| KRATKA VSEBINA | Avtorica obravnava vprašanje, kako razlikovativerodostojno preiskovalno novinarstvo od aferaško in senzacionalistično naravnanega množičnosporočanjskega diskurza. Ugotavlja, da aferaški diskurzoz. kvazipreiskovalno novinarstvo primarno ni zavezano normi resničnosti, ampak je bistvena medijska objava - ne glede na resničnost in verodostojnost informacij. Novinar premalo preverja informacije, kar se kaže v odsotnosti njegovih vprašanj, in nekritično sprejema "preiskave", kijih namesto njega opravljajo drugi subjekti. Sporočanje pogosto ni ali je pomanjkljivo utemeljeno: manjkajo dokazi, viri informacij v besedilu niso prepoznavni, novinar se sklicuje na govorice. Besedilo je neuravnoteženo, pogosto predstavlja le "eno stran" zgodbe, uporablja vire, ki jo potrjujejo, viri informacij bodisi niso navedeni ali pa so zgolj uradni viri. Domnevne akterje svojih zgodb pogosto prikazuje kot storilce oziroma krivce. Temelji na odkriti pristranskosti, vnaprejšnjih prepričanjih, pričakovanjih in stereotipih, v skladu s katerimi izbira ali "ustvarja" dokaze, ki postanejo ogrodje njegovega konstrukta. Ugotovitve avtorica ponazarja z analizo serije prispevkov o "mafijskem uvozu zdravil" iz Nedeljskega dnevnika, ki se kažejo kot poskus preiskovalnega novinarstva. // The author deals with the question how to distinguish between credible investigative reporting and sensationalistically oriented mass communication discourse. She finds out that what matters at affaire discourse or quasi-investigative reporting is in fact not the norm of truthbut the fact of media publication - irrespective of truth and credibility of information. A journalist does not verify information well enough, as wecan see in a lack of his/her questions and in an uncritical acceptance of "investigation", carried out by other subjects instead of the journalist himself/herself. Reporting often lacks arguments or is not well argued: there is lack of evidence; sources of information in the text are not transparent; the journalist refers to rumors. The text is unbalanced, oftenit presents only "one part" of the story, based on the sources confirming it; sources of information are not stated or there are only official sources. The supposed agents are usually presented as perpetrators or guilty persons. The text is based on clear bias, a priori conviction, expectations and stereotypes as a basis for choosing or "creating" evidence, which become an instrument of its construct. The arguments in thearticle are illustrated by analysis of series of articles on "mafia import of medicaments" published in "Nedeljski dnevnik" as a case of an attempt ofinvestigative reporting. |