Tribune of the people: maintaining the legitimacy of aggressive journalism1

Like other societal institutions, the institution of American journalism confronts a problem of legitimation. In order to be granted continued access to the corridors of power and to maintain the trust of news consumers, the journalistic enterprise must be perceived as essentially valid and legitimate (Hallin, 1994; Tuchman, 1978). As Hallin (1994: 32) has observed: The media have to attend to their own legitimacy. They must maintain the integrity of their relationship with the audience and also the integrity of their own self-image and of the social relationships that make up the profession of journalism. Moreover, rather than being a static phenomenon, legitimacy requires ongoing maintenance and upkeep. Because the practice of journalism frequently tramples on prestigious individuals and institutions, its legiti-macy is recurrently questioned both by news subjects themselves and by members of the public. Aggressive journalists are particularly vulnerable to the charge of having gone beyond the bounds of professionalism or propriety. To insulate themselves from external pressure and more generally to maintain a semblance of legitimacy, journalists draw on a variety of resources,2 one of which is to align themselves with the public at large. The role of public servant has deep historical roots within the profession (Schiller, 1981; Schudson, 1978) and it continues to have salience today, not only as a normative ideal that journalists strive for but also as a strategic legitimating resource. It is no coincidence that ‘tribune ’ remains