The Use of Objective and Analytical Reporting as a Method of Professional Work: A Cross-Longitudinal Study of Chilean Political Coverage

Based on a cross-longitudinal content analysis of 3,624 political news stories published by Chilean national newspapers between 1990 and 2010, this study analyzes the changes and patterns in the reporting styles of the political press by examining the value of objective and analytical reporting used by professional journalists. The study presents empirical evidence on how journalists justify truth claims in political news and how journalistic performance has evolved in a post-dictatorial regime setting. The results show that objective reporting is more common than analytical reporting for both the popular and the elite press. However, although the Chilean traditional press assume objectivity as a criterion of good journalism, they reinterpret its meaning in practice. Specifically, the findings show that the use of analytical reporting has significantly increased in political coverage. The absence of formal separation between facts and opinions in the Chilean case confirms the global tendency toward more partisan journalism, especially in journalistic contexts closer to the “polarized pluralist” model. The differences in the use of objective and analytical reporting between the popular and the elite press do not show a clear pattern.