Journalism studies beyond media: On ideology and ...

This article was downloaded by: [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ] On: 18 December 2014, At: 02:00 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Ecquid Novi: African Journalism Studies Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/recq20

Journalism studies beyond media: On ideology and identity Mark Deuze Published online: 01 Dec 2010.

To cite this article: Mark Deuze (2004) Journalism studies beyond media: On ideology and identity, Ecquid Novi: African Journalism Studies, 25:2, 275-293 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02560054.2004.9653298

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Deuze: On ideology and identity

275

Ecquid Novi ISSN 0256-0054 2004 25(2): 275-293

Downloaded by [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ] at 02:00 18 December 2014

Mark Deuze

Journalism studies beyond media: On ideology and identity Abstract The history of journalism in elective democracies around the world has been described as the emergence of a professional identity of journalists with claims to an exclusive role and status in society, based on and at times fiercely defended by their occupational ideology. Although the conceptualization of journalism as a professional ideology can be traced throughout the literature on journalism studies, scholars tend to take the building blocks of such an ideology more or less for granted. In this article the ideal-typical values of journalisms’ ideology are operationalized and investigated in terms of how these values are challenged or changed in the context of current cultural and technological developments. It is argued that multiculturalism and multimedia are similar and poignant examples of such developments. If the professional identity of journalists can be seen as kept together by the social cement of an occupational ideology of journalism, the analysis in this article shows how journalism in the self-perceptions of journalists has come to mean much more than its modernist bias of telling people what they need to know.

Keywords: Journalism, multiculturalism, multimedia, journalism studies, journalism education, occupational ideology.

Dr Mark Deuze ([email protected]) is a visiting assistant professor at Indiana University’s School of Journalism in Bloomington, Indiana, USA. He is also external advisor to the Journalism and New Media programme of Leiden University, the Netherlands.

Ecquid Noci 25 (2).indd 99

19/03/2005 15:27:38

Ecquid Novi : Research Section

276


Introduction Research about journalism and among journalists has been established as a widely acknowledged field, particularly in the second half of the twentieth century. Universities, schools and colleges worldwide have dedicated departments with research and teaching programmes in journalism. At the most recent annual conference of the International Communication Association (ICA), scholars in the field met for the first time to support the establishment of a so-called “Journalism Studies Interest Group” (JSIG). This initiative was taken by people from all over the world – members include professors and graduate students from countries as diverse as Germany and Brazil, the United States and China, South Africa, Australia and the Netherlands.1 In the supporting petition, these scholars write: The Interest Group is intended to facilitate empirical research and to bring more coherence to research paradigms, and in so doing, to further support the professionalization of journalism studies and journalism education. Furthermore, while journalism is presently studied across the field, often the individuals behind these different research endeavors do not have a place to speak with each other. Several authors in various parts of the world have signaled a lack of coherence in the field of journalism studies and education, and have sought to offer overviews of different conceptual approaches to theory and methodology (Breen, 1998 in Australia; Loeffelholz, 2000 in Germany and Austria; McNair, 2003 in the United Kingdom; Schudson, 1995 and 2003, and Zelizer, 2004b in the United States; Deuze, 2004b in the Netherlands). The literature is impressive and inspiring, especially because journalism as a field has been studied by scholars from a wide range of disciplines—although these scholars have indeed only rarely come together and, in the words of the JSIG petition, “to speak with each other”. A significant problem herein has to do with the different articulations of the field as news, as media, as a profession, as a social system, or as a certain set of practices and skills enacted by the particular group of “news workers” in the context of media organisations. Journalism research has also been traditionally located in at least two different disciplines, namely, the (critical) humanities and the social sciences, only in recent years to be tackled with methods and theories particular to neither segment of the academic industry. To quote the petition again: Journalism is becoming an increasingly autonomous field of study …


19/03/2005 15:27:38



277

These changes in professional organization match changes in journalism itself … Journalism, as the term is used here, is not identical with the media, which are the carriers of mass communication. … Journalism operates as a highly autonomous, though not completely independent system. It is, therefore, essential to explore how journalism and the content it generates interacts with other systems in society, including the media (JSIG, 2004). Following this argument, I will detach journalism from media and chart the emerging consensus in the literature that journalism can or should be considered as an occupational ideology. Looking at journalism as an ideology helps us to lift the field from its often-used national or culture-specific boundaries and theoretically address what is common and consensual in the self-descriptions of journalists across the globe. Revisiting the notion of journalism as an ideology, where ideology is seen as a set of values and practices that serve to sustain a more or less “naturalised” way of seeing and interpreting the world, functions in this essay as the social cement combining insights from cultural studies (cf. Zelizer, 2004a), social sciences (cf. Reese, 2001), and sociological (Schudson, 2003; McNair, 2003) approaches to journalism. Scholars from these fields tend to argue that journalism—as seen through the eyes of its practitioners—is a remarkably coherent, operationally closed and consensually defined praxis. The overall question for a more or less universal approach to journalism studies thus becomes: What really ties this social system together?2 By answering this question with a specification of journalism’s occupational ideology may help us identify key issues and approaches for research and theory in the (near) future of journalism studies. My argument is based on a critical interrogation of the key literature on the professionalisation of journalism (in Western democracies) during the twentieth century. Seen in this light, journalism history can be typified by the consolidation of a consensual occupational ideology among journalists in different parts of the world. Seeing journalism as an ideology, rather than as one of the other possible options addressed in the literature, for example, as a profession, an industry, a literary genre, a culture or a complex social system, primarily means understanding journalism in terms of how journalists give meaning to their news work. I will then move on to consider the impact of two of the most pressing contemporary developments in society and technology, namely, multiculturalism and multimedia to show how the ideology of journalism performs as a valid cross-national conceptual approach in studying developments that affect all of its practices, roles and functions in contemporary society. This is not to say that there are no other areas of change and challenge for journalism that warrant


19/03/2005 15:27:38


278


critical inquiry; one could think of economic issues (corporate colonisation of the newsroom and media concentration) and political issues (localisation and globalisation, press freedom and media laws). While acknowledging the selectivity of my approach, I argue that multimedia and multiculturalism can be considered to be valid case studies of how the ideology of journalism takes shape and is shaped by internationally acknowledged issues of the day.

Journalism as ideology During decades of journalism studies, various scholars have referred to the process of journalists’ professionalisation as an ideological development. Schlesinger (1978), for example, writes about “newsmen’s occupational ideology”, Golding & Elliott (1979) speak broadly of “journalism’s occupational ideology”, while a decade later Soloski (1990) talks about an “ideology of professionalism” containing “self-contradictory oppositional values” (Reese, 1990). Ideology can be used in this context as a system of beliefs and social actions characteristic of (and considered to be characteristic by) a particular group, including—but not limited to—the general process of reproducing meanings and ideas (within that group). Ideology as a concept has a long tradition in the literature and has therefore been used in a variety of contexts. Much of the field takes its cue from Marx and Marxist interpretations of ideology, which direct our attention to the various ways in which the ideas and actions of a certain (ruling or dominant) class serve to include some, exclude others, and generally succeed in naturalising social relations and practices in a given context. I must admit that my use of ideology in the study at hand is somewhat pragmatic as I choose to reduce my focus on occupational ideology to how it serves journalism in making sense of itself, how it somehow incorporates conflicting ideas, norms and values, and how it is articulated with the changing current societal and technological context of journalism (Hartley, 2002:103-106; Stevenson, 1995:37-41; Van Ginneken, 1998:73). A global view on journalism as an ideology presumes that the corresponding ideas and values are carried by journalists, and thus suggests a certain kind of similarity or even universality in the characteristics of media practitioners. Comparing journalists from 21 countries, Weaver (1998:456) found support for claims that the characteristics of journalists are largely similar worldwide. A cross-national comparison of findings coming from surveys among journalists in more or less similar countries yields results that to some extent suggest similar processes of professionalisation as expressed through the measured characteristics of media practitioner populations (Weischenberg, Loeffelholz & Scholl, 1998: 236). Weaver, however, concludes that there is too much disagreement on


19/03/2005 15:27:39



279

professional norms and values to claim an emergence of “universal occupational standards” in journalism (1998:468). Other scholars have addressed this issue from a variety of views on how important certain universal standards are in terms of their meanings in (country-) specific circumstances and different cultural contexts (Donsbach & Klett, 1996; Deuze, 2002). What these overall findings and conclusions suggest is that journalists in elective democracies share similar characteristics and speak of similar values in the context of their daily work, but apply these in a variety of ways to give meaning to what they do (Shoemaker & Reese, 1996:11). Ideology is seen here as a collection of values (also defined as strategies and formal codes characteristic of a profession) defining journalism and shared most widely by members of the profession. This ideology is generally referred to as the dominant way in which “news people” validate and give meaning to the context in which they work. One can speak of an ideology of journalism in terms of what Schudson (1996:153) describes as the “cultural knowledge that constitutes ‘news judgment’”, rooted deeply in the communicators’ consciousness, or what Hall (1973:181) similarly coins as a “deep structure” of news values—sometimes even invisible to the journalists themselves. This consensual self-organisation and understanding of journalism also trickles down to the way journalism is taught, as Brennen (2000:106) concludes in her study of American journalism textbooks published in the 1980s and 1990s: “All of them address the practice of journalism from an identical ideological perspective that neglects to consider all the changes in journalism that have occurred over time”. In short, there seems to be a consensus among scholars in the field of journalism studies that what typifies more or less universal similarities in journalism can be defined as a shared occupational ideology among news workers which functions to self-legitimise their position in society. In this article, the key characteristics of this ideology are identified as a set of discursively constructed ideal-typical values. Journalists feel that these values give legitimacy and credibility to what they do. When examining the literature one can identify such so-called “true values” or elements of journalism’s occupational ideology that Golding & Elliott (1979), Meritt (1995) and more recently Kovach & Rosenstiel (2001), for example, describe as follows: • Public service: Journalists provide a public service (as watchdogs or “newshounds”, and active collectors and disseminators of information); • Objectivity: Journalists are impartial, neutral, objective, fair and (thus) credible; • Autonomy: Journalists must be autonomous, free and independent in their work;


19/03/2005 15:27:39

280



• Immediacy: Journalists have a sense of immediacy, actuality and speed (inherent in the concept of “news”); and • Ethics: Journalists have a sense of ethics, validity and legitimacy. These characteristics can be traced throughout the journalism research literature, be it implicitly or explicitly. General works on the ideology, professionalisation or discourses of journalism explain and historicise one or more of these ideals in detail. One has to note that these values can be attributed to other professions or social systems in society as well, and that these values—as I will show hereafter— are sometimes inevitably inconsistent and self-contradictory. To journalists this generally does not seem to be a problem as they integrate such values into their debates and evaluations of the character and quality of journalism. It is exactly this inconsistency that sometimes obscures contemporary debates within and about journalism, and which can prevent fundamental self-critique. For the sake of brevity, I will consider the definitions and implications of the five elements of journalism’s ideology as self-evident because I would like to address the particular issue of how this ideology functions in the currently changing context for journalists. These changes are understood here as coming to terms with technology (multimedia) and society (multiculturalism).

Journalism and technology: Multimedia Computerisation and digitalisation in all sectors of society have taken place, affecting the way the economy and society operate (for an historical assessment see Packer & Jordan, 2001). Network technologies such as the Internet and the proliferation of the World Wide Web (WWW) have inspired training programmes all over the world to develop courses and curricula, or even entire institutes, devoted to teach and study journalism in a “new media” environment. The literature on the impact of technology on the practice and education of journalists is expanding rapidly. Digital media and, more recently, multimedia newsrooms are transforming the training and education of journalists worldwide (Deuze, 2004). The institutionally structured features of multimedia would assume some kind of cross-media ownership, and participation in or access to multiple platforms for storytelling. This convergence of communication modalities leads to an integration and possible specialisation of information services, where the existing unity of production, content and distribution within each separate medium will cease to exist. The multimedia journalist has to make decisions about what kind of platforms to utilise when practicing his or her craft, and in the case of multimedia productions has to be able to oversee story “packages” rather than repurposing single stories in multiple formats. This relates to the


19/03/2005 15:27:39



281

organisational features of convergent media and the competences of journalists working in such new media contexts. Furthermore, new media theory and its discussion in the particular context of journalism suggests that the distinction between producer and consumer of content (cf. news) is disappearing online, which can inspire us to rethink the ideal-typical values in journalism’s ideology (Bowman & Willis, 2002; 2003; Gillmor, 2004).

Journalism and society: Multiculturalism Recognition of cultural diversity is generally seen as a function of multiculturalism, even though the normative implications for thinking about societies consisting of a plurality of cultures vary in different parts of the world (Parekh, 1997). Whether it functions as a celebration of migrant communities and thus challenges journalism in a particular country to become more international in its outlook, or whether it operates as an acknowledgement of the rural in an otherwise more urban programme of journalism, multiculturalism has an impact upon all levels of editorial decision-making processes, and it particularly challenges a notion of journalism as operating outside society (Cottle, 2000). Multiculturalism can therefore be seen as one of the foremost issues in journalism where media professionals are confronted by their real or perceived responsibilities in contemporary society. This consideration is independent of whether such a society is seen as a melting pot of supposedly inherently different cultures, or as a society where culture is understood as actively and continuously negotiated over time (Baumann, 1999). In many Western democracies, such as Australia, the United States, Great Britain and the Netherlands, several organisations, universities, scholars and media groups have put discussions on the role of the media in a multicultural society at the top of the professional agenda in the last decade or so (for example, Van Dijk, 1991; Jakubowicz et al., 1994; Cottle, 2000; Entman & Rojecki, 2000). Issues regarding media and multiculturalism that are relevant to journalism can be framed by three central issues, namely, journalists’ knowledge of different cultures and ethnicities, issues of representation (i.e. pluriformity, diversity), and the perceived responsibilities of journalists in a democratic and multicultural society. Multiculturalism is a felt reality for media professionals everywhere, whether they like it or are opposed to it, and it thus forces them to face their ideology and to rethink their value systems.

Discussion When news media organisations opt for convergence and going digital, or strive


19/03/2005 15:27:39


282


to be more inclusive, diverse and aware of the cultural complexity of society, there are consequences for the way they work and give meaning to what they do. In other words, these changes in society and technology are articulated with the ideology of journalism. I will conclude this article by briefly discussing issues for (conceptual and empirical) consideration within every ideal-typical value of journalism’s ideology. Public service Providing a service to the public, or working in the public interest as a member of a team to produce a multimedia story package, and/or actively seeking out new angles and voices from under-reported communities mean different things. First, the literature suggests that the new media environment facilitates a shift in audience attitudes from being passive consumers to active “prosumers” of information (Fidler, 1997; Lievrouw & Livingstone, 2002). In terms of multimedia, this means that the news package is not simply pushed by media organisations to indiscriminate publics; it is in fact offered interactively through different channels to people who have to access, navigate and to some extent compose their own version of the story (Dahlgren, 1996). Second, this audience must also be seen as socially complex and highly individualistic due to the necessity of inclusiveness within a context of multicultural awareness, and it is thus increasingly difficult to address as “public” (Alasuutari, 1999; Bauman, 2001). Providing a public service is a core value of journalism, but when seen in this light it might become meaningless as its interpretation is based on a onesize-fits-all conception of a “mass” of people interested in the same topics, angles and levels of interpretation (Morris & Ogan, 1996; Pavlik, 2001). Objectivity The strategic ritual of professional detachment in journalism has been described in much of the (critical) literature as an important cause for the growing divide between journalism and its publics (Schudson, 2001). Interestingly, both studies in multimedia newsrooms and multicultural reporting offer an alternate interpretation of objectivity. Objectivity in print journalism does not have the same meaning as it has in visual journalism. Whereas a description of an event may be perfectly balanced, the way it is filmed or graphically animated has different rules and follows a different media logic. Multicultural awareness challenges objectivity for how it is commonly understood as a way out of the “greyness” between polar opposites. Yet, in the middle we find the cultural plurality we seek when addressing multicultural sensitivity (Rich, 2003:337 ff.).


19/03/2005 15:27:39



283

Hence, objectivity in the context of a multimedia and multicultural environment has to be understood as (the necessity of) multidimensional or multiperspectival storytelling. This seems to go way beyond the “both sides of the story” style of reporting that informs current understanding of this ideological value. In other words, an active awareness of media technology and cultural plurality makes the core value of objectivity more complex. Autonomy Journalists all over the world express concern about their editorial freedom. However, this autonomy is fundamentally challenged by the consequences of multimedia and multicultural reporting. First, the consensus among media professionals working in converged newsrooms seems to be that the best way to do multimedia is to work in teams (Fee, 2002). Indeed, this is also the option supported by educators and scholars in the field (Kennedy, 2002). Autonomy in multimedia therefore has a distinctive plural quality. Second, autonomy in the context of multicultural reporting is problematic because the basis for increasing an awareness of diversity in journalism is to challenge or even invert established, traditional ways of news gathering (Deuze, 2001). The literature addressing multiculturalism also calls for more community-based reporting, signals the need for journalists to become much more aware of entrenched inequalities in society, and expects media professionals to become active agents in reversing these (Cottle, 2000a). Third, and not least, the call for increasing multicultural awareness is based on sheer economic necessity, as news organisations around the world are faced with declining audience numbers. This seems to be a particular kind of autonomy, namely, one that is both commercial and ethical, both inclusive and shared. Journalistic autonomy in this context is based on notions of collaboration (with colleagues and publics), and thus begets a distinctly different understanding thereof. Immediacy The “right here, right now” credo of journalism is challenged by the fact that both multicultural journalism and multimedia reports are characterised by the same normative claim, which is that these styles of reporting call for or bring more depth to the news (Wilson & Gutierrez, 2003; Stevens, 2002). As argued earlier, the potential of offering more perspectives—in terms of media formats and different voices—and adding more complexity to journalistic storytelling is of particular importance when considering the impact of multimedia and multiculturalism on journalism in terms of journalists. Depth, on the one hand,


19/03/2005 15:27:39


284


seems to challenge immediacy. According to some critics, investing time to get to know different communities (networking without necessarily pursuing a news story), or cross-platform storytelling (without the depth provided by specialisation in a single medium) is a luxury not available when practicing, studying or researching journalism (for example, see remarks in Campbell, 1998; Sterk, 2000; Castaneda, 2003). The question becomes, what kind of immediacy are we talking about when considering cultural plurality and across-media storytelling in journalism? The digital media environment allows reporters to constantly edit and update their story packages, and even to include end-users in this process (for example, by offering options for feedback, postings to discussion platforms, uploading files). On the other hand, studies of newsroom cultures suggest that it is exactly the predisposition to fast work according to set ways of doing things (like the day-to-day deadline schedule of programming and printing) that effectively prevents journalism from becoming more open to diversity, both in terms of newsroom diversity (including and accommodating different voices like younger, female, disabled and ethnic minority colleagues), and sourcing (allowing different languages, grassroots spokespersons and seeking alternate interpretations) (Cottle, 2000a). In short, immediacy in a multimedia and multicultural environment entails the sense of speed inherent in the 24/7deadline structure of online publishing to a potential worldwide audience. Yet, it also means exactly the opposite—as the proponents of packaging acrossplatform storytelling and multicultural sensitivity claim—in that it offers depth, inclusiveness and more than oppositional perspectives. Ethics Of all these values, a sense of ethics is probably the most researched, even though scholars like Starck (2001) criticise the expanding volume of research in journalism ethics, particularly for its lack of cross-cultural perspective, and lament the apparent gap between theory and practice in the field. A problematic aspect of journalism ethics is that almost everything journalists do, and thus everything scholars observe and analyse in journalism studies, has an ethical dimension. It may be practical to subdivide the field in morals and ethics, stipulating a divide between the situational and informal, but also patterned and routinised nature of most ethical decision-making by reporters and editors on one side, and the more philosophical character of ethical reasoning in general. Some of the literature in the field even uses ethics to claim a higher moral ground when judging the quality of journalists who, for example, object to objectivity claims (Ryan, 2001:18; Iggers, 1999). Texts on new media ethics are beginning to appear (Christians, 1998; Cooper, 1998; Deuze & Yeshua, 2001; Evers, 2002), and much of the


19/03/2005 15:27:39



285

media and multiculturalism literature present normative claims and hypotheses regarding the value of journalistic decision-making processes. An analysis of this particular field of study is beyond this paper. I do however consider it selfevident that journalism ethics is extremely dependent on circumstance and that a multimedia or multicultural setting can offer fertile ground for new research and education in ethics. Indeed, scholars and media professionals in both fields tend to advocate a turn to ideal journalistic values that supposedly supersede mediumspecific particularities or cultural complexities.

Conclusion The argument outlined in this article builds on similar arguments in the contemporary literature in favour of a “comprehensive” (Morgan, 1998), “holistic” (Skinner et al., 2001), “catholic” (Sparks, 1991), “culturological” (Cottle, 2000b), “critical-reflexive” (Reese & Cohen, 2000) and “non-dualistic” (Weber, 2000) understanding of journalism as a field on its own. The analyses of the ideal-typical values of journalism, how these vary and obtain meanings in different circumstances, have shown that any definition of journalism as a profession working truthfully and operating as a watchdog for the good of society as a whole, enabling citizens to be self-governing, is not only naïve, but also dangerously one-dimensional. This should most definitely not guide our teaching and theorising in journalism. So, what is journalism? Beyond its praxis as a culture, its social status as an industry, or its functionally differentiated role in society as a social system, I would like to define journalism in terms of how journalists give meaning to their profession as an (occupational) ideology. This ideology can be broken down to five ideal-typical core values, namely, public service, objectivity, autonomy, immediacy and ethics. These values are given meaning in the language of a journalistic culture in which action is constituted (Schudson, 1995:18). This culture—intersecting with the “objective” and the “subjective”, the “individual” and the “social”—is currently challenged by many issues, of which I selected two fundamental developments in society and technology for further scrutiny: multiculturalism and multimedia. It is by studying how journalists negotiate their core values in these changing settings that one can see journalism’s ideology at work. This argument therefore theoretically underscores the need for studying and understanding the complex arrangement of forces interacting with each other, working to both enable and constrain editorial decision-making processes in any given situation. How does a particular journalist or group of journalists come to a certain kind of decision? Under what circumstances and mechanisms are these decisions


19/03/2005 15:27:39


286


enforced or prevented? In addition, how do we re-theorise the field of journalism studies and education so that we prepare students and scholars to successfully engage this exciting new era of inclusive, multiperspectival, interactive and across-media storytelling? My suggestion here is that we can answer such questions by addressing the fundamentals first—what is journalism?—then opening up the floor for all kinds of interventions (journalistic genres, domains, types, media, methods, theories, and so on) imaginable in order to address the particulars thereafter. A renewed explicit analysis of journalism as an ideology allows scholars and practitioners alike to take a fresh look at how they consider and use their values at work.

References Abraham, L. 2001. Defining visual communication in the new media environment. Paper presented at the AEJMC Annual Conference. [Online]. Available: http://www.list. msu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0109BandL=aejmcandP=R2. [Accessed 2002-05-10] Alasuutari, P. (Ed.). 1999. Rethinking the media audience. London: Sage. Bardoel, J. 1996. Beyond journalism: A profession between information society and civil society. European Journal of Communication, 11(3):283-302. Bardoel, J. & Deuze, M. 2001. “Network journalism”: Converging competencies of old and new media professionals. Australian Journalism Review, 23(2):91-103. Bauman, Z. 2000. Liquid modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press. Bauman, Z. 2001. The individualized society. Cambridge: Polity Press. Baumann, G. 1999. The multicultural riddle: Rethinking national, ethnic, and religious identities. London: Routledge. Becker, L., Lauf, E. & Lowrey, W. 1999. Differential employment rates in the journalism and mass communication labor force based on gender, race, and ethnicity: Exploring the impact of affirmative action. Journalism Quarterly, 76(4):631-645. Bennett, W. L. 2001. News: The politics of illusion. 4th edition. New York: Addison Wesley Longman. Bierhoff, J. 1999. Journalism training in Europe: Trends and perspectives. Paper presented at the Media Minority’s Message Conference. 11 – 13 June, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona. Bierhoff, J., Deuze, M. & De Vreese, C. 2000. Media innovation, professional debate and media training: A European analysis. European Journalism Centre Report. Maastricht: EJC [Online]. Available: http://www.ejc.nl/hp/mi/contents.html. [Accessed on 2005-01-28]. Boczkowski, P. 2004. Digitizing the news:Innovation in online newspapers. Boston: MIT Press. Bowman, S. & Willis, C. 2002. Participatory journalism. Presentation at the News Business in Transition Conference. 31 October – 1 November 1, Austin, Texas [Online]. Available: http://www.ndn.org/explorationsp2pj/ndn_pjournalism.pfd. [Accessed on 2003-06-19].


19/03/2005 15:27:40



287

Bowman, S. & Willis, C. 2003. We Media: How audiences are shaping the future of news and information. The Media Center at the American Press Institute thinking paper [Online]. Available: http://www.hypergene.net/wemedia/download/we_media.pdf. [Accessed on 2003-04-12]. Brennen, B. 2000. What the hacks say: The ideological prism of US journalism texts. Journalism, 1(1):106-113. Bulla, D. 2002. Media convergence: Industry practices and implications for education. Paper presented at the 2002 AEJMC Annual Conference [Online]. Available: http:// www.list.msu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0209Aand:=aejmcandP=R12874. [Accessed on 2003-05-12]. Campbell, K. 1998. News media coverage of minorities. In:Sloan, D. & Erickson Hoff, E. (Eds.). Contemporary media issues. Northport: Vision Press. 90-104. Carey, J. 1989. Communication as culture: Essays on media and society. Boston: Unwin Hyman. Castaneda, L. 2003. Teaching convergence. Online Journalism Review [Online], March 6. Available: http://www.ojr.org/ojr/education/1046983385php. [ Accessed on 200311-01] Chomsky, N. 1971. Selected readings. London: Oxford University Press. Christians, C. 1998. Media ethics and the technological society. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 13(2):67-70. Clayman, S. 2002. Tribune of the people: Maintaining the legitimacy of aggressive journalism. Media, Culture and Society, 24(2):197-216. Cooper, T.W. 1998. New technology effects inventory: Forty leading ethical issues. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 13(2):71-92. Costera Meijer, I. 2001. The public quality of popular journalism: Developing a normative framework. Journalism Studies, 2(2):189-205. Cottle, S. (Ed.). 2000a. Ethnic minorities and the media: Changing cultural boundaries. Ballmoor: Open University Press. Cottle, S. 2000b. New(s) times: Towards a “second wave” of news ethnography. Communications, 25(1):19-41. Dahlgren, P. 1992. Introduction. In: Dahlgren, P. & Sparks, C. (Eds.). Journalism and popular culture. Thousand Oaks: Sage. 1-23. Dahlgren, P. 1996. Media logic in cyberspace: Repositioning journalism and its publics. Javnost/The Public, 3(3):59-72. De Aquino, R., Bierhoff, J., Orchard, T. & Stone, M. 2002. The European multimedia landscape. Mudia Report, June [Online]. Available: http://www.mudia.org/ abstracts.html. [Accessed on 2003-06-12]. Deuze, M. 2001. Educating “new” journalists: Challenges to the curriculum. Journalism and Mass Communication Educator, 56(1):4-17. Deuze, M. 2002. National news cultures: A comparison of Dutch, German, British, Australian and US journalists. Journalism Quarterly, 79(1):134-149. Deuze, M. 2004a. What is multimedia journalism? Journalism Studies, 5(2):139-152. Deuze, M. 2004b. Wat is journalistiek? Amsterdam: Spinhuis. Deuze, M. & Yeshua, D. 2001. Online journalists face new ethical dilemmas: Report from the Netherlands. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 16(4):273-292.


19/03/2005 15:27:40


288


Donsbach, W. & Klett, B. 1993. Subjective objectivity: How journalists in four countries define a key term of their profession. Gazette, 51(1):53-83. Ekström, M. 1996. The validity of TV journalism: Theoretical starting points for critical journalism research. The Nordicom Review, 1:129-152. Elliott, D. 1988. All is not relative: Essential shared values and the press. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 3(1):28-32. Entman, L. & Rojecki, A. 2000. The black image in the white mind: Media and race in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Ettema, J.S. & Whitney, D.C. (Eds.). 1994. Audiencemaking: How the media create the audience. Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage. Evers, H. 2002. Internetjournalistiek: Nieuwe ethische vragen? Amsterdam: Aksant Academic Publishers. Fee, F. 2002. New(s) players and new(s) values? A test of convergence in the newsroom. Paper presented at the AEJMC Convention, August 7 – 10.,[Online]. Available: http://www.list.msu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0209BandL=aemjcandP=R41392andD =0. [Accessed on 2003-05-12]. Fidler, R. 1997. Mediamorphosis: Understanding new media. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press. Fulton, K. 1996. A tour of our uncertain future. Columbia Journalism Review [Online], March/April 1996. Available: http://www.cjr.org/year/96/2/tour.asp. [Accessed on 2003-05-12 Gans, H. 1979. Deciding what’s news. New York: Vintage Books. Gillmor, D. 2003. Here comes “We Media”. Columbia Journalism Review [Online], January/February. Available: http://www.cjr.org/year/03/1/gillmor.asp. [Accessed on 2003-03-26]. Gitlin, T. 1995. The twilight of common dreams: Why America is wracked by culture wars. New York: Metropolitan Books. Gleick, J. 1999. Faster: The acceleration of just about everything. New York: Pantheon Books. Golding, P. & Elliott, P. 1979. Making the news. London: Longman. Haas, T. & Steiner, L. 2002. Fears of corporate colonization in journalism reviews’ critiques of public journalism. Journalism Studies, 3(3):325-341. Hafez, K. 2002. Journalism ethics revisited: A comparison of ethics codes in Europe, North Africa, the Middle East, and Muslim Asia. Political Communication, 19:225250. Hall, J. 2001. Online journalism: A critical primer. London: Pluto Press. Hall, S. 1982. The rediscovery of ideology: Return of the repressed in media studies. In: Gurevitch, M., Bennet, T., Curran, J. & Woollacott, J. (Eds.). Culture, society and the media. London: Methuen. 56-90. Hallin, D. 1986. The “uncensored war”: The media and Vietnam. Berkeley: University of California Press. Hallin, D. 1992. The passing of the “high modernism” of American journalism. Journal of Communication, 42(3):14-25. Hallin, D. 1996. Commercialism and professionalism in American news media. In: Curran, J. & Gurevitch, M. (Eds.). Mass media and society. London: Arnold. 243-


19/03/2005 15:27:40



289

264 Huang, E., Shreve, S., Davis, T., Nair, A., Bettendorf, E., Davison, K. & Meacham, A. 2003. Bridging newsrooms and classrooms: Preparing the next generation of journalists for converged media. Presentation at the AEJMC Conference. August, Kansas City. Innovation. 2001. Innovations in newspapers: The 2001 World Report [Online]. Available: http://www.innovation.com/english/eng_report2001.htm. [Accessed on 2003-0404]. Jakubowicz, A., Goodall, J., Marin, T., Mitchell, L.R. & Seneviratne, K. 1994. Racism, ethnicity and the media. St. Leonards: Allen & Urwin. Journalism Studies Interest Group (2004), ICA JSIG Petition [online] Available: http: //www.icahdq.org/divisions/JournalismStudies/jsigweb4/ICA_JSIG_petition.pdf (2004, May 12).. Johnstone, J.W.C., Slawski, E.J. & Bowman, W.W. 1976. The news people: A sociological portrait of American journalists and their work. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Katz, J. 2000. Analysis: The rise of open media. Slashdot, June 22 [Online].Available: http://www.slashdot.org/features/00/06/19/1714239.shtml. [Accessed on 2000-0701]. Kennedy, H. 2002. Postgraduate multimedia education: Practices, themes and issues. Infonomics Report, April [Online]. Available: http://www.cmd.infonomics.nl/ reports.htm. [Accessed on 2002-04-20]. Kiss, J. 2003. Horses for courses. DotJournalism, 14 March [Online]. Available: http: //www.journalism.co.uk/features/story591.html. [Accessed on 2003-03-15]. Kovach, B., Rosenstiel, T. 2001. The elements of journalism. New York: Crown Publishers. Kunelius, R. 2001. Conversation: A metaphor and a method for better journalism. Journalism Studies, 2(1):31-54. Kymlicka, W. 1995. Multicultural citizenship: A liberal theory of minority rights. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Lievrouw, L. & Livingstone, S. (Eds.). 2002. Handbook of new media: Social shaping and consequences of ICTs. London: Sage. Lule, J. 2001. Daily news, eternal stories. New York: Guilford. Manning-Miller, C.L. & Dunlap, K.B. 2002. The move toward pluralism in journalism and mass communication education. Journalism Educator, 57(1):35-48. Manovich, L. 2001. The language of new media. Cambridge: MIT Press. Martikainen, M. 2000. Towards dialogical online journalism. University of Tampere Research Report [Online]. Available: http://www.mansetori.uta.fi/report/ martikainen.pdf. [Accessed on 2002-05-01]. McChesney, R. 1999. Rich media, poor democracy: Communication politics in dubious times. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. McDevitt, M., Gassaway, B.M. & Perez, F.G. 2002. The making and unmaking of civic journalists: Influences of professional socialization. Journalism Quarterly, 79(1): 87-100. McMane, A.A. 1993. A comparative analysis of standards of reporting among French and


19/03/2005 15:27:40


290


U.S. newspaper journalists. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 8(4):207-218. McManus, J. 1994. Market-driven journalism: Let the citizen beware? Thousand Oaks: Sage. McNair, B. 2003. Sociology of journalism. London: Routledge. Meritt, D. 1995. Public journalism: Defining a democratic art. Media Studies Journal, 9(3):125-132. Merrill, J.C., Gade, P.J. & Blevens, F.R. 2001. Twilight of press freedom: The rise of people’s journalism. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Mindich, D. 1998. Just the facts: How “objectivity” came to define American journalism. New York: New York University Press. Molotch, H. & Lester, M. 1974. News as purposive behavior: On the strategic use of routine events, accidents, and scandals. American Sociological Review, 39(1):101112. Morgan, F. 1998. Recipes for success: Curriculum for professional media education. Asia/Pacific Media Educator, 8:4-21 [Online]. Available: http://www.uow.edua.au/ crearts/journalism/APME/contents8.morgan.htm. [Accessed on 2000-12-05]. Morris, M. & Ogan, C. 1996. The Internet as mass medium. Political Communication, 46(1):39-50. Nerone, J. & Barnhurst, K. 2003. News form and the media environment: A network of represented relationships. Media, Culture and Society, 25(1):111-124. Neuberger, C. 2000. Renaissance oder Niedergang des Journalismus? Ein Forschungsueberblick zum Online-Journalismus. In: Altmeppen, K., Bucher, H. & Loeffelholz, M. (Eds.). Online journalismus: Perspektiven fuer Wissenschaft und Praxis. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag. 15-48. Nordenstreng, K. & Topuz, H. (Eds.). 1989. Journalist: Status, rights and responsibilities. Prague: International Organisation of Journalists. Ognianova, E.& Endersby, J. 1996. Objectivity revisited: A spatial model of political ideology and mass communication. Journalism and Mass Communication Monographs 159. Ouaj, J. 1999. More colour in the media: Employment and access of ethnic minorities to the television industry in Germany, the UK, France, the Netherlands and Finland. Düsseldorff: The European Institute for the Media. Packer, R. & Jordan, K. (Eds.). 2001. Multimedia from Wagner to virtual reality. New York: W.W. Norton. Parekh, B.C. (Ed.). 1997. Rethinking multiculturalism. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Patterson, T.E. 1997. The news media: An effective political actor? Political Communication, 14(4):445-455. Pavlik, J. 1999. New media and news: Implications for the future of journalism. New Media and Society, 1(1):54-59. Pavlik, J. 2001. Journalism and new media. New York: Columbia University Press. Pavlik, J., Morgan, G. & Henderson, B. 2001. Information technology: Implications for the future of journalism and mass communication education. Report of the AEJMC Task Force on Teaching and Learning in the New Millenium [Online]. Available: http://www.aejmc.org/pubs/2001.html. [Accessed on 2001-05-08]. Pavlik, J. & Ross, S.S. 2000. Journalism online: Exploring the impact of new media on


19/03/2005 15:27:41



291

news and society. In: Albarran, A.B. & Goff, D.H. (Eds.). Understanding the Web: The social, political, and economic dimensions of the Internet. Ames: Iowa State University Press. 117-133. Peiser, W. 2000. Cohort trends in media use in the United States. Mass Communication and Society, 3(2 & 3):185-205. Pew Research Center 1999. Striking the balance: Audience interests, business pressures and journalists’ values. Survey Report, March 30 [Online]. Available: http://www.peoplepress.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=67. [Accessed on 2002-04-03]. Platon, S. & Deuze, M. 2003. Indymedia journalism: A radical way of making, selecting and sharing news? Journalism, 4(3):343-362. Pryor, L. 2000. An explanation of “Immersive News”. Online Journalism Review, October 9 [Online]. Available: http://www.ojr.org/ojr/technology/1017962897.php. [Accessed on 2003-06-19]. Quinn, G. & Trench, B. 2002. Online news media and their audiences. Mudia Report, July [Online]. Available: http://www.mudia.org/abstracts.html. [Accessed on 2003-04-20]. Randall, D. 2000. The universal journalist. 2nd edition. London: Pluto Press. Reese, S. 1990. The news paradigm and the ideology of objectivity: A socialist at the Wall Street Journal. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 7(4):390-409. Reese, S. 2001. Understanding the global journalist: A hierarchy-of-influences approach. Journalism Studies, 2(2):173-187. Reese, S. & Cohen, J. 2000. Educating for journalism: The professionalism of scholarship. Journalism Studies, 1(2):213–227. Rich, C. 2003. Writing and reporting news. 4th edition. Belmont: Wadsworth. Rosen, J. 1999. What are journalists for? New Haven: Yale University Press. Ross, F.J. & Patton, J.P. 2000. The nature of journalism courses devoted to diversity. Journalism Educator, 55(1):24-39. Ruehl, M. 2000. Des Journalismus vergangene Zukunft: Zur Theoriegeschichte einer kuenftigen Journalismusforschung [The past future of journalism: A history of theory of a future journalism studies]. In: Loeffelholz, M. (Ed.). Theorien des Journalismus. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. 65-80. Russo, T.C. 1998. Organizational and professional identification: A case of newspaper journalists. Management Communication Quarterly, 12(1):72-111. Ryan, M. 2001. Journalistic ethics, objectivity, existential journalism, standpoint epistemology, and public journalism. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 16(1):3-22. Schlesinger, P. 1978. Putting “reality” together. London: Methuen. Schudson, M. 1978. Discovering the news: A social history of American newspapers. New York: Basic Books. Schudson, M. 1995. The power of news. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Schudson, M. 1996. The sociology of news production revisited. In: Curran, J. & Gurevitch, M. (Eds.). Mass Media and Society. London: Arnold. 141-159. Schudson, M. 1999. What public journalism knows about journalism but doesn’t know about ‘public’. In: Glasser, T. (Ed.). The idea of public journalism. New York: Guilford. 118-134. Schudson, M. 2001. The objectivity norm in American journalism. Journalism, 2(2):149-


19/03/2005 15:27:41


292


170. Schudson, M. 2003. Sociology of news. New York: W.W. Norton. Shoemaker, P.J. & Reese, S.D. 1996. Mediating the message: Theories of influences on mass media content. New York: Longman. Singer, J. 1998. Online journalists: Foundation for research into their changing roles. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 4(1) [Online]. Available: http: //www.jcmc.huji.ac.il/vol4/issue1/singer.html. [Accessed on 2000-02-06]. Singer, J.B. 2004. Strange bedfellows: The diffusion of convergence in four news organizations. Journalism Studies, 5(1):3-18. Skinner, D., Gasher, M.J. & Compton, J. 2001. Putting theory to practice: A critical approach to journalism studies. Journalism, 2(3):341–360. Soloski, J. 1990. News reporting and professionalism: Some constraints on the reporting of the news. Media, Culture and Society, 11(4):207-228. Sparks, C. 1992. Popular journalism: Theories and practice. In: Dahlgren, P. & Sparks, C. (Eds.). Journalism and popular culture. Thousand Oaks: Sage. 24-44. Sparks, C. & Splichal, S. 1989. Journalistic education and professional socialization. Gazette, 43(1):31-52. Splichal, S. & Sparks, C. 1994. Journalists for the 21st century: Tendencies of professionalization among first-year students in 22 countries. Norwood: Ablex. Starck, K. 2001. What’s right/wrong with journalism ethics research? Journalism Studies, 2(1):133-152. Sterk, G. 2000. Journalistiek in de multiculturele samenleving [Journalism in the multicultural society]. Den Haag: Sdu Uitgevers. Stevens, J. 2002. Backpack journalism is here to stay. Online Journalism Review, April 2. Available: http://www.ojr.org/ojr.workplace/1017771575.php. [Accessed on 200304-12]. Stevenson, N. 1995. Understanding media cultures: Social theory and mass communication. London: Sage. Teoh Kheng Yau, J. & Al-Hawamdeh, S. 2001. The impact of the Internet on teaching and practicing journalism. Journal of Electronic Publishing, 7(1) [Online]. Available: http://www.press.umich.edu/jep/07-01/al-hawamdeh.html. [Accessed on 2001-0912]. Tuchman, G. 1971. Objectivity as strategic ritual: An examination of newsmen’s notions of objectivity. American Journal of Sociology, 77(4):660-679. Van Dijk, T.A. 1991. Racism and the press. New York: Routledge. Van Ginneken, J. 1997. Understanding global news: A critical introduction. London: Sage. Van Zoonen, L. 1998. A professional, unreliable, heroic marionette (M/F): Structure, agency and subjectivity in contemporary journalisms. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 1(1):123-143. Weaver, D.H. (Ed.). 1998. The global journalist: News people around the world. New Jersey: Hampton. Weaver, D.H. 2003. The face and mind of the American journalist. Indiana University School of Journalism American Journalist Survey [Online]. Available: http:// www.poynter.org/content/content_view.asp?id=28235. [Accessed on 2004-08-20].


19/03/2005 15:27:41



293

Weaver, D.H. & Wilhoit, G.C. 1996. The American journalist in the 1990s: U.S. news people at the end of an era. Mahwah: Erlbaum. Weber, S. 2000. Ist eine integrative Theorie moeglich?. In: Loeffelholz, M. (Ed.). Theorien des Journalismus. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. 455-466. Weischenberg, S., Loeffelholz, M. & Scholl, A. 1998. Journalism in Germany. In: Weaver, D.H. (Ed.). The global journalist. New Yersey: Hampton. 229-256. Weischenberg, S. & Scholl, A. 1998. Journalismus in der Gesellschaft: Theorie, Methodologie und Empirie. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Wilson, C. & Gutierrez, F. 2003. Race, multiculturalism and the media: From mass to class communicaiton. 2nd edition. London: Sage. Wise, R. 2000. Multimedia: An introduction. London: Routledge. Zelizer, B. 1993. Has communication explained journalism? Journal of Communication, 43(4):80-88. Zelizer, B. 2004a. When facts, truth and reality are God-terms: On journalism’s uneasy place in cultural studies. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, 1(1):100119. Zelizer, B. 2004b. Taking journalism seriously: News and the academy. London: Sage.

Endnotes 1

Personal e-mail from the Journalism Studies Interest Group coordinator Thomas Hanitzsch, 14 April 2004. 2 I realise that Niklas Luhmann (1996) has answered this question with “communication”, but would like to argue that, through an identification of the core values functioning as building blocks of the ideology of journalism, I offer a way to code and interpret communication and communicative acts that take place within the social system of journalism.


19/03/2005 15:27:41