The Global Financial Crisis of 2007-2008 drew attention not just to the global financial system generally but also to the nature and quality of financial reporting, which was generally held to have let the public down by failing to provide adequate warnings of approaching disaster. This paper compares the nature and quality of coverage in the US, the UK and Australia in three mainstream broadsheet publications: The New York Times, The Sydney Morning Herald and The Guardian. The content analysis provides empirical evidence of the extent to which mainstream financial journalism aligned itself with business interests and reveals the ways in which it failed to address the information needs of the general public. Interviews with financial journalists reveal a practice whereby journalists are too close to their business and finance sources. They see their role as informing them, rather than informing and educating the public in a watchdog role.
|Pages (from-to)||59 - 72|
|Number of pages||14|
|Journal||Australian Journalism Review|
|Publication status||Published - 2013|