Global questioners: examining journalists’ aggressiveness at Chinese premiers’ press conferences (1993–2015)*

This paper explores the different levels of aggressiveness in five dimensions exhibited by journalists with diverse global backgrounds at the press conferences of four Chinese premiers. Four attributes of the journalists’ home countries are examined: (1) power distance, (2) press freedom, (3) stage of development, and (4) frequency of questioning opportunities. The results show that journalists from countries with lower power distances tend to be more direct in their question designs than those with higher power distances; journalists with higher levels of press freedom tend to show more initiative, directness, assertiveness, and adversarialness than those with lower levels; journalists from developed countries are more direct, assertive, adversarial, and accountable than their counterparts; frequent questioners are more assertive, adversarial, and accountable than those infrequent. The theoretical and practical implications of journalists’ aggressive behaviors are discussed.     

Managing Conflict of Interest

When a journalist returns to political reporting after working as a political media adviser it can trigger concern about conflict of interest based on a suspicion of partisanship. Despite this, there is little discussion in the journalism literature about how reporters should manage this type of conflict when it arises. This paper reports on a selection of findings from wider inductive, qualitative research into the career transition from journalism to political media advising and back again. Semi-structured, in-depth interviews conducted with 21 journalists who had moved between the two roles revealed that the media advisers took four main routes back to journalism in an attempt to manage the possible conflicts: “Escape”; Being “laundered”; Going “straight back in”; and “Cooling-off”. Based on these findings, this paper argues that a uniform approach to managing the transition from political advising to journalism could be useful in easing public concern about conflicts of interest.     

MEDIALIZED SCIENCE?

Because the neurosciences affect many areas of society and culture, they receive much public attention. Brain research and other focuses of neuroscience are regularly featured in the mass media, calling on neuroscientists to serve as sources. Based on 30 semi-structured interviews with neuroscientists in the United States and Germany, this article analyzes neuroscientists' motivations to interact with journalists, their perception of problems with the media reporting of neuroscience and media contacts, and the strategies they apply in order to gain some control over the coverage. Results show that most neuroscientists perceive benefits of media coverage and are willing to cooperate with journalists and conform to their expectations, but only to a certain degree. Neuroscientists perceive problems regarding the quality of coverage, risks related to public visibility and negative consequences of being distracted from research and scientific publication because of the time demands of media interactions. The scientists discussed several strategies to improve this perceived cost–benefit ratio.