Suchergebnisse

7 pages ; This entry seeks to synthesize the many definitions of journalism. Struggles over defining what qualifies as journalism and who qualifies as a journalist are more than discursive disputes; they are key points of departure for understanding the societal roles as well as social meanings of journalism in the twenty‐first century. In a basic sense, journalism refers to the systematic gathering, filtering, and circulating of information deemed to be news and in the public interest. But, as this entry shows, definitions of journalism are also complex normative, political, and ideological statements that may appear quite differently from different perspectives. This entry reviews how journalism was defined historically, what it came to represent in late modern times, and why it may need to be redefined to capture the complex realities of producing and consuming news in an information environment that challenges supposedly stable notions of what journalism is and why it matters.

Abstract
Danielle Batist is a freelance journalist and editor who embraces an entrepreneurial and positive approach to journalism. She has lived and worked in several countries around the globe. In the fifteen years she has been working as a journalist, she has developed an interest in social change, which she pursued in her work as the editor of the International Network of Street Papers (INSP), reaching six million readers in over 40 countries, and which underpins her current focus on 'Constructive Journalism' – a project she co-founded in 2014. Drawing on a variety of behavioural and audience studies, constructive journalism can be defined as 'as rigorous, compelling reporting that includes positive and solutionfocused elements in order to empower audiences and present a fuller picture of truth, while upholding journalism's core functions and ethics' – in other words, an approach that attempts to bring positive elements to conventional reporting. By using a 'wellbeing' model of the world instead of a 'disease' model, stories about what is working – rather than just what is broken – become part of the news eco-system. Last year, Danielle got involved in the re-launch of Positive News, founded in 1993 and re-launched in 2016 as a magazine. The publication showcases a new model for media ownership, as well as a new way to tell news stories. Owned by a community of 1526 journalists, readers and supporters from 33 countries, the magazine features 'Constructive Conversation', where thought leaders are challenged to find common ground; 'Solutions Lab', where forward-thinking responses to difficult social issues are unearthed; 'What Happened Next?' where stories reported upon previously are updated. All these aspects are highlighted in a conversation with Danielle Batist, who gives her insight on the discussed matters.

The aim of the paper is to rethink the position of the journalistic
profession in the contemporary social contexts of the 21st century, within
the context of social changes determined by capitalism in its radical stage,
and the permanent transformations of digital technologies as the main tool
for production and consumption. The central question that arises is whether
we can still think of journalism as a profession in accordance with the
principles formed in the midtwentieth century, or whether the journalistic
profession is ?dead?, transformed into a ?bullshit job?? If we look at the
three main indicators of professional journalism: public interest and the
watchdog function; autonomy; and the adherence to specific professional
norms; it seems, by looking at actual journalistic practices, that all three
indicators that fundamentally legitimize journalism as a profession has
eroded significantly. The main claim is that journalism, to a large extent,
has turned into a ?bullshit job?, even if the ?old? normative principles of
the profession still serves to legitimize it, but with no stronghold in real
journalist practices. Of course, this does not mean that professional
journalism, defined according to the principles established in mid-twentieth
century, is not still relevant, even crucial for the public and public
interest. This is why, in the conclusion of the paper, we plead for the
strengthening of those media organizations that nurture the protection of
the public interest as well as investigative and critically oriented,
independent journalism.

Performing content analysis is not merely a question of developing and using quantitatively-defined categories in order to investigate a research problem. If you want to go further and look at the meaning of the whole text, your analysis will meet challenges that go beyond numerical classification and coding. The strict numerical procedures of quantifying, classifying and counting have the advantage of objective control and reliability within research communities. However, they tend not to capture the ways meaning is produced, communicated and understood. In this article, we outline a dual procedure for the analysis of meaning-making in journalism. Using the software NVivo 8, we combine a qualitative and quantitative approach to the analysis of news texts. Following Franzosi (2010), we move "from words to numbers" and develop a methodological framework that supports investigation of the ways different cultural context, political reality and journalism culture generate narrative differences and produce alternative meanings. We use the case study of the two-year-long newspaper coverage of the Tasmanian devils sent as a christening gift to Danish Prince Christian to locate the process of meaning-making. Our analysis shows that the reconstruction of an event – a 'real story' –generates one or more story frames, which are related to the newsworthiness of the event, shared and hunted down by all journalists regardless of the country of origin or newspaper format. We found that journalists acted differently when selecting frames and refining them into angles where the choice of angles relates to a specific national and media format setting. The main advantage of this applied method is the precision in identifying the journalistic tools used to produce a specific meaning.

Modern democratic societies have come to depend on some form of foundational assumptions about the involvement of the public in political decision-making. This inscribing of a public, defined as wider than the legislative and judicial bodies themselves, into journalism was key to both the legitimation of democratic processes and as a conduit to knowledge of the decision-making processes themselves. While journalism has long presented a public-facing discourse that defines its role as an intermediary between the public and the powerful, informing the former and challenging the latter, the nuances of this role have been varied. Journalism's claims have often rested on broad and noble-sounding commitments to service of the public. A fertile departure point for considering the public discourse of a specific form of journalism is the popular tabloid newspaper. Once analysis of the substance and patterning of media language began to be introduced, certain of the long-held claims for the public functions of journalism came under more sustained scrutiny.

Abstract
In the past, journalists were responsible for reporting the news. But today news stories disseminate as the incidents unfold, from multiple sources. Thus, gathering, filtering and visualizing events has a growing value. Huge amounts of data are available, but exploiting them is not an easy task. Data journalism can be defined as a journalism speciality in which numerical data are used in the production and distribution of information. This article investigates the necessary skills that journalists must have in order to cope with data journalism. More precisely, it defines data journalism, and discusses journalists' Information and Communication Technology (ICT) skills, as well as the necessary skills for supporting data journalism. Special attention is given to Web 3.0 and open data that can play an important role in data journalism. A survey conducted among professional journalists in Greece concerning data journalism is also presented and discussed.

Media systems where political parallelism co-exists with political clientelism have contradictory influences on journalistic practices. Journalists are encouraged to actively defend a cause and influence public opinion while expected to remain subservient to their political masters. The media studies literature has analyzed the impact of political parallelism and clientelism separately, without reflecting on the tensions that emerge when they operate together. The article examines journalism under instrumentalized political parallelism and argues that it plays out in a field defined by both horizontal and vertical conflicts. We add an elite-grassroots analytical perspective to the inter-elite tensions associated with a polarized public sphere. Political parallelism in non-democratic contexts seemingly leaves little room for journalistic agency, as the politically powerful tend to instrumentalize media outlets. However, by looking closely at the case of Lebanon, we argue that journalists are still able to act independently of and contrary to the elite's intentions. The empirical analysis shows how journalists navigate vis-à-vis the politicians by playing the relations game, exploiting internal contradictions in the system and connecting with popular grievances. The article contributes new knowledge about journalists' resilience to instrumentalization in a context of media/politics connections that is commonly found outside the West. ; publishedVersion

Media systems where political parallelism co-exists with political clientelism have contradictory influences on journalistic practices. Journalists are encouraged to actively defend a cause and influence public opinion while expected to remain subservient to their political masters. The media studies literature has analyzed the impact of political parallelism and clientelism separately, without reflecting on the tensions that emerge when they operate together. The article examines journalism under instrumentalized political parallelism and argues that it plays out in a field defined by both horizontal and vertical conflicts. We add an elite-grassroots analytical perspective to the inter-elite tensions associated with a polarized public sphere. Political parallelism in non-democratic contexts seemingly leaves little room for journalistic agency, as the politically powerful tend to instrumentalize media outlets. However, by looking closely at the case of Lebanon, we argue that journalists are still able to act independently of and contrary to the elite's intentions. The empirical analysis shows how journalists navigate vis-à-vis the politicians by playing the relations game, exploiting internal contradictions in the system and connecting with popular grievances. The article contributes new knowledge about journalists' resilience to instrumentalization in a context of media/politics connections that is commonly found outside the West.

Media systems where political parallelism co-exists with political clientelism have contradictory influences on journalistic practices. Journalists are encouraged to actively defend a cause and influence public opinion while expected to remain subservient to their political masters. The media studies literature has analyzed the impact of political parallelism and clientelism separately, without reflecting on the tensions that emerge when they operate together. The article examines journalism under instrumentalized political parallelism and argues that it plays out in a field defined by both horizontal and vertical conflicts. We add an elite-grassroots analytical perspective to the inter-elite tensions associated with a polarized public sphere. Political parallelism in non-democratic contexts seemingly leaves little room for journalistic agency, as the politically powerful tend to instrumentalize media outlets. However, by looking closely at the case of Lebanon, we argue that journalists are still able to act independently of and contrary to the elite's intentions. The empirical analysis shows how journalists navigate vis-à-vis the politicians by playing the relations game, exploiting internal contradictions in the system and connecting with popular grievances. The article contributes new knowledge about journalists' resilience to instrumentalization in a context of media/politics connections that is commonly found outside the West. ; publishedVersion

This special issue of Journal of Applied Journalism and Media Studies sheds light on the hitherto under-investigated emerging practice of cross-border collaborative journalism. It aims to define it, conceptualize it and hopefully operationalize it. For this purpose, cross-border collaborative journalism practice is defined widely, and contributors come from both academia and journalism practice. This introduction notes the context of the emerging practice, introduces the articles of this special issue and points to further research questions.

This study examines the boundaries and limitations of the diffusion of "development journalism" among both the editorial body and the journalist body in the Egyptian newsrooms after the 2011 Arab Spring. Newsrooms under study represent different perspectives including state-owned, private-independent, and opposition newspapers. Through in-depth interviews with thirty-seven editors in chief and journalists, the authors studied how the editors and journalists at each newspaper define development journalism, whether the diffusion of development journalism follows a top-down or bottom-up approach, and if development journalism could influence the setting of the news agenda. Results show that the differences are not only apparent in the way development journalism is defined inside the different news organizations, but also between managers and journalists within each. Organizational structures and technological developments are as well factors that affect the way development journalism is diffused inside newsrooms.

A reporting field trip by Australian journalism students to New Caledonia and Vanuatu in mid-2014 produced markedly differing impressions of the neighbouring island societies, linked to their 'independence' status—one as an integrated territory of France, the other as an independent state. The field trip, one of a series from the Queensland University of Technology, aimed at developing reporting skills through work in unaccustomed territory, especially different cultural settings. Over 17 days, six students and the coordinator, and author of this article, generated 18 feature-length reports for online outlets and a radio documentary. The article synthesises the collected work from the field, producing a thematic statement of findings. It records broad consensus in New Caledonia in favour of enacting the Matignon and Noumea Accords on independence, while noting an undercurrent of unresolved conflicts. It characterises public life in Vanuatu in terms of a democratic spirit, and the invocation of traditional ties within society, as the country grapples with problems of development and impacts of the outside world. This work is interpretative, concerned with identifying processes underlying events in daily news. It is proposed as a first step towards a scholarly construction of meta-analyses of the interpretative and informative power of journalistic reporting.

It's easy to make a rhetorical case for the value of journalism. Because, it is a necessary precondition for democracy; it speaks to the people and for the people; it informs citizens and enables them to make rational decisions; it functions as their watchdog on government and other powers that be. But does rehashing such familiar rationales bring journalism studies forward? Does it contribute to ongoing discussions surrounding journalism's viability going forth? For all their seeming self-evidence, this book considers what bearing these old platitudes have in the new digital era. It asks whether such hopeful talk really reflects the concrete roles journalism now performs for people in their everyday lives. In essence, it poses questions that strike at the core of the idea of journalism itself. Is there a singular journalism that has one well-defined role in society? Is its public mandate as strong as we think? The internationally-renowned scholars comprising the collection address these recurring concerns that have long-defined the profession and which journalism faces even more acutely today. By discussing what journalism was, is, and (possibly) will be, this book highlights key contemporary areas of debate and tackles on-going anxieties about its future.