Access journalism
{{Short description|Type of journalism}}
{{refimprove|date=May 2018}}
Access journalism, or access reporting, refers to journalism (often in interview form) which prioritizes access—meaning media time with important, rich, famous, powerful, or otherwise influential people in politics, culture, sports, and other areas—over journalistic objectivity and/or integrity.{{Cite web|title=Relevance and Challenges of the Agenda-Setting Theory in the Changed Media Landscape|url=http://ac-journal.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Relevance-and-Challenges-of-the-Agenda-Setting-Theory-in-the-Changed-Media-Landscape-.pdf|access-date=2024-08-13|website=American Communication Journal}}{{Page number needed|date=November 2024|reason=The article does not seem to define access journalism.}}
Features
Typical features of access journalism include:
- absence of demanding accountability towards the questioned respondent
- avoiding controversial topics so as to maintain access to the respondent
- pre-approved questions, no gotcha questions, softball questions
- sometimes even respondent's control over how the interview will be edited and which parts will be aired
Access journalism, in some cases, is similar to infomercials, or advertising disguised as news. The venture of doing the interview can be symbiotic—beneficial for both the journalist and the celebrity, since it can synergically bring more attention to both of them, and further notability, influence, media exposure, current relevance, etc., for both of them.{{Cite web|title=What Americans know, and don't, about how journalism works|url=https://www.americanpressinstitute.org/publications/reports/survey-research/americans-know-journalism/|access-date=2024-08-13|website=American Press Institute}}
Access journalism has been contrasted with accountability journalism.{{cite web|url=https://www.stereophile.com/content/access-journalism-vs-accountability-journalism|title=Access Journalism vs Accountability Journalism|date=15 April 2015|website=Stereophile}} A similar contrast is between lapdog journalism and watchdog journalism.{{Cite web |title=Watchdogs or Lapdogs? What State Ads Are Subtracting from Critical Journalism.|url=https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/voices/lapdogs-vs-watchdogs-state-advertising-and-media |access-date=2024-08-13 |website=Open Society Foundations}}
Criticism
Critics of access journalism argue that prioritizing relationships with influential figures for the sake of access undermines the fundamental role of journalism to hold power accountable. This practice was highlighted during Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign, where media outlets provided extensive coverage, often without challenging the accuracy of his statements, resulting in what some estimated to be billions of dollars in free media exposure.{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/upshot/measuring-donald-trumps-mammoth-advantage-in-free-media.html|title=$2 Billion Worth of Free Media for Donald Trump|newspaper=The New York Times|date=15 March 2016|last1=Confessore|first1=Nicholas|last2=Yourish|first2=Karen}}{{Cite web|url=https://www.thestreet.com/story/13896916/1/donald-trump-rode-5-billion-in-free-media-to-the-white-house.html|title=Donald Trump Rode $5 Billion in Free Media to the White House|work=The Street|date=20 November 2016 }} This practice has sparked debate within the journalism community regarding the balance between providing coverage and maintaining journalistic standards.{{Cite web|title=How did Trump change American journalism?|url=https://news.berkeley.edu/2021/01/14/how-did-trump-change-american-journalism/|access-date=2024-08-13|website=Berkeley News}}