Journalism isn’t about going easy on those in charge, it’s about asking what matters. In a functioning democracy, power must be scrutinised. Journalists are one of the few professions tasked with doing that in public.
This doesn’t always make journalists popular. Holding power to account can be uncomfortable, especially when those in charge would rather avoid awkward truths.
But that discomfort is part of a healthy democracy, not a sign that something is wrong, but a sign that scrutiny is working.
Being asked difficult questions isn’t a personal attack. It’s a professional necessity. Public figures, whether they’re politicians, executives, or spokespeople, are expected to answer to the people they serve.
When they avoid questions, double down, or distract, journalists must return to the facts and keep pressing, calmly, fairly, and firmly.
Why tough questions matter
Elected officials, public bodies, and major organisations spend public money and make decisions that affect people’s lives. Journalists ask the questions the public would want to know: Who’s accountable? What’s the impact? What are the risks? What do people think?
This scrutiny ensures transparency and strengthens democracy. Without it, mistakes go unchallenged, promises go unchecked, and power operates without consequence.
Challenging power doesn’t mean being rude or confrontational. It means:
- Pushing beyond official statements and asking for specifics
- Requesting evidence for claims made
- Following up when answers are vague
- Reporting both the question and the answer so the public can decide for themselves
These questions can make people in power uncomfortable, but responsible journalism isn’t about comfort.
People in public life won’t always enjoy being questioned, but that’s the point. Politicians are well-versed in avoiding complex topics or using polished talking points to deflect.
A good journalist will keep asking until the honest answer emerges. This can create tension, but it’s not personal; it’s about getting to the truth. When the public pays those in power, the public deserves honesty.
It’s not just politicians who get questioned, either. Business owners, developers, or anyone whose actions impact others may be in the spotlight.
While they may not be held to the same accountability standards as elected officials, journalists still have a duty to seek answers for those affected.
Off-the-record
Not every discussion with a journalist ends up published or broadcast. “Off the record” doesn’t mean secret. It refers to background conversations that provide context, help journalists better understand complex topics, or frame questions for formal interviews.
These chats help build mutual trust. They’re critical when dealing with sensitive topics or evolving issues where clear facts are hard to find.
Knowing a journalist will respect the boundaries of such discussions helps sources be more open and, ultimately, leads to more accurate reporting.
Alongside off-the-record conversations, it’s essential to know that journalists aren’t always looking for headlines. They often meet with contacts over coffee or at events to understand upcoming plans, foster dialogue, and maintain open communication channels.
In these cases, a journalist acts as a “critical friend” who supports the broader goals of public service but will not hesitate to ask hard questions when needed.
This relationship doesn’t compromise independence; it enhances reporting by bringing depth, context and mutual respect.
Holding power locally
At a local level, this role is vital. Stories published by the Bedford Independent, for example, often highlight how scrutiny works in practice:
- Our reporting on Fusion Lifestyle raised persistent questions about the management of Bedford’s leisure facilities despite the operator’s pushback.
- Coverage of the River Festival U-turn questioned the accuracy of information provided and demanded clarity for residents.
- Questions about the impact of a possible Universal Theme Park on East West Rail highlighted how vague communications from the central government and EWR Co. created confusion and frustration.
These stories show that tough but fair journalism can lead to greater transparency even at the local level.
Yes, tough questions can be inconvenient. When challenged, people in positions of power may accuse journalists of bias or negativity, a tactic to avoid scrutiny.
Responsible journalists stay focused on the facts. They report in the public interest, seek multiple viewpoints, and fully publish responses. Fair reporting isn’t about “taking sides” but telling the whole story.
The readers’ and regulators’ role
Journalists may ask the questions, but the public often prompts them. Community concerns, tips to the newsroom, and reader feedback all help shape the stories and scrutiny that follow.
When readers support local journalism, they support its ability to scrutinise those in power, even when it’s uncomfortable to do so.
Impress and IPSO, the UK’s two press regulators, defend journalists’ right to ask difficult questions in the public interest. However, they also recognise that journalists are responsible for asking those questions fairly.
The Impress Standards Code states that journalists must take all reasonable steps to ensure accuracy, respect privacy, and avoid harassment or intimidation. It also requires publishers to be transparent, especially when handling complaints or errors.
The IPSO Editors’ Code similarly requires journalists to avoid publishing inaccurate or misleading information and respect individuals’ right to privacy unless there is a clear public interest justification.
These codes ensure that journalists are protected when acting in the public interest, but are also held to account in much the same way as those they are questioning. Questions should be firm but fair, and reporting should challenge but never intimidate.
This balance protects trust and the people at the heart of every story.
Tough questions build a stronger, more transparent society. They help uncover truths, challenge decisions, and shine a light where it matters.
Good journalism isn’t always comfortable. But without scrutiny, there is no accountability. And without accountability, there is no democracy.
This article is part of a series of articles to help support media literacy.
