However, instances of such explicit and exclusionary boundary-work in this area were rare. Unlike concerns over threats to their journalistic autonomy (which journalists were very likely to resist), journalists rarely saw this expansion of the boundaries of journalistic practice as a threat to their journalistic identities, or as undermining journalism’s epistemic authority. Many appeared to simply accept that these new tasks were now part of their professional role, often describing this expansion in professional practice as something that simply ‘took time’ to adjust to. In fact, those journalists who sought to resist an expansion in the boundaries of professional practice were less likely to remain journalists because they were less likely to acquire foundationfunding. For example, the IRP’s deputy director argued that they closed, in part because, ‘we didn’t want to spend money to make money, we wanted to spend money to report’. Similarly, the editor-in-chief of Humanosphere, which closed in June 2017, claimed that, ‘one reason why… it has been very difficult to get funding [is]… I am a journalist, so I am temperamentally unsuited, almost diametrically unsuited for sales’. This further exacerbates an expansion in the boundaries of journalistic practice because those least willing to resist such an expansion were more likely to remain in the profession.
However, instances of such explicit and exclusionary boundary-work in this area were rare. Unlike concerns over threats to their journalistic autonomy (which journalists were very likely to resist), journalists rarely saw this expansion of the boundaries of journalistic practice as a threat to their journalistic identities, or as undermining jour- nalism ’s epistemic authority. Many appeared to simply accept that these new tasks were now part of their professional role, often describing this expansion in professional practice as something that simply “took time” to adjust to. In fact, those journalists who sought to resist an expansion in the boundaries of professional practice were less likely to remain journalists because they were less likely to acquire foundationfunding. For example, the IRP ’s deputy director argued that they closed, in part because, “we didn’t want to spend money to make money, we wanted to spend money to report ”. Similarly, the editor-in-chief of Humanosphere, which closed in June 2017, claimed that, “one reason why … it has been very diﬃcult to get funding [is] … I am a journalist, so I am temperamentally unsuited, almost diametrically unsuited for sales ”. This further exacerbates an expansion in the boundaries of journal- istic practice because those least willing to resist such an expansion were more likely to remain in the profession.
These findings corroborate prior studies that have de- scribed how foundationfunding within journalism broke down “boundaries of professionalism to invite external critique, contribution, and collaboration” (Lewis, 2012, p. 330). It also builds off a growing body of literature that has explored how—and to what extent—foundations in- fluence the very journalism that they fund (Scott et al., 2019; Wright et al., 2018). The primary contribution of our study is to evaluate the ways in which these foun- dations’ influence on journalistic practice mirrors or dif- fers from that of the advertisers that were once (and, for many newsrooms, continue to be) the primary source of revenue. At a practical level, our findings reveal how, po- tentially, the influence of foundationfunding within jour- nalism actually unfolds. In doing so, they shed light on the two structural obstacles often overlooked in discus- sions about it: First, that journalism funders have differ- ent goals from the newsrooms they are funding; and sec- ond, that newsroom managers who apply for and accept foundation grants may feel more passionate about the di- rectives associated with those grants than the journalists ultimately tasked with following them.
The whole story vs. snippet debate leads to the contradiction regarding production value. Even if tweets were a legitimate journalism artifact, some journalists say, they have lower production values than full stories. One reporter said of tweets, “It is low production value. A lot of it out there is just BS.” A court reporter admitted that tweets were not always great journalism. “I could throw in [the tweets] stuff that I thought was good, but wasn’t like this has to go in the story. I still only tweeted stuff that I thought was important; just that the threshold was a little lower.” Reporters did not regard tweets as of high production value also because they thought tweeting something was easier than reporting and writing a full story. As stated by a reporter: “I think that’s [tweeting] not super quality journalism necessary. It is not hard. It’s basically who can move their thumbs the fastest.”
With notable exceptions, few journalism studies scholars are well-grounded in either economic theory or in the narrower field of management studies that forms the context for much of the entrepreneurial scholarship to date. Historically, literature about economically driven impact on the news industry has been either descriptive (Bagdikian 2000; Compaine and Gomery 2000) or critical (McChesney 2015), and has focused on legacy outlets; little attention has been paid to the economics of media start-ups. That said, Robert Picard (2002; 2005; 2012; Naldi and Picard 2012) has long been a leader in applying the tenets of capitalism across the news industry, which has not generally fared well in such an analysis, and recently, a small but growing number of scholars have extended his work into the digital realm. Several key studies have been
In this article, our concern is with the effects on IRIN’s journalism of the interaction of two particular groups of stakeholders – those working for IRIN (its managers, staff journalists and stringers) and the Jynwel Foundation (including Jho Low and other Foundation representatives). In this context, stakeholder analysis is useful for drawing attention to how IRIN managers’ strategic decision-making emerged from a process of negotiation between their donor’s requirements, their own organizational aims and objectives, and the perspectives of journalists and other staff. However, in order to draw attention to causal mechanisms that are peculiar to news production, our analysis is also guided by a theoretical framework developed by Benson, Hesserus and Sedel (forthcoming) for analysing the power of media owners. Informed by the third way sociology of Pierre Bourdieu, Benson and his colleagues suggest that organizational values are produced and reproduced by interest-orientated journalists as they negotiate political and economic structures. This framework is, therefore, particularly useful for illuminating the ways in which stakeholders’ agency and struggles with one another are (at least partially) structured by their positioning within a particular organization and field of activity, with its own logics and forms of capital.
Those interested in intersections of geography, place-making, and the news would do well to visit a mix of theoretical discussions and applications, including Henri Lefebvre’s (1991) The Produc- tion of Space, The Country and the City (1976) by Raymond Williams, J. Nicholas Entrikin’s (1991) The Characterization of Place, and Katherine Fry’s (2003) Constructing the Heartland: Television News and Natural Disaster. The 2017 article, ‘Geographies of media and communication I: Meta- physics of encounter’ in Progress in Human Geography by Paul C. Adams helps direct readers to an overview of how geography appears in and can be applied to media studies, while Sue Robin- son’s (2017), Networked News, Racial Divides: How Power and Privilege Shape Public Discourse in Progressive Communities and Stephen Reese’s (2016) article, ‘The new geography of journalism research’, in Digital Journalism build upon the field via digital work. Still, much is left unan- swered in complicating issues of place and the news – versus broad notions of “the media” – that move beyond discussions of “community” and “boundaries”, such as the edited volumes Mediated Geographies and Geographies of Media (2015) and Communications/Media/
The field of journalism is undergoing tremendous change due to convergence of media technologies. From sub Saharan Africa to Europe and the United States, news boundaries have been broken as events take on a transnational shape. The evolution of the fixed deadline into a continuous one now guides journalists as events are updated 24/7 online. The abundance of information online comes with its own negatives and positives for citizens, media organisations and democracy.
Marketisation has impacted on both the sports and the media industries. The reporting of the political and economic dimension of sports has become more important in recent years as the commercialisation of the industry across the globe has developed. The sports industry now regularly involves major media and financial institutions as well as government intervention. This process has helped blur the boundaries between traditional notions of sports journalism and journalism about sports-related activity. The increased centrality of the market in the media industries has helped propel the expansion of a celebrity culture, into which sports stars increasingly find themselves drawn. This devel- opment has also shaped aspects of sports journalism where there has been an increase in the number of journalists both freelance and staffers reporting and commenting on this aspect of sports.
Thus IRIN had far more ethical guidelines formalized in writing than most non-profit news outlets which accept foundationfunding (Rosentiel et al. 2017). Managers’ efforts to safeguard editorial independence appear to have been successful. As economic development falls outside of the humanitarian ‘beat’, we would not have expected coverage of the 1MDB scandal anyway. But the Jynwel Foundation’s partnership with the UN Foundation might have been seen as touching upon IRIN’s remit. Yet no favourable coverage of Low or the Jynwel Foundation ever appeared. There was also no rise in the portrayal of businesses as humanitarian actors and IRIN journalists continued to discuss how the structures of globalised capitalism may trigger and perpetuate human suffering (Anon 2017). So we found no evidence that foundationfunding towed the news organisation towards what Feldman calls “safe, legalistic bureaucratic activities and mild reformism” (2007: 472). In fact, IRIN’s output became somewhat more critical of the aid industry than it had been before it was funded by a private foundation (Anon 2017). However, this finding may be partially explained by IRIN’s initial positioning within the UN system, which meant that it started off in a position where journalists were far less able to criticise aid agencies than those working in the kinds of radical outlets analysed by Feldman (2007).
The growing integration of print and online newsrooms has been accompanied by the proliferation of free titles, followed by the process of increasing tabloidization that advanced on the space of online and free daily papers, both of which place an emphasis on rapid turnover of content, digest- style short stories, blogs, entertainment gossip, and a heavy reliance on the visual (Allan, 2006). In fact, the dominance of celebrity and social news, and the growth of reality shows and other forms of popular culture-oriented news, contributed to the blurring of credibility boundaries that once set traditional outlets apart from digital media (Johnson and Kayer, 2004). Furthermore, the sharp decline of paid newspapers created the expectation that free dailies, mostly published in tabloid format, would fill the gap. However, the broadsheets’ continued circulation decline was not followed by an increase of free daily newspapers, particularly in the United States and Europe (Benton, 2015), where free daily circulation went down 50 percent between 2007 and 2012 (Bakker, 2013).
The data collected show that different technologies, though adopted at each program at different times, were all eventually adopted. This finding represents the nature of the journalism profession. Journalism, which a hundred years ago was confined to a newspaper room, is now a member of every profession and a user of every technology. The definition of journalism, and its younger and further reaching relative, “mass communication,” has changed in a way that no other profession has. While lawyers still practice law in a courtroom and physicians still attend to patients in a hospital, mass communication professionals know no boundaries. They appear as public relations professionals, opinionated newscasters, newspaper editors, radio talk show hosts, and advertisement creators. This nature is reflected in the changes in curriculum at the three programs in this study, and the researcher predicts that another sample of journalism programs would yield very similar results.
To accommodate these changes, many news organizations also have dissolved long- standing physical boundaries within the newsroom. The next chapter provides a closer look at “convergence”; suffice to say here that newsrooms worldwide have been radically reconfigured to accommodate creation of this continuous, participatory, multi-platform product. Physical and organizational structures designed to handle the old assembly-line process of making news – reporters in one part of the newsroom, copy editors in another, city editors in a third, visual journalists stuck in a far corner – are vanishing. They are being replaced by content-area clusters or other arrangements intended to facilitate the dissemination of content through digital
Thirdly, the pathway to impact that foundations adopt needs to be broad enough and flexible enough to account for the uncertainties inherent in supporting independent journalism. Given that journalists retain editorial freedom and can choose which stories to cover (within a pre-defined beat) and how to cover them, foundations must accept that may end up supporting some coverage that may not be entirely relevant to their core objectives. For example, if a foundation has a particular concern for a specific global health issue but agrees to support coverage of a general ‘global health’ beat, it must accept that not all coverage will help raise awareness of the issue it cares most about. In summary, another explanation for the limited amount of foundationfunding in this area is that many foundations and journalists are be unwilling or unable to accept the risks and challenges involved in reaching a compromise on the nature of a thematic beat.
Despite significant growth in non-profit journalism, some thinkers overlook serious challenges in succeeding with this organisational form. Removal of the pressure of making a profit does not remove the pressure of ensuring that income exceeds costs. Whereas for-profit media companies focus on two revenue sources – advertisements and subscriptions – non-profit organisations need to master up to nine different income sources (as identified in this chapter, namely foundationfunding, crowdfunding, individual donations, corporate sponsorship, advertising, in- person events, syndication, training, and subscriptions), none of which has so far proven sustainable on its own.
Clearly, normative emphasis on journalistic autonomy from the influence of both advertisers and audiences served an important purpose in providing the freedom to report and write “without fear or favor,” in the famous phrasing of 19 th century New York Times publisher Adolph Ochs (The New York Times 1996). But the nature of boundaries is to fence certain people (journalists, say) in as well as to keep others out. Maintaining autonomy from audiences has meant journalists knew little about them – their interests, their media habits, what angers them, and what they appreciate. And maintaining autonomy from commercial entities became a rationale for journalists to remain disconnected from, even ignorant about, the economics of the business that employed them, a stance not uncommonly intertwined with general concerns about the negative impact of a profit motive on the quality of journalism (Beam 2006).
Based on this example, it could be said that one of the roles of citizen journalism is not only to inform people, but broaden the content published by traditional media. In other words, citizen journalism covers topics that are sometimes overlooked by the mainstream media. Dr. Saqib Riaz (2011: 109) stated that the big media organizations lost their monopoly over news because of the evolution of citizen journalism. With the Internet and social media, sharing information has never been easier, which also means that hiding information requested by the public is highly unlikely, if not impossible. Riaz (2011: 114) claims that citizens’ involvement in the news process breaks down the media hegemony. That means that citizen journalism contributes to pluralism in the media. In addition, citizens do not have some hidden agenda, they just report what they witness and experience.
(Journalism and Social Science students take either this module or Advanced Practical Journalism – Broadcast. Single honours students take both.) The aim of this module is to extend your skills in subbing, layout and production. At the end of the module you should have the skills to enable you to work professionally as a sub-editor on a print or online publication. The course builds on the design skills learned in the 2nd year and includes advanced design skills.
Good luck with that one. Last we looked, the major media barons were the same as thirty years ago. And a glance around the globe at comments pages and letters to the editor on anything involving, for example, feminism, socialism, climate science, or migration reveals again and again readers prone to anti-evolutionary and anti-climate change ideology (Karlsson et al. 2015; Slavtcheva-Petkova 2015; Silva and Lowe 2015), rampant racism (Richardson and Franklin 2003), and conservative masculinity (Perrin 2016). The Panglossian Tom Englehardt (2014) says we are living in a “golden age of journalism” thanks to the rise of the reader as a curator of news across sources. Was he referring to the LA Times’ “Wikitorial” innovation, which invited readers to rewrite the paper’s editorials? It was closed down after less than a week of brutal, obscene contributions that arrived by the score (Mills 2005).
This $150 million undertaking, consisting of $100 million in capital costs and $50 million in endowment funds, would serve to bolster Philadelphia Tourism. The move has been endorsed by regional arts and business communities and is strongly supported by the Greater Philadelphia Tourism and Marketing Corporation (GPTMC). DRPA has been asked to provide grant funding in the amount of $500,000 in furtherance of the capital portion of this monumental project. Other participants include The Pew Charitable Trusts, the Lenfest and Annenberg Foundations, and Comcast Corporation. Receipt of DRPA funds would be