Search

This response outlines points of agreement and disagreement with the argument put forward by Carlson and Peters. I argue that their provocation is largely correct in identifying Journalism Studies' disciplinary blinders. However, I see these blinders less rooted in industry assumptions, as they contend, than in a larger array of assumptions which we do well to reflect on. I conclude that the solution is less one of decentering journalism than it is reframing journalism in a broader context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

U.S. journalists work in a digital environment in which they actively promote their news stories – and themselves – via social media. Prior research has identified an emergent marketing function, albeit one that journalists seemed hesitant to embrace in normative terms. This study seeks to understand how the legitimacy of this marketing function has been discursively constructed in the U.S. over 25 years. In line with discursive institutionalism – which sees institutional discourse as sites for normative contestation, (re)creation, and (re)interpretation – we seek to understand the ways in which a marketing function is being legitimized as a morally viable social role. This study analyzes 1978 examples of journalistic discourse from 20 online sites where primarily (but not exclusively) U.S.-based journalism is discussed and debated. We find the marketing function gaining traction as a normative role but falling short of formalization. Journalists continue to see a tension between emerging marketing work and longstanding journalistic norms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Drawing on institutional theory, feminist critiques of three popular stances on gendered workplaces, and previous research about women in newsrooms, this study considers the metajournalistic discourse about gender equality in newsrooms through a discourse analysis of more than 500 online articles and blog posts in American journalism industry publications from January 2002 until September 2019. The findings confirm that the status of women journalists remains problematic. Journalists recognize that women remain underrepresented in terms of numbers and face a pay gap, a glass ceiling, and various forms of harassment. Solutions are sometimes presented in terms of women's individual empowerment. Arguments in support of gender equality in newsrooms include improving journalism, reflecting greater diversity in society, widening audiences, increasing revenue, and audiences benefitting from women's unique contributions. Journalists used discourse about gender inequality to reposition some institutional norms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Journalists express support for providing a diversity of viewpoints in their reporting, but how is this reflected in their content? This study compared survey results of U.S. political journalists' statements with a content analysis of their reporting. There was limited support for journalists reflecting a diversity of viewpoints in their reporting, but only for those who support civic or direct models of democracy. Most journalists, however, relied heavily on elite sources. Those journalists who reported in surveys that they preferred independent sources, however, did include a greater diversity of viewpoints in their reporting. Results related to journalist trust in institutions are also discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Comparative studies of journalism have gained considerable currency in recent years, and are often considered to be at the cutting edge of journalism studies. Yet, there has been relatively little systematic examination of the growth of comparative journalism studies or in-depth analysis of the power relations within the field in relation to, for example, trends in authorship or dominant methodologies and paradigms. This article reports the results of a systematic review of comparative studies of journalism published between 2000 and 2015, a key growth period for the field. By examining in detail a population of 441 articles published in 22 key journals, we demonstrate that comparative journalism studies is a dynamic field that has developed considerable structure over time, and outline some key patterns, such as a continuing focus on Western authorship, the study of Western countries and elite media, quantitative methods of analysis and political aspects of journalism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This essay reexamines the institutional level of gatekeeping theory by retheorizing journalism's institutional relationships and uses Silicon Valley technology platforms as a case in point. The essay puts forward a new framework for assessing institutional influences on journalism, contextualizing journalism's relative autonomy (strong, equilibrium, or weak) by accounting for the dominant forms of pressure on journalism (regulative, normative, or cognitive), the dominant forms of incentive for maintaining an institutional relationship (coercive, moral, or remunerative), who is most directly pressured (management or reporters), what is most affected (journalism or news), and the main means of resistance to pressure (publicity, norms, or procedures). The framework brings new specificity to accounting for journalism's limited autonomy, particularly in light of Silicon Valley's wide-ranging impact on journalism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Journalism is often discussed in terms of its relationship to democracy. But one's conception of democracy can influence how one understands journalistic concepts. This study surveyed 204 US political reporters to determine their views on democracy and how their views relate to professional roles, trust, and sourcing. The findings show journalists support traditional norms but differ in their support in interesting ways based on their conception of democracy. Broadly, journalists more strongly support civic and direct models of democracy that highlight the interests of citizens. However, there is still notable support for pluralist and administrative models of democracy, which prioritize political interest groups and elite sources of information. Journalists, overall, might state support for a more citizen-focused and communitarian form of democracy, but there are continuing questions of how this might be reflected in the work of political journalists, specifically when these journalists are often highly dependent upon elite and official sources. This study explores the democratic ideals of journalists through those who cover politics and provides guidance for conceptualizing the relationship between journalism and democracy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Journalists have found themselves in a complex relationship with audiences as they help gather and distribute news. Audiences represent a new type of entrant into the journalistic field, possibly bringing with them new forms of journalistic capital. This survey-based study sets out to explore how ordinary Americans assess traditional and emergent normative journalistic roles. The study also examines how citizens (N = 2058) and journalists (N = 414) compare in their assessment of this range of journalistic roles and finds that the two groups diverge significantly on assessments of most roles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study, using a discursive institutionalism lens, examines how US journalists have assessed and constructed journalistic institutional authority from 2000 through 2016. The findings provide a set of pivot points around which journalistic discourse has orbited, showing how journalists renegotiated their authority in the face of challenges to journalism's material, professional role, and social impact bases. While discourse comes back to authority rooted in journalism's democratic function, journalists also appear uncertain about the basis of their authority in a seeming posttruth age. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hallin and Mancini's Comparing Media Systems has provided Mass Communication research with valuable tools to compare media settings from a transnational viewpoint. However, most recent contributions around media systems theory focus on suggesting new dimensions or variables to update the three models presented in the authors’ book, leaving behind the discussion concerning the factors galvanizing the transformation processes. We then ask: What factors explain the transformation of media systems? Through a literature review and the discussion of an extensive array of examples from different countries, our essay formulates new insights to refine a crucial concept in media studies. We examine material, institutional, and cultural logics of change to point out how the described transformations might unfold at different paces in particular social systems. By resorting to the idea of “critical junctures,” our essay illustrates how supposedly isolated shifts in the media systems can have unexpected impacts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study analyzes how business and editorial staff members at US newspapers rhetorically construct or deconstruct the metaphoric norm of a wall or line of separation between news and advertising functions. The study is based on 18 in-depth interviews with news and advertising professionals at middle-market US newspapers and the subsequent analysis of their rhetoric about the relationship between the news and advertising sides of their organizations. The study seeks to understand the rhetorical construction of an institutional norm and our observations are focused on the organization level. This study aids understanding of two related phenomena: how institutional norms are rhetorically constructed and how norms are rhetorically renegotiated or deconstructed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This in-depth interview-based study with US political journalists explores how they conceptualize the portrayal of political viewpoint diversity as a journalistic norm, particularly in light of changes to news and the news media ecology. The political journalists still discursively embrace the normative role of providing audiences with a range of political viewpoints, but express assumptions about democracy that seem to thwart their intentions. The implications for the journalistic field and field theory are considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Drawing on Bourdieu's field theory, this study explores how journalistic doxa and cultural capital come to be discursively formed. The study culls references to journalistic transparency from a broad range of US journalism trade publications and sites from 1997 to 2015 in order to examine the discursive construction of transparency within the journalistic field. The analysis focuses on what members of the journalistic field in the United States mean by transparency and how transparency is or is not discursively legitimized. Implications for field theory are considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author offers insights on issues concerning objectivity and ethical practices in journalism in response to Stephanie Craft's essay that has been published within the issue.

The article investigates how newspaper editorials address the "fake news" phenomenon concerning (1) the damages that mis- and disinformation pose to society and journalism; (2) the roles news organizations claim for themselves; (3) the communication agents mentioned; and (4) how media companies defend the field. We use content analysis to study 375 editorials published between 2017 and 2020 in three Brazilian quality-papers. Brazil is a relevant case since its media system and political institutions differ from those in the United States and Western Europe, leading us to understand metajournalistic discourses not necessarily seen in more stable environments. The results indicate that key political events (e.g., social security reform and presidential elections) became occasions for media organizations to publish more editorials discussing "fake news." Harming democracy was the main problem caused by mis- and disinformation. The newspapers regularly identified themselves as victims of attacks from political authorities. The editorial texts reinforced journalism's expertise in crafting and providing credible information, but, at the same time, such newspapers avoided responding to external criticisms. More interestingly, the outlets used terms associated with mis- and disinformation to attack rival groups. Lastly, our codebook provides an original contribution to the field as it considers a wide range of variables, encouraging comparative studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

These four essays are geared toward examining transformations in contemporary documentary form, with the aim of profiting from intersections between discourses in Journalism Studies and Film Studies. They analyze areas of overlap in order to understand changes in the production and reception of recent nonfiction films. Roger F. Cook uses the term “Docu-Entertainment” to describe how Hollywood genres have been increasingly integrated into films, arguing that this impacts content. Tim P. Vos employs the term “gatekeeping forces” to explore how theories of journalistic gatekeeping can serve as a valuable heuristic device for understanding how documentary films produce their distinctive content and how documentarians' work is distinct from that of journalists who cover similar public affairs issues. In his study ofThe Waiting Room(2012), Brad Prager analyzes that film's formal choices to understand the balance it strikes between objectivity and advocacy. Finally, Joanna Hearne's study ofMighty Times: The Children's March(2004) andThe Black Power Mixtape, 1967–1975(2011) assesses how documentary filmmakers have been finding new means of sourcing of their archival materials owing to the charged atmospheres of contestation in which the films are produced. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study explains the history of a 1959 amendment to the 1934 Communications Act through the lens of historical institutionalism. The amendment created broad exemptions for newscasts, documentaries, interviews, and news events, triggering the equal time provision for candidates for public office. While this study offers a variety of new empirical details, the chief goal is explanation based on an examination of historical mechanisms—path dependence, critical junctures, agglomeration, asymmetries of power, reinforcement of expectations, and temporal sequencing—that shaped the policy options leading up to the amendment. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This historical discourse analysis examines how various social actors legitimated print advertising from 1800 to 1870. The analysis shows how supporters of advertising overcame ambivalence and hostility toward advertising. Prior to the early 1840s, advertising was promoted by publishers, geared largely to general newspaper readers, and restrained via subtle discursive strategies. Later, promoters of advertising-- including publishers and ad agents--tapped into socially and institutionally located legitimating discourse to sell advertising to a wide range of American businesspersons. The findings invite a reconsideration of conclusions made in previous advertising histories. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]