The survey findings show that, among the five factors considered opportunities to promote anti-corruption press/correspondents, there are three factors selected by the correspondents with a high percentage: editorial offices encourage and support (support, protect...) anti-corruption correspondents (34.5%); the audiences support and welcome anti-corruption journalists/newspapers (34.5%); the Party’s directions and policies, and the State’s laws encourage and protect anti-corruption journalists/newspapers (34%). The two factors selected with a lower rate are that in the working process, journalists have the opportunities to express themselves, practice special skills as well as journalistic skill (30%); journalistic works of the investigative/anti-corruption genre are highly appreciated in domestic and foreign press awards (bringing fame to correspondents/newspapers) (29.1%). The role of audiences in promoting anti-corruption (press) correspondents can be clearly seen in the results of in-depth interviews:

“Being a journalist, when committed to write about corruption and negativity, it means they have accepted the difficulties, challenges, and even danger to themselves and their families, then there is no reason to just do it for a bit of fame or interest regardless of the lives of themselves and their loved ones. The purpose of an anti- corruption journalist is to bring his/her ability to stand on the side of justice and protect the interests of the people, so the encouragement and support of the audiences is a great source of encouragement and comfort for journalists” (IDI28, Reporter, male).

A new variable has been created to calculate the probability of promoting anti- corruption correspondents/newspapers by: adding one point for each of the 5 options selected, and the value of this variable runs from 0 - 5; the higher the score, the more the opportunities. Specifically, 0 point equals No opportunity; 1 point = few opportunities; 2 -3 points = Average opportunities; 4 - 5 points = Many opportunities. The analysis results show that the average score for assessing opportunities to encourage anti-corruption correspondents and press is 1.56 points (0 is the lowest point and 5 is the highest). These results also show that the opportunities to promote anti-corruption press/correspondents is recognized as not high, less than average (2.5 points).

The difference in correspondents’ age also shows that there is a significant difference in the journalists’ perception of opportunities to promote anti- corruption press/correspondents. The analysis data shows that the younger the correspondents are, the higher the rate of recognizing few opportunities to promote anti-corruption press/correspondents, and vice versa (40.4% of those aged 27 and under; 15.3% aged 28-35 and 19% aged 36 and older recognize none of the 5 selected opportunities). The difference is also evident in the average opportunity score of 2 - 3 points, which is 47.8% of those aged 27 and below; 35.8% of those aged 28 - 35 and 59.0% of those aged 36 and older think that there is still an opportunity for anti-corruption press/correspondents, reflected in 2 - 3 options simultaneously selected. However, only 4.7% of the total correspondents surveyed rated the 5 criteria given as possible opportunities simultaneously for anti-corruption correspondents/press.

Besides, the difference in seniority of correspondents also shows that there is a significant difference in their perception of opportunities to promote anti- corruption press/correspondents. The results of the data analysis show that the lower a correspondent’s seniority is, the more likely he/she recognizes few opportunities to promote anti-corruption press/correspondents and vice versa. Up to 28.4% of the surveyed correspondents with seniority of 3 years or less; 23.9% with seniority 4 - 9 years and 19.7% with seniority of 10 years or more did not choose any of the 5 opportunities given. The difference is also evident in the average score of 2-3 points, with the highest score found in the seniority group of 10 years or more and the lowest percentage in the seniority group of 3 years or less.

The difference is found in the opinions of the correspondents who have written about corruption and who have never written about corruption. The data analysis shows that the journalists who have been working in the field of anti-corruption perceive no or few opportunities at a higher rate than the journalists who have never written about this issue. Up to 27% of the correspondents who have written about corruption did not choose any of the five opportunities given compared to 17% of the group who have never written about corruption; at the option of few opportunities, it was the similar with 20.4% in the group of those who have been writing about corruption compared to 27% in the group of those who have never written about corruption; at the option of average opportunities, 44.1% in the group of those who have been writing about corruption compared to 53% of the group of those who have never written about corruption. This can also be explained by the experience in the profession and the actual encounters, maybe when there is no actual experience with the anti-corruption press, more opportunities are recognized, but when doing it in reality, correspondents start to feel that the problem is not simple.

The gender correlation analysis of correspondents also shows a slight difference in the perception of the degree of opportunities to promote anti-corruption press/ journalists. The results of data analysis show that the rate of female correspondents perceiving no opportunities and few opportunities was higher than that in the case of their male counterparts. Up to 25.5% of female correspondents did not choose any of the 5 opportunities given compared to 19.6% of male correspondents; at the average opportunities option, 44.3% of the female correspondents compared with 52.2% of the male correspondents. This may also suggest that female correspondents seem to see few or no opportunity for anti-corruption press than their male counterparts.

The results of correlative analysis of the age of the correspondents and the levels of challenges for anti-corruption journalists show that the younger the correspondents are, the fewer challenges they see. Even the correspondents in the 27-year-old and under group have more than twice as many as journalists aged 36 and over with respect to the category of “no challenge” (39.1% in the 27-year- old and under group vs. 20.6% in the group of the 36-year-old and above). The older the correspondents are, the higher the rate is at which they select average challenges (27% of those at 36 and older compared to 18.8% of those at 27 and under).

Similarly, the correlation between the seniority of the correspondents and the levels of challenge also shows that the higher the seniority of the correspondents is, the higher the rate is at which they select challenges for the anti-corruption press/journalists. For correspondents with 3 years or less of seniority, the selection of no challenge for anti-corruption press/journalists is nearly twice as high as for journalists with 10 years or more (37.3% vs. 21.3%), the rate of selecting average challenges is higher among correspondents with 1 year or more of seniority than those with 3 years or less (27.9% vs. 19.4%). This suggests that correspondents with long experience in the profession will encounter many difficult situations in the process of working and therefore have different recognition and assessments from correspondents with lower seniority.

In contrast, the differences in experience of writing about corruption also show differences in the correspondents’ views of the extent of the challenges for anti- corruption press/journalists. The results of correlation between correspondents who have written about corruption and those who have never written about corruption in the levels of challenges show that correspondents who have been writing about corruption said there was “no challenge” at a higher rate than journalists who have never written about corruption (34.4% vs. 23%). The percentage of correspondents who have never written about corruption selecting few challenges is significantly higher than that of correspondents who have written about corruption (50% vs. 38.7%). This may suggest that journalists who have worked in the field of anti- corruption do not see the challenges mentioned as unique challenges for anti- corruption press/correspondents, but as a common problem of press.

In addition to the challenges outlined, the results of the in-depth interview also show that there are issues that belong to the common boundaries of press and not just the boundaries of anti-corruption correspondents. The challenges for true journalists not only ensure good information for the audiences, but also help journalists be wise enough not to fall into their own traps: “Journalists need to have journalistic qualities, professional qualifications and skills, constantly improve their knowledge in all aspects of social life such as: economy - culture - politics - laws; quickly catch up with the policies of the Party and the State so as not to violate the laws and adversely affect the audiences. Perform the press work with the highest responsibility and passion to bring to the audiences quality journalistic works. It is not advisable to pursue personal gains by satisfying short-term tastes, posting sensational articles, fishing views, leading to negative consequences in the orientation of public opinion” (IDI28, Journalist, male).

Journalists are “people of the public” and their products published in the mass media will also be dominated by this institution. From perspective of functional theory, mass communication creates a status for individuals/social groups in both positive and negative directions through articles and images in the media.(1) Works and authors appearing in newspapers will become the subjects of negative public opinions if they do not meet the criteria of the articles, do not satisfy the needs of the public; on the contrary, they will receive the approval, support and honor from the public if they meet the expectations, reflect their interests. And these are also challenges for journalists in general and anti-corruption journalists/newspapers in particular: “Journalists must have a clear conscience and excellent professional skills to be able to understand the aspirations of the people, to create the understanding, trust and support from all walks of life” (IDI1, correspondent, male).

The results of the in-depth interview also show a big challenge which sometimes forces correspondents to face choices, considerations, even contradictions, that is the matter of income from press today: remuneration, royalties with the nature of the work they do in the context of temptation. Income, royalties, expenses for professional operations and products in newspapers are generally not high compared to the current general income level. A firm stance and steadfastness are also a challenge for press, journalists in general and anti-corruption journalists/ press in particular: “... Once the quality of the correspondents has “problems”, they will be affected easily. Moral qualities for ordinary people are needed but for journalists, they should particularly be appreciated. The people have awarded us the title of “Journalist”, so be strong enough in the face of the storms, otherwise you will be crooked and ruined easily. Experience shows that a journalist involved in the field of anti-negativity, anti- corruption can hold his head high, open his eyes wide, not be “cursed” even if he/she is the person who has been “brought down” by me ... then that is the true journalist, successful in his/her career” (IDI 1, correspondent, male).

Conclusions

Opportunities for anti-corruption press/journalists are the driving forces, promoting the role of the anti-corruption press/ correspondents, among which the highlights are the following factors: the newsrooms encourage, support (support, protection, etc.) anti-corruption correspondents; the audiences support and welcome anti-corruption correspondents/newspapers; the Party’s guidelines and policies and the State’s laws encourage and protect anti-corruption journalists/ press. In addition to the political determination of the Party and the State, the backing of the newsrooms for anti-corruption correspondents/journalists is extremely important, even decisive.