| Abstract: | This paper analyses the way in which a particular newspaper report constructs ‘public opinion’ based on data from small‐scale qualitative research. Using as a case study a report of a focus group discussion of Clinton's grand jury testimony, we show how these data are ‘worked up’ as representative, generalisable, and valid. By capitalising on the advantages of focus group data, while attending to and countering their disadvantages, the newspaper report is able to suggest that the views of ten people in San Francisco offer an authoritative indication of public opinion about Clinton across the USA. Finally, we sketch out some of the implications of this case study in relation to the construction of facticity more generally. |
