues that “the destruction of reputation through public exposure represents one of the main tools of accountability” (16), and Schlosberg (2013) argues that journalism is particularly effective in holding powerful people and institutions to account, even in comparison with other institutions of accountability. He claims that journalists “have a much wider array of information tools available compared to other accountability institutions. Off-the-record briefings by officials, Freedom of Information requests, hacking and leaks are all part of the armory by which journalists can institute answerability and enforcement” (13).

de Burgh (2008a) states that investigative journalism is defined by a strong moral purpose and “attention to the evidence to support that purpose” (17), which means that journalists substantiate accusations and truth-claims through a set of rigorous fact-checking procedures and systematic cross-verification (Aucoin 2005, 3), and justify the adversarial stance by indicating that investigations “almost always involves a powerful entity ‘harming' a citizen or citizens” (Abdenour 2018, 1060). The extended efforts to provide and substantiate compromising facts about the objects of investigation constitute the epistemological core of investigative journalism, and the foundation from which serious allegations of wrongdoing are substantiated. But journalism studies have shown that the accusatory features of their craft inevitably engage investigative reporters in constructions of moral values according to which those investigated are evaluated. Ettema and Glasser (1998) discuss how journalism, when acting as an institution of accountability, “contributes to the crafting of the moral order” (185), and Eide (2016) characterizes the practice as “a kind of hermeneutics of suspicions” (101). Apart from establishing epistemological authority by verification and fact-checking, journalists also exercize a naturalized, and seldom problematized, authority to establish motives and causes (Schudson 1995, 14). Accountability in a democracy is not only about detection, exposure, and sanction. Questions of motive, guilt, excuses, explanation, justification, and excuse are also at stake, and should be worked out in a dialogue between the institution of accountability and its accountable counterpart. A deliberation that “establishes a dialogical relationship between accountable and accounting actors. It makes both parties speak and engages them in public debate. It is, therefore, opposed not only to mute power but also to unilateral speechless controls of power” (Schedler 1999, 15). Concerning the supposed reciprocal quality of that “dialogical relationship”, the methods and motives of investigative journalists are neither entirely uncontroversial, nor devoid of similarities to “controls of power”.

Scholars have studied how investigative journalists: use narrative devices and storytelling conventions to dramatize and simplify (Ekström 2002), maximize moral deviance (Danielson 2019; de Burgh 2008b), and evoke public outrage (Ettema and Glasser 1998; Schudson 2003; Protess 1991). Frostenson and Grafström (2022) state that “through the techniques, strong normativity about good and bad is developed, whom to blame is defined, and what it means to take responsibility is shown” (544). Investigative reports rarely exonerate those investigated (Danielson 2013) and being unsuccessful in maximizing offensiveness may even be considered a failure by practitioners (Hanson 2009). An investigative story does seldom contain an alternative legal narrative in which transgressions are minimized, the accused are found “not guilty”, or the verdict is mitigated (Danielson 2016; Ettema and Glasser 1998).

Journalistic professionalism demands that those accused of wrongdoing are given the right to reply, or the opportunity to defend themselves within the framework of the same media production where the accusations are presented (SVT 2018). The editing and the narrative power is, however, in the hands of the journalists, and even though a sense of fairness and impartiality is a part of the journalistic ethos (Karadimitriou 2022, 102), an investigating story is above all a moral narrative of which the attention value depends upon the level of moral transgression revealed, and one of the professional skills of investigative reporters is to maximize the moral charge of that tale (Danielson 2019; de Burgh 2008a). Mølster (2007) concludes that the narrative of a journalistic investigation often resembles a legal procedure in which the defendant is only interrogated and cross-examined by the prosecution, since the seat of the defense attorney is gaping empty (172). Lanosga et al. (2017) show that investigative journalists are more inclined to adopt an adversarial role vis-à-vis societal institutions than other practitioners (266), and some investigative journalists have been subject to criticism by media professionals for being too politically motivated and even “deceptive and unfair” (Raphael 2005, 236). The practices of using false identities, hidden cameras and entrapment have been criticized for being both questionable as to truth claims, and to be exaggerated as to intrusiveness and to give a disproportional representation of the transgression and transgressor exposed due to decontextualization and narrative dramatic conventions (Economou and Limsjö-Svensson 2006; Kampf 2019).

Even though they in most cases are given the opportunity to answer to the allegations as a part of the published investigative report, those investigated sometimes chose to plead their cause on their own platforms. The defenses apparently correspond to a disappointment with the investigation, an urge to add what is perceived as lacking, and a felt need to contest facts and moral constructions. In the process they are interwoven in the fabric of the metajournalistic discourse through which “various actors inside and outside of journalism compete to construct, reiterate, and even challenge the boundaries of acceptable journalistic practices” (Carlson 2016, 349).

Aims and Research Questions

The study’s overarching purpose is to examine how journalism is constructed as an informal societal accountability institution by its accountable counterparts (Schedler 1999). The research questions are:

RQ 1: How do investigated organizations chose to defend themselves when responding to journalistic investigations?

RQ 2: How do the defenses represent and criticize journalism, and in what type of socio-moral dialogue with journalism do they engage?

RQ 3: What challenges to investigative journalism do the defenses pose?

The study does not deal with normative concerns as to how an efficient defense should be arranged. Neither does it evaluate the veracity or sincerity of the defense strategies employed. The research object is the responses as a polemical dialogue with accusatory journalism, and the object of knowledge is the production of socio-moral meaning of the exculpatory texts, and the impact of that meaning upon the meta-discursive construction of journalism as a social and cultural practice. The texts are considered part of a dialogue in which journalism, morality, offenses, and culpability are negotiated, and studied as a dialogical element of that negotiation, and as a part of the ongoing discussion concerning what journalism is, and what it should, and could be.

Theoretical Framework: Image Repair, Legal Defense and Socio-Moral Meaning Making

In this section I outline how the theories of image repair and legal defense complete each other as they identify similar strategies of defense but from two conceptually different angles. Image repair theory is developed in the field of strategic communication and suggests a set of strategies to salvage the reputation and moral credibility of an organization with the purpose of maintaining profitable relations to shareholders and customers (Arendt, LaFleche, and Limperiopulos 2017). Whereas legal defense theory is concerned with how responsibility, guilt, excuses, justification, and what is just, reasonable, and morally acceptable is worked out in a dialogue between prosecution and defense (Wilson 2014; Robinson, Kussmaul, and Stoddardy 2015; Colvin 1990). The concepts serve as a deductive basis for the codification and thematization described in the Methods section and are applied in the Findings section to analyze meaning-making of the defenses.

I also outline the theory of socio-moral meaning making (Keller and Edelstein 2014), which I use to analyze how the various defense positions construct: (a) levels of perspective taking, (b) socio-moral meaning making, (c) and journalism as an object of socio-moral evaluation.

Image Repair and Legal Defense Strategies

Descriptive and normative frameworks for the analysis of responses to negative publicity has been a feature of crisis communication research for several decades (Coombs 2022; Arendt, LaFleche, and Limperiopulos 2017; Benoit 1997; Ware and Linkugel 1973). Benoit (2015) identifies five main strategies to counteract image threatening public accusations: Denial, Evasion of Responsibility, Reducing Offensiveness, Corrective Action, and Mortification (22–29). In his typology Coombs (2022) adds the concept of Victimage (a representation of the organization as a victim) (87).

The study also applies concepts of theories of legal defense used in Anglo-Saxon legal terminology to analyze the responses. One reason for this is that “the medial dominance of representations of Anglo-American adversarial trials” (Olson 2014, 374) makes them the arche-type of a trial in the realm of influence of Anglo-American popular culture. Even though there are obvious differences between a journalistic investigation and a legal case, the general principles concerning a fair dialogue between accounting and accountable actors, and the important role of the defense in that dialogue, are applicable to both situations. Olson (2014) stresses that a legal defense is not only a contestation of facts, but also a contestation of narratives (374). The defense is an essential part of any legal process as it counterbalances arbitrariness and “sets up a structure for dialogue between affected parties concerning the basis and propriety of censuring incidents” (Wilson 2014, 8).

General legal defense strategies could be categorized as: Innocence, Justification, and Excuse (Robinson 1997). Colvin (1990) describes the difference between justification and excuse as follows:

Justifications and excuses are, however, clearly distinct in moral theory. In this context, we usually speak of “justification” when conduct, although perhaps harmful in some respect, is not regarded as wrong in its special context. In contrast, we usually speak of “excuse” when conduct is still regarded as wrong, even in its special context, but extenuating circumstances should soften the standard criticism of and response to such conduct. (384)

Horder (2007) advances three theories characterizing different types of excuse defenses: Character theory; the reprehensible act was out of character, Capacity theory; the assumption that “the actor’s capacity to choose is overwhelmed by external pressure or internal disorder” (Colvin 1990, 387), and normative expectations theory, which means that the defendant acted in a way that could reasonably be expected considering circumstances (Horder 2007, 43). A legal defense could also be built on procedural mistakes or abuse on the part of legal authorities (Colvin 1990, 381).

Theorists agree to that the relational interaction between prosecution and defense is an important part of an ongoing societal negotiation concerning moral, culpability, and proper sanctions, as well as what constitutes valid excuses and justification. Horder (2007) states “the way in which excuses—and defences, more generally—are defined and restricted, (…) is shaped by considerations of the common good every bit as much as the definition and scope of offences” (2).

Socio-Moral Meaning Making

Socio-moral meaning making (Keller and Edelstein 2014) is an analytical concept used to study dimensions of the context sensitive dialogical process in which transgression of norms and their moral value are constructed and socially negotiated. In this study the concept is used to advance understanding of moral constructions in relation to transgressions in an organizational or institutional context. The concept delves on how the descriptive (what happened) and prescriptive (morals and values implicated) dimensions of a transgression interact in the forging of moral judgements, and how perspective differentiation plays a primordial role in “developing understanding of relationships and moral rules” (89). Keller and Edelstein (2014) describe how three stages of moral maturity play out at three different levels of perspective differentiation related to the processing of accusations of wrongdoing: (1) An un-apologetic focus on the self and its emotions. (2) Insights on how wrongdoing reflect upon the self and understanding of the regulatory need for excuse and justification. (3) Expressed concern for the feelings and concerns of others implicated and reflections on implications for moral constructions at a fundamental level (97).

Based on that concept, the exculpatory texts in this study are analyzed as to (a) how they communicate various levels of moral maturity and perspective taking, (b) how they construct objects of socio-moral negotiation, (c) how they define and represent journalism as a counterpart in that process, and (d) how the communication is incorporated in a wider societal moral dialogue concerning transgression of norms and valid justifications and excuses—and how they in the process pose some important challenges to investigative journalism.

Method

The exculpatory texts are subject to a reflexive thematic analysis (Terry and Hayfield 2021; Braun and Clarke 2022; Bryman et al. 2021), which implies a qualitative open coding of the empirical material, initially deducted from concepts of image repair (Coombs 2022; Benoit 2015; Ware and Linkugel 1973), and theories of legal defense strategies (Haugh 2012; Leto, Pogrebin, and Stretesky 2007; Horder 2007; Robinson 1982; Colvin 1990). The process of coding is inductively completed by emergent properties of the texts. The codes are developed into the most analytically poignant themes and sub-themes located within the study’s theoretical framework, and forged into “multifaceted, conceptual, meaning-based patterns” (Terry and Hayfield 2021, 4).

The method is applied to 44 texts edited and published by 37 organizations investigated by the two longest running investigative tv-programs on Swedish national television; Kalla Fakta and Uppdrag Granskning, and by the three Swedish newspapers with the highest national circulation; Dagens Nyheter, Expressen and Aftonbladet. The texts are produced and published by the organizations on their own platforms in direct response to specific investigations made between 2012 and 2022. The responses contain some 450 exculpatory elements which are qualitatively coded and thematized using the software Nvivo (QSR International Pty Ltd 2020). The quoted elements are italicized and referenced according to the following model [Exculpatory text—Name of organization_Date/Month/Year]. The original texts are in Swedish, and all translations are my own.

The sampling is a type of non-probability purposive sampling (Bryman et al. 2021, 378) made under a period of ten years (2012–2022), during which the defensive texts were actively searched for and registered by the researcher whenever an investigation was given public attention. It qualifies as opportunistic sampling, meaning that “researchers purposely select information-rich cases or units as and when they become available, and only if they are able to provide data relevant to the research question” (Bryman et al. 2021, 379). The sample is neither complete nor chronologically balanced, so no statistically generalizable, longitudinal, or quantitative conclusions could be substantiated, but the sample is extensive and diversified enough to serve as a sufficient basis for the qualitative thematization on which the answers to the research questions could be based (Bryman et al. 2021, 378). The themes and their characteristics are identified, developed, and analyzed in the Findings section (Table 1).

Table 1. Positions and strategies of defense used by organizations subject to accusatory investigative journalism.

Positioning	Strategies	Explanation of meaning
Disclaiming	Denial
	Denial	Accusations have no validity, or are based on a misunderstanding
	Discrediting
	Incorrectness	Use incorrect facts, show lack of knowledge
	Misleading	Give the wrong picture, draw wrong conclusions
	Malicious intent	Have a hidden agenda, or preconceived ideas, are partial
	Omission	Overlook important information, leave out important testimonies
	Witness shaming	Use witnesses who are wrong, or morally corrupt
	Unjust methods	Employ biased editing, entrapment, trick questions
	Unresponsive	Do not answer calls, do not correct faults, do not allow for replies
	Violation of standards	Overstep ethical and professional boundaries
Mitigating	Reduction of offensiveness
	Minimization	It was not that bad, or that serious
	Transcendence	We did it for a higher cause
	Redefinition	Redefining the issue
	Reduction of responsibility
	Deflection	Someone else was responsible
	Double Jeopardy/expired	The case has been handled/happened too long ago
	Incapacity	We were uninformed, unable, under stress, victims of an accident
	Compliance	We followed the rules
Character boosting	Mortification
	Mea Culpa	We made a mistake for which we are sorry
	Empathy	We feel for the victims
	Moral stance	We abhor what we are accused of
	Correction
	Corrective action	We will fix it
	Compensation	We will compensate
	Bolstering
	Moral excellence	We are good. We have done, we do, and will do a lot of good things
	Obligingness	Investigations are important, and we are collaborating

Findings: Disclaiming, Mitigation, and Character Boosting

Based on the theoretical underpinnings above, and on a subsequent inductive analysis of emergent themes followed by an iterative coding and thematization process, the examined defenses are sorted into the three categories based on the positioning vis-à-vis allegations made by the investigative journalists: Disclaiming, Mitigating, and Character Boosting. Each category, or position, is composed of several defense strategies identified in the process of coding and thematizing (Table 1).

Disclaiming means that the argumentation focuses on denial and is substantiated by a pointing out of faulty facts, faulty conclusions, and other faults committed by journalists. The organization represents itself as a victim of bad, or malicious journalism, rather than perpetrator of something reprehensible. The critique of the investigation is primarily that it is, at best, built upon a misunderstanding, and at worst, wrongful, unjust, or malicious.

When adopting the Mitigation position, the organization complies to a certain degree with the accusations but tries to diminish the gravity, the responsibility, or the moral implications constructed in the published investigations. The, often implicit, critique of journalism is that it exaggerates the gravity, or responsibility involved, and that it disregards attenuating circumstances.

The organizations taking a Character Boosting stance make communicative efforts to create a moral counterweight to the alleged misdemeanor by focusing on their own fundamental moral excellence, their willingness to make amends, assurances of prevention of relapses, and their sympathy with victims and abhorrence of the reprehensible acts of which they are accused. The defense is a “character defense” (Arendt, LaFleche, and Limperiopulos 2017, 518), criticizing the investigation of being an unfair distortion of character. Different positions could be taken in different parts of the same exculpatory text, and the texts could be composed of a mix of strategies from all three positions.

Disclaiming

The Disclaiming positioning seeks to disqualify the grounds for the investigation. The defendants do not admit guilt, but claim that they are wrongfully accused, and given an unfair treatment. It is an explicitly antagonistic stance towards the investigative journalists, a way of saying: “We are not reprehensible—but you are!” The defenses challenge the validity of the accusations or point out procedural mistakes and power abuse on the part of the investigators. Some rebuttals are general [Mission Investigate claims that Biltema is not paying taxes. That is wrong!—Biltema_190417], and some are very specific [the faulty payments counted for 2,02–3,47 percent, not 20 percent as the program stated—Tandläkartidningen_159527]. Contested facts are used to cast doubt upon the accusations insinuating that the whole case is compromised.

The disclaiming response is often accompanied by a questioning of motives. There are accusations of hidden political agendas [There are strong indications that (the investigative journalists) question the very right of private boarding schools to exist—Lundsberg_120521], of bending the truth to narrativize and create compelling television drama [Mission Investigate possibly tried to make good television, but it resulted in insinuations that were simply not true—Socialdemokraterna_Sigtuna_171016], and of not allowing the organization to plead their case [We reckon that Mission Investigate’s description of SEB’s history and our statements is unjust. We also reckon that the framing made by Mission Investigate is not objective, and that they do not pay any attention to our answers to their questions—SEB_200923]. The tone is sometimes outright defiant, and presented facts are branded as misunderstandings and misconceptions. Some defendants claim malicious intent on the part of journalists.

[The article is written to deliberately give a wrong impression—Adoptionscentrum_211027]

[We are aware that it is possible to cut and edit the material and thereby consciously and cunningly distort the message—Lundsberg_210512]

When adopting the Disclaiming position, organizations construct an adversarial relation to investigative journalism which opens for very little perspective differentiation. It is an invitation to dialogue only concerning moral restoration, rectification of purportedly wrongful accusations, and/or admission of unjust methods. The communication is centered on one perspective—the adversarial—in which journalism is constructed as aggressor and the investigated party as a victim. The purpose of the communication is to reinforce the own position and to weaken, or nullify, the accusations, as the organization represents itself, not as a regretful perpetrator, but as a victim of malicious journalism. Socio-moral meaning making is not about the organization as an intentional and responsible agent in need of moral rectification. The object of socio-moral discussion is a purportedly flawed journalism tarnished by faulty facts, malicious intent, and questionable motives. The defenses adopting this position do not engage in a societal dialogue on moral precedence, facets of moral responsibility, validity of excuses, or justification. However, its critique holds a potential for a wider discussion concerning the authority of journalism, and the legitimacy of its methods, and the extension of its jurisdiction.

Mitigation

The organizations taking the Mitigation position respond do not deny culpability, but are trying to mitigate the gravity of the transgression and the burden of responsibility. The charges are negotiated in terms of gravity, excuse, and justification. The main justification strategy is Minimization. Investigated organizations claim the wrongdoings fall under a reasonable margin of error. Some examples: [Mission Investigate have found 70 trustees within LRF (The Swedish Farmers Association) who seriously violate regulations. That corresponds to 0,5 percent of the total of LRF’s 12 000 trustees, which means that 99,5% of the trustees take good care of their animals—LRF_210126], [there are bad apples and gold diggers everywhere, and a few of them are taxi drivers—Taxikurir_120125], [less than 1% of the bank’s total benefit was generated from (the investigated activity)—SEB_200923].

Some organizations try to justify their actions by Redefining the purported wrongdoing, [Consequently, the 2,3 billion SEK is not a bribe, it is an investment—Ericson_220215], [Since we paid the money to an existing company, there was no money laundering—TeliaSonera_280912]. A municipal utility company accused of squandering tax money by exchanging property of high commercial value against property of low value, justified themselves by claiming that the swap was motivated by environmental concerns, not financial [Göteborgs Energi_120222].

Recurring excuses are incapacity due to lack of information, or stressful circumstances [If a driver committed a serious crime, we would like to know that immediately. (The Swedish Transport Agency) has that information but does not share it with us—Taxikurir_120125], [It was an extremely unusual situation of two simultaneous urgent cases—Praktikertjänst_150210]. And another way to justify actions is claiming to have followed existing rules [The incident has been investigated, and nothing indicates that responsible nursing staff have failed to observe caring protocols, or that they have neglected established routines or medical recommendations—Attendo_121231].

There are defenses deflecting responsibility by pointing out other blameworthy parties, [My contract shows that the hospital takes the full medical responsibility—MedicaTravel_101124], [The guiding principles from the UN are clear. It is politicians and governments who are responsible for the protection of human rights and for the support of the freedom of the press—TeliaSonera_120418]. Some organizations claim having acted in a way that reasonably could have been expected. [Given the information Sirius had at that time, the actions must be considered both adequate and proportional—Sirius_191216]. Journalism is constructed as an overly harsh but legitimate censor and the socio-moral meaning making focuses on valid reasons to mitigate guilt, and reasonable moral demands. The purpose of communication is to propose alternative exculpatory perspectives, and to accomplish rectification of the charges and leniency in judgement.

Character Boosting

The overall strongest feature of the exculpatory texts is the effort to counteract the questioning of the organization by highlighting its virtue and moral excellence. There are lengthy, and sometimes rather unrelated, descriptions of good intentions, good deeds, virtuous staff, and organizational policies signaling moral excellence.

We would like to emphasize that, to Zara and Inditex, our employees are both the company’s most valuable assets, and an essential condition for our success. Our firm belief is that only by motivating them in a personal and humane way can we reach our goals, which is a strong contrast to the picture presented by Mission Investigate. The values guiding our personnel policies globally are based on open communication, support for our employees’ personal and professional development, and respect for equality and diversity. [Zara_120321]

The socio-moral meaning making takes the form of a subtle negotiation in which the relation with journalism is tentatively transformed from being accusatory to becoming a joint moral venture between two morally high-standing partners. The focus of the interaction is moved from being descriptive (the reprehensible action of the organization) to prescriptive (agreed upon morals and values) (Keller and Edelstein 2014).

Organizations engaging in Character Boosting may deny or admit guilt, but regardless of which, the boosting represents the organization as morally above the purported transgressions. If the organization admits to a certain guilt, Character Boosting is a way to morally counterbalance the reprehensible act, to show that it was “out of character”, and to shift focus from a singular wrong to an overarching right by pointing out that “some characteristic of the actor or the actor’s situation vitiates the actor’s blameworthiness” (Robinson 1997, 82).

If the organization does not admit guilt, the boosting purportedly shows how inconceivable it is that such a moral organization would commit something that amounts to what they are accused of. The accused organizations do this by referring to both their moral record, [Our activities get high rankings in various quality audits—Attendo_140815], [Ericsson promotes a speak up culture and routinely undertakes internal investigations covering a broad range of ethics and compliance considerations—Ericsson_220215], good deeds [(The owner) has supported a family in need of qualified cancer care and decent housing in Albania—Biltema_190417], [We have initiated 35 local development plans, and there are places bubbling over with belief in entrepreneurship and in a bright future—Grums_150312], an abhorrence of the malefic acts they are accused of [It is a horrible accusation—Hälsans_förskola_140300], [IKEA strongly rejects and feels repugnance at the idea of using political prisoners in the production—IKEA_120502], and an emphasis on company values.

In some cases, there is an expressed emotional involvement in the fate of individual victims, [We are deeply touched by the life stories presented—Adoptionscentrum_210609], [We feel strongly for the husband and the tragedy he, and other relatives, suffered. We deeply deplore the tragic outcome for the woman—Praktikertjänst_150610]. However, few real apologies are offered. The organizations admit mistakes, give strong assurances of corrections, and are sorry for what has happened to victims. But outright apologies are absent. Instead, they offer what Kampf (2009) calls “nonapologies”, which are statements that look like apologies, but do not admit responsibility for any serious wrongdoing. The organization pleads innocence but still tries to appear engaged and morally supportive (Coombs 2022, 185, 186). When a football club was accused for not preventing, and not assuming responsibility for, the indecent acts of one of its players against a twelve-year-old girl, the club stated: [The heinous act of which the girl has been a victim is appalling and her tragedy overshadows everything else. This cannot be emphasized enough—Sirius_191216], but no apology was issued, neither was any responsibility assumed. The use of nonapologies positions organizations as taking a firm moral and emphatic general stance along the grain of the accusations, but at the same time they deflect the moral burden of the accusations since the empathic stances are disconnected from any responsibility for the acts causing its subject matter. This is a further indication of the organization’s attempt to transform the interaction with journalism from an issue of specific moral wrongdoing to general character assessment, redefining the accusations from being a set of valid specified charges to appearing as an unjust distortion of character of an organization that represents itself as fundamentally moral and empathic.

The stance performs an elaborate rhetoric and discursive operation as it constructs moral affiliation with journalists even though facing their allegations. The exculpatory texts try to endeavor that operation by glossing over accusations and focusing on the construction of the search for truth and upholding of moral as a joint venture.

[Mission Investigate highlights a challenge concerning us at Kavat, as well as the fashion industry worldwide. They pinpoint unjust conditions in the business worldwide. Injustices that we at Kavat want to change—Kavat_220323]

The specific allegations are made peripherical by the centrality accorded to greater moral issues. There is a shift of focus from preferences (what is the case) to preferability (what is right) (Keller and Edelstein 2014) and in the process the organization discursively transforms itself from perpetrator of a specific transgression to promotor of societal justice and moral in collaboration with investigative journalism. The organization is endeavoring a communicative labor to avoid being identified by the accusations, and instead being judged according to its performance of good morality and social responsibility. The confessed obliging of the journalistic investigation plays an important part in this operation [Our important mission needs to be investigated—problems must be made known and addressed. The program advances a number of accounts of experienced problems that are important to listen to—Samhall_210421], [We do not defend anyone with a criminal intent, and we are convinced that socially beneficial programs, like Mission Investigate, are fulfilling an important societal function—ThailandsPosten_111109], and its basic moral assumptions are sustained and reinforced [Mission Investigate has pin-pointed the problem, and maybe this could make the authorities change their mind. Not for our sake, but to make a taxi ride an even safer experience—Taxikurir_120125]. The organization is presented as a co-champion of the moral point of departure of the investigation and focuses on the lofty common moral of which both the organization and journalism are proponents rather than on the accusations, methods, and circumstances of the journalistic investigation. Commitments to “transparency and openness” are frequent. From a socio-moral meaning making point, the Character Boosting position engages with journalism in a character establishing negotiation which discursively positions the accused organization as a dedicated actor for socio-moral development in collaboration with journalism.

But even though the perspective taking seems to be that of acquiescence and collaboration, it is also a discursive platform from which the investigation is constructed as an unfair and unreasonable distortion of character and criticized for lacking due credit for the moral good the organization claims to stand for. A critique that in view of the apparent construction of journalism as a supposed affiliate moral defender, contextually amounts to back-stabbing (Table 2).

Table 2. Summary of positions adopted by organizations subject to journalistic investigation.

Position	Critique of journalism	Journalism represented as	Object of socio-moral dialogue
Disclaiming	Wrong/Malicious	Adversary	Journalism
Mitigating	Exaggeration	Censor	Responsibility
Character-boosting	Distortion of character	Associate	Morality

Discussion

Even though the defenses criticize the way in which the investigations have been conducted, there is no apparent challenging of journalism’s right to exercise societal accountability. Those investigated implicitly acknowledge that this type of journalism legitimately creates a public arena calling for a performance on their part. In that sense the defenses constitute an acceptance of journalism as “a form of domination considered largely legitimate by those dominated in the field of cultural production” (Anderson 2008, 251).

The defenses do, however, engage in an “interpretive process of boundary work” (Carlson 2016, 359) by challenging how journalistic authority is exercised, and what journalistic methods and claims could be legitimized. Firstly, the organizations adopting a disclaiming position question the accuracy, methods, motives, and sincerity of journalists, and imply that they have been ignored when trying to rectify errors. Reed et al. (2014) argue that a prosecuting accountability institution:

Bears the burden of proving not only that the defendant acted with the relevant fault ingredient for the individuated crime in question, but also to disprove any defence in support of which evidence is propounded. (1)

To defend journalism’s role as a just and fair institution of accountability and uphold its epistemological authority, a journalistic investigation depend, not only upon the degree to which journalists can prove that the transgression has taken place, and that it is violating society’s moral boundaries to a crucial degree, but also upon how successfully it can prove that the disclaiming and excusatory explanations forwarded by the investigated party are not nullifying, or seriously defusing the moral charge of the allegations.

Secondly, organizations adopting the mitigation stance question the quality of the “dialogical relationship between accountable and accounting actors” (Schlosberg 2013, 2; Schedler 1999). They do this by insinuating that investigative journalism fails to employ constructive socio-moral perspective taking when establishing boundaries of societal values and moral, and thereby neglect reasonable demands, valid excuses, and relevant justification.

Thirdly, the character boosting position discursively delegitimize the investigations’ epistemic authority to establish moral deficiency and character flaws. The stance implicitly indicates that journalism is overstepping epistemological boundaries when leaving the domain of facts and verification and venturing into the field of moral evaluation, and thus challenges the validity of the establishment of motives, causes, and character that Schudson (1995) labels the profession’s “primary modes of explanation” (14).

Fourthly, the epistemological authority of investigative journalism is based upon the establishment of facts, and rigorous methods of verification, but most of the defenses are not attempts to nullify the factual accuracy of the investigations, but rather constitute appeals to modify the charges, and to consider extenuating circumstances and evaluate what is “reasonable in its special context”.

The law of exculpatory defences should reflect the community’s tolerance of some prima-facie violations of prohibitory rules, signaling the boundaries of socially permissible conduct by providing for acquittals wherever conduct can be viewed as reasonable in its special context. (Colvin 1990, 382)

Organizations taking the mitigating position challenge journalism to engage in a dialogue in which “the boundaries of socially permissible conduct” may be reconsidered. Investigative journalism has been criticized for being hostile (Lanosga et al. 2017), maximizing moral burden (Danielson 2019), and not taking complexity into due consideration (Ekström 2002). Some of the defenses convey the notion that investigative journalism does not show understanding for the complex environment in which the organizations navigate. The defenses challenge this type of journalism to strike a proper balance between being accusatory and being explanatory, and to evaluate when it is appropriate to emphasize one or the other, or to move from one to the other.

Fifthly, the objects of investigation challenge journalism to exercise proportionality, and consider what may be “reasonable in its special context”. The excuses and justifications implore journalists to employ socio-moral perspective taking in handling factors that appear to mitigate moral burden. The defenses constitute a negotiation of what could reasonably be expected, and what leeway should be given officials, or public figures who act close to moral borders. Colvin (1990) states: “One theme is that the law of exculpatory defences should offer moral guidance, signaling the boundaries of morally correct conduct by distinguishing between what is justified and what is merely excused” (382).

The results of the analysis pose some important questions concerning the role of journalism as a just and relevant societal accountability institution. Should public outrage always be the preferred outcome of an investigation, or could mitigating factors and uncertainties be given consideration and importance without jeopardizing journalistic ideals? Is maximized moral culpability always the ultimate token of success—or could journalism develop a more dialogical approach to those investigated? Is investigative journalism so invested in maximizing the moral burden, that it misses opportunities to contribute to the societal moral discussion in a constructive way and illuminate important facets of that discussion? And how could the ambition to create a dramatic narrative be aligned with the responsibility to be a just and balanced adjudicator? Wilson (2014) highlights the importance of reasonable censoring in legal cases.

Unjust or unfair censure generates conflict, which may harm not only the interests of censurer and censuree but also those of third parties who are connected to the relationship. The urge to censure, therefore, must be sensitive to the relationship, which requires consideration to be taken of the context, the capacities, motives and emotions. (7)

Taking the defense seriously and responding to it in a considerate manner, is a way in which investigative journalists negotiate what is considered “a normative expectation” (Horder 2007, 108) in various societal contexts. Such attention to defenses may also counteract the danger described by Eide (2016) that “suspicion might degenerate into ideology and appear more like a superficial pose than as a genuine heuristic device committed to a democratic vision” (99).

It is also a way to consider the impact upon third parties, for instance those dependent upon the investigated organizations. The defenses highlight that investigative journalism is not only influencing socio-moral power relations between journalism and its audiences (Carlson 2017), but also between its audiences and its targets. Since there is, in many cases, no clear-cut definition of what constitutes a valid excuse (Horder 2007, 43), each interchange of accusation-defense is a part of an ongoing negotiation of the boundaries of what types of excusatory explanations may de-facto alleviate the moral burden of the accusations at hand. As an example: a Swedish clinic for hospice care for children was accused by the investigative tv-program The Cold Facts of letting children in terminal stages of illness suffer by withholding food. The hospice’s defense focused on the extremity of the situation and claimed that given the medical circumstances withdrawal of food was an established treatment, and the lesser of two evils [Ersta_180919]. Was the action—even though contributing to the suffering of children—justifiable according to circumstances? To make the investigation’s moral point of departure valid, the investigative journalists had to prove that it was not. In the process, there was also an emerging choice to be made involving some serious perspective-taking and coordination: either pursue the accusations or switch from accusatory to explanatory journalism, either prove the hospice to be a transgressor of societal moral or drop the charges and instead illuminate the complexity of a morally and emotionally difficult societal phenomenon. Keller and Edelstein (2014) identify the ability to differentiate and coordinate perspectives of self and others as “a necessary condition both in the development of socio-moral meaning making and in the actual process of solving situations of conflicting claims” (99). The defenses studied in this article indicate that such perspective taking is an important factor in the “dialogic relationship between accountable and accounting actors” (Schedler 1999, 15). How and to what extent journalism shoulders its role as a legitimate democratic institution of accountability by assuming responsibility for the quality of that relationship, is a topic deserving further scholarly attention.

Conclusion

This research has identified how targets of investigative journalism adopt a set of strategical defensive positions, notably disclaiming, mitigating, and character boosting, and thereby engage in a type of socio-moral meaning making that constructs journalism as an object of moral evaluation. The defenses challenge boundaries of journalistic authority and legitimacy, particularly in the domain of perspective taking and moral evaluation. The analysis identifies the relation between investigative journalism and its targets as one of “the symbolic and material interactions through which journalism is legitimated—as well as contested” (Carlson 2017, 185). The application of legal defense theory identifies this relation as more than an adversarial relation of bickering over what is right or wrong, as it points out the value of socio-moral meaning making and co-construction of societal moral in the prosecution-defense dialogue. Given the limitations of the sample and the restricted national context, the possibility to generalize from the results is limited. But the typology and taxonomy developed in the study provides a solid framework both for further quantitative and qualitative studies beyond the Swedish context, as well as for research on responses in terms of proportions and changes over time. A profitable follow-up would be a comparative study featuring differences between the defenses given independently of the journalistic production and the defenses actually featuring in those productions. Another suggested field of research would be the journalistic post-production engagement with defenses. Interviews with representatives of the organizations defending themselves could yield more knowledge as to motives and purpose of publishing defenses.

The results could also have some practical value for journalists engaged in investigative work, as checklist for pre-emptive preparation, since it elaborates on possible objections that they may face post-production. The array of articulated defenses may also be an incentive for self-reflection in the domain of moral evaluation since “problems related to the suspicious mind might (…) become apparent. And journalists could possibly be motivated to direct more of their skepticism and suspicion toward their own conceptions and performance” (Eide, 2016, 100), and a factor to consider in the decision-making concerning the direction of the investigation, and the editing of the final investigative report in the case of journalists who have ambitions to contribute to a deeper and more complex understanding of issues concerning transgression, guilt, excuses, justifications, and sanctions at a societal level.

Disclosure Statement

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