2.1. Significance of Information Sources in Designing Public Media Space

Permanently establishing an influential public platform, the news media seem to open before everyone ways for wide expression and free access, euphemistically populated by euphemistic citizens in a euphemistic democracy, in which everyone has the illusion of joining (^{Lopes, Loureiro & Neto, 2013}, p. 8). However, throughout the years, the social platform created by journalistic media for individuals to express their opinions or witness events has not been fully democratic. Instead, journalists tend to privilege the binomial power/large urban centres, establishing a restricted and localised fraternity attached to the status quo that has taken the centre of the public media space by storm. Over the years, this dominant power created tight opinion frames in which any thought “outside the box” has little chance of gaining acceptance. Although the radio and press are more democratic, they have not been able to challenge the hegemonic order. Many of these television commentators also write opinion columns in newspapers and participate in radio debates, thus creating a circular opinion structure. There is still the digital universe of (almost) universal access, where everyone can create their blog or a social network profile with practically limitless means of expression. However, some users are better known than others, and the first ones also form a wider fraternity but share the same identity traits as those avowed in other media. Finding an authentic public sphere in news media as a space for action and citizenship where diverse opinions from individuals with different profiles and legitimate perspectives can be heard has proven to be a complex task. We have been very far from a rational communicative plural action, guided by the understanding described by ^{Jürgen Habermas (1962/1984}).

That was the basis of journalistic information until the pandemic, particularly regarding the sources of information usually at the top of the news line-up (^{Lopes et al., 2013}). Confronted with an unexpected outbreak that suddenly became global and confined part of the world’s population, journalists adopted other health-related topics more relevant to citizens’ concerns. Furthermore, they acknowledged the significance of regularly searching for other specialised sources offering analytical insights rather than simply presenting facts. As highlighted by ^{Olsen et al. (2020}), we realised that journalism could not be just a business but also a fundamental part of the infrastructure of democracy that was “threatened” by SARS-CoV-2. During this time, newsrooms focused on providing a public service by prioritising important information over interesting content, reaching high consumption levels, and extending to population groups that were not always interested in journalistic information. As ^{Casero-Ripollés (2020}) emphasises, “this extraordinary growth (of news consumption) shows that information is, at certain times, a highly valuable resource for citizens” (p. 9).

The pandemic led to the recognition of journalism as an essential element in 21stcentury societies. The anxiety caused by the global spread of the virus that threatened our way of life was widespread. Providing quality, useful, pertinent, and integrating information in collective life has always been the structural purpose of journalism and one of the essential elements of its conception (^{Kovach & Rosenstiel, 2007}), strengthened as never before during this pandemic.

According to Andreu ^{Casero-Ripollés (2020}), when considering the impact of COVID-19 on the global information ecosystem, it is clear that journalistic information played a vital role in guiding people and reducing uncertainty during that time. In such a mission, the official sources with credible information, and the specialised sources with a thoughtful analysis have proved to be fundamental to the quality of information recognised by several scholars (^{Costa-Sánchez & López-Garcia, 2020}; ^{Masip et al., 2020}) and to other designs of the media public space: illustrative of what was happening in search of a “wise knowledge” that would contribute to reducing people’s fear, concerned with providing people with the means to prevent a pandemic that caused a deep halt on a planetary scale.

2.2. Specialised Sources: The Voices That Enhance the Quality of Journalism

The relationship between journalists and their sources is pivotal to journalistic production (^{Fisher, 2018}). Sources are at the root of the information we read, see and hear in the media, designing the public media space through a constant flow of information, eagerly sipped - but also sorted and transformed - by the newsrooms. In this complex interdependent relationship, journalism has always prized sources associated with the ruling power, transforming this field into a privileged place to reproduce the dominant power the elites linked to the various social fields have sought to impose. Theoretical approaches such as cultural studies, which had Stuart Hall as one of its references, have consistently argued that the media would serve to maintain an ideological hegemony of society. Authors of an interactionist approach, who have dedicated part of their work to the analysis of the performance of sources in the journalistic field, such as Harvey ^{Molotch and Marilyn Lester (1993}), have repeatedly noted that the primary definers of the news have enormous proximity to the power structures. The communication and journalism bibliography shows us that, in the context of pre-pandemic normalcy, news coverage relied heavily on official sources (^{Berkowitz, 2009}; ^{Kleemans et al., 2017}; ^{Splendore, 2020}). In Portugal, pre-COVID-19 health news coverage was politicised, dominated by government officials and members of health authorities (^{Araújo, 2017}; ^{Lopes, Ruão et al., 2013}).

Although political power significantly influences health news production, journalists have always given high credibility to specialised sources. Free, impartial, and committed to protecting the public interest, particularly within the academic and scientific environment, these sources offer valuable knowledge, rigour, and credibility to news like no other group of sources, and journalists recognise these important attributes (^{Magalhães, 2020}). Thus, specialised sources of information (such as scientists and physicians) now play a crucial role in health news coverage, both in the clinical and scientific aspects (^{Hanson et al., 2017}; ^{Nisbet et al., 2003}; ^{Stroobant et al., 2018}; ^{Viswanath et al., 2008}). Ultimately, they underpin highly complex news reporting, lending the reputation of their professional, academic, and scientific credentials to journalism (^{Magalhães et al., 2020}).

Because they have such a determining role, it is important to know who these sources providing information and expert opinion are (^{Boyce, 2006}). According to ^{Albæk (2011}), “the expert generally provides background knowledge and serves as a sparring partner for the journalist in the attempts of the latter to interpret a given event or course of events on the public agenda” (p. 335). Experts are valuable sources who can collaborate effectively with journalists to improve the quality of information conveyed. This creates a dialectic that enhances the credibility of the information conveyed. Experts assist journalists in shifting from reporting facts to more explanatory and interpretative journalism, which translates into news pieces “by explaining the background, interpreting the significance and assessing the possible future consequences” (^{Albæk, 2011}, p. 336). In other words, when it comes to interpreting and translating complex health information, experts in these fields are considered the most important sources of information (^{Araújo & Lopes, 2014}; ^{Deprez & Van Leuven, 2018}; ^{Lopes, Ruão, et al., 2013}; ^{Magalhães 2020}). Of course, experts are also often used as “compensatory legitimation” resources (^{Weiler, 1983}). That is, they confirm a fact or conclusion already known to the journalist, lending their scientific credentials to guarantee credibility and impartiality.

Aware of the complexity of many medical themes when choosing specialised sources, journalists admit that they are looking for the best-informed sources who can more efficiently deliver the message to the audience, placing less emphasis on the hierarchical positions (^{Magalhães, 2020}). In other words, when health crosses the line of science, journalism can bypass traditional sources, namely the official ones, by resorting to alternative sources grounded in knowledge, such as researchers, medical doctors and other experts, medical, scientific journals, and research centres, among others (^{Deprez & Van Leuven, 2018}; ^{Len-Rios et al., 2009}; ^{Magalhães, 2020}).

The emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic challenged, from the outset, the official sources’ responsiveness, as the need for information was permanent, and the responsiveness was limited. In this context, journalism had to expand its reach by bringing into the media space (more) experts from diverse social fields, mainly from the field of health, holders of “wise knowledge” unknown to public opinion but with “peer” scientific credibility. The increase of expert sources in journalism can be viewed positively for improving quality. However, more experts with an “open microphone” can lead to conflicting opinions due to the evolving nature of science and the blurred line between expert comments and personal opinions. A study conducted in Canada, for example, shows that there were often “too many experts” in the news, with only some having specific backgrounds and technical expertise relevant to justify the journalists’ choice (^{MacDonald, 2021}). Again in Canada, ^{Perreault and Perreault (2021}) note that journalists highly valued the input of doctors as experts but were also aware of the potential risks that could come with collaborating too closely with them. There are several risks to be aware of, including the spread of misinformation, the possibility of one’s work being disregarded due to a lack of perceived credibility, and the risk of one’s work being viewed as biased. As stated by the risk theorist Ulrich Beck (as cited in ^{Boyce, 2006}), experts may be “playing off each other”, but what they say provides specialised knowledge of analysis and reflection to the public media space.

4.1. Appreciation of Specialised Sources in the COVID-19 Coverage

The analysis of the Portuguese generalist press during the state of emergency shows a strong contribution of professionals as sources of information and, within these, health professionals and scholars from the medical and social sciences fields. The official sources were equally relevant. Namely, the President of the Republic, the Prime Minister and some ministers (of Health, the Presidency, the Economy, Education and Labour and Social Security), but the interlocutors with specialised knowledge gained unprecedented visibility.

It is possible to see fluctuations within each category (Table 2), scanning through the three states of emergence, but the relationship between them remains consistent throughout this time. The three most cited types of sources were: human professionals, human officials, and documents. Those with a position were invariably given preference within the professional ones. In the first state of emergency, they represented 21.8%; in the second period, they added up to 19.7%; and in the third period, they reached 21.3%.

Table 2 Relative distribution of information sources by status in the articles published in the daily press (percentage figures) 

In the official sources in Table 3, the Prime Minister was highly mentioned compared to the President of the Republic and the President of the National Assembly. Government leaders were also very present in the Portuguese press, especially the Minister of Health and the Ministers of Economy and Home Affairs.

Table 3 Official sources cited in the articles published in the daily press (percentage numbers) 

The professional sources cited in the news texts about the pandemic have different origins, thus creating a considerable fragmentation of categories. In Table 4, only those with a frequency of 2% or more are listed. Three categories stand out in this group: scholars, health professionals, and administrators/economists. The military only becomes more relevant due to the strong presence of Vice Admiral Henrique de Gouveia e Melo in the news media, who appears here as the head of the vaccination task force. That percentage can be added, by extension, to that of health professionals.

Table 4 Professional sources cited in the articles published in the daily press (percentage numbers) 

The scholars standing out are from the health sciences (2%) and social sciences (1.7%). Also, these types of sources are more likely to speak on their behalf than in the representation of a group. Among healthcare professionals, doctors stand out, making up 4.2% of all sources cited, and those who hold a post are the most sought-after by journalists (3%). The sources from the economic field also gain some relevance due to the impact of a pandemic with significant consequences in various sectors of the country’s economic life.

The official documents are more relevant concerning the documentary sources (Table 5). That can be interpreted as the focus on the decrees and regulations of the successive states of emergency produced by the Government and the Presidency of the Republic. However, in the ensemble of documents, the Directorate-General for Health bulletins always had much information regarding disease prevention and treatment, and the scientific articles were appreciated, thus contributing to a more contextualised, explanatory and pedagogical construction of journalistic texts.

Table 5 Documents cited in the articles published in the daily press (percentage numbers)