Power and the News Media: The Press and Democratic Accountability

Nordicom Review, 2002

Why do some events fill the columns and air time of news media, while others are ignored? Why do some stories make banner headlines whereas others merit no more than a few lines? What factors decide what news professionals consider newsworthy? Such questions are often answered-by journalists and media researchers alike-with references to journalistic news values or 'news criteria'. Some answers are normatively founded; others are pragmatic and descriptive. In the present article, I submit that editorial priorities should not be analyzed in purely journalistic terms. Instead, they should be seen as efforts to combine journalistic norms and editorial ambitions, on the one hand, with commercial norms and market objectives, on the other. Commercial Enterprise and Patron of an Institution News media have a dual nature. On the one hand they represent a societal institution that is ascribed a vital role in relation to such core political values as freedom of expression and democracy. On the other hand, they are businesses that produce commodities-information and entertainment-for a market. At the same time, because their products are descriptions of reality that influence our perceptions of the world around us, news media wield influence that extends far beyond the marketplace. Who controls the media is of significance to every member of society. As figures like Rupert Murdoch, Silvio Berlusconi and the new Russian media barons remind us, control of the media is a key to political power. And while many venerable industries wither and die (or undergo profound metamorphoses) the consciousness industry-as writer Hans Magnus Enzensberger (1974) dubbed the media and other actors in the communication sector-is rapidly expanding. Newspapers, radio programs and television transmissions differ with respect to how consumption of them affects our perception and understanding of reality. As Graham Murdoch observes: By providing accounts of the contemporary world and images of the 'good life', they play a pivotal role in shaping social consciousness, and it is this 'special relationship' between economic and cultural power that has made the issue of

Reclaiming the media: Communication rights …, 2003

Media, Culture & Society, 2010

Media and journalists have an uneasy relationship with their public. They are there for them, but not so much to listen as to speak to-to inform them about what goes on in society, the facts and figures, backgrounds and opinions they deem relevant, interesting, in the public interest or exciting for people to know. Journalists feel slightly uncomfortable when the public respond, especially with criticism of their performance. When their professional roles, reliability and integrity are called into doubt, journalists are often more self-referential (listening to their colleagues) than responsive (listening to their audiences); even when they are aware that more than a third (37 percent) of the European public tend not to trust television and almost half (48 percent) feel equally negative about the press (Eurobarometer 67, 2007). At the same time, journalists need their public, if only to survive in a competitive media market, a fact of which managers and owners may be more acutely aware. The ambiguity of this relationship between journalists and public has recently increased and been put to the test by at least four-interrelated and mutually reinforcing-developments: two inside and two outside the direct realm of journalism. In the first place, with increasing competition between and commercialization within media, and decreasing loyalty and changing news consumption patterns of their audiences, a shift can be noted from a supply to a demand market in communication (Van Cuilenburg, 1998). Media no longer decide exclusively what the public should read, watch or listen to based on what the former think the latter need as democratic citizens. Rather, the assumed wishes and desires of the public have become more decisive for what the media provide. Consequently, the selection of news (what is relevant and important?) could well be based more on market considerations, of what sells and is attractive for the public, than on in the public interest.

Why do some events fill the columns and air time of news media, while others are ignored? Why do some stories make banner headlines whereas others merit no more than a few lines? What factors decide what news professionals consider newsworthy? Such questions are often answered – by journalists and media researchers alike – with references to journalistic news values or ‘news criteria’. Some answers are normatively founded; others are pragmatic and descriptive. In the present article, I submit that editorial priorities should not be analyzed in purely journalistic terms. Instead, they should be seen as efforts to combine journalistic norms and editorial ambitions, on the one hand, with commercial norms and market objectives, on the other.

This article examines whether there is a gap between the news choices of mainstream journalists and those of their public. It looks at the choices of both groups in relation to each other and explores whether these choices vary in connection with the occurrence of major political events. The heuristic value of this approach is demonstrated through a mixed-method study of the news choices of journalists and consumers in the main Argentine online sites. A content analysis of the top stories chosen by journalists of that country's two leading sites and the stories that consumers of these sites click most often yields two key results. First, during periods of relatively normal political activity, journalists choose stories about political, international, and economic subjects substantively more than consumers. Second, during periods of heightened political activity, consumers increase their interest in these stories, and the gap with the choices of journalists either disappears or narrows. Furthermore, interviews with journalists and with news consumers show that the presence of this gap during ordinary political times and its change during extraordinary periods are shaped by divergent and dynamic interpretive logics.

2020

European Journal of Communication, 2019

ELSEBETH FREY 12 Muslim countries where journalists seem to be motivated to monitor business and politics, which are qualities of the watchdog role (ibid:569f). Blumler states that, although Western factors are abound in the Worlds of Journalism Study, the examination of contextual differences means that 'an overly "Western-centered focus"' was avoided (Blumler 2017:683). For, even though the Anglo-American model of journalism 'seems to stand out as the only universal model' (Mancini 2005:78), academic as well as global winds blew in another direction, making it obvious that the model 'cannot be grafted on to any other systems' (Schudson 2005:104). Thus, Curran and Park (2000) aimed to broaden the understanding of media theory and the experiences 'outside the Anglo-American orbit' (2000:11). In addition, they write that global theory underplays the importance of nations, which they believe are influential in shaping media systems (ibid:12ff). Also De Burgh emphasizes that how journalists act depends on culture. Furthermore, globalization 'has meant a sharing of techniques, and formats and professional attitudes but also, paradoxically, globalisation has brought about an intensified awareness of the power of culture such that we cannot afford to ignore it' (2005:17). For example, examining journalistic culture in Muslim-majority countries, Muchtar et al. saw that journalists support national development and advocate for social change, 'particularly […] journalists in Bangladesh and Indonesia, Oman and Qatar, as well as Sierra Leone and Sudan' (2017:564). However, as a study from Ramaprasad and Rahman (2006) shows, it is not necessarily contradictory to believe in critical reporting and, at the same time, to endorse national-building values. Normative and empirical As Hallin and Mancini state, comparative studies are valuable but risky (2004:5). One of the many reasons for this is that using surveys and interviews to examine journalism's values and norms generates results on how journalists think, not on what they do. So, there could be a gap between expressed values and work in practice and a need to follow up with research on journalistic content. Furthermore, journalism, as well as studies of it, tends to be normative. For journalism, normativity is its legitimization (McQuail in Josephi 2005:576). Maybe due to the hegemony of the Anglo-American model, it is often argued that detached, critical journalism may lead to better democratic practices. Others have stated that a socially responsible press may lead to social harmony or that advocacy journalism can bring about change. Schudson (2003:198), for example, states 'the press by itself is not democracy and does not create democracy'-unless the state tolerates criticism of its power and permits some degree of self-government for the press (ibid:197). Merrill points to the 'cacophony of muttering worldwide about press freedom' (2009:10), ironically refer-22 ELSEBETH FREY United Nations (1948). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights [online].

Communication Theory, 2007

Despite a large array of work broadly concerned with the cultures of news production, studies rarely attempt to tackle journalism culture and its dimensional structure at the conceptual level. The purpose of this paper is, therefore, to propose a theoretical foundation on the basis of which systematic and comparative research of journalism cultures is feasible and meaningful. By using a deductive and etic approach, the concept of journalism culture is deconstructed in terms of its constituents and principal dimensions. Based on a review of the relevant literature, the article proposes a conceptualization of journalism culture that consists of 3 essential constituents (institutional roles, epistemologies, and ethical ideologies), further divided into 7 principal dimensions: interventionism, power distance, market orientation, objectivism, empiricism, relativism, and idealism.

"It has been argued by some that the changes occurring in journalism has led to the audience becoming more important in a journalist’s creative process, particularly with newer work practices such as social media and online writing and tools such as Search Engine Optimisation. However, what this paper is contending is that the audience has always been one of the structures that journalists interact with in their creative process. Using data from a doctoral research project that examined the creative practices of print journalists in Australia, this paper will demonstrate how journalists interact with their audience throughout the work process from story generation to research, writing, publishing and feedback. The discussion about print journalists and their audience demonstrates how the audience is important in a journalist’s creative process regardless of the platform they write for. What this paper will also show is that the audience is a structure that both enables and constrains journalists in their creative process. Furthermore, writing for an audience becomes part of a journalist’s tacit knowledge (Schön, 1983), thus making the creative process easier. "