From Inarticulacy to Care

This article seeks to critically re-open the closed structure of news coverage of ethnic minorities by proposing a dialogical model of representation, which evokes mutual understanding across differences through well-crafted narratives of minority experiences. Informed by Mikhail Bakhtin and Charles Taylor, it explores the notion of “dialogue” within journalistic narratives and delineates two dialogical approaches, namely the evaluative articulation of moral values and the polyphonic incorporation of different voices. The former suggests that journalists should employ nuanced languages to situate ethnic minorities’ aspirations and experiences in a common “horizon of significance”. The latter challenges the hegemonic monologue of an ostensibly objective narration and accentuates the manifold voices from ordinary people, urging the journalists to rethink their positionality as narrators. Two cases are analyzed to reveal how the dialogic representation can be realized in news reporting, calling for a transition from “ethics of inarticulacy” to ethics of care in journalism practices.     

Citizen-Centered Journalism and Contested Boundaries

This article explores the existence of a “citizen-centered journalism” that sees citizens as crucial participants in the construction of news and as co-creators of their own worlds. Through qualitative case studies of three news organizations, the article examines the motivation for using a citizen-centered approach, the news routines that are required to do so, the categories of content produced, and the perceived impact of this approach. The results suggest these news organizations are working in partnership with communities and striving to give a voice to historically marginalized communities. The journalists, however, see citizen participation as complementary to professional journalistic routines that favor verifiable information, rather than assigning inherent value to it for its own sake.     

Back to the Future

The emergence of “fake news” during the Brexit referendum and Trump election campaign sent news organisations scurrying to establish teams of journalists to debunk deliberately misleading stories and verify facts. This paper examines steps to counter false stories and asks whether normative values of objectivity are about to enjoy a comeback. Typical markers of objectivity (freedom from bias, detachment and fact-based reporting) date back to the nineteenth century and, despite being ingrained in the Anglo-American news culture, have always been subject to challenge. Recently, the growth of partisan and populist media has illustrated deep distrust in traditional news outlets and is questioning whether it is time to jettison objectivity. But are we experiencing a backlash? Through interviews with senior UK-based journalists at legacy news organisations and analysis of editorial policy statements prompted by a UK parliamentary inquiry, the paper explores how fake news is rekindling debate about objectivity and its potential to make quality journalism stand out. It argues that legacy news organisations in the United Kingdom have seized the opportunity to highlight the value of normative practices that draw on familiar components of the objectivity paradigm. But few have the financial strength to bolster the rhetoric with additional editorial resources.     

Placing Facebook

Facebook is challenging professional journalism. These challenges were evident in three incidents from 2016: the allegation that Facebook privileged progressive-leaning news on its trending feature; Facebook’s removal of the Pulitzer Prize-winning “Napalm Girl” photo from the pages of prominent users; and the proliferation of “fake news” during the US presidential election. Using theoretical concepts from the field of boundary work, this paper examines how The Guardian, The New York Times, Columbia Journalism Review and Poynter editorialized Facebook’s role in these three incidents to discursively construct the boundary between the value of professional journalism to democracy and Facebook’s ascendant role in facilitating essential democratic functions. Findings reveal that these publications attempted to define Facebook as a news organization (i.e., include it within the boundaries of journalism) so that they could then criticize the company for not following duties traditionally incumbent upon news organizations (i.e., place it outside the boundaries of journalism). This paper advances scholarship that focuses on both inward and outward conceptions of boundary work, further explores the complex challenge of defining who a journalist is in the face of rapidly changing technological norms, and advances scholarship in the field of media ethics that positions ethical analysis at the institutional level.     

Abandoning Either/Ors in Analyzing Shifts in Humanitarian Reporting

ABSTRACT

The shifting constitution of journalists as humanitarian actors has profound implications for changing forms of journalism practice, as well as for the normative models through which journalists understand and reflect on that practice. In an effort to develop a more empirically-grounded engagement with change, this article explores the interview testimonies of Australian journalists who cover international and humanitarian issues. It argues that frameworks reliant on stark oppositions (between past and present, optimism and pessimism, or moral agency and material structure) are both empirically and practically problematic, and seeks to move beyond these. Engagement with data from semi-structured interviews offers insight into how journalists’ perceptions of and responses to change are shaped by the historical and shifting institutional relations in which they are implicated.     

Beyond “Woodstein”: Narratives of Investigative Journalism

ABSTRACT

Using a methodology inspired by structural narratology and by James Hamilton’s [2016. Democracy’s Detectives: The Economics of Investigative Journalism. Cambridge: Harvard] economic analysis of investigative journalism, this paper identifies a set of 14 recurring structural and formal elements (plot events, character types and functions, visual iconography) that constitute a fable about investigative journalism. The fable structure is applied to analyze six diverse films about investigative journalism produced in the US in the last 40 years. The films include two instantiations of successful investigative journalism (All the President’s Men, Spotlight), two cases where conflict between journalists and corporate managers diminished the impact of the investigation (Good Night and Good Luck, The Insider), and two instances of a counter-fable of failed investigative journalism (Truth, Kill the Messenger). The paper argues that the films’ representation of investigative journalism influences public perceptions of investigative journalism. It also speculates about the factors that will influence investigative journalism and its representations in the current political context in the US.     

If Only They Knew: Audience Expectations and Actual Sourcing Practices in Online Journalism

ABSTRACT

This article answers the question “Are the sourcing practices in Finnish online journalism trustworthy?” Here, trustworthiness is operationalized as the fulfillment of audience expectations towards sourcing practices. To this end, expectations of young Finnish adults (aged 18–28) were compared to the observed practices of Finnish online journalists. A total of 36 news items (from 12 journalists working in three newsrooms, published in 2013 and 2017) were analyzed. The analysis indicates that online journalists’ sourcing practices largely do not conform to this audience segment's expectations. Namely, the audience expects more comprehensive investigation and thorough verification than what is common practice in online journalism. The use of high-credibility sources is both expected and commonplace. The results imply that transparency may be harmful rather than beneficial to journalism's credibility, as the unveiled practices do not always meet audience expectations.     

Press Credentials and Hybrid Boundary Zones: The Case of WorldNetDaily and the Standing Committee of Correspondents

ABSTRACT

Press credentialing practices are a vital, yet understudied site of scholarly research on journalistic norms and practices. Press credentialing not only structures internal professional hierarchies, but they also signify the boundaries of the journalistic field itself. This paper explores the legal and theoretical implications of press credentialing to cover the United States Congress, drawing on the concepts of boundary work and journalistic authority to demonstrate the material impact of the space between fields on professional legitimation in journalism. Using WorldNetDaily (WND) as a case study, I argue that the Standing Committee of Correspondents (SCC) occupies a hybrid boundary zone between the journalistic and political fields, generating a unique tension in First Amendment jurisprudence that places journalists in a paradoxical role as both the professional embodiments of free speech and its constitutional steward. The resulting jurisdictional conflict between the SCC and WND extends the relational model of journalistic authority by articulating how journalist-state relations can fundamentally augment the process of legitimation at its fuzzy boundaries. The relevance and implications for press credentialing practices in the digital age are discussed.