Keywords: Interpretive Journalism, Descriptive Journalism, Factual Reporting
Image provided by Unsplash
Introduction: What is Interpretive Journalism?
In recent times, interpretive journalism has become a more prominent topic with many viewing it as a substantial and significant change to journalism as a whole. From Salgado and Strömbäck (2011), a specific example is how interpretive journalism can be seen in political journalism. They discuss how journalists build a theme in their reporting and how that theme can sometimes become the focus rather than the facts. Interpretive journalism is commonly seen as a type of journalism and reporting that goes beyond the verifiable facts to give audiences more context and meaning behind the facts (Salgado & Strömbäck, 2011). This can be seen as explaining the why behind the story or the significance of the story beyond the immediate impact.
Descriptive Journalism and Factual Reporting
In contrast to interpretive journalism, we can look at descriptive journalism which mainly focuses on the “what, where, when, and who” (Salgado & Strömbäck, 2011, p. 145). Descriptive journalism looks to report on factual statements and verifiable evidence. Benson and Hallin (2007) identified “report current facts” as one of the main journalistic functions that they coded in their study. The researchers described this journalistic function as being empirical statements that typically forego speculation or judgement.
Differences in Interpretive and Descriptive Journalism
When looking at both interpretive and descriptive journalism together, the most apparent difference is in the focus of the reporting. Descriptive journalism generally focuses on the facts and evidence of the story and interpretive journalism typically focuses more on the bigger meaning or context of those facts. Barnhurst and Mutz (1997) conducted a content analysis studying American newspapers over the 20th century and say that “journalists now supply a context of social problems, interpretations, and themes” (p. 27). So, while a journalist that is more focused on descriptive journalism might give the “who, what, where, and when” of an event, a journalist that is more focused on interpretive journalism might give the broader context or issues surrounding the event (Salgado & Strömbäck, 2011, p. 145).
Another difference between these two styles of journalism is the role of the journalist. Salgado and Strömbäck (2011) say that interpretive journalism includes a “greater emphasis on journalistic voice” and a “greater journalistic control over news content” (p. 146). In giving their interpretations of news stories, the journalists take on a more dominant role of controlling the way news is presented. “The descriptive style places the journalist in the role of an observer. The interpretive style requires the journalist to act also as an analyst” (Patterson, 2000, as cited in Salgado & Strömbäck, 2011, p. 146).
Overlap in Interpretive and Descriptive Journalism
Though these two styles of reporting have differences, they are not mutually exclusive and elements of both can be found within the same news story. “The journalistic style was conceptualized as descriptive when the news story mainly told what had happened in a rather straightforward style, and as mainly interpretive when the journalist analyzed, evaluated or explained a situation while also describing it” (Salgado & Strömbäck, 2011, p. 148). Benson and Hallin (2007) bring up that often framing is unavoidable when reporting information and that selecting, presenting, and emphasizing information inherently involves some ideological assumptions.
Conclusion
Comparing these two styles of journalism has helped my understanding of interpretive journalism immensely and it has highlighted important aspects of each that can be used to distinguish the factual and verifiable dimensions of a news story from the journalist’s interpretations. While reporting the facts and evidence of events and stories is crucial to journalism, it can also be important to point out additional contexts and the deeper meaning behind them that general audiences might miss from descriptive reporting alone. On the other hand, journalists can also overstate context or meaning and push their own interpretations onto audiences when the real context or meaning might be more nuanced.
Image provided by Unsplash
References
Barnhurst, K. G., & Mutz, D. (1997). American journalism and the decline in event-centered reporting. Journal of Communication, 47(4), 27–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1997.tb02724.x
Benson, R., & Hallin, D. C. (2007). How states, markets and globalization shape the news: the french and us national press, 1965-97. European Journal of Communication, 22(1), 27–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323107073746
Salgado, S., & Strömbäck, J. (2011). Interpretive journalism: A review of concepts, operationalizations and key findings. Journalism, 13(2), 144–161. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884911427797
