Research into German and British journalism shows there is no one way to do the job

It is easy to imagine British journalists as the scallywags of the global profession. Such is the robust and sometimes rambunctious nature of the press in this country that its practitioners are often assumed to be deliberately trying to stir up trouble.

The political partisanship of most UK newspapers (in print and online) is especially notable when compared to some other countries – although as has become apparent since the election of Donald Trump, the media in America can be as politically divided as it is here.

A recent piece of research by Imke Henkel, Neil Thurman and Veronika Deffner examined the respective views of British and German journalists about their work. Intriguingly, they concluded that media professionals in both countries had similar views about their role in setting the political agenda and influencing public opinion (both are eager to do so). That certainly undercuts the notion that UK hacks are busily trying to sway the views of their readers, while dry, high-minded journalists on the continent report facts and no more.

What’s more, British journalists tended to consider their role as being one of the objective, factual reporter, whereas German practitioners saw their job as being to analyse information for the benefit of the public. Both those ideals have their benefits, of course.

Maybe most interestingly of all, the researchers found that journalists in this country placed more importance on the idea of confronting authority and holding people in positions to account.

Again, that cuts both ways: it has been argued by some commentators in recent times that journalists in Britain have “confronted” politicians so stridently that they have caused the public to lose respect for our political class (and have put off well-qualified people from wanting to become MPs). The counter argument is that, if journalists don’t scrutinise politicians’ actions, it becomes much harder for the public to make informed decisions when it comes to elections – and potentially enables all sorts of dodgy dealing.

Perhaps the lesson here is that journalism is all about balance: scrutinising without pillorying; analysing while never failing to present all the facts; and setting agendas on important issues (Windrush, universal credit, to name a couple), without being swayed by those of external parties.

There may not be a single answer to how that can be achieved, which could explain why there are so many ways of practising our trade.

Yours,

Will Gore

Executive editor