Reinventing Professionalism E-Book

Silvio Waisbord

• Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
• Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
• Serie: Key Concepts in Journalism
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 422

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2013

Beschreibung

Current anxiety about the future of news makes it opportune to revisit the notion of professionalism in journalism. Media expert Silvio Waisbord takes this pressing issue as his theme and argues that “professional journalism” is both a normative and analytical notion. It refers to reporting that observes certain ethical standards as well as to collective efforts by journalists to exercise control over the news. Professionalism should not be narrowly associated with the normative ideal as it historically developed in the West during the past century. Instead, it needs to be approached as a valuable concept to throw into sharp relief how journalists define conditions and rules of work within certain settings. Professionalization is about the specialization of labor and control of occupational practice. These issues are important, particularly amidst the combination of political, technological and economic trends that have profoundly unsettled the foundations of modern journalism. By doing so, they have stimulated the reinvention of professionalism. This engaging and insightful book critically examines the meanings, expectations, and critiques of professional journalism in a global context.

Leseprobe

Reinventing Professionalism

For Simone and Sophia

Reinventing Professionalism

Journalism and News in Global PerspectiveSilvio Waisbord

Silvio Waisbord

polity

Copyright © Silvio Waisbord 2013

The right of Silvio Waisbord to be identified as Author of this Work has been asserted in accordance with the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

First published in 2013 by Polity Press

Polity Press

65 Bridge Street

Cambridge CB2 1UR, UK

Polity Press 350Main StreetMaiden, MA 02148, USA

All rights reserved. Except for the quotation of short passages for the purpose of criticism and review, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher.

ISBN: 978-0-7456-6508-5

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

The publisher has used its best endeavours to ensure that the URLs for external websites referred to in this book are correct and active at the time of going to press. However, the publisher has no responsibility for the websites and can make no guarantee that a site will remain live or that the content is or will remain appropriate.

Every effort has been made to trace all copyright holders, but if any have been inadvertently overlooked the publisher will be pleased to include any necessary credits in any subsequent reprint or edition.

For further information on Polity, visit our website: www.politybooks.com

Contents

Acknowledgments

   Introduction

1 Paths to Professionalism

2 The Dilemmas of Professional Autonomy

3 The Ambiguities of Professional Journalism

4 Questioning Professional Journalism

5 The Professional Logic of Journalism

6 Professionalism and Media Patrimonialism

7 The Globalization of Professional Cultures

8 Post-Professional Journalism?

   Conclusion: Reinventing Professionalism

References

Index

Acknowledgments

I have benefited from comments on previous drafts of the manuscript by friends and colleagues. Stuart Allan, Dan Hallin, Risto Kunelius, Rasmus Nielsen, Michael Schudson, and Barbie Zelizer provided generous and valuable feedback. Two anonymous reviewers also offered helpful ideas. Over the years, I learned about various issues discussed in this book in conversations with Stephanie Craft, Sallie Hughes, Claudia Mellado, John Nerone, Victor Sampedro, Linda Steiner, and Howard Tumber. I owe everyone a bottle of Argentine wine and a copy of the book.

I am grateful to the academic community in the School of Media and Public Affairs at George Washington University. Many ideas in the book were originally explored in my undergraduate classes. I have been lucky to teach passionate and eloquent students who inspired me to write this book. Graduate students Caroline Anderson, Andrew Daniller, Kalyani Phansalkar, and Rachel Weisel offered terrific research assistance. My colleagues in the faculty offered a much appreciated intellectual atmosphere that encourages critical debates about journalism and politics.

Special thanks to Andrea Drugan, my editor at Polity, who believed in this project from the beginning. She gave me wise advice and shepherded the manuscript throughout the process with remarkable flair. Lauren Mulholland was extremely helpful during the production process.

As always, my family has given me unconditional love. Julie responded with curiosity, humor, and warmth to my frequent bursts of ideas. She is my brilliant and beautiful companion in the journey. Sara, Lazaro, Fabio, Cynthia, Lea, and Hilel are my home away from home. The book is dedicated to Simone and Sophia, hijas maravillosas, who constantly remind me about the true priorities in life with probing questions and sweet smiles.

Introduction

The global reinvention of professionalism

This book grew out of two experiences. The initial idea started while I worked in international aid during a five-year “sabbatical” from academia. As part of my responsibilities, I designed and participated in programs with journalists from Africa, Asia, and Latin America. The programs had various goals: learning and improving skills, discussing ethics and free expression, identifying challenges for journalistic practice, and debating strategies to raise awareness about social issues that affect vulnerable and poor populations in the global South. While sitting in seminar rooms and visiting newsrooms, I was struck by similarities and differences of journalistic work and cultures across regions. Whether it was in Bangladesh, Peru, or Tanzania, I noticed resemblances in the bureaucratic organization of “newswork,” the “statist” orientation of the news, the power and appeal of official sources, and the difficult working conditions (notably, time and resource limitations and job instability). No matter where I was, journalists expressed common concerns, hopes, frustrations, and demands. News and occupational practices were similar and different. News focused on local and national events but followed conventional values that are common in the West. The ethics used and justified to make decisions about information-gathering and reporting were remarkably different. Participants showed interest in learning about “how things are done elsewhere,” yet they were generally incredulous about the prospects of regularly enforcing codes of ethics. Most were skeptical about western instructors’ passionate calls to observe “good” ethics. News values, routines, complaints were no different than those common in the West yet production styles, ethics, working conditions, and visions of journalism were entirely different.

These informal observations made me rethink standard arguments about the impact of media and news globalization. For every argument about increased similarities in media economics, politics, content, and styles, alternative positions argue that difference remains important. What remains different and similar amidst the increased connectivity between different parts of the world? How do we explain points of convergence as well as the persistence of widely different occupational practices and values across newsrooms? Can journalism be considered an occupation with similar values and routines, considering the consolidation of international professional organizations, the ease of access to news of the world, and regular traffic of journalistic and occupational cultures across the world (the workshops I participated in, unquestionably, were a good example of such flows)?

As I started to delineate the original outline for this book after returning to academia, I began following debates that pit “professional journalism” against “militant journalism” in Latin America. “Militant” journalism and other similarly named journalisms are promoted by neo-populist governments and their sympathizers as a necessary corrective against commercial, professional journalism practiced by mainstream news corporations. In the long and heated battle between populist governments and large media companies in various countries (Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Venezuela), top officials and pro-government journalists have championed a kind of reporting that abdicates impartiality and evenhandedness and explicitly stands against “professional” journalism. They argue that, because the dominant media corporations practice reporting that openly questions official policies, governments need a journalism that, similarly, defends policies and criticizes the opposition. Such a form of “militant” advocacy journalism is found in public-funded print and broadcast news organizations. It proudly displays its political position to report the news. It sees itself as a healthy, honest alternative to the model of professional journalism that disguises its true interests under the patina of impartiality. Amidst broad conflicts in each country, such arguments have generated much controversy inside and outside journalism. As an observer and occasional participant in these debates, I find the controversy extremely interesting not only because it brings to the forefront the question of desirable models of journalism in democracy. It also shows the contested meanings of professional journalism as a normative horizon, an adjective to describe reporting styles and journalistic cultures, and a description of occupational roles and ideals.

Reflecting upon these two experiences led me to write this book. My goals are threefold: to elucidate the meanings of professional journalism, to interrogate conventional arguments about the strengths and limitations of professionalism, and to examine the globalization of the professional cultures of journalism.

The meanings of professional journalism

Professionalism is packed with meanings. It wonderfully illustrates Ludwig Wittgenstein’s argument that the meaning of words is their use. Any discussion about professionalism inevitably tramples over long-standing semantic squabbles.

Journalists and scholars frequently refer to journalism as a “profession” in the sense of a job or occupation. For example, when Chapman and Nuttall (2011: 1) write that “professional journalism is undergoing a reshaping in terms of occupational roles and legitimacy,” they mean the practice of journalism without folding professionalism into particular normative or ethical aspects. Similarly, when Stephen Ward (2010: 3) describes the confusion around the ethics of a profession that must provide instant news and analysis, he doesn’t link journalism to particular professional ethics. Such usage is also found in journalists’ memoirs and essays that use a “minimal” definition of profession in terms of career and paid jobs. This interpretation is found in Walter Lippmann’s (1920) critique of journalists, those “whose profession ... is to report the news,” for disseminating lies and propaganda. These statements neither attach normative assumptions to professionalism nor approach profession from a sociological perspective.

A different perspective is found among those who see professionalism as encompassing a set of desirable virtues and principles – the model of quality reporting and the best journalism for democracy. As difficult and elusive as it may be, the model of “professional journalism” is viewed in positive, normative terms. It offers the right set of ethical guidelines for practice. Others, instead, see professionalism as problematic, a reflection of what is fundamentally wrong with contemporary journalism in commercial media systems. Journalism, in their mind, is hamstrung by professional conventions such as neutrality and objectivity which undermine its capacity to truly serve the public and democracy. Professional ideals put a straitjacket on reporting and blunt its potential razor edge. Professionalism is simply an ideological construct, a discursive strategy mobilized by publishers and journalists to gain social prestige.

Here professionalism is approached as a sociological category of analysis to study how journalism defines itself in society vis-à-vis other occupations, professions, and areas of activity. Professionalism is, as Barbie Zelizer (2005) observes, an analytical device to think about journalism. It is an analytical prism to examine the constant and unpredictable interplay between the press and other actors that affect the conditions of journalistic practice. Professionalism is a conceptual category, a normative ideal, a narrative that reveals how journalism intersects with economic, political, social, and cultural forces that shape media systems.

As both analytical category and normative trope, professionalism is useful to examine journalistic performance and change in the context of globalization. Expectedly, the English-language academic literature on this subject draws from the experience of western democracies, particularly the US and Britain. Understanding the rise of “professionalism” values and discourse, as well as the attitudes and values of reporters and editors, has been of central concern to journalism studies. Also, from ethics to training, issues related to professionalism are frequently discussed in the trade press and “professional” publications. Paeans and critiques have assessed the strengths and weaknesses, the promises and blind spots, of professionalism in the Anglo-American world and, to a lesser extent, in other European democracies. In a globalized world, it is necessary to revisit the relevance of the notion of professional journalism. The global expansion of professionalism suggests “the reconfiguration of what counts as journalism in the global network society” (Allan 2003).

The study of the question of professionalism also offers a useful point of entry into the remarkable changes transpiring in contemporary journalism. To say that journalism is in a state of flux is an understatement (Preston 2009). The combination of recent economic, political, and technological transformations has shaken the old journalistic order with still unpredictable consequences. Change is not unusual in journalism. As a product of modernity, journalism has been historically situated amidst social transformations. Located at the crossroads of politics, economics, society, culture, and technology, journalism has always been extremely sensitive to broad transformations. The narratives of journalism in “crisis,” “transition,” and “change,” or confronting its end, are commonplace in the literature (Blunder 1992; Deuze 2005a; Hardt 1996; Williams and Delli Carpini 2011).

Although apocalyptic claims about “the end of journalism” may be unwarranted, this is a moment of anxiety and uncertainty about journalism. The convergence of various factors has thrown into question the notion and future of journalism. Corporate gutting has made journalism indistinguishable from any other market commodity. New technologies offer platforms for the empowerment of the media-consuming publics and the transformation into “produsers” of news and information. The multiplication of information outlets coupled with the fragmentation of publics has undermined the control that journalism historically had over news. The “collapse of media gatekeeping” (Williams and Delli Carpini 2000) forces journalism to rethink its role, perhaps as a convener or moderator of public debate, once its all-powerful monopoly of news gathering and distribution is in shambles.

Given these monumental changes, it is inevitable that the meaning of “professional journalism” evolves, too. Yet what professionalism actually means has been a matter of permanent debates both in journalism and academia. The meaning of professional journalism remains elusive. It is ostensibly a normative set of ideas about what journalism is and should be. It is limited, however, to see it as either a desirable ideal or a myth. Used as an adjective to characterize journalism, “professional” lacks consensus definitions. It is loosely used to describe various characteristics of newsroom work, such as ethical practices, quality, and the use of specific news-gathering and reporting techniques. Nor is it obvious that it necessarily has positive connotations. “Professional journalism” has been variously used to refer to abstract notions of good journalism, industrial control, or the democratic press. Whereas for its defenders, “professional” refers to desirable qualities of “newswork” (such as public interest, objectivity, neutrality), critics disparage it. Their assessments echo the different uses of “professional” in common parlance and political discourse. At times, “professional” conveys knowledgeable and ethical behaviors, as when it is used in ordinary language to characterize quality performance by plumbers or human resources specialists. Other times, “professional” conjures up self-interested individuals who pursue private interests while holding public position, as in the ubiquitous “professional politician” hurled during election campaigns in the United States.

The ambiguity of professional journalism can be attributed to two factors. On the one hand, the notion of profession remains contested in the social sciences. Like other concepts that remain open to definitions and debate (“culture” and “paradigm” come to mind), “profession” similarly lacks commonly agreed-upon definitions. On the other hand, the fuzziness of the concept of “professional journalism” is grounded on the constant blending of occupational and normative definitions. Whereas occupational definitions describe what journalism does, normative arguments provide aspirational arguments about why journalism should pursue professional standards. Such blending of analytical and normative definitions is not unique to journalism studies. As sociologist Eliot Freidson (1986) has argued, to call an occupation a “profession” is to make both descriptive and evaluative judgments. In the case of journalism, the constant entanglement of occupational and normative definitions is grounded on a particular conceptualization of the links between the press, citizens, and democracy.

Whereas one set of studies has examined the evolution of journalism as an occupation with professional aspirations, another set of studies has focused on whether professionalism is an attractive ethical dimension of journalism in democracy. In line with sociological approaches to the study of professions, studies have investigated why journalism, mainly in the United States, adopted professional characteristics and claims. On the other hand, other studies (as well as countless commentary) have fused professionalism with the observance of certain ethical principles, most notably objectivity, fairness, and public service. The analysis of journalism as an occupation related to certain tasks has been intertwined with normative assessments about the expected values of journalism. Here professionalism is chiefly identified with the enforcement of specific ethical principles.

As a normative concept, professional journalism is typically associated with the kind of reporting that follows the ideals of modern, “western,” particularly US, journalism, such as objectivity, fairness, and public interest. For its defenders, professional journalism stands for necessary quality standards, the ideals that should guide press performance in democracy. The desirability of those ethical principles journalism lays on the assumption that they fit the needs of citizens in a democracy. Critics, instead, believe that “professional journalism” is problematic for democratic expression. It is a thinly veiled attempt to control expression, a self-serving justification of the prominent role of journalists in the mediated public sphere, a myth (Elliott 1978) that hides the reality of a profoundly undemocratic news industry. By establishing a cadre of “news experts” who decide what information reaches the public, it closes off expression to average citizens and builds journalism as a fortress separated from citizens.

Because “profession” is embedded in various normative arguments, there are not unanimous definitions of professional journalism. Denis McQuail (1994) observes that professionalism is associated with non-amateur job performance, absence of external interference, and judgment by fellow professionals. As Katrin Voltmer (2008) writes, “It is difficult to specify what exactly can be regarded as professional journalistic performance.” Professionalism is a polyvalent notion. When someone says that journalists behave (or don’t behave) “professionally,” what does it mean? Does it refer to the observance of specific practices and norms in news reporting? How about the existence of common aspirations for social recognition? For Jeremy Tunstall (1976), a professional journalist is simply someone who works in the news media. This is basically how many scholars use the idea of “professional journalist” – someone who has a career in the news industry without making it synonymous with certain requisites, ethical principles, and organizational norms. This understanding is implicit in countless how-to books and manuals about the “journalistic profession.” So when press scholar Jay Rosen (2001) makes an eloquent call to rethink “professional journalism,” he is basically referring to the need to give serious consideration to the mission of journalism and the position of journalists in society. “Professional” does not carry any specific meaning that derivates from ideals of the classic professions.

Instead, other scholars use the idea of “professional” normatively, to denote journalistic practice guided by specific ethical principles – the ideals of public interest, civic-orientedness, social responsibility, and altruism. Not coincidentally, these are the ideals that traditionally were embraced by professions. As Hallin (1996) points out, professional journalism, like other professions, developed an ethic of public service.

Just like any profession, journalism purports to serve citizens as clients. What public interest and social responsibility actually mean, however, is not clear. Professional journalism is ambiguously anti-statist and anti-partisan. It claims to be independent of the state and political parties, but it is decisively oriented to “the bureaucratic field.” It abjures partisanship, but it daily resorts to political elites to decide news and establish claims of legitimate knowledge. It is suspicious of the state and organized politics, but it overwhelmingly relies on information produced by governments and partisan actors. Such a view is found among liberal and critical models of journalism, although whereas the former associate professionalism with market-based press, the latter identify with public broadcasting. In his blueprint for media reform, James Curran (Curran and Gurevitch 1996) outlines the need for a “professional media sector.” Heir to the European tradition of public broadcasting, this sector is envisioned to be insulated from market pressures and composed of truth-seeking news professionals. Also, scholars concerned about the negative influence of market forces on the quality of journalism similarly understand professionalism as good standards.

This book doesn’t take a position on the desirable guidelines for occupational practice. This is not simply a conscious choice to sidestep normative issues. Rather, my interest is to examine the meanings of “professional journalism” and disentangle the notion of professionalism from normative assessments. As discussed in the book, “professional journalism” is commonly used as shorthand for various, separate ethical standards. Which ones are core ethics? Fairness? Objectivity? Autonomy? Social responsibility? How do we decide which ones are desirable for journalism in democracy? Which ones serve the public good? What is the public good, anyway? Universalistic assumptions about one single understanding of “good journalism” are problematic for a world of diverse journalistic cultures and occupational ethics pulled in different directions by political, economic, and social forces. Also, the normative limitations and contributions of professionalism cannot be dissociated from specific historical and political contexts. Professional autonomy may play an important democratic role when governments want to suffocate any air of independence in civil society, or it may be a mechanism for self-interested groups to cut off linkages with the rest of society. Professional expertise may be mobilized to criticize power or to advance narrow interests.

Yet, analytically, the notion of professionalism remains helpful to understand how journalism simultaneously negotiates boundaries with other fields while producing a distinctive form of knowledge – news. This is why discussing professionalism in journalism isn’t flogging a dead analytical horse. Obviously, the standard notion of “professional journalism” is grounded in a very different era. It is rooted in the “Age of Broadcast News,” a time of limited media choice and single news authority (Williams and Delli Carpini 2011). The apogee of professional journalism is behind us. It sounds anachronistic in a world of amateur journalism and partisan media, when the boundaries of press systems are constantly expanding. Yet as journalism navigates a changing world and confronts doubts about its future, it is important to understand how journalism maintains its unique position in society, how it reinforces its role as the expert arbiter of news as it tries to maintain autonomy vis-à-vis external forces.

This is why professionalism understood as collective efforts to set up boundaries to exercise jurisdictional control remains relevant. Professionalization throws into sharp relief how journalists define conditions and rules of work within certain political, economic, social, and cultural settings. It is not only about whether journalism fits, pretends to fit, or should fit taxonomic understandings of professions, or why it should be criticized for snugly wearing the blinders of professionalism. The study of professionalism highlights critical aspects of journalism as a social institution: the formation and maintenance of occupational identities, the existence and challenges to consensus over journalistic work, the dynamics of autonomy and heteronomy vis-à-vis other fields, and the existence of a unique rationality – a journalistic logic that may set it apart from other actors and logics. Professionalism foregrounds how journalists constantly engage in “boundary work” to cultivate a distinctive logic, a form of professional habitus (Bourdieu 1984) that either sets them apart or links them to other fields. What is distinctive about journalism? Is it the canon of professionalism, namely, neutrality, public interest, social responsibility, facticity? Or is it something else – the way it defines what is newsworthy, what citizens should know, what information attracts people’s attention, or what simply makes journalists tick?

To answer these questions, I believe it is important to approach professionalism in two ways. Professionalism refers to the ability of a field of practice to settle boundaries and avoid intrusion from external actors. Professions do not exist in isolation; they are permanently engaged in relations with other social fields. This perspective differs from conventional, taxonomic analysis that views professionalism in terms of certain attributes that, in principle, are found in archetypical professions. A relational approach to professions is helpful to mitigate the limitation of taxonomic approaches. Also, it is important to study the issue of professional journalism globally in order to advance general propositions. Much of the debate has justifiably focused on the history and evolution of “professional journalism” in the West, particularly in the United States and Britain. A global perspective is not only necessary to expand the analytical horizons. It also offers a fruitful path to explore similarities and differences to develop theoretical arguments.

Field theory and professionalism

Pierre Bourdieu’s field theory (1991, 1993, 1998) offers a useful analytical framework to study the professionalization of journalism. Recent studies have reappraised the analytical value of Bourdieu’s field theory applied to journalism and media studies (Benson 2004; Chalaby 1998). Despite the excessive negativism and economic reductionism of his analysis of television and journalism in France (Marlière 1998), Bourdieu’s field theory offers a useful framework to analyze journalism in terms of its relations to other social sectors. His notion of field is embedded in the sociological tradition concerned with understanding social differentiation and specialization as core developments of modern societies. What sets modernity apart from past forms of social organization, Bourdieu argued following Durkheim and Marx, is the specialization of human activities in distinctive spheres. In reaction to arguments that view institutional differentiation as the inevitable outcome of modernization, Bourdieu offers an actor-centered perspective interested in the role of human agency in the formation of institutions (including professions). In his view, the formation of various fields (e.g. political, economic, artistic, intellectual, academic) since early modernity responded to the struggles of specific groups to maintain power by building separate structures from other sectors. Modernity entailed the secession of fields from structures previously dominated by monarchs, priests, and the nobility. Bourdieu offers a processual view that avoids the problems of determinism and teleology implicit in structural analyses that assume that social differentiation is inherent to the development of modernity. Such view is found in structural-functionalist positions according to which modernity entails a necessary process of social differentiation. This “modernization” process was the backdrop to the formation of professions which seceded from the political and intellectual powers that dominated the premodern era, and eventually became consolidated.

One of the key insights in Bourdieu’s work, critical to the analytical framework of this book, is that fields do not exist in isolation, but they are in permanent relations with other fields. The boundaries of any given field are demarcated in relation to others on the basis of a unique capital – characteristics such as particular skills, training, and so on. In this sense, we talk about the “artistic” and “scientific” fields as being separate spheres of actions. They have a particular capital constantly nurtured to reinforce separation and to protect them from external influences. All fields are prone to fending off external pressures and reacting in particular to economic forces which threaten to undermine their unique symbolic capital. In late capitalism, fields are intertwined yet simultaneously try to maintain distance from other fields. These dynamics not only define the relational nature of specialization, but also they need to be at the center of the analysis. Put differently, the focus should be on the relation between fields, and how a field tries to maintain boundaries and be different from others by mobilizing a certain unique “symbolic capital.”

From this perspective, journalism is understood as a field of practice that seeks to maintain separation from other fields, particularly politics and economics (see Benson and Neveu 2005). The emergence of journalism in modernity, as well as other occupations and professions, reflected the broad process of the division of labor and the specialization of technical knowledge. What happened in the press and journalism was another manifestation of the increased complexity and organization of modern society in institutions with their own rules and norms. By directing our attention to the relation between the journalistic field and other fields, Bourdieu’s theory offers a dynamic, action-oriented perspective that contextualizes journalism within a set of social and historical developments. Journalism, its practices and ideals, cannot be understood in isolation from a particular social formation and the complex, ever-changing interaction between fields. Social fields claim to be separate from others on the basis of having a unique, distinctive logic. This is the logic of modern professions – the control of a specific set of skills and knowledge, or what organizational sociologists call the “institutional logic” (Owen-Smith and Powell 2008). The formation of any social field and profession is in close relation with other fields. As Abbott (1988) argues, the emergence of professions was part of the process by which they broke away from a system of undifferentiated occupations. The rise of any profession is intelligible only in the context of its relationships with other fields. Occupations that once were indistinguishable from others eventually become formed and operate according to rules agreed upon by their members. Eventually, occupations claim to have professional status to firm up boundaries vis-à-vis other fields. Therefore, the analysis needs to focus on the “linked ecology” (Abbott 1988), the unique set of relations between fields, occupations, and professions and other social institutions.

Professionalism in a globalized world

In today’s globalized societies, the issue of professionalization in journalism also needs to be approached globally. Understanding globalization as the acceleration of increased connectivity between societies (Giddens 1990), it is necessary to contextualize the professionalization of journalism amidst a complex web of political, economic, social, and technological connections worldwide.

Although the standard ideal of professionalism was born in the Anglo-American world during the nineteenth century, it has had a global presence for over a century. Professionalism developed similarities and differences across western democracies. Journalistic cultures in “national” press systems constantly borrowed ideas and techniques and were exposed to “how journalism works” in other settings. Clearly, the field of international exchange of journalistic ideas has not been levelled. British and US journalism has had a significant presence in the world. During the nineteenth century, the power of US and British international news agencies, as well as the dominant position of both countries in world affairs, cemented the basis for the global spread of the standard model of professional journalism. Yet this process did not result in the acceptance of the ideal of professionalism or the homogenization of journalistic practice around the world. In fact, despite its global presence, the influence of the ideal of “professional journalism” has been significantly different across the world. Recent developments, as discussed in chapters 5 and 7, have accelerated the cross-national traffic of news values and practices across countries.

Historical and contemporary experiences from around the world provide illustrations and insights to sharpen the analytical dimensions of “professional journalism.” An understanding of why certain professional norms have found conditions propitious globally not only helps to understand similarities and differences in journalistic practices and cultures worldwide. It also helps to elucidate the applicability of prevalent explanations about the rise and consolidation of professionalism that are embedded in a limited set of historical experiences – namely the United States and some Western European countries. The analysis offers an opportunity to “de-westernize media studies” (Curran and Park 2000) by revisiting conventional arguments about professional journalism and current challenges.

Arguments and organization of the book

The argument presented in this book is twofold. First, professional journalism remains an ambiguous and contested notion. It refers to a range of issues, including the normative position of journalists vis-à-vis news and events, specific quality standards, technical specialized knowledge, accreditation, and organizational discipline. To clarify persistent confusion, I find it useful to approach professionalization as a process by which occupations claim jurisdiction over a field of practice. Professionalization is about the specialization of labor and control of occupational practice. The domination of a distinctive form of knowledge in contemporary journalism suggests that the production of “newsiness,” rather than a public-oriented ethics, sets journalism apart from other institutions and fields. Journalism’s responses to multiple forms of citizen journalism driven by political and technological developments, too, demonstrate the strength of professionalism as the demarcation and reinforcement of occupational boundaries.

Second, evidence suggests that professional journalism has gone global, if this is understood as a process by which experts claim to control a certain social jurisdiction based on specific knowledge and industrial standards of quality work. Recent studies provide strong indications that, indeed, journalism acts like an archetypical profession, regardless of significant differences across contexts. However, if professionalism is identified with the ethics of public service, objectivity, and fairness, as in the conventional model of “professional journalism,” it is questionable that such a model has become dominant around the world. In fact, no journalistic model has a paradigmatic position. A global diversity of journalistic ethics, imbued by various philosophical and political models, suggests the absence of consensus about one single ethical framework that guides newsroom practice.

In summary, current changes in journalism need to be understood by examining the dynamics of professionalism. This book discusses why and how journalism redefines its relationship with political, economic, and social actors amidst technological transformations, and offers an analytical framework for the study of the professionalism of journalism in a global perspective.

Chapter 1 offers a review of historical analyses of the rise of the standard model of “professional journalism” in the United States and Britain. Despite differences in their ideological foundations and evolution, the market and the public broadcasting paths to professionalization coincided in understanding professionalism in terms of providing public service guided by the ideals of objectivity, neutrality, and facticity. Both cases offer three valuable insights for studying the question of professionalism in journalism: professionalism demands significant political and social consensus, is never completed but always “in the making,” and needs to be examined in the context of the relationships between the journalistic field and other fields.

The issue of autonomy in professionalism and journalistic efforts of journalism to keep external fields at a distance are discussed in chapter 2. The argument presented is that setting up journalistic autonomy in absolute terms is problematic for two reasons. First, it is embedded in idealistic premises about complete independence that do not help us to understand the complexity of journalistic practice. Furthermore, the modernist ideal of autonomy assumes the feasibility of professional independence that hardly conforms to classic professions in an interdependent world. The issue of autonomy barely scratches the surface of the institutional conditions of journalistic decision making and the role of non-journalistic considerations and actors. Second, journalistic autonomy as the sine qua non condition for professionalism uncritically assumes that journalism should always remain at a distance, no matter the conditions and circumstances.

Chapter 3 discusses the persistent ambiguities of professional journalism. A rich literature has as evidence the continuous debate over the professional merits of journalism. In contrast to common taxonomic definitions, this chapter suggests that professionalism in journalism needs to be understood as a social process and project by which journalism seeks to maintain separation. Professionalism demands broad agreement among a given community of practice, rather than specific characteristics as taxonomic approaches have argued.

Chapter 4 offers a review of critiques of the model of professional journalism. Although the model has been widely criticized for various reasons, my interest is to analyze critiques that question the idea of journalism as “profession.” The analysis covers Marxist, communitarian and Foucauldian arguments against professions and journalism’s aspiration to professionalism. These critiques have inspired movements that have offered alternatives outside the conventional boundaries of journalism and tried to reform common journalistic practices and norms.

Journalism’s claims to professionalism are grounded in different normative and analytical frameworks. Chapter 5 discusses the professional logic of journalism. This raises the questions of the multiple understandings of profession. If professions are understood in terms of a distinctive, public-oriented logic, it is questionable whether journalism in toto fits conventional definitions. Instead, if professionalism is approached as claims to social jurisdiction (in the case of journalism, the production and dissemination of news) without competition from other occupations, a more complex picture emerges. Journalists’ ability to control their work according to internal rules and practices anchors the professional logic of journalism.

Chapters 6 and 7 discuss the globalization of the professional cultures of journalism. The purpose is not only to discuss arguments about whether the professional logic which emerged in the West is becoming dominant elsewhere. The goal is also to review the evolution of professionalism globally to assess the conditions that promote or discourage journalism’s attempt to define unique norms and seek distance from other fields. Chapter 6 examines professionalism in the context of media patrimonialism. Contrary to what many scholars and observers predicted, the coming of liberal democracy and the market economy are insufficient for journalism to control a unique jurisdiction without interference from external actors. The answer lies elsewhere. The historical trajectory of professional journalism in the West suggests that the weakening of political patronage and increased separation between the press and political parties were fundamental to the emergence of professional journalism. Developments in new democracies and market authoritarianism around the world confirm that media patrimonialism and clientelism remain formidable obstacles for journalism’s professional ambitions. Intertwined relations with the political field hamstring the professional prospects of journalism. Furthermore, the absence of consensus inside and outside journalism debilitates its ability to cultivate a normative logic uncontaminated by external interests. Chapter 7 examines the global spread of occupational norms and practices. It is argued that globalization doesn’t inevitably lead to the streamlining of journalistic cultures. Both homogenization and heterogenization coexist. Whereas ethics remain diverse and contested, evidence suggests increasing similarity in news values and reporting techniques.

The focus of chapter 8 is the challenge to professional reporting raised by citizen journalism and digital platforms. Contra earlier predictions, professional journalism retains a central position in contemporary news ecologies, despite recent changes in the production, circulation, and consumption of news. This situation is not surprising. Like any occupation with professional aspirations, journalism permanently protects and defends its turf from potential competitors. Professions are conservative and seek to incorporate changes and challenges. Also, the power of legacy media, combined with Web architecture and search dynamics, reinforce the dominant position of “professional” journalism.

The conclusion summarizes the key themes and arguments and reviews the challenges to professionalism in contemporary journalism. The standard model of professionalism does not have the same dominant position it once did. Nor does it seem plausible that it would be the hegemonic model in news ecologies characterized by different forms of reporting, diverse journalistic ethics, and the hybridization of occupational norms.

1Paths to Professionalism

The rise of professionalism in journalism

The rise of professional ambitions in journalism was truly revolutionary. It brought to the forefront the notion that the journalistic field should distance itself from politics. In the tradition of the press in western democracy, the press was conceived as inevitably linked to organized politics – the state and political parties. There were no theories or positions that believed that news reporting should be cut off from organized politics. In fact, journalism was conceived only in the context of politics. The ideal of freedom of the press, which punctuates the historical evolution of newspapers and democratic expression in western modernity, was directed at curbing the ambitions of despotic governments and enacting legislation to facilitate dissent. The struggle for press freedom did not put forth the notion that the press and journalism should secede from politics. In fact, it assumed that a regime of liberty was necessary to allow the expression of different viewpoints in the press and other spaces. Consequently, there was no blueprint suggesting how journalism should break off from the turbulent partisan politics that characterized democratic politics on both sides of the Atlantic, the kind of acrimonious politics that were the lifeblood of the press.

My interest in this chapter is to discuss two models of professionalism based on the historical experience of Anglo-American journalism: the market and the public broadcasting models (Høyer and Lauk 2001). I don’t assume that these were the only paths to professionalization. As Hallin and Mancini (2004) have convincingly argued, the rise of professionalism happened differently across media systems in the West. The paths in “liberal” media systems, to use their category, are worth examining for they illuminate a conception of professionalism that eventually became upheld as the paragon of public-oriented journalism.

Both the market and public models of professionalism shared the notion that journalism had to be a public-minded institution removed from politics and oriented toward the greater good to better serve democracy. The idea that journalism, like professions, should be committed to public service was central to both models. The notions of objectivity, evenhandedness, and fairness were prominent in both, too. The proposed institutional designs to cultivate professionalism, however, were radically different. The market model assumed that commercialism was the only viable anchor for professional journalism. It gained currency with the rise and consolidation of news as a business that demanded increased levels of capitalization and labor division in the US and British press in the last decades of the nineteenth century. In contrast, the public broadcasting path to professionalization rejected the notion that the market represented the best guarantee for professionalism. In fact, it was premised on the idea that the prevalence of market-based journalism was responsible for several ills of the press. It believed only a truly public institution could safeguard professional journalism from the negative influences of both the market and organized politics. Although public broadcasting was embedded in government, it required special conditions to be sheltered from political pressures. Closely associated with the experience of the British Broadcasting Corporation, this model eventually spread to other public broadcasting systems in Europe. Although the BBC was established in 1922, the public broadcasting path to professionalization did not take full form until mid-century.

Although the commercialization of the press in the early nineteenth century set the basis for the gradual separation of the press from organized politics, it didn’t lead to professionalism understood as the observance of specific ethical principles that distinguished journalism from other occupations and social actors. Whereas the rise of the penny press revolutionized the economic structure of the press in the 1830s in the US, the commercialization of the press gained momentum later in Britain, particularly after the repeal of stamp taxes in 1855. The gradual commoditization of news – the production of news for a mass market – laid the foundations that eventually allowed the press to become less dependent on party patronage. It did not, however, cement hard boundaries between the press and party politics.

In the United States, the fact that newspapers that came to symbolize the penny press were ostensibly partisan undermines the case that commercialization pushed journalism away from partisanism. Both federal and state patronage remained crucial for press finances during much of the nineteenth century. Also, printing contracts, the publication of legal notices, patronage jobs, and use of newspapers by legislators (particularly during election times) provided substantial financial subsidies to newspapers. Such economic ties underlaid the significant influence that partisan politics had on the press (Dooley 1997). As Baldasty (1992) writes, “patronage tied press and party together in an intimate fashion in the early nineteenth century. Patronage served as a kind of umbilical cord to the press, and many editors may well have been wary of taking unorthodox or maverick positions vis-à-vis their party for fear of losing that patronage.” Even by the late 1800s, journalism hardly met conventional definitions of professions. The fact that it was often a platform to other occupations, politics, literature, or business was contrary to the notion of well-established, independent occupations (Folkerts, Teeter, and Caudill 2008). As long as it remained closely attached to partisan politics in the postbellum era, journalism was becoming a separate field of practice yet it was not a profession with its own well-established practices, norms, and ethical ideals (Schudson 1978). This is why some scholars have questioned arguments that associate the adoption of objectivity and other professional ideals of journalism with the rise of the penny press (Kaplan 2002; Mindich 1998).

A similar situation is found in the British case. The commercial revolution was directly responsible for the progressive shift in the market orientation of the press and the rise of the popular newspapers. Such changes, however, did not cause drastic transformations in the articulation between journalism and politics. As of the mid-1800s, no firm differences could be clearly discerned between journalism, politics, and writing. Dividing lines between them remained fluid (Hampton 2004). Even as the discourse of independence and the “fourth estate” gained increased popularity in press circles, ambitions to professionalism hadn’t emerged yet. The press was neither independent of political control nor did journalists consistently agree on a set of practice and ethics that could help to support claims to professionalism away from partisan influence (Conboy 2004).

It was only in the late nineteenth century that professional ambitions progressively captured the imagination of journalists. Journalism’s espousal of professional ideals cannot be understood apart from the rise of “professional society” (Perkin 1989). Journalism’s professional aspirations echoed the discourse and the goals of the “white-collar revolution,” the broad movement toward professionalism across occupations in the United States and Britain (Brint 1994). The emergence of professional journalism was inseparable from particular social contexts characterized by rising demands for professional recognition and social prestige across occupations.

The market path

In the United States, the market-based model of professionalization gained momentum during the last quarter of the nineteenth century. Talk about professionalization became increasingly common in journalistic circles after the Civil War (Leonard 1995). The rise of journalistic associations and educational programs reflected growing interest in promoting and adopting professional ethics, as well as in nurturing a common occupational consciousness. Professional organizations were crucial for disseminating ethical ideals and centering journalists around common interests. The first press clubs at the state levels were established in the 1870s. The National Association of Journalists was founded in 1884. Journalistic associations championed the same ideals that eventually defined the ethics of professional journalism such as accuracy, fairness, objectivity, honesty, public service, and responsibility. Likewise, the trade press also promoted professional ideas at that time (Cronin 1988; Johnstone, Slawski, and Bowman 1976).

The establishment of journalism programs in universities during the first decades of the 1900s, most notably at the University of Missouri in 1908 and Columbia University in 1912, was critical to professionalism. University programs played a decisive role in the recognition that certain norms and skills needed to be widely promoted and enforced in newsrooms (Winfield 2008). The fact that publishers and press associations were strong advocates of university programs reflected concerns about the quality and the prestige of journalism (Carey 1978).

It was at this time that professionalism was originally conceived, largely in reaction to the influence of partisan politics in journalism. It reflected the aspiration to drive a wedge between journalism and politics, an aspiration crystallized in the notion of an “independent press.” Independence, a quintessential value of professionalism endlessly invoked by publishers, journalists, and educators, meant releasing the press from the grip of partisanship (Gans 1979). This became the anchor for other ideals, such as public protection, duty and the “fourth estate,” that eventually became synonymous with professional journalism (Rutenbeck 1991). Professionalization entailed “the differentiation of journalists as a distinct occupation group with distinctive norms and traditions” (Schudson 2005). It was basically aimed at shielding newsrooms from what was perceived to be the negative influence of partisan interests. To achieve this, journalism needed to develop norms and ethics to fend off political influences. Put differently, professionalization entailed a crusade to establish unique ethical rules to distinguish journalism from politics.

The definition of professional ethics was intended to achieve three primary goals. First, it contributed to the demarcation of boundaries between journalism and partisan politics and the political machines that dominated urban politics. Unquestionably, any discussion about the professional ethics of journalism brings the issue of objectivity to the forefront. The notion of objectivity gained increased acceptability as the foundation of journalistic ethics toward the end of the nineteenth century (Kaplan 2002). For press historian Joseph Campbell (2006), the triumph of the journalistic paradigm represented by the New York Times came to define the core professional ethics of journalism. At a time when three different paradigms were in discussion, the prevalence of the model of objectivity championed by the Times eventually formed the basis for professional norms that were subsequently adopted across the mainstream press. Second, professional ethics were also important to regulate journalists’ behavior in the newsroom. Just like in any other professions, they established certain parameters for controlling work performance. Third, professional ethics allowed for journalists to protect themselves against pressure and intrusion from external actors.

The market path to professionalization was also visible in Britain during the same period. Just like in the US, the press was amidst a transition from a political organization to a business-funded enterprise. The reduction and removal of taxes in the mid-1800s accelerated the growing commercialization of the press. As newspapers became more profitable as the volume of advertising grew, publishers gradually declared independence from political control. For press historians, The Times was the leading example of the newspaper that pioneered the separation from political parties early in the nineteenth century. Later, the “Northcliffe revolution” and the rise of “new journalism” (Wiener 1988) played a crucial role in the shift from a political to a market-funded model of journalism. It set the basis for newspaper economics that were increasingly independent of political subsidies and control. Like in the US, a growing number of newspapers declared themselves free from political ties (Chalaby 1998). This commercial press didn’t profess allegiance to any political party (Koss 1981; Seymour-Ure 2000). It downplayed politics in favor of other types of news content, and sought to become removed from the party system.

Press barons conceived news as a commodity to make money and secure political power (Chalaby 1998; Elliott 1978). The affirmation of market-based press explains the increasing appeal of the “fourth estate” discourse. Despite its persistent imprecision, this rhetoric served to legitimize the social mission of newspapers, particularly newly established dailies that claimed to be free of the state.

The organizational backbone of professional journalism developed in ways similar to the United States. Press clubs were founded in the 1870s, and the National Association of Journalists was established in 1884 (it became the Institute of Journalism in 1889) (Elliott 1978; O’Malley and Soley 2000). As Philip Elliott (1978) writes, the main goal of those organizations was “to achieve professional status for journalists by promoting the interests of journalists, raising their status and qualifications, supervising their professional duties and testing qualifications for membership.” During this period, journalists’ efforts to identify journalism with the definition and enforcement of a new set of ethics gained momentum (Harcup 2007). Journalists, however, lacked the fundamental attributes associated with professions, such as credentials, regulated admission, and a self-governing body (Brown 1985).

Widespread negative views about journalists in England, as well as in other European countries, reflected the low prestige of the occupation (O’Boyle 1968). Professionalization, then, appeared as a strategy to achieve credibility at a time of instability and significant social changes (Hampton 1999, 2004). The adoption of the ideals of impartiality and facticity reflected the desire to improve the reputation and claim the right to belong to an elite occupation. Despite these efforts, British journalists remained more ambiguous about the desirability and feasibility of balance and objectivity in the news. The “professional ideal” was more contested than in the United States. Journalists did not agree as to whether unions or professional organizations were better instruments to represent labor rights and other demands in the public sphere. Ambiguity also existed about the symbolic significance and the elements of profession. Whereas objectivity had limited acceptance, other components of the ideal of professionalism, such as independence and truth, were typically more accepted (Hampton 2008).

Who needed professionalism?