Journalism

Journalism is a constellation of practices that have acquired special status within the larger domain of communication through a long history that separated out news sharing from its origins in interpersonal communication. Telling others about events in one’s social and physical surroundings is a common everyday activity in human cultures, and news as a genre of such interactions has the primary characteristic of being new to the listener. A main difficulty for sharing intelligence is ascertaining truth, or, put the other way round, distinguishing intelligence from gossip (Froissart 2002). Telling about events, supplying novelty, and, from the process, discerning factual truth are the main rudiments that came to define journalism as a cultural practice.

Journalism, however, is a modern-era phenomenon, which began its separation from ordinary communication first with correspondence, in the form of newsletters sent out in multiple copies to existing social networks, a custom available to those with literacy, leisure, and means to write (Zboray & Saracino Zboray 2006). Newsletter authors also required some facility to produce more than one copy and to distribute the result, as well as sufficient social status to make such activity appear to have value for recipients. This latter quality has been the source of constant attention in journalism. From the beginning, journalism also depended upon the existence of a delivery means, such as a common courier, to convey news to readers (and in turn to auditors, when the recipients then read the news aloud). With the advent of the printing press, some early newssheets imitated hand-made newsletters, but the primary model for all printing was the book as printer-editors incorporated the sharing of new intelligences into their line of business. The precursors to journalism thus added writing, mechanisms of production, and a system of distribution to its definition, along with issues of status within an economic and social system.

The main claim to distinction for journalism has come through a close alliance with political life (Popkin 1989; Pasley 2001). Politics impinged on printing from the beginning in the form of government controls, and printing itself quickly became a political act, of either cooperation with or defiance against the powerful, or the state. Journalism developed at the nexus of negotiating boundaries to demarcate private life, civil society (or the market), and the state from each other, and in some perspectives that zone became a special or sacred space. It was a short step, then, for the emerging press to become enmeshed in politics, an alliance of two initially (and perhaps continually) unsavory activities (an irony often lost on practitioners and scholars). The relationship began with partisan politics clearly having the upper hand (Weber 1958/1991), but eventually turned adversarial as journalism escaped state and party control, moving more firmly toward the ascendant and eventually vying for discursive dominance.

In the nineteenth century, the advance of literacy and growth of (often national) markets, along with government-created information systems (especially the post and the census), joined with industrialization to turn newspapers into the central mode of news as an economic activity (Ward 2005). The term “journalism” proper emerged to refer to the resulting group of occupations involved in generating and preparing news content. Publishers remained in control, but journalists became chief among workers involved in industrial news production and distribution (Hardt & Brennen 1995). A further development in news manufacture was the founding and growth of news agencies to generate and distribute content across (often competing) outlets, which developed either among publishers (in commercial systems) or from central or government initiative (in noncommercial systems). Agencies replaced the informal exchange of news (printers merely copying content from other, distant printers) with a market exchange of a commodity specifically formulated to fit into the press regardless of partisan (or national) affiliations.

Owners and practitioners (and some scholars) normally claim technology – printing, the telegraph, radio and television broadcasting, and subsequent equipment – as a key impetus in the evolution of journalism, but studies find news organizations to be not leading but mainstream or late adopters of new techniques in most cases (Barnhurst & Nerone 2001). After resisting initially, they have so far found ways first to turn technical change to their economic advantage and then to trumpet themselves as innovators (although the outcome always remains in doubt midstream).

A more important component in the success of journalism, whether in commercial or public service media systems of the world, has been a willingness to engage with existing power relations, whether pandering to parties or markets, crusading for political stability or change, or doing some combination of these options. One measure of the cultural power of journalism is the violent reaction against its practitioners throughout its history (Nerone 1994), especially in periods of social controversy and change.

Aspects of Practice

Journalism emerged around the same time as the modern novel, and both forms share a basis in narrative. The two have borrowed liberally from each other in a long-running, usually tacit, dialogue, and the relationship between news and fiction is thus antagonistic only at a superficial level. News storytelling involves more than employment, with actors performing their roles at a time and place or scene that reaches climax and resolution (White 1973; Ricoeur 1984), but also re-enacts deeper myths that express a society’s view of good and evil, or of who deserves to win and who to lose (Lule 2001).

Separating the occupation of journalist from author is one marker of a project under way by the early twentieth century to make journalism into a particular kind of profession. Other markers include the emergence of acceptable practices, training programs, associations, and codes of ethics. In many parts of the world, journalism remained part of and firmly aligned with literary work, and even in nations where the professional project predominated, such as the United States, movements of long-form and literary journalism arose.

Although fiction writing occasionally imitates news, journalism differs fundamentally in practice. Reporters turn to sources outside journalism for information and judgments, even when writing opinion or analysis, although the practice may veil the journalist’s perspective, at least partially (Schiller 1981). Journalists invented a particular kind of interview, which differs from ordinary interaction, especially in the case of broadcasting. Government and other leaders have developed specific presentational tools for getting and holding the attention of journalists. These activities, unlike the work of other authors, operate in predictable rounds growing out of news genres and processes of production, so that weekly news magazines, daily newspapers, multiple television newscasts, and hourly radio news updates set workflow into motion in news cycles akin to the hours of medieval monastic orders. Journalists experience these cycles as deadline pressures, a central aspect distinguishing news practice.

From its birth in the industrialized newsroom, journalism developed customary patterns for all aspects of work. The best-known example is the beat, which combines location and process so that a reporter goes through a set of routines to gather information from predictable and reliable places (Tuchman 1978). Because they share experiences, if not training, journalists within a mainstream (usually national or regional) system respond to each other and to the world in similar ways. For example, the collective mentality that leads journalists to gather around certain public occurrences or figures has acquired the name “pack journalism.” This pejorative term, along with others such as “paparazzi,” the photographers who hound celebrities, forms a system of policing the boundaries between journalists and others who do similar work but lack the insider status that, in general, only institutions in the industry have the power to confer.

Other terms convey the pattern of competition, such as the “scoop” and the “exclusive,” which reinforces standard practices and keeps practitioners in a state of perpetual anxiety. Unionization has been the principal force mediating between the power of news institutions and journalism workers, but all involved, even corporations and state bureaucracies, subscribe to a competitive discipline that defines practice. Journalism awards and prizes (operating primarily at the national level) formalize competition and reify the abstract quality assumptions about news work. A set of news elements (the five Ws – who, what, when, where, and why) underlies a broader set of news values, which go by a plethora of terms in training manuals and in practice, but may correspond roughly with the elements: prominence (who), peculiarity (what), novelty (when), proximity (where), and significance (why). Like other practical ideals (such as principles of design among graphic designers), news values inherently come into conflict with each other, which keeps news work interesting. But the patterned responses to practical principles not only help national and regional news cultures define themselves but also help guide individual journalists in their self-assessment.

News cultures have tended through the twentieth century toward consensus around two main ends, one supervisory at its core and the other advisory. As news managers, journalists operate as gatekeepers, handling what they perceive as a growing flow of information and providing an altruistic service for audience members (White 1950). These news manager-supervisors apply the principles to select and reject potential content, although decisions about what the public needs tend to occur without much recourse to the people themselves (Dennis 1978). As news advisors, journalists operate as advocates, promoting particular understandings of the world, again as a public service. Journalism is promotional and managerial in a vocational rather than commercial sense, and news systems blend these tendencies, which act as poles pulling practice in apparently opposite directions, advisory versus supervisory. Both, however, may tend to enhance journalism by directing attention away from journalists and toward their expressed public service vocation.

In the broadest sense, the ends of journalism point toward more general theories, such as the possibility of democracy and realities of power and authority (McNair 2000). Journalism is thus a construction that embodies ideals about society and the world, and these theories provide pictures of social, political, economic, and cultural organization, through the lens of journalism and its view of itself.

Differentiation Among Journalists

As an occupational category, journalism in the nineteenth century merged several kinds of tasks: principally the editor, who managed some aspect of content from a central office, the correspondent, who ventured out as a worldly traveler and (perhaps imperial) observer of affairs, and various forms of news hounds, who did piecework as local scavengers to fill the editorial hole by the inch, often pursuing a particular topic or venue such as crime or the docks. As journalism emerged as a professional project, specialization produced new bundles of tasks. A foreign location, for example, allowed some journalists to build expertise through experience in a distant location. Government control remained one of the main difficulties for journalists crossing boundaries into media systems outside their own. Another specialty focused on wars and conflicts, and although such a pattern of assignments might enhance the status of the journalists exposed to risk, the professional in these roles also faced the drudgery of frequent deadlines and routine coverage typical of scavenger work, which earlier correspondents might have avoided. The tradeoffs between professional autonomy and state protection re-emerged as military authorities invented and elaborated on systems of control.

Journalism has embodied and reinforced concepts of the mainstream and the other, another form of differentiation that plays out on two levels: in the structure of news businesses and in the agency at work within these organizations. Ethnic groups that share a heritage, language, location, and the like (Riggings 1992), especially when excluded from mainstream institutions, began forming their own newspapers early in press development. The minority press has likewise tended to emerge in the wake of geopolitical boundary formation and international migration. These journalisms at the margins may begin in advisory mode, promoting group solidarity in opposition to the mainstream, but here again joining the professional project of journalism can shift their emphasis toward a neutral form of information management. Although women have generated publications throughout news history, the level of agency has been especially evident in their fate in journalism. Early feminist histories focused on remarkable women journalists, and recent work has shifted emphasis to the gendered division of labor and topics and then to gendered identity (De Bruin & Ross 2004).

The relationship of journalism to politics has also seen differentiation. Groupings of news workers covering national capitals and heads of state have acquired special status as a press corps, including their own organizations and rituals, and wield considerable influence but identify with and rely on official sources, in contrast to the ethnic, minority, and women’s, along with the underground and oppositional, groupings of journalists. The latter groups represent alternative political ideologies, and they may espouse specific positions on issues, but in general they take an active, advisory stand with their audience members (Downing 2001). Mainstream journalists focused on information supervision have turned to investigating public officials since the nineteenth century (Ettema & Glasser 1998; Waisbord 2000), but their exposing of corruption and mismanagement tends to reinforce dominant ideologies by implying that small institutional changes and responsible individual behavior are sufficient to set things right. A recent movement to make reporting more answerable to civic and community needs strikes closer to reform within the political culture of journalism (Rosen 1999).

Other kinds of differentiation have grown out of the main currents of a society. Examples include journalists focused on topics such as science journalism and on modes of delivery such as visual journalism. The growth of computer networks and increased accessibility of large databases about public issues have contributed to a corresponding specialization for journalists in countries rich in the necessary resources and skills.

These same currents may have contradictory outcomes for the professional project of journalism. The production of news content has become more portable across traditional print and broadcast media as the tasks journalists perform converge on digital technology. The changes might point to multimedia journalism or instead to a de-skilling of practice, as the tools shift from professionals into other hands. In many countries, citizens can now tell each other their own news by writing and distributing it electronically from home or from a community center or library (Rodríguez 2000). Despite hopes for broader democratic participation, online forms of journalism have so far reproduced existing alignments in politics and emerged along existing economic and cultural cleavages.

Journalists, however, have accumulated considerable cultural capital in more than a century of existence. As a cultural practice, journalism has shed some of its unsavory past, but not all, as long as scandal and titillation continue, and in fact practitioners themselves can acquire fame (Corner & Pels 2003). Journalists have become central interpreters in public discourse, and even in the United States, where a denotative journalism of facts and events took early and deep root, the quantity and degree of interpretation within the mainstream news media have grown continually for more than a century (Barnhurst & Mutz 1997).

News Work and The Academy

Scholarly inquiry on journalism emerged in the second half of the nineteenth century in Europe, where works of history, economics, and sociology identified the press as a force in the dynamics of public and political life (Dennis & Wartella 1996). German economist Karl Knieves wrote in 1857 on the relationship of the telegraph and the press, and Karl Bücher at Leipzig, in Kultur und Presse, expanded the idea that news moved between localities through complementary exchange relationships. Historians of the same period traced the liaison of literature and the press in France, and Tocqueville’s Democracy in America examined newspapers in the making of associations. The German sociologist Emil Loebl applied systematic concepts to newspaper organization and content as well as journalism practices. Max Weber, in his well-known essay “Politics as a vocation,” observed the roles and status of journalists. He tried to make journalism research a greater priority for German scholarship, proposing that the National Sociological Society conduct a large empirical study of the ideological determinants of news content, the relation of journalism to public life, and the impact of press ownership on the distribution of power, among other issues.

Alignments between industry and the academy for the purposes of job training helped shape journalism research. The first university journalism programs grew from the organized efforts of publishers and press associations to harness academic work to the project of making journalism respectable. European programs combined sociological research on the press with training for journalism practice, oriented in relation to concepts of the public, but the practice of journalism remained aligned with humane letters, especially in the southern tier of Europe. In the United States, journalism programs grew from English departments (Dressel 1960), but industry demands for news production skills came into conflict with liberal arts (Hutchins Commission 1947), especially with existing curricula oriented to the study of literature. As a result, journalism programs became administratively independent and more vocational. Speech programs followed a similar route, becoming separate entities that eventually took a role in training for broadcasting work (Wallace 1954). The contest of job skills versus liberal arts was not peculiar to journalism but informed wider debates about academic specialization, pitting expertise (for journalists) against generalist training (for citizens) in the early twentieth century. Because specialization could allow interested elites to corrupt the academy, Canadian scholar Harold Innis (1946) suggested preserving the university tradition against particular vocational training and against narrow empiricism inherent in the rising new definitions of social science. For journalism as an academic field, professionalism especially seemed inappropriate for organizing university inquiry (Carey 1978).

Generally, the study of journalism remained scattered among academic disciplines and dependent upon the particular research projects of investigators. Journalism likely did not come into focus for research because the surrounding institutions focused on practice. In Asia, Africa, and Latin America (Deuze 2006), industry associations were instrumental in creating journalism schools as occupational centers, founded, for example, in China by 1918 (Lee 2000), Egypt by 1935 (Murphy & Scotten 1987), Argentina by 1934 (Knudson 1987), and Russia by 1947 (Morrison 1997). Researchers might use materials from newspaper offices, as did an early study in Poland (Thomas & Znaniecki 1927), or encounter journalism as an aspect of daily life, as did the mass observers in 1930s Britain (Madge & Harrisson 1938), but the result did not place journalists in sharp focus. The famed Chicago School paid considerable attention to news in community life (e.g., Fenton 1911) and included at least one professor with practical journalism experience, Robert Park (Lindner 1996), but then Chicago sociology for many years disappeared from view in the academic study of journalism.

Professors’ organizations growing out of university departments founded the first scholarly periodicals to focus on journalism research. The earliest was probably Zeitschrift für Zeitungskunde, which Bücher founded shortly after 1916 (Dennis & Wartella 1996). Elsewhere, the American Association of Teachers of Journalism in 1924 founded Journalism Quarterly, a publication that endured organizational changes and mergers. (The Journal of Broadcasting, which the University Association for Professional Radio Education founded, later followed a similar path.)

Following World War I, propaganda analysis became a leading academic and popular way to understand journalism (Sproule 1997). Contributors included journalists such as Walter Lippmann as well as academic researchers. Scholarly debate on propaganda and journalism in the interwar period eventually divided between those taking a propaganda practitioner approach (e.g., Lasswell 1927) and those taking a propaganda criticism approach (e.g., Lee & Lee 1939/1979; Lynd 1939/1964), based on normative ideas of journalism and its place in democracy. The work of propaganda analysis helped establish institutional foundations for studying journalism.

World War II disrupted organized academic activities in Europe and elsewhere, and some scholars whose work touched on journalism, including Herta Herzog and Herbert Marcuse, among others, moved to the United States. Government agencies involved in monitoring and analyzing enemy broadcasts and designing propaganda campaigns sometimes involved academic researchers in journalism topics. For example, Harold Lasswell (1946) conducted content analyses that provided evidence for prosecuting German-American publishers. Another strand of research influencing the understanding of journalism emerged from connections to industry through market studies. Paul Lazarsfeld applied the concept of Handlung (action) from German humanistic psychology to marketing research as an inquiry into purchasing choices (Lazarsfeld & Kornhauser 1935; Lazarsfeld 1939; Czitrom 1982), seen as parallel to the decisions of voters and news audiences.

Scholarly Study and Prospects

By the late 1940s, empirical social science became the dominant paradigm for academic inquiry into journalism, organized generally around the concept of “mass communication.” Early PhD programs emphasizing journalism had emerged in the US midwest during the first half of the twentieth century, with the general tendency toward the social sciences (Weaver & McCombs 1980). Programs at the universities of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, as well as Stanford, eventually incorporated sociology from Lazarsfeld, political science from Lasswell, and social psychology from Carl Hovland to treat journalism as a social object of study (Zelizer 2004). Journalism research thus acquired a growing emphasis on means of observation, systematic documentation, and generalizability of results (e.g., Hovland et al. 1949; Breed 1955). Humanities approaches to journalism fell behind as the status of social science grew, so that, for instance, studies employing quantitative methods went from 10 to 48 percent of the news media research in Journalism Quarterly in the decades from 1937 to 1957 (Schramm 1957). Although earlier research had treated journalism as a powerful force in defining social problems and in propagating government ideas and fomenting public support, the dominant thinking among scholars by mid-century was more functionalist and had come to see journalism as limited in its effects (e.g., Berelson et al. 1954).

By the 1960s, however, objections began to arise. Intellectual currents such as semiotics began to influence thinking about journalism (Eco 1965/1972; Barthes 1967). Social scientists in the United Kingdom developed an interest in the study of journalism, led by Jeremy Tunstall (1971), who pursued inquiries into journalists’ autonomy from surrounding forces. By the 1970s, fault lines emerged in the dominant social scientific paradigm, after research found that greater effects could occur among distinct social groups as opposed to the masses and that journalism had influence in setting the public agenda among political elites especially (Greenberg & Dominick 1969; McCombs & Shaw 1972). In Britain once cultural studies emerged, Stuart Hall (1973, 1974) and others analyzed journalism texts, and social critics such as Ralph Miliband (1969/1973) described how capitalist ownership and shared values among media professionals helped support class domination. US sociologists examined news and conducted fieldwork among journalists (e.g., Molotch & Lester 1974; Gans 1979), and communication scholars began incorporating cultural approaches, led by James W. Carey (1976, 1989; Allan 1999).

In the early 1980s, when the communication discipline underwent a period of ferment, a new vector also extended into journalism study. Agenda-setting effects, along with priming theory and framing effects (e.g., Iyengar & Kinder 1987), developed as a research approach to journalism, particularly related to political life. Under the emerging conditions of postmodernism, attention to news was declining among youth (Bogart 1989; Barnhurst & Wartella 1991), and journalism as a professional project entered a conscious period of crisis (Hallin 1992). Journalists became aware of declining audiences related to the aging of the population and also faced industrial changes such as the liberalization of state-controlled media in some countries and the proliferation of cable, talk radio, and other alternatives to traditional news outlets in countries with commercial systems, accompanied by the rise of new populist media and spread of tabloid journalism globally.

As intellectuals debated the process of globalization, scholars of journalism engaged in political and economic critiques that examined the relationship of media organizations to centers of social control (Hess 1984; Manoff & Schudson 1987). US practitioners responded with the civic journalism movement and joined with their counterparts in industrialized countries and with some academics in adopting a view of news as a contributor to the public sphere (Habermas 1962/1989; Dahlgren 1995). The rise of political-economic criticism (e.g., Herman & Chomsky 1988/2002), on top of the cultural criticism of the 1970s, prolonged the moment of crisis in journalism practice, which intensified after the Cold War ended in 1989. Among scholars, the crisis concentrated attention on journalism and exposed its underlying realist assumptions (Hartley 1982, 1996). Journalism studies, incorporating concepts of narrative and myth, ideology and hegemony, as well as approaches such as professional critique, political and economic analysis, and sociological observation, took institutional form in anthologies of canonic scholarship (O’Malley & Bromley 1997; Tumber 1999), in new scholarly journals such as Journalism Theory, Practice and Criticism and Journalism Studies (both founded in 1989), and in the creation and rapid growth of a Journalism Studies Division in the International Communication Association.

In a sense, then, the vectors of journalism study followed general intellectual movements of the latter twentieth and early twenty-first centuries and paralleled the increasing differentiation in journalism practice. At the beginning of the new century, critical scholars argued that access to the media varies by social group (especially given the digital divide), that capitalist ownership shapes news values, and that market-driven news practices benefit the already privileged (Curran 2002). Liberal pluralist scholars tended instead to align themselves with journalists’ definition of a positive and realist social role for journalism as an extension of (or a means essential to) the public sphere, aligning these concepts with journalistic training (Bromley 2006). Although the definition of journalism itself varies across academic disciplines and across dominant and alternative forms of practice, the main issue facing journalism is power. While scholars debate the power relations of journalists in media and political systems, journalists see multiple threats to their powers to practice in safety, to retain political autonomy, and to resist losses in their tenuous professional status.

References:

1. Allan, S. (1999). News culture. Buckingham: Open University Press.
2. Barnhurst, K., & Mutz, D. (1997). American journalism and the decline of event-centered reporting. Journal of Communication, 47(4), 27–53.
3. Barnhurst, K. G., & Nerone, J. (2001). The form of news: A history. New York: Guilford.
4. Barnhurst, K. G., & Wartella, E. (1991). Newspapers and citizenship: Young adults’ subjective experience of newspapers. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 8(2), 195 –209.
5. Barthes, R. (1967). Image – music – text: Essays (trans. S. Heath). London: Fontana.
6. Berelson, B. R., Lazarsfeld, P. F., & McPhee, W. N. (1954). Voting: A study of opinion formation in a presidential campaign. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
7. Bogart, L. (1989). Press and public, 2nd edn. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
8. Breed, W. (1955). Social control in the newsroom: A functional analysis. Social Forces, 33, 326 –355.
9. Bromley, M. (2006). One journalism or many? Confronting the contradictions in the education and training of journalists in the United Kingdom. In K. W. Y. Leung, J. Kenny, & P. S. N. Lee (eds.), Global trends in communication education and research. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, pp. 53 –71.
10. Carey, J. W. (1976). But who will criticize the critics? Journalism Studies Review, 1, 7–11.
11. Carey, J. W. (1978). A plea for the university tradition. Journalism Quarterly, 55(4), 846 – 855.
12. Carey, J. W. (1989). Communication as culture: Essays on media and society. Boston, MA: Unwin Hyman.
13. Corner, J., & Pels, D. (2003). Media and the restyling of politics: Consumerism, celebrity, and cynicism. London: Sage.
14. Curran, J. (2002). Media and power. London: Routledge.
15. Czitrom, D. J. (1982). Media and the American mind: From Morse to McLuhan. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
16. Dahlgren, P. (1995). Television and the public sphere: Citizenship, democracy and the media. London: Sage.
17. De Bruin, M., & Ross, K. (eds.) (2004). Gender and newsroom cultures: Identities at work. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
18. Dennis, E. E. (1978). The press and the public interest: A definitional dilemma. In E. E. Dennis, A. H. Ismach, & D. M. Gillmor (eds.), Enduring issues in mass communication. St Paul, MN: West, pp. 327–340.
19. Dennis, E. E., & Wartella, E. (eds.) (1996). American communication research: The remembered history. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
20. Deuze, M. (2006). Global journalism education. Journalism Studies, 7(1), 19 –36.
21. Downing, J. (2001). Radical media: Rebellious communication and social movements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
22. Dressel, P. L. (1960). Liberal education and journalism. New York: Columbia University Teachers College.
23. Eco, U. (1972). Towards a semiotic inquiry into the television message. Working Papers in Cultural Studies, 3, 103 –121. (Original work published 1965).
24. Ettema, J. S., & Glasser, T. L. (1998). Custodians of conscience: Investigative journalism and public virtue. New York: Columbia University Press.
25. Fenton, F. (1911). The influence of newspaper presentations upon the growth of crime and other anti-social activity. PhD dissertation, University of Chicago.
26. Froissart, P. (2002). La rumeur: Histoire et fantasmes. Paris: Belin.
27. Gans, H. (1979). Deciding what’s news: A study of CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, Newsweek, and Time. New York: Pantheon Books.
28. Greenberg, B. S., & Dominick, J. R. (1969). Racial and social class differences in teenagers’ use of television. Journal of Broadcasting, 13, 331–343.
29. Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Original work published 1962).
30. Hall, S. (1973). The determinations of news photographs. In S. Cohen & J. Young (eds.), The manufacture of news. London: Sage, pp. 226 –243.
31. Hall, S. (1974). The television discourse: Encoding and decoding. Education and Culture, no. 25, 8 – 15.
32. Hallin, D. (1992). The passing of the “high modernism” of American journalism. Journal of Communication, 42(3), 14 –25.
33. Hardt, H., & Brennen, B. (1995). Newsworkers: Toward a history of the rank and file. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
34. Hartley, J. (1982). Understanding news. London: Methuen.
35. Hartley, J. (1996). Popular reality: Journalism, modernity, popular culture. London: Edward Arnold.
36. Herman, E. S., & Chomsky, N. (2002). Manufacturing consent: The political economy of mass media. New York: Pantheon. (Original work published 1988).
37. Hess, S. (1984). The government/press connection. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
38. Hovland, C. I., Lumsdaine, A. A., & Shefield, F. D. (1949). Experiments in mass communication: Studies in the social psychology in World War II, American Soldier series, vol. III. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
39. Hutchins Commission (1947). A free and responsible press. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
40. Innis, H. (1946). Political economy in the modern state. Toronto: Ryerson.
41. Iyengar, S., & Kinder, D. R. (1987). News that matters: Television and American opinion. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
42. Knudson, J. W. (1987). Journalism education’s roots in Latin America are traced. Journalism Educator, 41(4), 22 –24, 33.
43. Lasswell, H. D. (1927). Propaganda technique in the world war. New York: Knopf.
44. Lasswell, H. D. (1946). Describing the channels of communication. In B. L. Smith, H. D. Lasswell, & R. D. Casey (eds.), Propaganda, communication, and public opinion: A comprehensive reference guide. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 74 – 94.
45. Lazarsfeld, P. F. (ed.) (1939). Radio research and applied psychology. Journal of Applied Psychology, special issue, 23.
46. Lazarsfeld, P. F., & Kornhauser, A. W. (1935). The techniques of market research from the standpoint of a psychologist. New York: American Management Association.
47. Lee, A. M., & Lee, E. B. (1979). The fine art of propaganda. San Francisco, CA: International Society for General Semantics. (Original work published 1939).
48. Lee, C.-C. (2000). China’s journalism: The emancipatory potential of social theory. Journalism Studies, 1(4), 559 –574.
49. Lee, E. B., & Lee, A. M. (1976). The Society for the Study of Social Problems: Parental recollections and hopes. Social Problems, 24, 4 –14.
50. Lindner, R. (1996). The reportage of urban culture: Robert Park and the Chicago School. New York: Cambridge University Press.
51. Lule, J. (2001). Daily news, eternal stories: The mythological role of journalism. New York: Guilford.
52. Lynd, R. (1964). Knowledge for what? The place of social science in American culture. New York: Grove. (Original work published 1939).
53. Madge, T., & Harrisson, T. (eds.) (1938). First year’s work. London: Lindsay Drummond.
54. Manoff, R. K., & Schudson, M. (eds.) (1987). Reading the news. New York: Pantheon.
55. McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, 176 –187.
56. McNair, B. (2000). Journalism and democracy: An evaluation of the political public sphere. London: Routledge.
57. Miliband, R. (1973). The state in capitalist society. London: Quartet. (Original work published 1969).
58. Molotch, H., & Lester, M. (1974). News as purposive behavior: On the strategic use of routine events, accidents, and scandals. American Sociological Review, 38, 101–112.
59. Morrison, J. (1997). The changing model of Russian media and journalism education. Journalism and Mass Communication Educator, 52(3), 26 –34.
60. Murphy, S. M., & Scotten, J. F. (1987). Dependency and journalism education in Africa: Are there alternative models? Africa Media Review, 1(3), 11–35.
61. Nerone, J. (1994). Violence against the press: Policing the public sphere in US history. New York: Oxford University Press.
62. O’Malley, T., & Bromley, M. (eds.) (1997). A journalism reader. London: Routledge.
63. Pasley, J. L. (2001). “The tyranny of printers”: Newspaper politics in the early American republic. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press.
64. Popkin, J. D. (1989). News and politics in the age of revolution: Jean Luzac’s “Gazette de Leyde.” Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
65. Ricoeur, P. (1984). Time and narrative, vol. I. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
66. Riggings, S. H. (1992). Ethnic minority media: An international perspective. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
67. Rodríguez, C. (2000). Fissures in the mediascape: An international study of citizens’ media. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
68. Rosen, J. (1999). What are journalists for? New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
69. Schiller, D. (1981). Objectivity and the news: The public and the rise of commercial journalism. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
70. Schramm, W. (1957). Twenty years of journalism research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 21, 91–107.
71. Siebert, F., Peterson, T., & Schramm, W. (1956). Four theories of the press. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
72. Sproule, J. M. (1997). Propaganda and democracy: The American experience of media and mass persuasion. New York: Cambridge University Press.
73. Thomas, W. I., & Znaniecki, F. (1927). The Polish peasant in Europe and America, 2 vols. New York: Knopf.
74. Tuchman, G. (1978). Making the news: A study in the construction of reality. New York: Free Press.
75. Tumber, H. (ed.) (1999). News: A reader. New York: Oxford University Press.
76. Tunstall, J. (1971). Journalists at work. London: Constable.
77. Waisbord, S. (2000). Watchdog journalism in South America. New York: Columbia University Press.
78. Wallace, K. R. (ed.) (1954). A history of speech education in America. New York: Appleton-Century- Crofts.
79. Ward, S. J. A. (2005). The invention of journalism ethics: The path to objectivity and beyond. Montreal: McGill Queen’s University Press.
80. Weaver, D. H., & McCombs, M. E. (1980). Journalism and social science: A new relationship? Public Opinion Quarterly, 44, 477– 494.
81. Weber, M. (1991). Politics as a vocation. In H. H. Gerth & C. W. Mills (eds. and trans.), Max Weber: Essays in sociology. London: Routledge, pp. 77–128. (Original work published 1958).
82. White, D. M. (1950). The “gate keeper”: A study in the selection of news. Journalism Quarterly, 27, 383 –396.
83. White, H. (1973). Metahistory: The historical imagination in nineteenth-century Europe. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
84. Zboray, R., & Saracino Zboray, M. (2006). Everyday ideas: Socioliterary experience among antebellum New Englanders. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press.
85. Zelizer, B. (2004). Taking journalism seriously. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.