Media Responses to Media Criticism

Starting in April 2013, Thomas Mattsson and Jan Helin, the Editors-in-Chief of the competing national Swedish tabloids, Expressen and Aftonbladet, made podcasts in which they discussed media development and media criticism.

The podcast MattssonHelin was published weekly from April 2013 to January 2016. Jan Helin then left Aftonbladet for the public service broadcaster, Sveriges Television, and the podcast was put on hold. The 147^th issue of the podcast was published in July 2016 and the 148th in November 2016.

The print circulations of Aftonbladet and Expressen are dwindling but their online presence has rocketed. The role of these tabloids in news ecology has shifted from being crusading tabloid entertainers to more information-bent context-providing news centres. For the last 60 years these two tabloids have been major targets of media criticism, and almost each year they have been at the top of the complaints lists of the Pressens Opinionsnämnd (the Press Council). Aftonbladet and Expressen constitute 1 per cent of the number of Swedish newspapers, but they accounted for about 20 per cent of the Press Council verdicts between 1970 and 2010 (Bergling et al. 2009).

Alongside criticism comes the question of responsiveness. Research on media accountability discusses media response to criticism in term of public responsibility, public relations and paradigm repair (von Krogh 2014). The aim of this paper is to study the kind of approaches and response patterns to media criticism that emerge in the practice of the MattssonHelin podcast. In what way do the top editors for example, use the podcast to inform, introduce nuances, explain, enter into dialogue, excuse themselves, and dismiss or take responsibility?

Media criticism can be defined in several ways but critiques of journalism are often the defining criteria. In a seminal article, James Carey (1974) defined three forms of journalism and press criticism: (1) criticism of standards of public or social responsibility, (2) scientific criticism, and (3) cultural criticism. As Carey (1974: 244) notes: “By cultural criticism I mean an on-going process of exchange, of debate between the press and its audience and, in particular, those among the audience most qualified by reason of motive and capacity to enter the critical arena”.

Wendy Wyatt (2007) developed a normative theory of press criticism with a specific objective that was based on Carey’s idea of cultural criticism and using Habermas’ ideas of deliberative and discursive democracy (Habermas 1996). Wyatt envisioned a critical movement to bring change to the press and news media that involved journalists, critics and the audience. Berry and Theobald (2006) have also identified a radical mass media critique emerging in the 19^th century and developing until today.

Of special interest for a responsible and responsive relationship between media and users of media is communicative critique (Fornäs 2013), a critique that is reflexive and open to influence from others (Svensson 2015). In this case the critic and the subject of the criticism enter into dialogue. Each party is prepared to reflect over their values, norms and forms of understanding and to change their position based on the outcome of the communication process. Responses that include listening to, interpreting or acting upon critique all incorporate communicative qualities.

von Krogh has defined media criticism as “criticism in a broad sense relating to media structure, conduct, performance, content, role and influence, formulated by individuals as well as by civil society organizations, corporations and governments” (von Krogh 2012: 15). He has further identified three forms of media criticism: efficiency focussed, interest based, and cultural/philosophical media criticism. The first aims to contribute to the media performance according to general criteria, the second aims to shape the media in accordance with the interests of a specific stakeholder, and the third is wider and aims to understand or profoundly change media or society (von Krogh 2014:148). Stiernstedt has also pointed out that media criticism is often public and that its basic aim is to change the media (Stiernstedt 2014: 8).

Media accountability is defined by von Krogh as:

… the interactive process by which media organizations may be expected or obliged to render an account of (and sometimes a correction and/or excuse for) their activities to their stakeholders. The values and relative strength of the stakeholders vary over time and are affected by media systems and media technologies.

Media accountability can also be understood in terms of two related concepts: transparency and responsiveness. Transparency refers to all measures taken by a media actor – before, during or after a publication process – to make known or visible relevant information about the media actor, the process or the media product (Heikkilä et al. 2014).

Media responses to criticism have varied over time and across different media systems and different market positions (von Krogh 2014; Ward 2004). The intention and weight of the critique is significant. Expressions of what appears to be a general opinion are deemed important, whereas criticism in self-interest is often neglected “unless the critics represent significant size and power” (Marzolf 1991: 2).

Dutch studies of 328 Editor-in-Chief letters to the audience from five news organisations identify seven response types in top editors’ reactions to criticism (Groenhart 2013; Groenhart & Bardoel 2011). Responses vary in a spectrum that ranges from counter-attacks to apologies, from denying to accepting media errors, and from denying to accepting responsibility for media misdemeanours. The studies build on image restoration theory (Benoit 1995; Benoit & Drew 1997) and crisis communication theory (Coombs 1998, 2006). These theories have developed over the last thirty years from case studies of how companies like Exxon and Texaco have handled stakeholder reactions in connection with apologia/apologies (Hearit 2006), crisis management and reputational repair. Various researchers have suggested different typologies ranging from 4 to 150 options depending on the level of abstraction involved. In 1995 Benoit settled for 14 options within five strategies: 1. denial (options – simple denial and shift blame to someone else), 2. evade responsibility for event (options – blame outside provocation, defeasibility in terms of information or control, unforeseen accident and emphasise good intentions), 3. reduce offensiveness of event (options – bolstering, minimisation, transcendence, attack accuser in order to shift the blame from actor to victim and offer compensation), 4. corrective action, or 5. mortification (Benoit & Drew 1997: 155–156).

Coombs sought “some underlying ‘connection’ between the strategies” (1998: 179) and selected a defensive-accommodative response continuum. Defensive strategies deny any existence of crisis and/or responsibility, whereas accommodative strategies accept crisis and/or responsibility. According to Coombs, the continuum ranges from attacking the accuser to delivering a full apology (see Table 1).

Coombs later (2006) simplified the strategies in the continuum and reduced them to three: deny, diminish, and deal. Either deny the problem in various ways, try to diminish the problem using various methods, or deal with the problem in part or in total. The accommodative-defensive continuum was described as “protecting victims versus self-interests” (Coombs 2010: 36). In yet another development of the model the strategies are grouped into four postures – denial, diminishment, rebuilding, and bolstering (Coombs 2012: 155).

Groenhart uses Coombs’ (1998) continuum when analysing 328 published letters from top editors where they respond to criticism from the audience and explain their decisions (2013). Together with Bardoel he argues that modifications to the continuum are necessary (Groenhart & Bardoel 2011). They suggest that Coombs’ most defensive strategy, attack the accuser, is too harsh – “usually editors do not literally attack their (potential) consumers” (ibid: 10) – and this is changed to the more neutral rejection. Coombs’ denial is altered to refutation that leaves more room for nuance and argumentation if the critic appears to be serious and knowledgeable. The third of Coombs’ strategies, excuse, is replaced by another term, evasion. Groenhart and Bardoel argue that excuse “may be a problematic term for it is easily associated with regret and apology” (ibid: 11). Finding excuses for not accepting responsibility is in effect evading responsibility, shifting it to other media, or stating that the public “should be able to bear the atrocious character of the news” (ibid.). The fourth strategy, justification, is left untouched. In the context of letters to the audience this means that some problematic aspect of journalism is admitted but is acceptable, justified, for example, by the watchdog function of the media. Coombs’ fifth strategy, ingratiation, is considered to be “out of place” (ibid: 14). Praising stakeholders is seen as an ingredient in many strategies, but is not a strategy in itself. Instead, Groenhart and Bardoel identify mitigation as their fifth strategy; admitting mistakes but softening them by referring to time pressure and other constraints, “making errors is framed as something inevitable” (ibid:12). The order of Coombs’ last two strategies is reversed in the Dutch media-oriented version. The seventh strategy, full apology, becomes the sixth media strategy, albeit under the new label of confession. Coombs’ sixth strategy, corrective action, becomes the most accommodative media strategy under the label alteration. Groenhart and Bardoel argue that this is the most fundamental strategy; not only apologising but also making actual changes due to the problem at hand. “Announcing change or amelioration underlines the organizational responsibility and suggests that the failure is not incidental and has a structural cause” (ibid: 13).

Groenhart and Bardoel (2011) summarise their media-oriented continuum in a figure that also illustrates six dichotomies that take account of degrees of criticism, responsibility, and blameworthiness (see Figure 1).

Figure 1

The first two types, rejection and refutation, do not accept the criticism as true. The last two types, confession and alteration, accept the criticism, admit responsibility, and accept blame. The three types in the middle – evasion, justification and mitigation – express acceptance of the criticism and responsibility in various degrees.

Parallel to the work of Coombs and that of Benoit, a focus on apologia and apologies has been developed and sustained by Hearit (2006) and used in a media context by Borden (2012). Apologia is a “speech of defence” or “a form of discourse in which individuals seek to clear their names” (Hearit & Hearit 2011: 66) and apologetic discourse deals with the problem of responsibility and guilt (p. 67). Press apologias are defined as “organized attempts to persuade stakeholders and press critics that news organizations or individual journalists can still be trusted despite serious shortcomings in their news processes or content” (Borden 2012: 16). The manner of communication and the content of the communication of the apologia are the two main dimensions studied (Borden 2012). The study of apologies is one element of apologia. Full apologies include acknowledgement of a problem, accepting responsibility for it, promising to not do it again, and expressions of concern and regret, whereas a partial apology only expresses concern and regret (Coombs 2012: 156).

Several other studies stress the dual nature of media responses. On one hand editors wish to address and possibly control the critique in order to minimise negative PR-effects. On the other hand, if it is possible, they wish to gain quality and positive PR-effects in the process (Nemeth 2000, 2003; von Krogh & Nord 2010).

A special kind of response to huge media scandals, such as the coverage of the life and death of Princess Diana and the Jayson Blair affair at the New York Times, has been called paradigm repair (Berkowitz 2000; Hindman 2005). These are scandals that media representatives perceive to be of a system-threatening nature and therefore need persuasive responses.

The paradigm repair research refers to Thomas Kuhn’s work on scientific revolutions (Kuhn 1970/2009) where he distinguishes between “normal science” and scientific revolutions. Under periods of “normal science” the world is described and understood according to known and shared facts and theories, an accepted paradigm. Minor new revelations that do not fit the paradigm can, up to a point, be handled as exceptions or anomalies, this is a phase that Kuhn calls paradigm repair. When there are too many exceptions or when they are too serious, a scientific revolution occurs and a new paradigm is established. The analogies to the repair phase are of interest to media researchers dealing with media scandals that might challenge the existing “media paradigm”. These researchers observe how journalists might differentiate between “real journalism” and diluted forms of journalism.

In times of crises when journalistic paradigms are challenged, abused or misused, journalists re-present these paradigms anew to readers and audiences, in an attempt to re-acquaint these news consumers with what journalism really is and what role it plays in society. This is done by drawing expressed or implied boundaries between acceptable and unacceptable, legal and illegal, ethical and unethical journalistic practice.

Different strategies have been studied, such as justification, contextualisation, emphasising good intentions, denials, claiming that problems have already been solved, or blaming factors outside of journalism. According to Steiner and colleagues, “If ’renegades’ can be identified, journalists can blame the greed, stupidity, laziness, or pathology of individual reporters, editors, publishers or entire organizations, as not merely deviant but ’exceptional’” (Steiner et al. 2013: 706). A relentless search for others to blame is manifest in studies of media responses to criticism over the O. J. Simpson trial and the death of Princess Diana (Hindman 2003). External factors are preferred, such as O. J. Simpson and Princess Diana themselves, or the appetite for scandals within sections of the public, but when internal factors are unavoidable these are found at the bottom of the food chain, such as paparazzi photographers and sensationalist tabloids. The Dutch study confirms this pattern and uses the term “significant others” when blame is attributed to factors other than the media organisation itself (Groenhart & Bardoel 2011).

Other researchers emphasise that if responsibility is to be avoided then it is crucial to frame the origin of the problem as exogenous (Olsson et al. 2015). Paradigm repair and crisis communication theory share a number of elements with regard to damage control and possible positive PR effects.

In order to analyse response patterns to media criticism in the MattssonHelin podcasts, we choose to select a strategic sample of the hitherto 116 aired issues

An issue of the podcast is the audio content uploaded on a specific date and given a specific number in numerical order.

The podcast is available at iTunes and directly on the web (www.mattssonhelin.libsyn.com). One of us has listened to each issue of the podcast from its beginning and has continuously kept brief notes on the presence of matters relating to media criticism. Updating and broadening these notes, we selected 24 segments

A segment is a portion of an issue of the podcast that deals with one theme or subject, often surrounded by a few bars of music or a jingle.

The segments deal with the reasons given for the podcast and with various kinds of media criticism from media researchers, media professionals, and the general public. Segments are taken from ordinary weekly issues and from four specialised thematic issues that discuss statements/critiques from the Swedish Press Council for 2013 (# 36), controversial journalistic methods such as undercover reporting and phone-hacking (one issue about Sweden, # 68, and one about the U.K., # 69), and media criticism regarding a recent murder case in Sweden (# 115). The chosen segments do not cover all aspects of media criticism that are discussed by the two top editors, Mattsson and Helin, but they do deal with examples of the major aspects that we found in our broad overview.

The total length of time of the 24 segments is 4 hours and 5 minutes, and approximately 43,000 words have been transcribed. The total time of the 19 issues of the podcast that are used is 19 hours and 33 minutes, which means that 21 per cent of the content of these issues has been transcribed. Many of the issues transcribed are much more directed towards media criticism than the average issue, which roughly might contain 10–15 per cent media criticism.

The average podcast also contains information and discussion on topics such as media news of the week, career news about reporters, editors and publishers, and trends in journalism, advertising, marketing, business models and consumer data analysis/management.

The arduous transcription work had a positive side effect: a close contact with the words spoken and the atmosphere created in the various issues of the podcast. This was beneficial in the next phase – a qualitative content analysis of the transcribed segments – where we identified emerging themes, compared the views expressed in different settings, and going back and forth from overviews of the text to close readings.

The method is inspired by reflexive methodology (Alvesson & Sköldberg 2009) and focuses on the empirical and interpretative levels. This means that our contribution is primarily concerned with developing concepts rather than a full theory (see Altheide & Schneider 2013). The analysis was carried out in two stages. First, we approached the material with an open mind, searching for categories and patterns relevant for media criticism response. Several close readings of the transcripts enhanced our understanding of the texts to identify the most salient responses to criticism. The established categories and patterns were then compared with earlier research findings on response to criticism from studies of media accountability, crisis communication, image restoration and paradigm repair. Our findings were compared and contrasted to models from this research in order to corroborate, complement or contradict earlier studies. In this part of the analysis the model developed by Groenhart and Bardoel was the major one used. This was because the model is based on earlier studies of crisis communication but has been adapted to take account of the results from studies on media and journalism accountability. Since our study is closely connected to accountability issues this was the most relevant model with which to compare and contrast our results. And since Groenhart and Bardoel depart from Coombs′ seven step model, we have also decided to use this version of Coombs’ model for our comparisons.

For the article, the authors have translated quotes from the podcast from Swedish into English.

Our first research question asks: What kinds of response patterns to media criticism emerge in the podcasts? Our findings corroborate essential aspects of the models developed by Groenhart and Bardoel (2011) and Coombs (1998). We found the same kind of continuum, ranging from harsh attack and dismissal to alteration of action or structures of editorial processes, as that found by Coombs (1998, 2007), but we also found a transition area in that continuum, represented by our two categories of ambivalence and discussion (see Table 2).

According to Groenhart and Bardoel, attack is a response not used by editors, but we found an example of this in our material: an attack aimed at established media researchers. It might be the case that the podcast genre offers the editors a wider scope of responses compared to answering letters to the editor, thus making attack an option. The media format in use and the relation to the critic seem to matter when this strategy is decided upon.

The response of dismissal corresponds to refutation and denial in the earlier models and in this dimension our findings are in accordance with both models. With this response strategy the editors distance themselves from the critique, claiming that it is not relevant. In our study we also found different ways, or styles, to contest the critique. According to Bardoel and Groenhart, this response strategy resembles refutation but in our findings we also see it connected to rhetoric and arguments that nuance and ameliorate. For this reason, the refutation response may be separated into different response strategies or divided into sub-categories. Comparing our findings with Groenhart and Barodel we also see the relevance of nuance and amelioration in relation to the strategy of mitigation and that of bolstering in Coombs’ model.

The strategy, thankful denial, resembles evasion and excuse. In this case the editors admit a general relevance of the critique, but they decline to take responsibility for the issue (evade) or they try to minimise the organisational responsibility (excuse).

By introducing ambivalence as a response we want to highlight that the defensive-accommodative continuum running along the axis rejection-alteration, can also contain contradictions and a blending of defence/accommodation, rejection/alteration. This can be seen as a transition area between the two poles of the model. In this area there are competing ideas and views on how to deal with the criticism. This can be a genuine conflict of interests and ideas or it might have a strategic dimension to it.

The identification of discussion as a special response type is a new contribution in this study and there are two main reasons for its inclusion. First, it has an important place in the discourse of the editors and their calls for discussion and debate. Second, it is merited by the general importance they, and we, place on openness and transparency as ways of approaching media and their own roles as media managers. This is also an important aspect of communicative criticism for entering into dialogue with adversaries. Their transparency regarding views on journalism, faults and criticism are realised through their conversation. They also claim that they need to discuss issues with guests. Inviting guests, deliberating on issues and being influenced shows the relevance of a communicative approach towards criticism. At the same time, this proposed discussion does not guarantee a commitment to a solution to the problem.

With regard to the response of acceptance, our findings corroborate the justification response used by both Bardoel/Gronehart and Coombs. We did not find response strategies that focused on mitigation, ingratiation or bolstering in our study, but nuancing and amelioration are both relevant in this respect, here in a situation where the editors accept the criticism.

Groenhart and Bardoel use the term “confessing”, and this term can be linked to two of the responses we found – acceptance and apology. Apology is also of specific relevance given the role it was assigned in earlier research on crisis response strategies (Coombs 2012), in more recent research on corporate apologia (Hearit 2006), and in press apologia (Borden 2012). Coombs reminds us that the apology is of specific importance and that it has both legal and managerial implications (Coombs 2012: 156). A closer study of the press apology or the mediated apology would be of relevance. The apologies used in the studied material have a special quality, expressed as “doing a poodle”, which makes it relevant to study apologising as a separate kind of response.

The relevance of action change as a response strategy is strengthened in this study. Our term corroborates what Groenhart and Bardoel call alteration and Coombs referred to as corrective action.

Our second research question asks: Are there examples of paradigm repair in the podcasts? Our findings add support to earlier research by Berkowitz (2000), Steiner et al. (2013) and Groenhart (2013). The editors’ responses to criticism contain elements of paradigm repair. They try to marginalise journalistic malpractice by defining such practice as situated outside of professional journalism, as bad craftsmanship. In the British context of phone hacking and the News of the World, they condemn the practice as shameless, performed by only a few reporters and former editors. When later in the discussion further examples are highlighted, the focus shifts to the morale of individual reporters in relation to newsroom culture. In their reaction to academic and lay critique on social media they strongly defend the journalistic paradigm that the tabloids represent, and Mattsson particularly emphasises the good journalistic work done in relation to faults and errors, often labelled as mistakes. Both claim that tabloid journalism has developed recently and now represents a much more sound and ethical kind of journalism than previously.

The editors’ approach to criticism can be seen as efficiency focussed, the criteria to be used in the discussions are internal to media or pertain to the role of media in culture and society. The predominance of this kind of critique might be linked to the editors’ view that Swedish journalism and tabloids are performing quite well – better than before and very good compared to their counterparts in other countries.

To a great extent our findings corroborate earlier research about response strategies and paradigm repair. However, we have, as an addition pointed out the existence of ambiguous and incoherent responses that merit greater attention in future research. We have also argued that prescribing discussion in itself can be seen as a response strategy. These two responses are further part of a “grey zone” or transitory area in the accommodative-defensive continuum. This is the main contribution of this study.

Listening to the editors’ conversations offers transparency and insight into how they are thinking – at least how they talk in public about how they think. The establishment of the pod is an enhancement of their role as the editors of two of Sweden’s largest news media organisations, tabloids with 5 million readers on the Internet and in print. Through them they have a strong voice and the podcast, with around 30 000 listeners, makes the impact of that voice stronger. The podcast becomes a public relation tool, it adds to the brands of Expressen and Aftonbladet, and also to their personal brands.

Being transparent and adding transparency to their news organisations and to themselves is stated as one of the main motives for the podcast (#1, April 2013). In the digital media landscape, and in the digital society, transparency is viewed as a core value – described as a necessity to respond to the demands from customers, citizens and media users. But is it enough to be transparent? Is transparency a means for something more important, such as accountability and change? MattssonHelin strikes a balance between transparency and accountability in their podcast, but that balance is not set in stone. Media accountability is a process, subject to change after input from media criticism as well as media response. Media podcasts in relation to media accountability merit further research.