The Limited Power of Journalists: Insights from the Armstrong Case on the Social Conditions Enabling the Neutralisation of Investigative Reporting

This study examines how power relations can hinder journalistic investigations when it targets an actor with high symbolic, economic, and social capital. It is based on an investigation conducted by Damien Ressiot in 2005, a journalist with L’Équipe, France’s leading sports newspaper, which provided evidence of doping by cyclist Lance Armstrong. Although the evidence was irrefutable, the investigation was contested and turned against its author, who found himself facing public accusations. Combining Bourdieu’s theoretical framework with Goffman’s frame analysis, we explore the mechanisms that enabled Armstrong to impose a favourable interpretative framework and neutralise the investigation’s impact. Our analysis is based on a rich empirical corpus (official reports, journalistic literature, and press articles) and complemented by several interviews with Ressiot. We show that Armstrong relied on a broad coalition of actors, made possible by his exceptional symbolic capital and central position in the cycling economy. Ressiot, by contrast, had very limited support, even within his own editorial team, leading to the symbolic disqualification of his work. As very few studies have addressed or conceptualised the issue of neutralising journalistic investigation, this article contributes to a wider understanding of the effects of power concentration on journalistic investigation.