Search

The field of journalism studies places huge emphasis on researching how journalism (as a profession and institution) is changing due to the influence of “non-journalistic” actors. Paired with a “Western” focus and a tendency of journalism researchers to reproduce the boundary work of professional journalists, this has led to valuable, but one-sided strand of research that considers the influence on journalism, but much less journalism’s influence on others. This chapter explores the multi-directional interdependencies between journalists and peripheral actors while expanding our view toward wider professional and geographical realities. We present three case studies from our empirical work that show how certain journalistic practices and imaginaries about journalism influence the work of peripheral actors from around the world (Chequeado, Mozilla and Open Up). We argue that studying a broader set of dynamics between journalism and others, and thereby better understanding journalism’s outward influence, can lead to a shared and strengthened idea of what journalism is and what role it has in society.

In this introduction to the special issue Contesting the Mainstream: Understanding Alternative News Media and its Contribution to Diversity, we discuss how and to what extent alternative news media contribute to news diversity. We elaborate on the concept of diversity, the democratic role of media and the normative implications of the position of alternative media in the wider media sphere. Based on the articles published in this special issue, that offer new and revealing empirical insights into a wide range and diversity of alternative media sites and their practices from Europe, Asia, the Middle East, North America, and Latin America, we argue that it becomes increasingly clear that awareness about normative positions within alternative media research is imperative. This is because an appreciation of the normative purpose of alternative media guides our ability to understand their role in society. The necessity for thinking through such positions is particularly exemplified by the most radical alternative media actors, and how they are debated and studied in different political systems.

This chapter asks ‘what to make of tabloids in a digital age?’ With the emergence of blogs and websites which traffic in content about public figures, we have witnessed how digital media have embraced the tabloid legacy by taking up the narratives of sex, crime, and scandal which once distinguished tabloids from their peers. On the surface, such sites reflect the familiar mix of ‘soft’ news and more prurient content which tabloids made familiar. Scratch a layer deeper, though, and we see this is not just a borrowing of a subject matter, but a more complex diffusion of the cultural form of tabloids and their cultural significance. This chapter examines these shifts with case studies of websites in the US, UK, and Netherlands, which lay claim to “the century-old tabloid cynicism about human nature, reinforced by instant data about what people actually wanted to read” (Denton, 2016). It argues such sites reflect, “the latest permutation of the language of the people in periodical form” (Conboy, 2006, p. 1), a characteristic once ascribed to tabloids. Taking the confluence of tabloid cultures and digital media opportunities as a blurring of the line which once surrounded tabloids as a distinct form, it argues this may also reflect a diffusion of tabloids’ specific media power in a digital age.

This book brings together a collection of articles published in a Digital Journalism special issue in 2019 titled “Digital Journalism (Studies) - Defining the Field”, edited by the four of us in our capacity as the Digital Journalism Editorial Team. We had three ambitions with this special issue (c.f. Eldridge, Hess, Tandoc, & Westlund, 2019)First, to offer a review of research that has been published in this journal since its launch in 2013 to examine the current state of play. We commissioned a review article by a team of scholars with expertise with such reviews (Steensen, Larsen, Hågvar & Fonn, 2019). Second, we wanted to launch a new article format for the journal – the invited conceptual article (Westlund, 2018), and commissioned five articles to conceptualize ‘digital journalism’ from different research foci (Burgess & Hurcombe, 2019; Duffy & Peng Hwa, 2019; Robinson, Carlson & Lewis, 2019; Zelizer, 2019; Waisbord, 2019). Third, building on these articles, we authored an analysis of the breadth of discussions which have shaped the field of Digital Journalism Studies, outlined our vision of this field, and established the editorial agenda of Digital Journalism going forward guided by the Digital Journalism Studies Compass we introduced. In line with our vision for the journal and the rigorous work being developed in the field, all articles in this special issue were rigorously peer-reviewed by experts in the field. This book republishes the articles from the special issue in the original order and shape.

This article analyzes the study of populism in China, highlighting its dynamics and features. Compared with abundant studies of populism in democratic countries, populism in China remains underexplored by non-Chinese scholars, and the contributions of Chinese scholarship are largely unknown outside China. To address this gap, this article reviews the state of the art of Chinese scholarship on populism, bringing it into conversation with the wider body of literature. From its analysis, two distinct types of populism are identified within Chinese research: classical communist populism and bottom-up populism. The former is advanced via official channels, through state promotion of the identity, wisdom, and revolutionary potential of the people. The latter is located in the antagonism between the “pure people” and “corrupt elites,” primarily through an online, bottom-up dynamic. We argue that bottom-up populism can also be conceptualized as “online populism,” as a manifestation of populism found in grassroots discourses targeting certain societal elites in online space.

This book brings together a collection of articles published in a Digital Journalism special issue in 2019 titled “Digital Journalism (Studies) - Defining the Field”, edited by the four of us in our capacity as the Digital Journalism Editorial Team. We had three ambitions with this special issue (c.f. Eldridge, Hess, Tandoc, & Westlund, 2019)First, to offer a review of research that has been published in this journal since its launch in 2013 to examine the current state of play.

This edited collection brings together a range of contemporary expertise to discuss the development and impact of tabloid news around the world.In thirteen chapters, Global Tabloid covers tabloid developments in Asia, Africa, the Americas, Australia, and both Eastern and Western Europe. It presents innovative research from eighteen expert contributors and editors who explore tabloidization as a phenomenon, and tabloids as a news form. With an awareness of historical dynamics where tabloids played a role in national news media systems, it brings the debates around tabloids as a cultural force up to date. The book addresses important questions about the contemporary nature of popular culture, the challenges it faces in the digital era, and its impact on a political world dominated by tabloid values. Going beyond national borders to consider global developments, the editors and contributors explore how the tabloids have permeated media culture more generally and how they are adapting to an increasingly digitalized media sphere. This internationally focused critical study is a valuable resource for students and researchers in journalism, media, and cultural studies.

In our contemporary societies, our understanding of journalism rests broadly on two visions of the field. The first is based on journalists and how they understand their identities and their roles in societies. The second is based on what societies at large understand journal- ism to be, and what they expect of journalists. Such visions shape expectations of what journalism contributes to our social worlds and also how journalists see themselves as contributing. While historically these visions were crafted around traditional journalists and institutions, they have now been confronted by uniquely capable (and motivated) digital actors offering competing interpretations of both the internal and external visions of journalism. These actors adopt non-traditional approaches to gathering, verifying, and communicating information, and succeed in bringing information to public light. This leaves journalism research facing a challenge: How to make sense of new interpretations of these visions of journalism, and the new actors bringing them about.

In the 21st century, the ways journalism was produced, accessed, and understood shifted almost entirely from analogue to digital media. With rapidly developing technologies enabling new ways of communicating online, digital journalism emerged as a distinct type of journalism, reflected in changes to the ways news is presented to audiences, how both journalists and audiences engage with new interconnected opportunities, and how scholars conceive of journalism in this era. At the center of these shifts were changes in the relationship between the field of journalism, its practices, and its audiences. This chapter highlights changes that accompanied the emergence of digital journalism, and specific challenges as journalism adapted to online technologies. Key moments include traditional news media confronting the early web, the emergence of blogs and new approaches to journalism which sprung up online, the rise of user-generated content and interactivity, and the social web.

This introduction presents an overview of the key concepts discussed in the subsequent chapters of this book. The book shows that when journalism comes to resolving the conflicts that emerge between people, including journalists, the unbounded spaces of the internet pose particular challenges. It also shows from a political economy perspective how, higher up among fields of power in society, ownership, regulatory frameworks, policy, and politics further pose risks to a more optimistic future for digital journalism being realized. The book discusses how within legal protections for the public - for those who would rather be ‘forgotten’, for various reasons - institutions have been able to regulate privacy from digital search, even as the long-term implications of such protections for journalism’s informative roles remain unclear. It looks at how this has taken shape across 20 years of multiplatform reading - comparing newspaper and online readership figures alongside one another - to put newspapers’ struggles into perspective.

The Routledge Companion to Digital Journalism Studies offers an unprecedented collection of essays addressing the key issues and debates shaping the field of Digital Journalism Studies today. Across the last decade, journalism has undergone many changes, which have driven scholars to reassess its most fundamental questions, and in the face of digital change, to ask again: ‘Who is a journalist?’ and ‘What is journalism?’. This companion explores a developing scholarly agenda committed to understanding digital journalism and brings together the work of key scholars seeking to address key theoretical concerns and solve unique methodological riddles. Compiled of 58 original essays from distinguished academics across the globe, this Companion draws together the work of those making sense of this fundamental reconceptualization of journalism, and assesses its impacts on journalism’s products, its practices, resources, and its relationship with audiences. It also outlines the challenge presented by studying digital journalism and, more importantly, offers a first set of answers. This collection is the very first of its kind to attempt to distinguish this emerging field as a unique area of academic inquiry. Through identifying its core questions and presenting its fundamental debates, this Companion sets the agenda for years to come in defining this new field of study as Digital Journalism Studies,making it an essential point of reference for students and scholars of journalism.

Online Journalism from the Periphery explores how a range of new media actors, communicating online, have challenged us to think differently about the journalistic field. Emerging from the disruption of digital technology, these new actors have been met with resistance by an existing core of journalism, who perceive them as part of a ‘digital threat’ and dismiss their claims of journalistic belonging. As a result, cracks are appearing in the conceptual foundations what journalism is and should be. Applying field theory as a conceptual lens, Scott Eldridge guides the reader through the intricacies of these tensions at both the core and periphery. Starting by suggesting definitions of journalism as a social and cultural construction, this book explores how these are dominated by narratives which have reinforced a limited set of expectations about its purpose and reach. The book goes on to explore how these narratives have been significantly undermined by the output of major new media players, including Gawker, reddit, Breitbart, and WikiLeaks. Online Journalism from the Periphery argues for a broadening of ideas around what constitutes journalism in the modern world, concluding with alternative approaches to evaluating the contributions of emerging media heavy-weights to society and to journalism.

Amid digital changes to the ways news is mediated, the boundaries of the journalistic field have become less clear. While traditional journalists have embraced many of the opportunities enabled by online media, new actors have emerged demonstrating journalistic capabilities that challenge the boundaries of the journalistic field. Joining field theory and discourse analysis, this chapter explores measures of identity and boundaries apparent in news discourses. It argues there is an advantage to applying discourse analysis to explore dimensions of identity within changing dynamics of journalistic work, capturing the more fractured nature of the field in a digital era. This also shows how new actors who adopt journalistic identity in their newswork are rebuffed in ways that reflect traditional boundaries.

This chapter looks at WikiLeaks and other ‘Interloper Media’ (Eldridge 2013, 2014) to explore the boundaries and identity dimensions of ‘being’ a digital journalist. Media technologies have long been connected with a disruption of journalism’s norms, and this disruption has been pronounced with digital technologies (Eldridge 2015). As much as technological shifts have allowed the form and function of journalistic products to change and develop, the way new actors are embracing these digital technologies have exposed a particular disruption around understandings of what a journalist is and how that too might be changing. In this disruption, the boundaries of journalistic identity have been irritated by outspoken claims of belonging from new actors such as Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. Going beyond WikiLeaks, questions of journalism’s normative ideals, the domain of the ‘Fourth Estate’, and journalism’s role as a legitimating authority continue to be the focus of discursive reactions to a range of new media actors and their journalistic claims. As platforms, content, and media spaces where journalism occurs change at a rapid pace, questions of what it means to be a journalist are ever present. This chapter reflects on these debates to discuss whether a more expansive and flexible definition of a digital journalist can be developed. In identifying key elements of journalistic identity, this chapter will draw on the literature of ‘boundaries’ around that identity, steep these within a discussion of journalism’s self-defined profession and maintenance of its identity, and posit a definition of the digital journalist fit for modern media realities.

This paper disentangles the meanings attached to “the people” in Chinese populism research. By pairing textual analysis with a meta-analysis of 61 contemporary cases of populism discussed in research papers, three meanings attached to the people are identified. The Chinese nation functions as an ideological glue to mobilize the Chinese to protest against those considered to betray their Chinese identity, or seen as violating the sovereignty and dignity of China. The mass resist authority through parody, deconstructing serious themes and delegitimating with comedic effects. Socially vulnerable groups are those located at the bottom of China’s social hierarchy, who are afforded a voice by digital platforms, and who tend to revolt against the established institutions and defend their civil rights online. Understanding how “the people” are defined is crucial for understanding Chinese populism. Populism research has largely explored the internal tensions around “the people” within Western contexts, focusing on boundaries (exclusiveness and inclusiveness) and sovereignty (individuals and a collective body). These studies argue “the people” is often used in an amalgam of three meanings: the people as sovereign, as the common people, and as the nation. Alternatively, they are defined as the united people, our people, and/or ordinary people. However, tensions around the understanding of “the people” and their role in populism within non-democratic systems remains unexplored. This paper addresses this gap by examining populism research and prominent case studies of Chinese populism. In contributing to current knowledge about populism in China, this paper offers two perspectives. First, by disentangling the meanings attached to the people, the categories that emerge reflect the changing ways in which “the people/elites” or “self/other” relationships are imagined in Chinese populist discourse. This also provides critical insights into the government’s role in keeping the balance between these relationships. Second, it sheds light on the ongoing debate on the tensions of “the people”. While the sovereign people are titular holders of power in China, in practice, they are subordinated socially vulnerable groups. In the Chinese context, “the people” (人民, renmin) generally refers to “the people mass” (人民群众, renmin qunzhong), a concept with distinctive Chinese characteristics. As an abstract entirety, on the one hand, “the people mass” affirms the sovereignty by regarding the people as the ruler of the country, while also being a concrete crowd, they remain in a subordinate position. As such, “the people mass” can be considered a compound concept with meanings from both the subordinated people (“民”, min) and the sovereign people (“人民”, renmin). Keywords: Chinese populism, Chinese nation, socially vulnerable groups, the people

This thesis aims to address the lack of knowledge and research on the manifestation of populism in China, a country with a communist background, which remains largely unknown both to the general public and scholars outside of China. It seeks to bridge this gap by investigating populism in China within the broader context of global research on populist phenomena. The findings reveal that Chinese populism is characterized by the simultaneous presence of communist populism and online bottom-up populism. This characteristic is deeply embedded in China's socio-cultural context influenced by communism, where the populist antagonism between "the people" and "the elite" mirrors the historical conflict between the proletariat and bourgeoisie. Additionally, this thesis introduces a novel perspective by examining populism as an online bottom-up phenomenon. It explores the identity of the people, their discursive power, the discursive logics underlying online bottom-up populist expression, and the weaponization of internet memes for populist visual protest and communication. The central argument put forth throughout this thesis is that the coexistence of communist populism and online bottom-up populism serves a dual function: maintaining a balance between resistance and control, while also functioning as a "pressure valve" that allows for the release of internal pressures within China's "social volcano" through nuanced control mechanisms. In summary, this thesis contributes to the understanding of populism in China, sheds light on the distinctive characteristics of Chinese populism, and provides insights into the complex dynamics between resistance, control, and the release of societal pressures within the Chinese context.