$o&paring -ournalis& $ross1$ulturally

4e6ining t7e core concepts 6or e&pirical in9uiry

Comparative journalism research: Welcome to Babylon! T7e current state o6 t7e co&parative study o6 =ournalis& could >e su&&ari?ed >est >y a sentence, Aritten so&e years ago >y Benry Teune C199E: G1H: IJn t7e 6orty or so years o6 co&paring countries on a Aorld1Aide >asis, &uc7 7ad to >e done Ait7 little KnoAledge to >uild onLM Teune did not address 7is criticis& speci6ically to =ournalis& or &ass co&&unica1 tion researc7, >ut to t7e social sciences in generalL N6ter anot7er 15 years o6 researc7, t7is o>servation still re&ains valid at least 6or our 6ield o6 in9uiryL Pour decades a6ter t7e pioneer study o6 McReod and BaAley C196GH cross1cultural =ournalis& researc7 is &ostly li&ited to a patc7AorK o6 studies, eac7 o6 A7ic7 eTploring only a s&all part o6 t7e >ig pu??le t7at =our1 nalis& see&s to >e to usL T7ere are plenty o6 studies eTploring t7e interplay >etAeen =ournal1 is& and politics, =ournalis& and t7e &arKet econo&y or =ournalis& and cultureL Ut7ers 6ocus on t7e i&pact o6 tec7nology, organi?ation and gender on neAs &aKing, leaving principal 9uestions unansAeredL Vtill, Ae 7ave only li&ited KnoAledge a>out t7e 6actors A7ic7 &ost s7ape t7e neAs and t7e structures o6 =ournalis&L Js it politics, econo&y or cultureW Un t7e one 7and, t7ere is so&e evidence t7at, in ter&s o6 pro6essional vieAs, political in6luences see& to >e &ore i&1 portant t7an cultural 6actors CX7u et alL 1997H, ot7er studies suggest t7at culture 7as a larger in6luence on source1reporter relations7ips t7an pro6essional values CV7in Z $a&eron 2EE\HL Uverall, t7e vast >ody o6 literature, A7ile representing an increasing interest in cross1cultural researc7, is do&inated >y descriptive co&parisons o6 national =ournalis& syste&s and t7e people involvedL Nnd &ost un6ortunately, t7ere is virtually no signi6icant t7eoretical groundAorK eTcept t7e study o6 V7oe&aKer and Reese C1996H or Ballin and Mancini C2EEGHL Jn t7is paper J draA 6ro& t7ree convictions: Pirst, co&parative researc7 is t7e essen1 tial i6 not &ost i&portant strategy to understand t7e nature o6 =ournalis& and 7oA it AorKs across cultural >oundariesL T7e study o6 =ournalis& certainly needs &ore cross1cultural re1

!1!

searc7, and t7e Isetting is ripe 6or studies t7at incorporate &ore t7an one country in a single analysisM C^erKoAit?, Ri&or Z Vinger 2EEG: 161HL Vecond, t7e cross1cultural study o6 =ournal1 is& is poorly conceptuali?edL Jn 6act, large parts o6 e&pirical =ournalis& researc7 are not penetrated >y t7eory, leaving unclear A7at constitutes t7e co&&on re6erence t7at alloAs 6or co&parisonL T7ird, core concepts in =ournalis& studies are o6ten con6ounded Ait7 one an1 ot7erL Ter&s liKe I=ournalis&M, IneAsM, I&ediaM and Ipu>lic co&&unicationM are used as i6 t7ey Aere sel61eTplanatory and did not deserve conceptual deli>erationL C1H _7y is co&parative researc7 essentialW Ns `o7n C1989: 77H argued, cross1national researc7 is indispensa>le 6or esta>lis7ing t7e generality o6 6indings and t7e validity o6 inter1 pretations derived 6ro& single1nation studiesL Nnot7er i&portant value o6 cross1national researc7 is t7at it 6orces us to test our interpretations against cross1national di66erences and inconsistenciesL Ni&s o6 co&parative researc7 include, according to Rivingstone C2EE\: G79H, i&proving understanding o6 our oAn and ot7er countriesb testing a t7eory across diverse settingsb eTa&ining transnational processes across di66erent conteTtsb eTa&ining t7e local reception o6 i&ported cultural 6or&sb >uilding a>stract universally applica>le t7eoryb c7al1 lenging clai&s to universalityb evaluating scope and value o6 certain p7eno&enab identi6ying &arginali?ed cultural 6or&sb i&proving international understandingb and learning 6ro& t7e policy o6 ot7ersL U6 course, one could argue t7at all social researc7 is co&parative, as did ^eniger C1992: \5HL ^ut cross1cultural studies pose speci6ic conceptual and &et7odological c7allenges to t7e researc7er C^lu&ler, McReod Z Rosengren 1992b $7ang et alL 2EE1b -o7nson Z Tuttle 2EEEb `o7n 1989b Rivingstone 2EE\b coAaK 1989HL T7is &ay >e t7e reason A7y &ost co&1 parative AorK is not >ased on tailor1&ade cross1cultural studies >ut on parallel data t7at 7ave >een originally o>tained 6or national purposes C-oAell 1998: 17Eb `leinsteu>er 2EEG: 68HL darying conceptuali?ations and de6initions &aKe suc7 co&parative researc7 di66icult, i6 not i&possi>le, let alone t7e &et7odologically pro>le&atic nature o6 t7is Kind o6 second17and co&parisonL eenuine co&parative researc7 on =ournalis& is rare, in particular i6 it involves &ore t7an tAo countriesL Nn eTcellent eTa&ple o6 conceptually deli>erate cross1national re1 searc7 is, despite t7e sa&ple is li&ited to daily neAs =ournalis& and t7e interpretations are de>ata>le, t7e IMedia and 4e&ocracyM study C4ons>ac7 Z fatterson 2EEGb fatterson Z 4ons>ac7 1996HL

!2!

Nlt7oug7 it is increasingly argued t7at t7e nation is itsel6 not a proper unit o6 co&1 parison CRivingstone 2EE\: G79H, e&pirical cross1cultural =ournalis& researc7 is &ostly cross1 national CReese 2EE1: 177HL T7is is still t7e case 6or &ost part o6 co&&unication and &edia studiesL N long tradition o6 international co&&unication researc7 7as de6ined co&parative researc7 as Ia study t7at co&pares tAo or &ore nations Ait7 respect to so&e co&&on activ1 ityM CEdelstein 1982: 1GHL ^ut nations are not t7at culturally sel61contained and 7o&ogeneous as t7e very in6luential AorK o6 Bo6stede C198EH and 7is 6elloAs suggestsL Ns &odern nation states increasingly consist o6 &ultiple cultures ! suc7 as et7nic and religious groups, dias1 poric co&&unities, class cultures or consu&er cultures ! t7e reliance on nations as &ain unit o6 analysis see&s to >e anac7ronistic and even contrary to everyday li6e eTperienceL _e need to taKe notice o6 t7e 6act t7at t7e nation is only one, and per7aps not even t7e &ost i&por1 tant, varia>le out o6 a set o6 organi?ing principles in =ournalis& C2H Nlt7oug7 co&parative researc7 7as >een called t7e co&&unication 6ieldhs IeT1 tended and eTtenda>le 6rontierM C^lu&ler, McReod Z Rosengren 1992: \H, co&parative &et71 odology is rat7er little discussed CRivingstone 2EE\: G78H, and researc7 reports o6ten lacK in t7eory and conceptuali?ation C$7ang et alL 2EE1HL T7is 7ad &a=or conse9uences 6or t7e co&1 parative study o6 =ournalis&, in particular 6or t7e de6inition o6 one o6 t7e principal o>=ects o6 researc7: t7e =ournalistL N looK at _eavers C1998aH Ielo>al -ournalistM is revealing: Une could identi6y virtually as &any de6initions o6 A7o is a =ournalist as t7e nu&>er o6 studies t7e >ooK coversL Vo&e researc7ers li&ited t7eir survey to neAs people, ot7ers eTcluded =our1 nalists AorKing 6or popular or special1interest pu>lications or even &aga?ines in generalL Most studies included only 6ull1ti&e editors >ut eTcluded 6reelancersL Even &ore strangely, A7ile t7e &a=ority o6 studies eTcluded p7otograp7ers andior ca&era operators 6ro& t7eir sa&ples, ot7ers did include p7otograp7ersL eiven t7is conceptual &ess, any atte&pt to eT1 tract &eaning6ul in6or&ation 6ro& t7ese data Aould >e a 7a?ardous ga&eL To &aKe t7is all Aorse, t7ere is even a signi6icant nu&>er o6 surveys o6 =ournalists t7at did not even atte&pt to de6ine t7eir o>=ect o6 researc7L Ns Vc7oll C1996: \\\H concluded,
t7ese recent studies used eit7er de6initions o6 =ournalis& A7ic7 Aere too narroA or A7ic7 Aere t7eoreti1 cally not Aell16ounded and actually &ore i&plicit t7an eTplicitL eenerally, researc7 A7ic7 a>andons t7eoretical consideration does not &aKe clear A7ic7 area o6 =ournalis& is >eing covered and does not &aKe evident t7e eTtent o6 its eTternal validityL

eranted, to de6ine A7at is =ournalis& and A7o is a =ournalist see&s to >e c7allenging and leads into so&e o6 t7e &ost 7ard16oug7t >attles at t7e 7eart o6 =ournalis& studiesL Jn t7e

!\!

jnited Vtates, introductory teTt>ooKs typically de6ine a =ournalist as a Iperson A7o gat7ers CreportsH and processes CAritesH accurate and i&portant in6or&ation so it can >e disse&i1 nated to a Aider audienceM CVinger 2EE\: 1GGHL T7is traditional de6inition 7as >een adopted >y &ost =ournalis& researc7ers around t7e glo>eL _7en particular roles did not 6it t7is de6i1 nition, =ournalists A7o su>scri>ed to t7ese roles Aere si&ply eTcluded 6ro& t7e surveyL ^ut A7y did t7ese researc7ers, t7en, not include fR practitioners in t7eir surveys as &any o6 t7e& do also gat7er and process in6or&ationW Nnd A7at a>out t7e correspondents AorKing 6or -ay Renohs ITonig7t V7oAMW Nre t7ey not doing a =ournalisths =o>W T7is is t7e pro>le& Ait7 de6ining =ournalis& 6ro& t7e perspective o6 =ournalistic prac1 tices and routinesL T7e result is a vicious circle su&&ari?ed >y t7e 6or&ula: I-ournalist is A7o AorKs in =ournalis&, and =ournalis& is A7at =ournalists doLM T7e AorK o6 =ournalists, entertainers as Aell as fR and advertising practitioners 7as converged as all t7ese people are struggling 6or pu>lic attention, A7ic7 is a li&ited good in pu>lic co&&unicationL Nlso, fR practitioners, 6or instance, si&ulate selective and teTtual structures o6 neAs &aKing to get t7eir &essages t7roug7 t7e neAs &ediaL Uverall, A7en it co&es to de6ine t7e core concepts o6 t7e 6ield, =ournalis& studies Keeps spinning roundL T7e de>ate still re&ains unresolved CVinger 2EE\: 15\H, A7ic7 is also a 7eritage o6 7aving >uilt t7ose de6initions around t7e neAs1 roo& conceptL jn6ortunately, t7e cultural analysis o6 =ournalis&, t7oug7 7aving produced an eTcit1 ing >ody o6 literature, does not provide &uc7 enlig7ten&ent 7ereL Vtill, cultural studies o66er an poor conceptuali?ation o6 =ournalis&, let alone t7e &ani6old notions o6 culture t7ey su>1 scri>e toL Ns pointed out recently >y Xeli?er C2EEG: 189H, cultural studies le6t t7e nuances o6 =ournalis&hs AorKings out o6 its analysisL ^y and large, J sense a tendency in cultural studies to overstretc7 de6initions, as indicated >y -o7n Bartleyhs C2EEE: G5H IEveryone is a =ournalist, and =ournalis& is everyA7ereML Vuc7 de6initions >eco&e a poor second 6or t7e e&pirical in1 9uiry into =ournalis& as t7ey relin9uis7 t7e 7euristic value o6 conceptuali?ationL To put it >luntly: 4e6initions liKe Ieveryone is a =ournalistM descri>e everyt7ing ! and conse9uently not7ingL C\H N great deal o6 Aritings in t7e 6ield continues to con6ound =ournalis& Ait7 ot7er pro&inent concepts suc7 as, >ut not li&ited to, pu>lic co&&unication, t7e &edia and t7e neAsL Nlt7oug7 t7e distinction >etAeen t7ese ter&s deserves care6ul deli>eration, &any re1 searc7ers speaK o6 It7e &ediaM as i6 t7is Aould sel61evidently re6er to =ournalis& or t7e neAsL

!G!

_7ile t7e relation >etAeen =ournalis& and pu>lic co&&unication Aill >e discussed in an1 ot7er section o6 t7is paper, J Aill >rie6ly outline 7oA J use t7e notions o6 t7e &edia and t7e neAsL J understand t7e &edia as t7e carriers o6 pu>lic co&&unication >ecause t7ey transport &ani6old contents generated >y =ournalis&, fR, advertising and entertain&entL ^ecause t7e &edia carry 9uite di66erent Kinds o6 content, =ournalis& cannot >e identi6ied >y t7e &ediu&L Nlso, t7e &edia are distinct 6ro& &edia organi?ations, A7ic7 7ost t7e &edia and use t7e&, i6 t7ey are organi?ed around co&&ercial principles, to &aKe pro6itL ceAs, on t7e ot7er 7and, Iis t7e product o6 t7e =ournalistic activity o6 pu>lici?ingM CVc7udson 2EE\: 12HL T7e circulation o6 neAs as output o6 =ournalis& is not li&ited to tradi1 tional &ass co&&unicationb t7ere are &any Aays o6 alternative =ournalis&, not to &ention t7e Ionline c7allengeM to =ournalis& suc7 as personally tailored neAs outlets C4aily MeH or Ae> logs CVinger 2EE\: 1\9HL BoAever, not every neAs produced as suc7 is necessarily con1 su&ed as neAsL T7ere is neAs consu&ed as entertain&ent CVtep7enson 196GH ! and enter1 tain&ent consu&ed as neAs C4elli $arpini Z _illia&s 2EE1HL T7us, A7at is neAs is not eT1 clusively decided >y neAs people, >ut is identi6ied and negotiated t7roug7 t7e processes o6 pu>lic co&&unication, involving producers and consu&ersL cevert7eless, 6or t7e analysis o6 t7e production side, t7e neAs ! including 7ard neAs, so6t neAs, cele>rity neAs and ot7er 6or&s ! is, >y de6inition, t7e genuine and eTclusive product o6 =ournalis&L Por t7e study o6 =ournalis&, t7e neAs is relevant as point o6 re6erence as to A7at eTtent t7e structures o6 neAs production, t7e individuals involved and t7e constraints under A7ic7 t7ey operate do actu1 ally s7ape t7e output o6 t7eir pro6essional AorKL T7is Aay o6 conceptuali?ation &eans t7at Ae 7ave to de6ine =ournalis& 6irst, and t7en de6ine its structures Corgani?ations, progra&s and routines, rolesH, pro6essionals and cul1 turesL T7is is t7e &ain o>=ective o6 t7is essay: Jt intends to provide a conceptual 6ra&eAorK 6or cross1cultural co&parisons o6 =ournalis& syste&sL ^y clari6ying and de6ining core con1 cepts 6or e&pirical researc7, t7is paper seeKs to o66er a central point o6 re6erence necessary 6or t7e co&parative study o6 =ournalis&L T7e essential advantage o6 suc7 a central re6erence lies in its potential to ensure 6unctional e9uivalence o6 concepts, A7ic7 is a &et7odological cornerstone in co&parative researc7 C-oAell 1998b van de di=ver Z Reung 1997b _irt7 Z `ol> 2EE\HL

!5!

Levels of analysis ^e6ore Ae turn our attention to t7e de6inition o6 =ournalis&, Ae need to organi?e our conceptual AorK >y identi6ying t7e levels o6 analysisL V7oe&aKer and Reese C1996b also: Reese 2EE1H 7ave &ade an eTcellent contri>ution 7ere Ait7 t7eir 7ierarc7y1o61in6luences &odelL T7ey de6ined 6ive levels o6 analysis, ranging 6ro& t7e &ost &icro to t7e &ost &acro: t7e individual, &edia routines, organi?ation, eTtra&edia and ideological levels CV7oe&aKer Z Reese 1996: 6GHL T7ere are ot7er atte&pts A7ic7 7ave t7eir origin in t7e eer&an discourseL _eisc7en>erg C1995: 69H, 6or instance, developed an Ionion &odelM 7aving 6our IsKinsM, eac7 o6 A7ic7 s7aping t7e neAs: t7e &edia syste&s CconteTt o6 nor&sH, &edia institutions CconteTt o6 structuresH, &edia content CconteTt o6 6unctionsH and t7e =ournalists CconteTt o6 rolesHL 4ons>ac7 C2EEE: 8EH, on t7e ot7er 7and, distinguis7ed t7e sp7eres o6 t7e individual, pro6es1 sional, institutional and societal in6luencesL Por reasons o6 clear syste&atics, J 7ave 6ound it &ore e66icient to AorK Ait7 a socio1 logical &acro1&eso1&icro distinctionL Vuc7 an approac7 Aas originally proposed >y Esser C2EEEH and 4eu?e C2EE2aH, >ut J &ade so&e signi6icant &odi6ications to it Csee Ta>le 1HL T7e

societal level, A7ic7 is t7e &ost &acro, consists o6 t7e pu>lic sp7ere as t7e i&&ediate envi1
ron&ent o6 =ournalis& and t7e eTtra1pu>lic sp7ere, A7ic7 is t7e environ&ent o6 t7e pu>lic sp7ere itsel6L J Aill conceptuali?e t7e pu>lic sp7ere, A7ic7 is only an unsatis6actory transla1 tion o6 t7e eer&an concept Ik66entlic7KeitM, in t7e 6olloAing sectionL T7e structural level C&esoH co&prises t7e internal structures o6 =ournalis& consisting o6 editorial organi?ations as Aell as =ournalistic progra&s, routines and rolesL T7ese structures are usually insensitive to t7e peculiarities o6 events or individuals, and t7ey 7ave proved to e66ectively reduce t7e co&pleTity o6 day1to1day neAs &aKingL T7e individual level C&icroH, on t7e ot7er 7and, is strongly sensitive to t7e =ournalistsh >acKgrounds in s7aping t7e contents and 6or& o6 t7e neAsL

Ta>le 1: Revels o6 analysis

Level societal structural individual Scope &acro &eso &icro Dimensions pu>lic sp7ere, eTtra1pu>lic sp7ere organi?ations, progra&s and routines, roles =ournalistsh >acKgrounds

!6!

The macro level: defining journalism Nccording to t7e Aell KnoAn AorK o6 eeorge Vpencer ^roAn C1969: 1H, o>servers de1 6ine o>=ects t7roug7 &aKing distinctionsL Jn order to de6ine =ournalis&, Ae t7us 7ave to draA a line >etAeen =ournalis& and non1=ournalis&L J argue t7at t7e >est Aay to identi6y =ournal1 is& is t7roug7 adopting post1farsonian syste&s t7eory as developed >y t7e eer&an soci1 ologist ciKlas Ru7&ann C1995, 1999, 2EEEa, 2EEE>HL Ru7&annhs syste&s t7eory is a >ranc7 o6 general di66erentiation t7eory A7ic7 is rooted in t7e AorK o6 l&ile 4urK7ei& C189\H and Talcott farsons C1951HL 4i66erentiation t7eory 7olds t7at increased co&pleTity o6 society re1 9uires 6unctional di66erentiation o6 social roles and institutions CBallin Z Mancini 2EEG: 77HL Vtill, t7e AorK o6 Ru7&ann does not receive t7e attention it deserves 6ro& t7e interna1 tional acade&yL cevert7eless, in eer&any, Nustria and VAit?erland, Ru7&annhs AorK 7as >een 9uite in6luential on t7e t7eori?ing o6 =ournalis&L T7e 6olloAing tAo sections Aill, t7ere1 6ore, 7eavily draA on t7e literature 6ro& t7e eer&an1speaKing countriesL ^ut >e6ore J co&e to t7is, J Aill >rie6ly outline t7e &ain ideas o6 Ru7&annhs ground>reaKing t7eoretical 6ra&e1 AorK, alt7oug7 t7e vast nu&>er o6 7is pu>lications as Aell as t7e co&pleTity o6 t7e t7eory &aKe t7is virtually i&possi>leL Nccording to Ru7&annhs Isecond order syste&s t7eoryM CReydesdor66 1996: 28GH, &odern society copes Ait7 increasing social co&pleTity, selectivity and contingency t7roug7 di66erentiation into social syste&s Cpolitics, laA, econo&y, education, etcLH, eac7 o6 A7ic7 6ul6illing a speci6ic 6unction t7at is essential to &aintain order Ait7in societyL T7ese 6unc1 tional syste&s are not constituted t7roug7 a particular group o6 individuals, >ut t7ey solely consist o6 co&&unication and its attri>ution to actionL Vocial syste&s process &eaning, oper1 ate sel61re6erentially and are sel61organi?ingL T7ey are sel61organi?ing inso6ar as t7ey create t7eir oAn >oundaries and internal structures, and t7ey are sel61re6erential >ecause t7eir ele1 &ents re6er to t7e syste& itsel6L Punctional syste&s can >e identi6ied t7roug7 t7eir pri&ary 6unction and &aintain t7eir >oundaries >y operating >inary codes 7aving a positive value A7ic7 re6ers to t7e syste& itsel6 and a negative value A7ic7 re6ers to t7e syste&hs environ1 &entL Jn t7e syste&hs operations, t7e code is &ediated t7roug7 progra&s A7ic7 assign posi1 tive and negative code values to occurrencesL N special type o6 social syste&s, >eside interac1 tion syste&s, are organi?ationsL Urgani?ations are >uilt around t7e co&&unication o6 deci1

!7!

sions, t7ey are t7e predo&inant and &ost e66ective structures t7at 7elp 6unctional syste&s to &aintain t7eir operations CRu7&ann 2EEEaHL

-ournalis& in t7e pu>lic sp7ere

J 7ave argued elseA7ere t7at =ournalis& 7as evolved as one o6 t7e pro6essional areas o6 pu>lic co&&unication A7ic7 constitute t7e pu>lic sp7ere Cmmmmmmm1 2EEG: \6157HL T7e pu>lic sp7ere as a 6unctional syste& operates according to a distinct logic o6 its oAnL Jt >e1 ca&e necessary due to t7e trans6or&ation o6 society 6ro& seg&entary to 6unctional di66eren1 tiation as t7is process caused at tAo t7ree serious t7reats to t7e 6a>ric o6 society: sel61reliance, &ulti1perspectivity and social eTclusionL C1H eiven t7eir autono&ous and sel61re6erential nature, social syste&s increasingly operate sel61centered and inconsiderate toAard t7e eTtent to A7ic7 t7eir operations pollute t7e environ&ent CVc7i&anK 2EEE: 189HL Por instance, t7e pri&ary goal o6 politicians is to >e in poAerL folitical decisions t7us 7ave so&eti&es negative conse9uences in t7e econo&ic sys1 te&, alt7oug7 t7ey are e66ective in t7e political syste&L C2H N 6unctionally di66erentiated society alloAs a &ultiplicity o6 potential and e9uiva1 lent perspectives >ecause no syste& can legiti&i?e its particular perspective as >eing supe1 rior to ot7ers CEsposito 2EE2: 2EEb `o7ring Z Bug 1997: 17HL 4i66erent perspectives &ost liKely result in di66erent representations o6 reality: _7ile t7e political syste& &ay vieA e61 6orts to sta>ili?e a dictatorial regi&e as legiti&ate 6or political reasons, t7e laA syste& &ig7t consider suc7 assistance inappropriate as it i&plicitly >acKs violations o6 7u&an rig7tsL Ns a conse9uence, society 7ad to institutionali?e t7e pro>le& o6 ena>ling social co1 orientationL T7ere6ore, a social syste& pu>lic sp7ere 7as evolved A7ose 6unction is to 6acili1

tate a co&&on, socially >inding re6erence necessary 6or t7e co1orientation o6 t7e social uni1 verse t7roug7 providing in6or&ation o6 i&&ediate topicalityL _7ile less co&pleT societies
&aintained social co1orientation pri&arily t7roug7 interpersonal co&&unication, &odern society needs to distinguis7 >etAeen interpersonal co&&unication and pu>lic co&&unica1 tionL Ns social co&pleTity groAs, pu>lic co&&unication ! and =ournalis& as part o6 it ! 7as co&e to rival interpersonal co&&unication as pri&ary source o6 social co1orientationL Jn ot7er Aords: T7e e&ergence and evolution o6 t7e pu>lic sp7ere is a reaction o6 t7e &odern society to co&pensate 6or t7e pro>le&s caused >y 6unctional di66erentiationL N si&i1
1

Nut7orhs na&e 7idden 6or >lind revieAL

!8!

lar conceptuali?ation 7as >een suggested >y eer7ards C199GH, `o7ring C1997H, enrKe C2EEEH and ot7ersL T7e pu>lic sp7ere, A7ic7 itsel6 is constituted t7roug7 pu>lic co&&unication, &aintains its >oundaries >y t7e code opu>lic attentioni1pu>lic attention Ceer7ards 199G: 89b _ester>arKey 1999: 151HL T7e operations o6 t7e pu>lic sp7ere as social syste& are t7us >uilt around raising and processing pu>lic attentionL T7is vieA alloAs to integrate t7e &ani6old areas o6 pu>lic co&&unication suc7 as =ournalis&, pu>lic relations Cincluding propagandaH, advertising and entertain&ent into t7e pu>lic sp7ereL Jt 7as >eco&e increasingly o>vious t7at even t7e neAs 7ave to grip t7e attention o6 t7e audiences in order to get t7eir &essages t7roug7 C^ird 2EEE: \1HL Jn &y vieA, =ournalis& is li&ited to pro6essional operations ! and t7us li&ited to t7e AorK o6 pro6essional individualsL _7ile t7e rise o6 convergence and &ulti&edia, >oosted >y t7e rapid develop&ent o6 t7e internet, indeed poses a c7allenge to t7e traditional notion o6 &ass co&&unication, t7e eTistence and legiti&ation o6 =ournalis& is not endangered >y t7e e&ergence o6 Ae> logs or a&ateur online &ediaL Nlt7oug7 &any >loggers do per6or& a =ournalistic role and apply tec7ni9ues o6 pro6essional =ournalis&, Ae> logging itsel6 is not necessarily a pro6essional enterpriseL Vinger C2EE\: 1G6H 7as pointed out t7at, 6ro& a socio1 logical perspective, a Key aspect in de6ining an occupation as a pro6ession is A7et7er society regards it as suc7L ^ut t7e &ost i&portant t7ing a>out pro6essions is t7at t7ey 7ave devel1 oped speci6ic pro6essional nor&s and ideologies CBallin Z Mancini 2EEG: \517H as Aell as &ec7anis&s o6 sel61control and 9uality &anage&entL -ournalis& gains its credi>ility 6ro& 7aving its pro6essionals su>scri>ing to t7ese sel61i&posed structuresL BoAever, it 7as to >e noted t7at recent pro6essional =ournalis& also 7as a lot o6 in7erent 6laAs as 6orce6ully argued >y Mc$7esney C2EE\: \E5H A7o even suggests t7at Ito re&ain de&ocratic, to continue to eT1 ist, =ournalis& &ust >eco&e LLL unpro6essionalML -ournalis& is one i6 not t7e &ost i&portant pro6essional area o6 t7e pu>lic sp7ere as its contri>ution to &odern society is essentialL Pirst, =ournalis& counteracts t7e eTcessive in1 crease o6 syste&ic sel61reliance t7roug7 covering t7e negative conse9uences o6 t7e sel61 re6erential operations o6 social syste&sL Vecond, =ournalis& generates points o6 re6erence needed 6or social co1orientation in a &ulti1perspective societyL T7ese t7eoretical considera1 tions &ust lead to t7e conclusion t7at t7e pri&ary 6unction o6 =ournalis&, as >eing part o6 t7e pu>lic sp7ere, is not to si&ply provide in6or&ation, >ut to alloA t7e co1oriention o6 social syste&s and t7e individuals A7o live Ait7in t7eir scopeL Jn a Aorld A7ere essentially all

!9!

Kind o6 in6or&ation is accessi>le via internet, =ournalis& &oves aAay 6ro& &erely disse&i1 nating in6or&ation to selecting A7at is relevantL ceAs people t7us >eco&e Isearc7 enginesM CBartley 2EEE: G\H t7at 7elp t7eir audiences to navigate t7roug7 t7e pro>le&s o6 everyday li6eL -ournalis& increasingly >uilds its t7e&atic coverage around everyday li6e issues and provides sel617elp, advice, guidance and IneAs1you1can1use ite&sM CEide and `nig7t 1999: 526b jnderAood 2EE1: 1E112HL

-ournalis&, entertain&ent, fR and advertising

N6ter 7aving de6ined t7e pu>lic sp7ere, Ae need to discri&inate =ournalis& 6ro& ot7er pro6essional areas o6 pu>lic co&&unication, t7ree o6 A7ic7 are pu>lic relations, adver1 tising and entertain&entL Nlt7oug7 t7ere are no 6unctional di66erences >etAeen =ournalis& and non1=ournalistic pu>lic co&&unication as t7ey su>=ect t7eir operations to t7e sa&e sys1 te& code, J 7ave identi6ied at least t7ree di&ensions to distinguis7 =ournalis&, fR, advertis1 ing and entertain&ent at t7e operational level Csee Pigure 1HL T7e 6irst di&ension, t7e pri1

&ary in6or&ation value, re6ers to t7e traditional distinction >etAeen 6act and 6iction as sug1
gested, 6or instance, >y Vc7oll C1996: \\GHL ^ecause co&&unication &essages usually contain co&pleT in6or&ation, t7e individual scores on t7is aTis 7ave to >e seen as rat7er relative to one anot7er: &ostly 6actual Co6actuali16ictionalH and &ostly 6ictional C16actualio6ictionalHL T7e second di&ension, A7ic7 J call t7e intended e66ects, deals Ait7 A7et7er a co&&unicated &essage is intended to 7ave a particular e66ect on attitudes andior >e7aviors CeLgL positive perception o6 a co&pany, purc7ase decisionsH as proposed >y _ilcoT, Nult and Ngee C1997: 1\HL farallel to t7is aTis, t7ere is a t7ird di&ension A7ic7 is indicative o6 A7et7er t7e co&1

&unication goals o6 a particular &essage co&e 6ro& t7e inside CIinternally de6inedMH, or t7e
co&&unication goals are eTternally de6ined >y a client or 7ost organi?ationL Nccording to t7is 6ra&eAorK, =ournalis& s7apes its &essages in a Aay t7at is &ostly

6actual, A7ile co&&unication goals are internally de6ined and 7ave no intention to result in c7anges o6 attitudes and >e7aviors o6 t7ose A7o consu&e t7e &essagesL fu>lic relations, on
t7e ot7er 7and, does &ostly rely on 6acts, >ut its co&&unication goals are eTternally de6ined CeLgL political parties, co&paniesH and 7ave t7e intention to alter attitudes and >e7aviors o6 t7eir audiencesL Unce pu>lic relations a>andons t7e value o6 6actual co&&unication, it Aill loose its pu>lic credi>ility and, t7us, t7e a>ility to get its &essages unadulteratedly accepted >y =ournalis&L Vuc7 conse9uences 7ave >een eTperienced >y propaganda, a 6or& o6 political

! 1E !

fR A7ic7 overly adopts 6ictional co&&unicationL Ndvertising 7as very &uc7 in co&&on Ait7 pu>lic relationsL Jt relies &ainly on 6ictional in6or&ation as it does not depict t7e genu1 ine reality, >ut it tells us A7at s7ould >e t7e desira>le CVc7&idt 2EE2: 1E2HL

Pigure 1: 4istinction o6 =ournalis&, fR, advertising and entertain&ent

Vource: adapted 6ro& mmmmmmmmm C2EEG: 52H

T7e Ientertaini?ationM o6 t7e neAs 7as provoKed &uc7 criticis&, suc7 as t7e one ar1 ticulated >y $7ala>y C2EEE: \517H A7o sees entertain&ent ItaKing overM =ournalis&: I_e are Aitnessing t7e transition 6ro& entertaining neAs produced as neAs to neAs produced as entertain&entLM Esser C1999a: 29112H re&inded us, 7oAever, t7at t7e ta>loidi?ation o6 neAs1 papers >egan to appear a>out one century agoL Jn 6act, t7e distinction >etAeen neAs and entertain&ent is Iin7erently ar>itraryM C4elli $arpini Z _illia&s 2EE1: 162H as >ot7 in6or&a1 tion and entertain&ent are independent 9ualities o6 production, contents and consu&ptionL Jn &y vieA, entertain&ent is di66erent 6ro& pu>lic relations and advertising >ecause co&1 &unication goals are internally de6ined and t7ere is no pri&ary intention to alter attitudes and >e7aviors o6 t7e audiencesL Entertain&ent is also di66erent 6ro& =ournalis& and pu>lic relations as it &ainly re6ers to 6ictional in6or&ationL Ns part o6 t7e pu>lic sp7ere, entertain1 &ent is co&ple&entary to =ournalis& >ecause it provides a stage to re7earse alternative deci1 sions in a virtual Aorld Ait7out 6acing t7e conse9uences decisions 7ave in t7e real Aorld CenrKe 2EE2: 85HL

! 11 !

The meso level: defining the structures of journalism

Urgani?ations
ceAs is produced &ainly in organi?ational settingsL T7e organi?ation is, as Ae KnoA 6ro& t7e early studies o6 ^reed C1955H, eie>er C196GH and Rp7l C1969H, one o6 t7e &ost i&por1 tant 6actors A7ic7 s7ape t7e pro6essional vieAs and t7e AorK o6 =ournalistsL J argue t7at, con1 trary to &any co&&onplace assu&ptions, =ournalistic content is produced neit7er >y pro6es1 sional organi?ations nor >y &edia organi?ationsL Ns a &atter o6 6act, t7e neAs is produced >y editorial organi?ations, and all organi?ations t7at produce neAs are relevant to t7e study

o6 =ournalis&, regardless o6 t7e c7annel used 6or &essage distri>utionL

T7at said, t7e study o6 =ournalis& indeed deals Ait7 t7ree >asic types o6 organi?a1 tions A7ic7 need to >e discri&inated 6or reasons o6 clear conceptuali?ation: T7e editorial

organi?ation is &ostly represented >y t7e concept o6 t7e neAsroo&, A7ile t7e ter& &edia organi?ation CI>oardroo&MH re6ers to corporate structures A7ic7 are >ound to t7e rationali1
ties o6 t7e econo&ic syste& Cco&&ercial &ediaH or t7e political syste& Cpu>lic service &e1 diaHL fro6essional organi?ations, on t7e ot7er 7and, are organi?ed groups o6 pro6essionals A7ere =ournalists are &e&>ers o6 CeLgL =ournalistsh associationsHL Nlt7oug7 editorial organi?a1 tions are usually integrated in t7e corporate structures o6 larger &edia organi?ations, >ot7 types o6 organi?ations pursue di66erent goals: Editorial organi?ations ai& to generate pu>lic attention, A7ereas co&&ercial &edia organi?ations seeK to convert t7is pu>lic attention into pro6itL T7us, editorial organi?ations &ust >e conceptuali?ed as structures t7at >elong to t7e pu>lic sp7ere, A7ile &edia organi?ations are part o6 t7e econo&ic syste& ! or, in t7e case o6 pu>lic service &edia, part o6 t7e political syste&L Editorial organi?ations, to >orroA a ter& 6ro& Nlt&eppen C2EE5: 11EH, IdeliverM contents to &edia organi?ations A7ic7 provide t7e& Ait7 operational resourcesL T7e relations7ip >etAeen t7e neAsroo& and t7e >oardroo& t7us 7ave to >e understood in ter&s o6 relations >etAeen organi?ations o6 di66erent typeL Editorial organi?ations 7ave developed tAo >asic types o6 structures 6or t7e e66ective &anage&ent o6 decisions: dertical structures co&&and and control t7e organi?ationsh opera1 tions t7roug7 t7ree >asic levels o6 7ierarc7yL T7ese levels can >e de6ined >y t7e eTtent o6 edi1 torial responsi>ility: Un t7e 7ig7est level are =ournalists A7o 7ave pri&arily strategic respon1 si>ility 6or t7e organi?ationhs positioning, ground rules and >asic principles CeLgL editors in c7ie6, progra&&ing directors, eTecutive producers and t7eir deputiesHL T7e second level in

! 12 !

editorial 7ierarc7y is co&posed o6 =ournalists A7o assu&e tactical responsi>ility in day1to1 day operations CeLgL desK 7eads, >eat and &anaging editors, producersHL T7e loAest level is de6ined t7roug7 =ournalists A7o 7ave only little editorial responsi>ility suc7 as reporters, neAs Ariters, investigators, correspondents or p7otograp7ersL Ns 6or t7e 7ori?ontal di66eren1

tiation, one can identi6y tAo di66erent structures: t7e traditional divisional >eat structure
Cpolitics, econo&y, local neAs, etcLH and a seg&entation into 6unctional roles Creporters, edi1 tors, co&&entatorsHL _7ile t7e 6unctional structure is a typical c7aracteristic o6 Nnglo1VaTon neAsroo&s, editorial organi?ations in so&e European countries ! especially in eer&any ! &ostly assign t7eir =ournalists to a particular desK C4ons>ac7 1995: 25b Esser 1998: \78HL Urgani?ations do allocate resources to t7eir operationsL Jnspired >y t7e AorK o6 eid1 dens C1979: 1EEH, Ae can distinguis7 tAo >asic types o6 resources: Nut7oritative resources re6er to t7e capacity to organi?e and co1ordinate t7e editorial AorK t7roug7 organi?ational KnoAledge, leaders7ip sKills, in6luence, reputation, i&age and social connectionsL Nllocative

resources, on t7e ot7er 7and, involve aspects o6 t7e &aterial Aorld suc7 as capital, goods or
t7e conditions o6 production CNlt&eppen 2EE5: 51HL Jn =ournalis&, t7ese 6actors co&e into play t7roug7 t7e editorial 7ierarc7y Caut7oritativeH and 6actors t7at s7ape t7e process o6 neAs productions suc7 as tec7nical e9uip&ent, ti&e and &oney CallocativeHL

Roles
Roles are, according to Ru7&ann C1995H, structures o6 social syste&s and 7ave to >e conceptuali?ed as >eing independent 6ro& t7e individualL Ns per&anent social structure, a particular role does not IdieM Ait7 t7e person A7o su>scri>ed to it CRu7&ann 1995: \16HL Jndividuals in a &odern society si&ultaneously occupy a &ultitude o6 roles: as 6a&ily &e&1 >ers, students, consu&ers, co&&unity &e&>ers and ot7ersL Jn =ournalis&, Ae &ust distin1 guis7 >etAeen tAo >asic Kinds o6 roles, pro6essional roles CeLgL as &e&>ers in =ournalistsh associationsH and occupational roles CeLgL in neAsroo&sHL _it7in neAsroo&s, 7oAever, t7ere are =ournalistic and non1=ournalistic roles CVc7oll 1996: \\5HL Most i&portantly, =ournalistic roles s7ould 7ave at least so&e direct editorial respon1

si>ility 6or t7e in6or&ation t7ey co&&unicate C_eaver Z _il7oit 1991: 22EHL Nccording to
Vc7oll C1996: \\5H, non1=ournalistic sta66 includes assistants, producers, li>rarians, p7otogra1 p7ers, &oderators, ca&era operators, audio tec7nicians and si&ilar pro6essionalsL T7e pro>1 le& Ait7 t7is a priori de6inition is t7at so&e producers, p7otograp7ers or &oderators &ay

! 1\ !

7ave editorial responsi>ilities, and i6 t7ey are eTcluded 6ro& t7e outset, Ae Aill never KnoA A7et7er t7is conceptual decision Aas according to t7e realities o6 t7e organi?ations under investigationL J Aould suggest to include t7ese pro6essionals 6irst, e&pirically deter&ine t7eir editorial responsi>ilities and t7en eTclude t7e& i6 t7e value is ?eroL eeneric occupational roles in =ournalis& deal Ait7 It7e process o6 preparing t7e raA &aterials o6 t7e &edia 6or disse&ination CiLeL editorial processH as Aell as t7e act o6 o>taining and Ariting or >roadcasting t7e results o6 neAsAort7y events or develop&ents CiLeL report1 ingHM CVc7oll 1996: \\5HL T7e &ost i&portant distinction is, as pointed out >y Esser C1998: \81H, >etAeen IneAs gat7erersM and IneAs processorsM, t7e 6or&er typically represented >y t7e reporter and t7e latter >y t7e editorL Vince =ournalistic roles di66er considera>ly ! 6or in1 stance >etAeen eer&an and Nnglo1VaTon neAsroo&s ! due to particular 7istories and cul1 tures, general roles s7ould >e identi6ied e&pirically, per7aps >y cluster analysis o6 so&e &easure&ent o6 t7e =ournalistsh occupational activitiesL jsing t7is &et7odology, a eer&an survey 6ound eig7t occupational roles ! t7e investigator, Ariter, selector, neAs processor, teTt processor, ad&inistrator, tec7nician and &oderator ! CVc7oll Z _eisc7en>erg 1998: 9EH, A7ereas a study in Jndonesia identi6ied only 6our >asic roles, t7e editor, reporter, &anager and producer CBanit?sc7 2EEG: 165HL

fro6essional roles in =ournalis&, on t7e ot7er 7and, go >eyond occupational AorK pat1
ternsL Many, t7oug7 not all and in so&e countries not even &ost, =ournalists are &e&>ers o6 =ournalistsh associations or ot7er independent organi?ations A7ic7 are co&&itted to t7e in1 terests o6 =ournalists as group o6 pro6essionalsL T7ese organi?ations play an i&portant role Ait7 regard to =ournalis&hs identity, sel61control and 9uality &anage&ent &ostly t7roug7 i&posing et7ical standards to t7e AorK o6 its pro6essionalsL Ut7er di&ensions o6 pro6essional roles are not visi>le at 6irst 7andL Vo&e o6 t7e &ost opa9ue structures t7at s7ape t7e neAs are t7e =ournalistsh role perceptions CI&edia roleM, Ipro6essional vieAsMH, >ut t7e eTtent to A7ic7 t7ese vieAs in6luence t7e output o6 =ournalis& still re&ains unclearL Nlt7oug7 t7e percep1 tions o6 &edia role are o6ten seen as individual c7aracteristics, t7ey nonet7eless represent a structure t7at is articulated and internali?ed t7roug7 =ournalis& education and neAsroo& sociali?ationL T7e analysis o6 t7e =ournalistsh role perceptions 7as a long tradition, triggered >y t7e AorK o6 $o7en C196\: 2EH A7o classi6ied a IneutralM and a Iparticipant roleM and -anoAit? C1975: 61819H A7o discri&inated t7e IgateKeeperM 6ro& t7e IadvocateML Most pro&inently,

! 1G !

_eaver and _il7oit C1991: 115H distinguis7 an IinterpreterM, Idisse&inatorM and Iadversar1 ialM, A7ile 4ons>ac7 and fatterson C2EEG: 266H identi6ied 6our types o6 roles, t7e Ipassive neutralM, Ipassive advocateM, Iactive neutralM and t7e Iactive advocateML Nlt7oug7 t7e dis1 se&inator role see&s to >e &ost on t7e rise CReese 2EE1: 18Gb _eaver 1998>: G78H, it 7as >een c7allenged >y nor&ative concepts suc7 as pu>licicivic =ournalis& CMerrit 1995b Rosen 1996H, develop&ent =ournalis& C$7alKey 197EH and peace =ournalis& Cealtung 2EE2HL Jn e&pirical researc7, t7e di&ensions o6 t7e =ournalistsh role perceptions are usually eTtracted 6ro& &easure&ents o6 t7e su>=ective i&portance o6 particular co&&unication goals A7ic7 are t7en su>=ected to 6actor analysisL Many studies >orroAed ite&s 6ro& t7e IN&erican -ournal1 istM studies o6 _eaver and _il7oit C1991, 1996H, >ut t7eir operationali?ation see&s to >e &ore re6lective o6 t7e typical _estern values o6 neAs &aKingL N &odi6ication o6 t7ese ite&s needs to >e placed on t7e researc7 agenda, so&e suggestions Aere &ade recently >y Ra&aprasad C2EE1H and Ra&aprasad and `elly C2EE\HL

frogra&s and routines

T7e processes o6 gat7ering and editing neAs in =ournalis& is largely routine AorKL Jn 6act, &ost part o6 t7e =ournalistsh =o> is standardi?ed t7roug7 pro6essional routinesL eiven t7e li&ited resources editorial organi?ations 7ave, t7ese routines 7elp t7e =ournalists to process t7e vast a&ount and co&pleTity o6 in6or&ation A7ic7 t7ey are 6acing in everyday AorKL Nl1 t7oug7 t7e ter& IroutinesM is &ore popular in t7e Nnglo1VaTon literature, J pre6er to call t7ese structures progra&s as t7is is t7e corresponding concept in syste&s t7eoryL Nccording to Ru7&ann C1999: 75EH, progra&s are eTpectations A7ic7 go >eyond t7e scope o6 a particu1 lar decisionL Jn t7is regard, ^ln>au& C199G: 27718GH identi6ied 6ive types o6 =ournalistic progra&s A7ic7 7ave di66erent AorK patterns: t7e progra&s o6 presentation, organi?ation, selection, in6or&ation collection and c7ecKingL Nlt&eppen C2EEE: \EE11H, on t7e ot7er 7and, classi6ied 6our progra&s A7ic7 consist o6 t7e editing, selection, presentation and issue routinesL Jn co&>ination and &odi6ication o6 ^ln>au&hs and Nlt&eppenhs AorK, J suggest t7e 6olloAing classi6ication o6 =ournalistic progra&s: !" frogra&s o6 organi?ation alloA t7e coordination o6 neAsroo& decisions and control t7e 6loA o6 AorKL

! 15 !

!" frogra&s o6 topicality s7ape t7e internal >alance o6 t7e neAs coverage C&ore sports, &ore politics or &ore local neAsH and identi6y issues A7ic7 deserve par1 ticular e&p7asisL !" frogra&s o6 selection deter&ine t7e neAsAort7iness o6 a particular occurrence, t7ey are usually a66iliated Ait7 neAs valuesL !" frogra&s o6 investigation su>su&e all activities o6 in6or&ation gat7ering, in1 cluding attending press con6erences and ot7er, &ore active types o6 in6or&ation seeKingL !" frogra&s o6 editing do structure t7e Ariting and processing neAs accountsL T7ey usually re6er to particular neAs 6or&ats CgenresH suc7 as report, 6eature or editorialL !" frogra&s o6 presentation organi?e t7e Aay in A7ic7 t7e neAs is presented t7roug7 activities suc7 as, >ut not li&ited to, &oderating, designing or arrang1 ing contentL !" frogra&s o6 evaluation 6unction as tool supporting t7e veri6ication o6 content, t7e cross1c7ecKing o6 6acts and t7e internal evaluation a6ter t7e issueiprogra& 7as >een pu>lis7edi>roadcastedL

The micro level: defining journalists Jn order to >e relevant as o>=ects o6 study in co&&unicator researc7, individuals 7ave to &eet certain conditions: Pirst, t7ey operate =ournalistic progra&sL Vecond, t7ey su>scri>e to =ournalistic rolesL T7ird, t7ey are e&>edded, in one Aay CeLgL 6ull1ti&e editorH or anot7er CeLgL 6reelance correspondentH, in t7e structures o6 editorial organi?ationsL Pourt7, t7ey proc1 ess pu>lic co&&unication accounts according to t7e criteria o6 =ournalis& C&ainly 6actual in6or&ation values, no intended e66ects, internal de6ined co&&unication goalsHL Pi6t7, t7ey orient t7e&selves >y t7e 6unction o6 t7e pu>lic sp7ere Cco1orientationH and operate its sys1 te&ic code Copu>lic attentionHL T7is Aay o6 de6ining =ournalists 7as serious conse9uences 6or co&&onplace de6ini1 tions o6 =ournalis& ! and also 6or t7e sel61perceptions o6 &any =ournalistsL J6, 6or instance, t7e

! 16 !

PUm ceAs talKing 7ead ceil $avuto C2EE\H puts 7i&sel6 an IN&erican 6irst, =ournalist sec1 ondM, t7en 7e clearly leaves t7e ground o6 =ournalis& and enters t7e 6ield o6 propaganda, A7ic7 is part o6 political pu>lic relationsL conet7eless, one &ig7t argue t7at t7is vieA leads to t7e conse9uence t7at 6laAs in =ournalis& A7ic7 arise 6ro& >lurring t7e >orderlines >e1 tAeen =ournalis&, fR, advertising and entertain&ent are, >y de6inition, eTcluded 6ro& t7e analysis o6 =ournalis& and, t7us, 6ro& any critical assess&ent o6 neAs &aKingL J6 t7is is true, t7e criticis& t7en 7as to >e addressed to t7e pu>lic sp7ere as suc7, including all Kinds o6 pu>lic co&&unication and, &ost i&portantly, t7e audiencesL T7e real pro>le& is t7at t7is Kind o6 non1=ournalistic co&&unication is treated as i6 it Aas =ournalis& >y >ot7 t7e =ournal1 ists t7e&selves and t7eir audiences ! and so&eti&es also >y t7e acade&yL Unce one 7as identi6ied t7e individuals t7at 6it t7e 7ere o66ered de6inition o6 A7o is a =ournalist, t7e researc7er &ay encounter t7e pro>le& t7at t7ese individuals so&eti&es do not eTclusively produce =ournalistic contentL CVi&ilarly, t7ere are so&e editorial organi?a1 tions A7ic7 produce =ournalistic and non1=ournalistic content at t7e sa&e ti&eLH Many 6ree1 lancers are 6orced to si&ultaneously AorK 6or =ournalistic &edia and pu>lic relations or ad1 vertisingL Nlso, it is not unusual t7at pro&inent =ournalists appear in advertise&ents and co&&ercialsL Ut7ers &ay see t7eir AorK in =ournalis& =ust as a sideline =o>L Jn a survey o6 eer&an online =ournalists Ae 7ave, t7ere6ore, 6ound it use6ul to distinguis7 >etAeen t7ree types o6 =ournalists A7o >elong eit7er to t7e core, inner edge or outer edge o6 =ournalis& CRn66el7ol? et alL 2EE\HL T7e core, representing t7e genuine ele&ents o6 =ournalis&, consists o6 pro6essionals A7o draA t7eir overall inco&e &ostly Cq5ErH 6ro& AorKing in =ournalis&L T7e

inner edge, on t7e ot7er 7and, su>su&es individuals &aKing ten to 5E percent o6 t7eir entire
earnings in =ournalis&, A7ile t7e outer edge re6ers to t7ose A7o draA only less t7an ten per1 cent o6 t7eir overall inco&e 6ro& pro6essional =ournalistic activitiesL Jt &ay >e inspiring to also include t7ese >oundary areas in t7e study o6 =ournalis& as &any neA develop&ents CeLgL Ae> logsH 6irst appear in t7ese areas >e6ore t7ey 7it t7e &ore genuine 6ields o6 =ournal1 is&L

! 17 !

Journalism cultures T7e co&parative study seeKs to identi6y t7e si&ilarities and di66erences in glo>al =ournalis&, &ostly a&ong nations as o>=ects or units o6 analysisL J6 researc7ers 6ind di66er1 ences, t7ey are 9uicK to speaK o6 I=ournalistic culturesM or IneAs culturesM Ait7out giving a clear idea to A7at eTtent t7ese o>served di66erences are attri>uta>le to cultureL ^ecause na1 tions, 6or instance, di66er on &any di&ensions, t7ese dissi&ilarities could also arise 6ro& econo&ic develop&ents or, &ost liKely, 6ro& t7e political syste& CX7u et alL 1997: 85HL Nlso, in &any studies t7e notion o6 culture is itsel6 rat7er under1conceptuali?ed, A7ic7 &ay 7ave to do Ait7 t7e 6act t7at Iculture is too glo>al a concept to >e &eaning6ul as an eTplanatory varia>leM Cvan de di=ver Z Reung 1997: \HL cevert7eless, t7e di66erent cultures o6 =ournalis& A7ic7 evolve in particular cultural settings are an intriguing area 6or co&parative AorK Ceurevitc7 Z ^lu&ler 2EEG: \\7HL _it7 t7is regard, cultural studies assess t7e culture o6 routine in day1to1day neAs &aKing CNllan 1999H and re6lect on =ournalis& as part o6 popular culture CeLgL 4a7lgren 1992b Bartley 1996HL T7ere is a great deal o6 inspiring literature 6ocusing on t7e neAs as 6or& o6 culture in cultural studies, and noone could su&&ari?e it >etter t7an Mic7ael Vc7udson in 7is >ooK IT7e Voci1 ology o6 ceAsM C2EE\: 19EH:
Vtill, neAs is organi?ed >y a set o6 literary conventions, a part o6 culture t7at reproduces aspects o6 a lar1 ger culture t7at t7e reporter and editor &ay never 7ave consciously articulatedL ceAs is produced >y people A7o operate, o6ten unAittingly, Ait7in a cultural syste&, a reservoir o6 stored cultural &eaningsL Jt 6olloAs conventions o6 sourcing 1 A7o is a legiti&ate source, speaKer, or conveyer o6 in6or&ation to a =ournalistL Jt lives >y unspoKen preconceptions a>out t7e audience 1 less a &atter o6 A7o t7e audience ac1 tually &ay >e t7an a pro=ection >y =ournalists o6 t7eir oAn social AorldsL ceAs as a 6or& o6 culture in1 corporates assu&ptions a>out A7at &atters, A7at &aKes sense, A7at ti&e and place Ae live in, and A7at range o6 considerations Ae s7ould taKe seriouslyL

Xeli?er C2EEG: 19\12E1H recently identi6ied siT trends in t7e cultural analysis o6 =ournal1 is&, 6ocusing on t7e AorldvieAs o6 =ournalists, t7e practices o6 =ournalis&, t7e >reac7es o6 =ournalis&, t7e 6or&s o6 =ournalis&, t7e representations o6 =ournalis& and t7e audiences o6 =ournalis&L _7ile Xeli?er centers 7er classi6ication around A7at is t7e o>=ect o6 researc7, J propose an analytical taTono&y A7ic7 is >uilt around di66erent notions o6 cultureL J t7ere6ore distinguis7 >etAeen territorial, essentialist, li6e1style1speci6ic, value1centered and organi?a1 tional =ournalis& culturesL T7is classi6ication &ay not >e eT7austive, 7oAever, and t7ere is also a signi6icant overlap a&ong t7ese types o6 =ournalis& cultures due to 7istorical linKs >etAeen t7e&L

! 18 !

Territorial =ournalis& cultures

T7e classi6ication and description o6 territorial =ournalis& cultures 7as its origin in t7e co&parison o6 tAo or &ore geograp7ically CspatiallyH de6ined syste&sL T7is could >e nations C4ons>ac7 Z fatterson 2EEGH, regions, Buntingtonhs C1996H Icivili?ationsM, language areas Ait7in countries C$anada: fritc7ard Z Vouvageau 1998b VAit?erland: Marr et alL 2EE1H or even C6or&erH states Ait7in a particular nation CEast and _est eer&any: Vc7nn>ac7, Vtpr?e1 >ec7er Z Vc7neider 199Gb Vc7oll Z _eisc7en>erg 1998HL Most popular, 7oAever, is t7e co&1 parison o6 nationsL T7is &ay 7ave to do Ait7 t7e 6act t7at nations Iare usually t7e only Kinds o6 units availa>le 6or co&parison, and t7ey are >etter t7an not7ingM CBo6stede 2EE1: 7\HL $o&parative studies 6ocusing on nations as o>=ect or unit o6 analysis are Aell docu1 &ented in =ournalis& researc7, so&e eTa&ples o6 genuine cross1national co&parisons are t7e IMedia and 4e&ocracyM study C4ons>ac7 Z fatterson 2EEGb fatterson Z 4ons>ac7 1996H, t7e 221nations survey o6 Vplic7al and VparKs C199GH, t7e Edc1study o6 eurevitc7, Revy and Roe7 C199\H, t7e elo>al Monitoring fro=ect CVpears Z Veydegart 2EEEH as Aell as co&parisons o6 eer&any and ereat ^ritain CEsser 1998b `nc7er 1986H, Jsrael and t7e jnited Vtates C^er1 KoAit?, Ri&or Z Vinger 2EEGH and `orea and t7e jnited Vtates CV7in Z $a&eron 2EE\HL Most co&parisons, as stated earlier in t7is paper, are >ased not on tailor1&ade cross1national re1 searc7es >ut on second17and analyses o6 single1nation studies CeLgL, 4eu?e 2EE2>b _eaver 1998>HL Ns pointed out >y -oAell C1998: 17EH, it goes Ait7out saying t7at international co&1 parisons >ased on t7ese sorts o6 data are 7ig7ly pro>le&aticL ^ut t7is is not t7e only pro>le& cross1national researc7 7as to 6aceL Nlt7oug7 I&any p7eno&ena are still de6ined in national ter&s Cnational >roadcasters, education syste&s, gross national productHM CRivingstone 2EE\: G8EH, t7e nation as center o6 gravity 6or t7e proc1 esses o6 identity1>uilding is increasingly c7allenged >y neA, Itranslocal culturesM Cced1 erveen fieterse 199G: 177H t7at go >eyond traditional 6or&ations o6 InationalM culturesL T7us, =ournalis& researc7, as &any ot7er 6ields in t7e social sciences, 7as to 6ree itsel6 6ro& t7e as1 su&ption t7at, in a Aorld o6 &ultiple cultures, identity could >e eTtracted pri&arily 6ro& Inational culturesML $o&parative =ournalis& researc7 7as to >eco&e cross1cultural instead o6 cross1nationalL Nlso, as nations are 6ar 6ro& sel61contained, closed or 7o&ogeneous CRiving1 stone 2EE\: G79H, one 7as to taKe into account t7at >etAeen1country variances &ay >e s&aller t7an Ait7in1country variations CVc7euc7 199E: \EH ! a pro>le& A7ic7 is o6ten overlooKed in co&parative researc7L

! 19 !

Essentialist =ournalis& cultures

T7e second Aay o6 identi6ying =ournalis& cultures is a66iliated Ait7 essentialist no1 tions o6 culture A7ic7, >y and large, draA 6ro& t7e >elie6 t7at cultures 7ave a true essenceL T7is perspective &ostly deals Ait7 t7e conse9uences o6 race, et7nicity and gender A7ic7 are seen as c7aracteristics around A7ic7 pluralistic cultures condenseL BoAever, t7ere are ot7er criteria A7ic7 could >e also conceptuali?ed as essences o6 culture, suc7 as age, educationCal capitalH, religion or territorialityL Jn t7e study o6 =ournalis&, t7is particular strand in researc7 is do&inated >y t7e dis1 cussion o6 A7et7er gender does deter&ine t7e editorial productL T7is acade&ic de>ate is centered around an assu&ed I7ege&onic &asculinityM A7ic7 is seen to govern neAs values C4elano 2EE\: 275H and a neAsroo& culture t7at cultivates a I&an1as1nor& and Ao&an1as1 interloper structureM CRoss 2EE1: 5\5HL Vo&e aut7ors suggest t7e eTistence o6 a so1called I6e&inine =ournalis&M C`euneKe, `riener Z MecKel 1997: G1H A7ic7 grounds on t7e >elie6 t7at t7ere are 6unda&ental di66erences >etAeen &en and Ao&en: _7ile social gender i&ages associate &asculinity Ait7 IrigorM and IausterityM, 6e&inity is a66iliated Ait7 t7e notions o6 Iso6tnessM and Ie&pat7yM Ci>id: \7HL Vo&e researc7ers assu&e t7at neAs &aKing Aill e&p7asi?e t7e values o6 7ar&ony, >rot7er7ood, a66iliation and co&&unity ! and &ove aAay 6ro& t7e Idic7oto&ous and con1 6lict1related values o6 victoryide6eatM ! as Ao&en increasingly enter neAsroo&s and 6ill Key positions in =ournalis& CRavie Z Re7&an1_il?ig 2EE\: 8HL ealtung C2EE2: 26718H, A7o >elieves t7at Ao&en are &ore interested in positive neAs t7an &en, even eTpects an IeTplosion in peace reportingM 6ro& Ao&en =ournalistsL cevert7eless, A7ile t7ere see&s to >e at least so&e evidence t7at gender &aKes a di66erence in =ournalis& CNr&strong 2EEGb $ra6t Z _anta 2EEGH, &ost studies suggest t7at t7e di66erences >etAeen &en and Ao&en =ournalists are o6 only &inor conse9uences 6or t7e editorial product CRavie Z Re7&an1_il?ig 2EE\b Ro>inson Z Vaint1-ean 1998b _eaver 1997HL

Ri6e1style1speci6ic =ournalis& cultures

_7ile t7e notion o6 essentialist =ournalis& cultures deals Ait7 t7e conditions and conditionings o6 7u&an eTistence, t7e li6e1style1speci6ic =ournalis& cultures re6er to t7e prac1 tices t7ese conditions produceL Nccording to t7e inspiring AorK o6 t7e Prenc7 sociologist fierre ^ourdieu C1977, 198GH, social classes possess varying levels o6 di66erent types o6 capital

! 2E !

Csocial, econo&ic and culturalH, and t7e possession o6 capital is predicted >y social originL T7e 9uantu& and structure o6 capital are, &ediated t7roug7 t7e 7a>itus, &a=or deter&inants o6 li6e1style, and t7is Aill >e represented in patterns o6 cultural practiceL Ba>itus &eans t7e Ipractice1uni6ying and practice1generating principle sLLLt, t7e internali?ed 6or& o6 class condi1 tion and o6 t7e conditionings it entailsM C^ourdieu 198G: 1E1HL Ns eTpression o6 Iconditioned and conditional 6reedo&M ! and not as si&ple deter&inis& ! t7e 7a>itus relates social origin to cultural practice A7ic7 is Io>=ectively ad=usted to t7e particular conditions in A7ic7 it is constitutedM C^ourdieu 1977: 95HL Ri6e1style is Ia unitary set o6 distinctive pre6erences A7ic7 eTpresses t7e sa&e eTpres1 sive intention in t7e speci6ic logic o6 eac7 o6 t7e sy&>olic su>1space, 6urniture, clot7ing, lan1 guage or >ody 7eTisM C^ourdieu 198G: 17\HL Jn ot7er Aords, li6e1styles are >undles o6 socially

distinctive practices in everyday li6e t7at signal identity, identi6ication and distinction, A7ile
t7ey trigger t7e e&ergence o6 su> culturesL Jn =ournalis& studies, it Aould >e interesting to KnoA 7oA t7ese li6e1styles and su> cultures s7ape t7e neAs or &ay even condition neAs1 roo& practicesL T7is >eco&es even &ore i&portant since t7e idea o6 culture >ased on s7ared traditions and co&&unal identity 7as lost its capacity to de6ine social eTistence as a totality and is increasingly replaced >y consu&er li6e1styles CTaylor 2EE2: G8E11HL

dalue1centered =ournalis& cultures

T7e idea o6 value1centered =ournalis& cultures lays e&p7asis on t7e assu&ption, de1 rived 6ro& cultural ant7ropology, t7at cultures can >e identi6ied and descri>ed t7roug7 t7eir

underlying values, attitudes and >elie6sL N very co&&on distinction is &ade >etAeen indi1
vidualistic and collectivistic cultures C`i& et alL 199Gb critically: doronov Z Vinger 2EE2HL Re1 searc7 suggests t7at t7is distinction &ay >e one1di&ensional at t7e ecological level CiLeL co&1 paring nationsH, >ut at t7e individual level >ot7 individualis& and collectivis& see& to >e independent 6ro& eac7 ot7er CJto 1992: 2G7b `agitci>asi 199G: 56HL Nnot7er, &ore sop7isti1 cated cultural distinction Aas &ade >y Mary 4ouglas C1992, 1996H, A7o used a tAo1 di&ensional grid1group1&odel to analytically classi6y 6our cultures: t7e 6atalist, 7ierarc7ist, individualist and egalitarian culturesL Jn =ournalis& studies, 4ouglash $ultural T7eory 7as >een applied >y Banit?sc7 C2EEG: 79185HL Bo6stede C198EH, in 7is land&arK AorK I$ulturehs $onse9uencesM Crevised: 2EE1H, identi6ied 6our >asic di&ensions o6 cultural variance a&ong nations: poAer distance, indi1

! 21 !

vidualis&, &asculinity and uncertainty avoidanceL Nlt7oug7 7e later added a 6i6t7 di&en1 sion, long ter& orientation, 7is AorK also received &uc7 critical attention CeLgL McVAeeney 2EE2HL Nnot7er atte&pt to deter&ine t7e 6unda&ental di&ensions o6 cultural variance is t7e

_orld dalues Vurvey C_dVH under t7e lead o6 Ronald Jngle7artL Pro& a co&parison o6 6E
nations, t7e aut7ors o6 t7e study eTtracted tAo >asic di&ensions re6lecting cross1national polari?ation >etAeen traditional versus secular1rational orientations toAard aut7ority and survival versus sel61eTpression values CJngle7art Z ^aKer 2EEE: 2\HL Une eTa&ple o6 7oA t7e ant7ropological discussion o6 social and cultural values 7as in6luenced our 6ield is t7e searc7 6or Ipan1Nsian valuesM in Nsian =ournalis&L T7e literature 7as singled out certain core ele&ents as constitutive o6 Nsian values including responsi>ility, co&&unalis& and consensus, 7ar&ony and social sta>ility, 6ilial piety, respect 6or order and aut7ority CMassey Z $7ang 2EE2: 989b _ong 2EEG: 27HL Jt is assu&ed t7at t7ese values so&e1 7oA 7ave an i&pact on t7e editorial productL BoAever, given Nsiahs diversity o6 religions, ideologies, traditions, political syste&s and levels o6 develop&ent CNli 1996: 1G7H, t7ere see&s to >e no consensus Ait7in Nsia Ia>out A7at Nsian dalues are, in =ournalis& or in any1 t7ing elseM CMasterton 1996: 1HL

Urgani?ational =ournalis& cultures

T7e concept o6 organi?ational cultures Cor Icorporate culturesMH draAs 6ro& t7e con1 viction t7at t7ere are no universal solutions to organi?ation and &anage&ent pro>le&s CBo6stede 2EE1: \7\HL T7is strand o6 organi?ational researc7, A7ic7 >orroAs &any o6 its con1 ceptuali?ations 6ro& ant7ropology, Aas particularly cultivated t7roug7 t7e AorK o6 Uuc7i C1981H, 4eal and `ennedy C1982H as Aell as feters and _ater&an C1982HL N co&&only used de6inition is provided >y Vc7ein C1992: 12H A7o descri>ed organi?ational cultures as a
pattern o6 s7ared >asic assu&ptions t7at t7e group learned as it solved its pro>le&s o6 eTternal adapta1 tion and internal integration, t7at 7as AorKed Aell enoug7 to >e considered valid and, t7ere6ore, to >e taug7t to neA &e&>ers as t7e correct Aay to perceive, t7inK, and 6eel in relation to t7ose pro>le&sL

Urgani?ational cultures t7us are collective values and practices t7at distinguis7 t7e

&e&>ers o6 one organi?ation 6ro& anot7erL N great deal o6 organi?ational researc7 in =our1
nalis& studies suggests t7at corporate values are o6 increasing i&portance to editorial proc1 esses as Aell as to recruit&ent CBolli6ield, `osicKi Z ^ecKer 2EE1b Roo&is Z Meyer 2EEEHL T7ese develop&ents 7ave evoKed t7e ranK1and16ile =ournalistsh resistance to t7e per&eation o6 &arKeting values into t7e neAsroo&, leading to a Icultural >attleM un6olding in neAs or1

! 22 !

gani?ations as t7ey >eco&e &ore integrated Ceade 2EEG: G2HL Vi&ilarly, Vinger C2EEG: 1GH o>1 served a Iclas7 o6 culturesM a&ong neAspaper, television and online neAsroo&s as a reac1 tion to processes o6 convergenceL Nnot7er >ranc7 o6 researc7, &ostly a66iliated Ait7 t7e con1 cept o6 I=ournalistic routinesM, is largely concerned Ait7 pro6essional su> cultures t7at go >eyond organi?ational >oundariesL T7is perspective 7as its origin in t7e early 197Es and clai&s t7e eTistence o6 a co&&on =ournalistic culture C^ant? 1985b Ericson, ^araneK Z $7an 1987b Molotc7 Z Rester 197Gb Tuc7&an 197\b Xeli?er 199\HL N study o6 t7e vast literature on t7e topic reveals, 7oAever, a nota>le variance in de6initions o6 t7e ter& organi?ational culture and, even &ore, in t7e use o6 t7e ter& culture CNlvesson 2EE2: \HL Vo&eti&es aut7ors re6er to values, anot7er ti&e to practicesL Moreover, so&e researc7ers linK organi?ational culture to t7e &edia organi?ation as suc7, ot7ers to neAsroo&s only or to depart&ents t7ereo6L Jn order to avoid conceptual con6usion, Ae s7ould speaK o6 organi?ational cultures A7en Ae re6er to neAsroo&s or t7eir su> units CeLgL

ceA uorK Ti&es vsL Nsa7i V7i&>un culturesH and o6 pro6essional cultures A7en Ae re6er to
co&&on values and practices t7at transcend organi?ational >oundaries CeLgL print vsL online &edia cultures, editor vsL reporter culturesHL Jnterdependencies >etAeen neAsroo&s and >oardroo&s s7ould >e conceptuali?ed as relations7ips >etAeen di66erent organi?ational cul1 tures C&arKetingiadvertisingidistri>ution vsL neAsroo& culturesHL

Implications for the sampling of journalists T7e conceptuali?ation A7ic7 J 7ave proposed in t7is paper is a AorK in progressL J do not suggest t7at an ulti&ate de6inition o6 =ournalis& is possi>le or even desira>leL NlAays A7en Ae t7inK t7at Ae 6ound a use6ul de6inition, t7e o>=ect o6 researc7 again slips out 6ro& our 7andsL J 6ound Ru7&annhs sociological AorK inspiring, >ut 7e conceptuali?ed society in >inary ter&s: Vo&et7ing is or is not closed, sel61re6erential or sel61organi?ingL T7is AorKs 6ine as analytical device, >ut reality is croAded Ait7 gradual di66erencesL T7ere are various de1 grees o6 closeness, sel61re6erence or sel61organi?ationL Jn reality, >oundaries >etAeen =ournalis& and non1=ournalis& are o6ten not as clear1 cut as syste&s t7eory suggestsL 4i66erentiation t7eory 7as signi6icant li&ititations, in particu1 lar A7en it co&es to deal Ait7 processes o6 de1di66erentiation o6 &edia syste&s, caused >y increasing co&&erciali?ation CBallin Z Mancini 2EEG: 288195HL T7ere6ore, J adopted

! 2\ !

Ru7&annhs syste& t7eory as a 7euristic tool 6or t7e identi6ication o6 =ournalis& and its struc1 tures Ait7 regard to e&pirical researc7L T7e conceptuali?ation J presented 7ere could >e a t7eoretically 6ounded starting point 6or t7e e&pirical de6inition o6 =ournalistsL Jnspired >y so&e ideas o6 Vc7oll C1996, 1997H J sug1 gest t7e 6olloAing strategy o6 sa&pling =ournalists 6or purposes o6 co&parative e&pirical researc7:

Pirst, co&pile a list o6 all &edia t7at potentially transport =ournalistic contentL T7en,
draA a sa&ple and eTclude non1periodical &ediaL Nlso leave out &edia outlets pu>lis7ed less t7an once a &ont7 and t7ose Ait7 a circulation o6 less t7an 1E,EEE copies due to t7eir li&ited i&pact on t7e pu>lic sp7ere, as suggested >y Vc7oll C1996: \\\15HL

Vecond, c7ecK t7e sa&ple 6or =ournalistic contentL J suggested to de6ine =ournalis& as
part o6 t7e pu>lic sp7ere A7ose 6unction is to 6acilitate a co&&on, socially >inding re6erence 6or social co1orientation t7roug7 providing in6or&ation o6 i&&ediate topicalityL -ournalis& is distinct 6ro& ot7er areas o6 pu>lic co&&unication as it pri&arily relies on 6actual in6or&a1 tion, A7ile its co&&unication goals are internally de6ined and 7ave no intention to pro&pt c7anges o6 attitudes and >e7aviorsL Jn t7is Aay, non1=ournalistic content suc7 as non16iction literature, pu>lic relations, advertising, entertain&ent, 6iction and a&ateur =ournalis& can >e eTcluded 6ro& t7e analysisL Nlt7oug7 &any corporate Ae> sites include =ournalistic content, t7e selection o6 neAs is &ostly re6lective o6 t7e organi?ationhs co&&unication goalsL J6 t7at is t7e case, eTclude t7ese &ediaL ^e aAare t7at =ournalis& is &ostly not t7e only Kind o6 con1 tent t7e &edia disse&inateL T7ey also circulate content 6ro& fR, advertising and entertain1 &entL

T7ird, identi6y editorial organi?ations t7at produce t7ese &ediaL ceAs as t7e eTclu1
sive output o6 =ournalis& is produced in organi?ational settingsb t7us all organi?ations t7at produce neAs are relevant to t7e study o6 =ournalis&L ^e aAare t7at editorial organi?ations so&eti&es also produce pu>lic content ot7er t7an =ournalis&L Nlso, so&e editorial organi?a1 tions &ay produce &ore t7an one neAs outletL

Pourt7, deter&ine =ournalistic roles A7ic7 &aKe use o6 =ournalistic progra&sL J de1
6ined progra&s o6 organi?ation, topicality, selection, investigation, editing, presentation and evaluationL -ournalistic roles s7ould assu&e at least so&e direct editorial responsi>ility 6or t7e in6or&ation t7ey co&&unicateL `eep in &ind t7at so&e =ournalistic progra&s are also operated >y pu>lic relations, advertising and entertain&entL

! 2G !

Pi6t7, identi6y pro6essional individuals t7at su>scri>e to =ournalistic rolesL Jn case

t7ere are pro6essionals A7o do not 6ill t7ese roles pri&a 6acie, do not eTclude t7e& 6ro& t7e outsetL Rat7er, deter&ine t7eir editorial responsi>ilities e&pirically and t7en eTclude t7e& i6 t7e value is ?eroL ^e aAare t7at individuals also su>scri>e to ot7er roles in society, so&e o6 t7e& &ay even produce fR, advertising and entertain&ent contentL ^e also aAare t7at in di66erent cultures t7ere are varying conventions regarding proper =o> titlesL J6 you 6ind nota>le di66erences >etAeen t7e units under co&parison, eTplain A7y t7ese di66erences occurred and A7ic7 6actors account 6or &ost part o6 t7e varianceL _7en culture is involved, eTplicate t7e notion o6 culture you 7ave in &ind and ela>orate t7e di66er1 ent Cterritorial, essentialist, li6e1style1speci6ic, value1centered and organi?ationalH =ournalis& cultures you 7ave 6oundL 4o not li&it your study to t7e assess&ent o6 a priori de6initions o6 cultureL Rat7er, open up yoursel6 6or t7e possi>ility t7at your data &ay also reveal =ournal1 is& cultures ot7er t7an A7at you 7ave eTpectedL

! 25 !

References
Nli, UL NL C1996H vNsian values in =ournalis&: idle concept or realistic goalWh, ppL 1G71152 in ML Masterton CedH Nsian dalues in -ournalis&L Vingapore: NMJ$L Nllan, Vtuart C1999H ceAs cultureL ^ucKing7a&: Upen jniversity fressL Nlt&eppen, `L14L C2EEEH vEntsc7eidungen und `oordinationenL 4i&ensionen =ournalistisc7en Bandelnsh, ppL 29\1 \1E in ML Rn66el7ol? CedH T7eorien des -ournalis&usL Ein disKursives Band>uc7L _ies>aden: _estdeut1 sc7er derlagL Nlt&eppen, `L14L C2EE5H -ournalis&us und Medien als Urganisationssyste&eL Reistungen, VtruKturen und Mana1 ge&entL _ies>aden: derlag 6pr Vo?ialAissensc7a6tenL Cin printH Nlvesson, ML C2EE2H jnderstanding organi?ational cultureL Rondon: VageL Nr&strong, $L RL C2EEGH vT7e Jn6luence o6 Reporter eender on Vource Velection in ceAspaper Vtoriesh, -ournalis& Z Mass $o&&unication wuarterly 81C1H: 1\9115GL ^ant?, $L RL C1985H vceAs organi?ations: con6lict as cra6ted cultural nor&h, $o&&unication 8C2H: 22512GGL ^eniger, -L RL C1992H v$o&parison, yes, >ut 1 t7e case o6 tec7nological and cultural c7angeh, ppL \515E in -L eL ^lu&1 ler, -L ML McReod Z `L EL Rosengren CedsH $o&paratively speaKing: co&&unication and culture across space and ti&eL ceA>ury farK, $N: VageL ^erKoAit?, 4L, uL Ri&or Z -L Vinger C2EEGH vN cross1cultural looK at serving t7e pu>lic interest: N&erican and Js1 raeli =ournalists consider et7ical scenariosh, -ournalis& 5C2H: 1591181L ^ird, EL VL C2EEEH vPacing t7e distracted audience: =ournalis& and cultural conteTth, -ournalis& 1C1H: 291\\L ^ln>au&, ^L C199GH -ournalis&us als so?iales Vyste&L eesc7ic7te, Nusdi66eren?ierung und dersel>stxndigungL Upladen: _estdeutsc7er derlagL ^lu&ler, -L eL, -L ML McReod Z `L EL Rosengren C1992H vNn introduction to co&parative co&&unication researc7h, ppL \118 in -L eL ^lu&ler, -L ML McReod Z `L EL Rosengren CedsH $o&paratively speaKing: co&&unication and culture across space and ti&eL ceA>ury farK, $N: VageL ^ourdieu, fL C1977H Uutline o6 a t7eory o6 practiceL $a&>ridge: $a&>ridge jniversity fressL ^ourdieu, fL C198GH 4istinction: a social criti9ue o6 t7e =udge&ent o6 tasteL $a&>ridge, MN: Barvard jniversity fressL ^reed, _L C1955H vVocial control in t7e neAsroo&: a 6unctional analysish, Vocial Porces \\CGH: \261\\5L $avuto, cL C2EE\H vN&erican 6irst, =ournalist secondh, PUmceAsLco&, posted 28L\L2EE\, 7ttp:iiAAAL6oTneAsLco&istoryiE,29\\,825EG,EEL7t&lL $7ala>y, -L `L C2EEEH v-ournalis& studies in an era o6 transition in pu>lic co&&unicationsh, -ournalis& 1C1H: \\1\9L $7alKey, NL C197EH 4evelop&ent -ournalis&L ceA 4el7i: diKas fu>licationL $7ang, TL1`L Ait7 fL ^erg, NL uing1Bi& Pung, `L 4L `edl, $L NL Rut7er Z -L V?u>a C2EE1H v$o&paring nations in &ass co&&unication researc7, 197E197: a critical asses&ent o6 7oA Ae KnoA A7at Ae KnoAh, ea?ette 6\C5H: G151G\GL $o7en, ^L $L C196\H T7e press and 6oreign policyL frinceton, c-: frinceton jniversity fressL $ra6t, VL Z _L _anta C2EEGH v_o&en in t7e neAsroo&: in6luences o6 6e&ale editors and reporters on t7e neAs agendah, -ournalis& Z Mass $o&&unication wuarterly 81C1H: 12G11\8L 4a7lgren, fL C1992H vJntroductionh, ppL 112\ in fL 4a7lgren Z $L VparKs CedsH -ournalis& and popular cultureL Rondon: VageL 4eal, TL EL Z NL NL `ennedy C1982H $orporate cultures: t7e rites and rituals o6 corporate li6eL Reading, MN: Nddi1 son1_esleyL 4elano, NL C2EE\H v_o&en =ournalists: A7aths t7e di66erenceWh, -ournalis& Vtudies GC2H: 27\1286L 4elli $arpini, ML mL Z ^L NL _illia&s C2EE1H vRet us in6otain you: politics in t7e neA &edia environ&enth, ppL 16E1 181 in _L RL ^ennett Z RL ML Ent&an CedsH Mediated politics: co&&unication in t7e 6uture o6 de&ocracyL $a&>ridge: $a&>ridge jniversity fressL 4eu?e, ML C2EE2aH -ournalists in T7e cet7erlands: an analysis o6 t7e people, t7e issues, and t7e Cinter1Hnational environ&entL N&sterda&: NKsant Ncade&ic fu>lis7ersL 4eu?e, ML C2EE2>H vcational neAs cultures: a co&parison o6 4utc7, eer&an, ^ritis7, Nustralian and jLVL =ournal1 istsh, -ournalis& Z Mass $o&&unication wuarterly 79C1H: 1\G11G9L 4ons>ac7, _L C1995H vRapdogs, Aatc7dogs and =unK=ard dogsh, Media Vtudies -ournal 9CGH: 171\EL 4ons>ac7, _L C2EEEH v-ournalisth, ppL 65191 in EL coelle1ceu&ann, _L Vc7ul? Z -L _ilKe CedsLH Pisc7er ReTiKon fu>li?istiK MassenKo&&uniKationL 7t7 edL PranK6urt a& Main: Pisc7er Tasc7en>uc7 derlagL

! 26 !

4ons>ac7, _L Z TL EL fatterson C2EEGH yfolitical ceAs -ournalists: fartisans7ip, fro6essionalis&, and folitical Roles in Pive $ountriesh, ppL 251127E in PL Esser Z ^L f6etsc7 CedsLH $o&paring folitical $o&&unication: T7eories, $ases, and $7allengesL ceA uorK: $a&>ridge jniversity fressL 4ouglas, ML C1992H RisK and >la&e: essays in $ultural T7eoryL Rondon Z ceA uorK: RoutledgeL 4ouglas, ML C1996H catural sy&>ols: eTplorations in cos&ology: Ait7 a neA introductionL Rondon Z ceA uorK: RoutledgeL 4urK7ei&, lL C19\\s189\tH Un t7e 4ivision o6 Ra>or in VocietyL ceA uorK: Mac&illanL Edelstein, NL VL C1982H $o&parative co&&unication researc7L ^everley Bills, $N: VageL Eide, ML Z eL `nig7t C1999H vfu>liciprivate service: service =ournalis& and t7e pro>le&s o6 everyday li6eh, Euro1 pean -ournal o6 $o&&unication 1GCGH: 52515G7L Ericson, RL, fL ^araneK Z -L $7an C1987H disuali?ing deviance: a study o6 neAs organi?ationL Toronto: jniversity o6 Toronto fressL Esposito, EL C2EE2H Vo?iales dergessenL Por&en und Medien des eedxc7tnisses der eesellsc7a6tL PranK6urt a& Main: Vu7rKa&pL Esser, PL C1998H vEditorial structures and AorK principles in ^ritis7 and eer&an neAsroo&sh, European -ournal o6 $o&&unication 1\C\H: \751GE5L Esser, PL C1999H: vhTa>loidi?ationh o6 neAs: a co&parative analysis o6 Nnglo1N&erican and eer&an press =ournal1 is&h, European -ournal o6 $o&&unication 1GC\H: 2911\2GL Esser, PL C2EEEH v-ournalis&us vergleic7enL -ournalis&ust7eorie und Ko&parative Porsc7ungh, ppL 12\11G5 in ML Rn66el7ol? CedLH T7eorien des -ournalis&usL Ein disKursives Band>uc7L _ies>aden: _estdeutsc7er der1 lagL eade, fL -L C2EEGH vceAspapers and organi?ational develop&ent: &ange&ent and =ournalist perception o6 neAs1 roo& cultural c7angeh, -ournalis& and $o&&unication Monograp7s 6C1HL ealtung, -L C2EE2H vfeace =ournalis& 1 a c7allengeh, ppL 2591272 in _L `e&p6 Z BL Ruostarinen CedsLH dolL 2: -our1 nalis& and t7e ceA _orld Urder: Vtudying _ar and t7e MediaL ente>org: cordico&L eer7ards, -L C199GH vfolitisc7e k66entlic7KeitL Ein syste&1 und aKteurst7eoretisc7er ^esti&&ungsversuc7h, ppL 771 1E5 in Pried7el& ceid7ardt CedLH k66entlic7Keit, k66entlic7e Meinung und so?iale ^eAegungenL Upla1 den: _estdeutsc7er derlagL eiddens, NL C1979H $entral pro>le&s in social t7eory: action, structure and contradiction in social analysisL ^erKe1 ley, $N: jniversity o6 $ali6ornia fressL eie>er, _L C196GH vceAs is A7at neAspaper&en &aKe ith, ppL 17\1182 in RL NL 4eTter Z 4L ML _7ite CedsLH feople, society and &ass co&&unicationL ceA uorK: Pree fressLL enrKe, NL C2EEEH vVyste&t7eorie AeiterdenKenL 4as 4enKen in Vyste&en als Beraus6orderung 6pr die -ournalis1 &us6orsc7ungh, ppL G\51G5G in ML Rn66el7ol? CedLH T7eorien des -ournalis&usL Ein disKursives Band>uc7L _ies>aden: _estdeutsc7er derlagL enrKe, NL C2EE2H vjnter7altung als so?iales Vyste&h, ppL 6\17\ in NL ^au& Z VL -L Vc7&idt CedsLH PaKten und PiKti1 onenL z>er den j&gang &it MedienAirKlic7KeitenL `onstan?: jd`L eurevitc7, ML Z -L eL ^lu&ler C2EEGH !Vtate o6 t7e Nrt o6 $o&parative folitical $o&&unication Researc7: foised 6or MaturityW!, ppL \251\G\ in PL Esser Z ^L f6etsc7 CedsLH $o&paring folitical $o&&unication: T7eories, $ases, and $7allengesL ceA uorK: $a&>ridge jniversity fressL eurevic7, ML, ML RL Revy Z JL Roe7 C199\H vT7e glo>al neAsroo&: convergences and diversities in t7e glo>ali?a1 tion o6 television neAsh, ppL 1951216 in fL 4a7lgren Z $L VparKs CedsLH $o&&unication and citi?ens7ip: =ournalis& and t7e pu>lic sp7ereL Rondon Z ceA uorK: RoutledgeL Ballin, 4L $L Z fL Mancini C2EEGH $o&paring Media Vyste&s: T7ree Models o6 Media and foliticsL ceA uorK: $a&>ridge jniversity fressL Banit?sc7, TL C2EEGH -ournalis&us in JndonesienL NKteure, VtruKturen, Urientierungs7ori?onte, -ournalis&usKul1 turenL _ies>aden: 4eutsc7er jniversitxts1derlagL Bartley, -L C1996H fopular reality: =ournalis&, &odernity, popular cultureL Rondon: NrnoldL Bartley, -L C2EEEH v$o&&unicative de&ocracy in a redactional society: t7e 6uture o6 =ournalis& studiesh, -ournal1 is& 1C1H: \91G8L Bo6stede, eL C198EH $ulturehs conse9uences: international di66erences in AorK1related valuesL ^everley Bills, $N: VageL Bo6stede, eL C2EE1H $ulture!s $onse9uencesL Vecond Edition: $o&paring dalues, ^e7aviors, Jnstitutions and Ur1 gani?ations Ncross cationsL T7ousand UaKs, $N: VageL Bolli6ield, NL $L, eL ML `osicKi Z RL ^L ^ecKer C2EE1H vUrgani?ational vsL pro6essional culture in t7e neAsroo&: television neAs directorsh and neAspaper editorsh 7iring decisionsh, -ournal o6 ^roadcasting Z Electronic Media G5C1H: 921117L

! 27 !

Buntington, VL fL C1996H T7e clas7 o6 civili?ations and t7e re&aKing o6 Aorld orderL ceA uorK: Vi&on Z Vc7usterL Jngle7art, RL Z _L EL ^aKer C2EEEH vModerni?ation, cultural c7ange, and t7e persistence o6 traditional valuesh, N&erican Vociological RevieA 65C1H: 19151L Jto, uL C1992H vT7eories on interpersonal co&&unication styles 6ro& a -apanese perspective: a sociological ap1 proac7h, ppL 2\81268 in -L eL ^lu&ler, -L ML McReod Z `L EL Rosengren CedsLH $o&paratively speaKing: co&&unication and culture across space and ti&eL ceA>ury farK, $N: VageL -anoAit?, ML C1975H vfro6essional &odels in =ournalis&: t7e gateKeeper and t7e advocateh, -ournalis& wuarterly 52CGH: 6181626, 662L -o7nson, -L 4L Z PL Tuttle C1989H vfro>le&s in intercultural researc7h, ppL G611G8\ in ML `L Nsante Z _L ^L eudyKunst CedsLH Band>ooK o6 international and intercultural co&&unicationL ceA>ury farK, $N: VageL -oAell, RL C1998H vBoA co&parative is co&parative researc7Wh, N&erican ^e7avioral Vcientist G2C2H: 1681177L `agitci>asi, $L C199GH vN critical appraisal o6 individualis& and collectivis&: toAard a neA 6or&ulationh, ppL 52165 in jL `i&, BL $L Triandis, $L `agitci>asi, VL1$L $7oi Z eL uoon CedsLH Jndividualis& and collectivis&: t7eory, &et7ods, and applicationsL T7ousand UaKs, $N: VageL `euneKe, VL, ML `riener Z ML MecKel C1997H vdon eleic7e& und jngleic7e&L Prauen i& -ournalis&ush, Rund6unK und Pernse7en G5C1H: \E1G5L `i&, jL, BL $L Triandis, $L `agitci>asi, VL1$L $7oi Z eL uoon C199GH vJntroductionh, ppL 1116 in jL `i&, BL $L Tri1 andis, $L `agitci>asi, VL1$L $7oi Z eL uoon CedsLH Jndividualis& and collectivis&: t7eory, &et7ods, and applicationsL T7ousand UaKs, $N: VageL `leinsteu>er, BL -L C2EEGH !$o&paring Mass $o&&unication Vyste&s: Media Por&ats, Media $ontents, and Media frocesses!, ppL 6G186 in PL Esser Z ^L f6etsc7 CedsLH $o&paring folitical $o&&unication: T7eories, $ases, and $7allengesL ceA uorK: $a&>ridge jniversity fressL `nc7er, RL C1986H v^lood7ounds or &issionaries: role de6initions o6 eer&an and ^ritis7 =ournalistsh, European -ournal o6 $o&&unication 1C1H: G\16GL `o7n, ML RL C1989H v$ross1national researc7 as an analytic strategyh, ppL 7711E2 in ML RL `o7n CedLH $ross1national researc7 in sociologyL ceA>ury farK, $N: VageL `o7ring, ML C1997H 4ie PunKtion des _issensc7a6ts=ournalis&usL Ein syste&t7eoretisc7er EntAur6L Upladen: _estdeutsc7er derlagL `o7ring, ML Z 4L Matt7ias Bug C1997H vk66entlic7Keit und -ournalis&usL Xur cotAendigKeit der ^eo>ac7tung gesellsc7a6tlic7er Jnterdependen? 1 Ein syste&t7eoretisc7er EntAur6h, Medien -ournal C1H: 151\\L Ravie, NL Z VL Re7&an1_il?ig C2EE\H v_7ose neAsW 4oes gender deter&ine t7e editorial productWh, European -ournal o6 $o&&unication 18C1H: 5129L Reydesdor66, RL C1996H vRu7&annhs sociological t7eory: its operationali?ation and 6uture perspectivesh, Vocial Vci1 ence Jn6or&ation \5C2H: 28\1\E6L Rivingstone, VL C2EE\H vUn t7e c7allenges o6 cross1national co&parative &edia researc7h, European -ournal o6 $o&&unication 18CGH: G7715EEL Rn66el7ol?, ML, TL wuandt, TL Banit?sc7 Z `L14L Nlt&eppen C2EE\H vUnline=ournalisten in 4eutsc7landL Xentrale ^e6unde der ersten Reprxsentativ>e6ragung deutsc7er Unline=ournalistenh, Media ferspeKtiven C1EH: G771 G86L Roo&is, 4L Z fL Meyer C2EEEH vUpinion Ait7out polls: 6inding a linK >etAeen corporate culture and pu>lic =ournal1 is&h, Jnternational -ournal o6 fu>lic Upinion Researc7 12C\H: 276128GL Ru7&ann, cL C1995H Vocial Vyste&sL Vtan6ord, $N: Vtan6ord jniversity fressL Ru7&ann, cL C1999H 4ie eesellsc7a6t der eesellsc7a6tL PranK6urt a& Main: Vu7rKa&pL Ru7&ann, cL C2EEEaH Urganisation und Entsc7eidungL Upladen Z _ies>aden: _estdeutsc7er derlagL Ru7&ann, cL C2EEE>H T7e Reality o6 t7e Mass MediaL Vtan6ord, $N: Vtan6ord jniversity fressL Marr, ML, dL dyss, RL ^lu& Z BL ^on6adelli C2EE1H -ournalisten in der Vc7Aei?L Eigensc7a6ten, Einstellungen, Ein6lpsseL `onstan?: jd`L Massey, ^L RL Z RL NL $7ang C2EE2H vRocating Nsian values in Nsian =ournalis&: a content analysis o6 Ae> neAs1 papersh, -ournal o6 $o&&unication 25CGH: 98711EE\L Masterton, ML C1996H vJntroductionh, ppL 115 in ML Masterton CedLH Nsian values in =ournalis&L Vingapore: NMJ$L Mc$7esney, RL _L C2EE\H vT7e pro>le& o6 =ournalis&: a political econo&ic contri>ution to an eTplanation o6 t7e crisis in conte&porary jV =ournalis&h, -ournalis& Vtudies GC\H: 2991\29L McReod, -L ML Z VL EL BaAley C196GH vfro6essionali?ation a&ong neAs&enh, -ournalis& wuarterly G1CGH: 52915\9L McVAeeney, ^L C2EE2H vBo6stedehs &odel o6 national cultural di66erences and t7eir conse9uences: a triu&p7 o6 6ait7 1 a 6ailure o6 analysish, Bu&an Relations 55C1H: 891118L

! 28 !

Merritt, 4L C1995H fu>lic =ournalis& and pu>lic li6e: A7y telling t7e neAs is not enoug7L Billsdale, c-: Erl>au&L Molotc7, BL Z ML Rester C197GH vceAs as purposive >e7aviour: on t7e strategic use o6 routine events, accidents and scandalsh, N&erican Vociological RevieA \9C1H: 1E11112L cederveen fieterse, -L C199GH velo>alisation as 7y>ridisationh, Jnternational Vociology 9C2H: 161118GL coAaK, VL C1989H v$o&parative studies and social t7eoryh, ppL \G156 in ML RL `o7n CedLH $ross1national researc7 in sociologyL ceA>ury farK, $N: VageL Uuc7i, _L eL C1981H T7eory X: 7oA N&erican >usiness can &eet t7e -apanese c7allengeL Reading, MN: Nddison1 _esleyL farsons, TL C1951H T7e Vocial Vyste&L elencoe, JR: Pree fressL fatterson, TL EL Z _L 4ons>ac7 C1996H vceAs decisions: =ournalists as partisan actorsh, folitical $o&&unication 1\CGH: G551G68L feters, TL -L Z RL BL _ater&an, -rL C1982H Jn searc7 o6 eTcellence: lessons 6ro& N&ericahs >est1run co&paniesL ceA uorK: Barper Z RoAL fritc7ard, 4L Z PL Vouvageau C1998H vT7e =ournalists and =ournalis&s o6 $anadah, ppL \7\1\9\ in 4L BL _eaver CedLH T7e glo>al =ournalist: neAs people around t7e AorldL $ressKill, c-: Ba&pton fressL Ra&aprasad, -L C2EE1H vN pro6ile o6 =ournalists in post1independence Tan?aniah, ea?ette 6\C6H: 5\91556L Ra&aprasad, -L Z -L 4L `elly C2EE\H vReporting t7e neAs 6ro& t7e Aorldhs roo6top: a survey o6 cepalese =ournal1 istsh, ea?ette 65C\H: 2911\15L Reese, VL 4L C2EE1H vjnderstanding t7e glo>al =ournalist: a 7ierarc7y1o61in6luences approac7h, -ournalis& Vtudies 2C2H: 17\1187L Ro>inson, eL -L Z NL Vaint1-ean C1998H v$anadian Ao&an =ournalists: t7e IUt7er Bal6M o6 t7e e9uationh, ppL \511\72 in 4L BL _eaver CedLH T7e glo>al =ournalist: neAs people around t7e AorldL $ressKill, c-: Ba&pton fressL Rosen, -L C1996H eetting t7e connections rig7t: pu>lic =ournalis& and trou>les in t7e pressL ceA uorK: TAentiet7 $entury PundL Ross, `L C2EE1H v_o&en at AorK: =ournalis& as en1gendered practiceh, -ournalis& Vtudies 2CGH: 5\115GGL Rp7l, ML C1969H 4ie XeitungsredaKtion als organisiertes so?iales Vyste&L ^iele6eld: ^ertels&ann jniversitxtsver1 lagL Vc7ein, EL BL C1992H Urgani?ational $ulture and Readers7ipL Vecond editionL Van Prancisco, $N: -ossey1^assL Vc7euc7, EL `L C199EH vT7e develop&ent o6 co&parative researc7: toAards causal eTplanationsh, ppL 191\7 in EL {yen CedLH $o&parative &et7odology: t7eory and practice in international social researc7L Rondon: VageL Vc7i&anK, jL C2EEEH T7eorien gesellsc7a6tlic7er 4i66eren?ierungL Upladen: ResKe o ^udric7L Vc7&idt, VL -L C2EE2H v_er>ung oder die erse7nte der6p7rungh, ppL 1E11119 in BL _ille&s CedLH 4ie eesellsc7a6t der _er>ungL `onteTte und TeTte, froduKtionen und Re?eptionen, EntAicKlungen und ferspeKtivenL _ies1 >aden: _estdeutsc7er derlagL Vc7nn>ac7, `L, 4L Vtpr?e>ec7er Z ^L Vc7neider C199GH vU>erle7rer und MissionareW 4as Vel>stverstxndnis deut1 sc7er -ournalistenh, ppL 1\91161 in PL ceid7ardt CedLH k66entlic7Keit, k66entlic7e Meinung und so?iale ^eAegungenL Upladen: _estdeutsc7er derlagL Vc7oll, NL C1996H vVa&pling =ournalistsh, $o&&unications 21C\H: \\11\G\L Vc7oll, NL C1997H v-ournalis&us als eegenstand e&pirisc7er Porsc7ungh, fu>li?istiK G2CGH: G681G86L Vc7oll, NL Z VL _eisc7en>erg C1998H -ournalis&us in der eesellsc7a6tL T7eorie, Met7odologie und E&pirieL Upla1 den: _estdeutsc7er derlagL Vc7udson, ML C2EE\H T7e sociology o6 neAsL ceA uorK: _L _L cortonL V7in, -L1BL Z eL TL $a&eron C2EE\H vT7e interplay o6 pro6essional and cultural 6actors in t7e online source1reporter relations7iph, -ournalis& Vtudies GC2H: 25\1272L V7oe&aKer, fL -L Z VL 4L Reese C1996H Mediating t7e &essage: t7eories o6 in6luence on &ass &edia contentL Vecond editionL _7ite flains, cu: Rong&anL Vinger, -L ^L C2EE\H v_7o are t7ese guysW T7e online c7allenge to t7e notion o6 =ournalistic pro6essionalis&h, -our1 nalis& GC2H: 1\9116\L Vinger, -L ^L C2EEGH vVtrange >ed6elloAsW T7e di66usion o6 convergence in 6our neAs organi?ationsh, -ournalis& Vtudies 5C1H: \118L Vpears, eL Z `L Veydegart C2EEEH v_o&enhs participation in t7e neAsh, ppL 1E1G5 in eL Vpears Z `L Veydegart CedsLH _7o &aKes t7e neAsW elo>al &edia &onitoring pro=ectL Rondon: _N$$L Vpencer ^roAn, eL C1969H RaAs o6 6or&L Rondon: Nllen Z jnAinL

! 29 !

Vplic7al, VL Z $L VparKs C199GH -ournalists 6or t7e 21st century: tendencies o6 pro6essionali?ation a&ong 6irst1year students in 22 countriesL corAood, c-: N>leTL Vtep7enson, _L C196GH vT7e ludenic t7eory o6 neAsreadingh, -ournalis& wuarterly G1C\H: \671\7GL Taylor, RL C2EE2H vPro& Aays o6 li6e to li6estyle: t7e vordinari1i?ationh o6 ^ritis7 gardening li6estyle televisionh, European -ournal o6 $o&&unication 17CGH: G791G95L Teune, BL C199EH v$o&paring countries: lessons learnedh, ppL \8162 in EL {yen CedLH $o&parative &et7odology: t7eory and practice in international social researc7L Rondon: VageL Tuc7&an, eL C197\H vMaKing neAs >y doing AorK: routini?ing t7e uneTpectedh, N&erican -ournal o6 Vociology 79C1H: 11E11\1L jnderAood, 4L C2EE1H vReporting and t7e pus7 6or &arKet1oriented =ournalis&: &edia organi?ations as >usinessh, ppL 991116 in _L RL ^ennett Z RL ML Ent&an CedsLH Mediated politics: co&&unication in t7e 6uture o6 de&ocracyL $a&>ridge: $a&>ridge jniversity fressL van de di=ver, PL -L RL Z `L Reung C1997H Met7ods and 4ata Nnalysis 6or $ross1$ultural Researc7L T7ousand UaKs, $N: VageL doronov, ML Z -L NL Vinger C2EE2H vT7e &yt7 o6 individualis&1collectivis&: a critical revieAh, -ournal o6 Vocial fsyc7ology 1G2CGH: G611G8EL _eaver, 4L BL C1997H v_o&en as =ournalistsh, ppL 211GE in fippa corris CedLH _o&en, &edia and politicsL ceA uorK: UT6ord jniversity fressL _eaver, 4L BL CedLH C1998aH T7e glo>al =ournalist: neAs people around t7e AorldL $ressKill, c-: Ba&ptonL _eaver, 4L BL C1998>H v-ournalist around t7e Aorld: co&&onalities and di66erencesh, ppL G551G8E in 4L BL _eaver CedLH T7e glo>al =ournalist: neAs people around t7e AorldL $ressKill, c-: Ba&ptonL _eaver, 4L BL Z eL $L _il7oit C1991H T7e N&erican =ournalistL Vecond editionL ^loo&ington, Jc: Jndiana jniver1 sity fressL _eaver, 4L BL Z eL $L _il7oit C1996H T7e N&erican =ournalists in t7e 199Es: jLVL neAs people at t7e end o6 an eraL Ma7Aa7, c-: Erl>au&L _eisc7en>erg, VL C1995H -ournalistiKL T7eorie und fraTis aKtueller MedienKo&&uniKationL ^and 2: Medientec71 niK, Medien6unKtionen, MedienaKteureL Upladen: _estdeutsc7er derlagL _ester>arKey, -L C1999H vk66entlic7Keit und cic7t1k66entlic7KeitL T7esen, faradoTien und Polgerungenh, ppL 1G71 156 in fL V?ysKa CedLH k66entlic7KeitL 4isKurs ?u eine& Vc7lpssel>egri66 der UrganisationsKo&&uniKati1 onL Upladen Z _ies>aden: _estdeutsc7er derlagL _ilcoT, 4L RL, fL BL Nult Z _L `L Ngee C1997H fu>lic relations: strategies and tacticsL ceA uorK: Rong&anL _irt7, _L Z VL `ol> C2EEGH !4esigns and Met7ods o6 $o&parative folitical $o&&unication Researc7!, ppL 871111 in PL Esser Z ^L f6etsc7 CedsLH $o&paring folitical $o&&unication: T7eories, $ases, and $7allengesL ceA uorK: $a&>ridge jniversity fressL _ong, `L C2EEGH vNsian1>ased develop&ent =ournalis& and political elections: press coverage o6 t7e 1999 general elections in Malaysiah, ea?ette 66C1H: 251GEL Xeli?er, ^L C199\H v-ournalists as interpretative co&&unitiesh, $ritical Vtudies in Mass $o&&unication 1EC\H: 2191 2\7L Xeli?er, ^L C2EEGH TaKing =ournalis& seriously: neAs and t7e acade&yL T7ousand UaKs, $N: VageL X7u, -L1BL, 4L _eaver, dL Ro, $L $7en Z _L _u C1997H vJndividual, organi?ational, and societal in6luences on &e1 dia role perceptions: a co&parative study o6 =ournalists in $7ina, TaiAan, and t7e jnited Vtatesh, -our1 nalis& Z Mass $o&&unication wuarterly 7GC1H: 8G196L

! \E !