In a new article to be published in Digital Journalism, Nikki Usher and I look at how digital news startups talk about what they do by examining their “manifestos” — i.e. public-facing statements about who they are, what they do, and why they make journalism better. Although these manifestos are by no means uniform, they do share an effort to define not only what the news startup is doing, but why improvement is needed in the first place. In this way, they are examined as key moments of metajournalistic discourse that define appropriate practices, demarcate the boundaries of journalism, and establish arguments for what legitimate journalism looks like–or ought to look like.
One pattern we found was a reluctance to attack traditional journalism in any sustained way. Instead, these startups simultaneously rely on the authority of existing journalism while they also craft arguments for the improvements they offer. In being constrained from a full-throated attack, these sites instead emphasized two traits. First, they took an iterative stance in which they celebrated an attitude of experimentation, which they contrasted with static news forms. Second, they sought to collapse barriers between journalism and technology by advocating for closer connections between news workers and technologists.
Another thing we learned was that life often moves faster than academic publishing. As the article finished the revision process and entered the production stage, one of our news sites, Circa, ceased operations due to a lack of funds. To us, this underscores the precariousness of the digital news environment and the fine line between innovation and sustainability.
Routledge has just published Boundaries of Journalism, edited by me and Seth C. Lewis. Seth and I got the idea to do this book a few years ago when we realized we were both interested in how the concepts of boundaries and boundary work could be applied to journalism more than it has been. It seemed to us that the present discussions about journalism often involved discussions of insiders and outsiders or delineations between what is and what is not journalistically appropriate. And in many ways the very existence of boundaries was being questioned. So, we lined up a terrific group of authors and then gave them space to think about boundaries. This book is a result of these efforts. It appears as part of Barbie Zelizer’s Shaping Inquiry in Culture, Communication, and Media Studies series put out by Routledge.
I wrote an introduction to the book titled, “The Many Boundaries of Journalism,” which synthesizes the existing work on boundaries generally and in journalism studies specifically. The aim of this chapter is to piece together strands of research from over the years and place it in a coherent framework. Hopefully, this framework will in turn spark new research on boundary work and foster both future empirical and theoretical insights.
More information on the book.
Digital Journalism has posted my new article, “The Robotic Reporter: Automated Journalism and the Redefinition of Labor, Compositional Forms, and Journalistic Authority” (behind a paywall). It’s part of a special issue edited by Seth Lewis on big data and journalism. In my contribution, I examine how algorithms tasked with crunching big data can now be used to write stories. This is a nascent practice, but one that we can easily imagine will become more prominent as the technology develops. What’s important now is to understand both the processes around the institutionalization of automated journalism and how these process are being thought about. That is, computer-authored stories raise all kinds of questions about journalism as an informational practice and a creative practice, or news as a commodity and news as culture.
I had a paper accepted to a poster session at the AEJMC conference in Montreal. While posters offer a great opportunity for scholars to mingle and talk, I always have trouble converting my research into a poster. This year I took a different tack and translated my research into a cultural form perfect for displaying information in a visually interesting manner: the comic strip. It may seem a bit unusual, but it does communicate the basic ideas of the paper. For the more in-depth treatment, a revised version of this paper will be appearing soon in Journalism. It is available now through OnlineFirst (behind the paywall). But for a comic synopsis, enjoy:
I’ve had two new articles and a book chapter published in 2014. The first, “Gone, But Not Forgotten: Memories of Journalistic Deviance as Metajournalistic Discourse” appeared in Journalism Studies at the start of the year (note: it is behind a paywall). The article argues that while the journalistic community tends to make a big show of excommunicating individuals deemed to be deviant–e.g. Jayson Blair, Stephen Glass, etc.–in fact they remain within the vocabulary of journalists, able to deployed when new allegations of journalistic deviance arise. They continue to provide ways of thinking through and making sense of new violations, even when little correspondence between a new incident and a past one exists.
The other article also tackles the topic of deviance, this time through a Transatlantic approach to the News of the World scandal in the UK. Along with Dan Berkowitz, the article is titled “The Emperor Lost His Clothes’: Rupert Murdoch, News of the World and Journalistic Boundary Work in the UK and the USA” and appeared in Journalism (also paywalled). We play with the twin ideas of cultural boundaries as professional and national to look at different reactions to the scandal.
Finally, Dan and I also have a chapter in the new volume Journalism and Memory edited by Barbie Zelizer and Keren Tenenboim-Wienblatt for Palgrave. Beyond the great cover, it is an excellent collection of chapters from scholars inside and outside of journalism studies who have been writing about memory. Our contribution, “The Late News: Memory Work as Boundary Work in Commemoration of Television Journalists,” looks across the memorialization of well-respected American television journalists David Brinkley, Peter Jennings, Walter Cronkite, and Mike Wallace, as well as the continued legacy of Edward R. Murrow.
Paul Farhi of the Washington Post has a nice piece on the ridiculousness of anonymous source identifiers in the news–with a little input from me. The origins of such “explanations” of why anonymity was granted began appearing really after the wake of the bad information in the lead up to the 2003 Iraq War. The idea was to let readers in a bit more as to why such decisions were made. However well-intentioned, the limits are obvious; you can’t grant anonymity and provide enough clues to place a name with a quote. Still, there could be some usefulness on shedding a little light. However, as Farhi humorously illustrates with true examples, the explanations end up sounding, well, dumb. And that is at best. At worst, these identifiers are misleading. I’ve discussed this in my book, but it is always tricky. Journalists need, in some instances, to be able to use anonymous sources, leaving us readers out in the dark. But they are also overused or used in ways far from the normative base of providing the public with information it needs to know. I am glad to see Farhi take up the issue, and I hope others follow as well.
I had the pleasure of being on the local NPR program St. Louis on the Air to discuss the new Jayson Blair documentary A Fragile Trust. The show is archived here. The documentary is a look back at what happened with Blair and the New York Times told through interviews with the chief figures at the paper. We hear a lot from Blair himself explaining, as best he could, what happened. Looking back at Blair from the perspective of a decade on, it is notable just how idiosyncratic Blair’s hijinks were, but yet, as I argue in a new Journalism Studies article, he continues to be invoked as a symbol of bad journalism in situations that have nothing to do with what he did.