Journalism and Mass Communication

As blogs have become a fixture in today’s media environment, growing in number and influence in political communication and (mass) media discourse, research on the subject has proliferated, often emphasizing the high-profile conflicts and controversies at the intersection of blogging and journalism. Less examined, however, is the psychology of everyday citizen bloggers in this context. In studying a randomized sample of U.S. bloggers, we attempt to puzzle out this question: To what extent do bloggers (1) perceive their work as a form of journalism, and how might such a perception influence (2) their motivations for posting and (3) the topics around which they blog? Most critically, (4) this paper constructs a model by which all these antecedents predict whether bloggers behave like professional journalists. Results indicate that bloggers who see their work as a form of journalism are more inclined to inform and influence readers, write about public affairs, and behave as a more traditional journalist.

This study examines how mainstream journalists who microblog negotiate their professionalnorms and practices in a new media format that directly challenges them. Through a content
analysis of more than 22,000 of their tweets (postings) on the microblog platform Twitter, thisstudy reveals that the journalists more freely express opinions, a common microblogging practice
but one which contests the journalistic norm of objectivity (impartiality and nonpartisanship). To a lesser extent, the journalists also adopted two other norm-related microblogging features:providing accountability and transparency regarding how they conduct their work and sharing user-generated content with their followers. The journalists working for national newspapers,national television news divisions, and cable news networks were less inclined in their tweets than their counterparts working for less ‘‘elite’’ news outlets, to relinquish their gatekeeping role by sharing their stage with other news gatherers and commentators, or to provide accountability
and transparency by providing information about their jobs, engaging in discussions with other tweeters, writing about their personal lives, or linking to external websites.

This study compares the effects of consuming news preference online or offline on political participation. It also examines the variation in these effects between young and older adults. Given that young adults are disproportionately more intensive users of the Internet, Internet use may have varying effects on people’s political participation by their age. Secondary analysis of Pew data found that people’s preference for consuming news online versus offline explains a significant portion of variance of political participation, both online and offline. More importantly, the effects of online media preference were significantly stronger for young adults than for their older counterparts. These findings suggest that a preference for news online matters far more for younger adults than for older adults, and that the Internet may indeed be narrowing the participation gap between age groups.

The digitization of media has undermined much of the social authority and economic viability on which U.S. journalism relied during the 20th century. This disruption has also opened a central tension for the profession: how to reconcile the need for occupational control against growing opportunities for citizen participation. How that tension is navigated will affect the ultimate shape of the profession and its place in society.

This dissertation examines how the leading nonprofit actor in journalism, The John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, has sought to help journalism innovate out of its professional crisis. This case study engages a series of mixed methods—including interviews, textual analysis, and secondary data analysis—to generate a holistic portrayal of how the Knight Foundation has attempted to transform itself and the journalism field in recent years, particularly through its signature Knight News Challenge innovation contest.

From a sociology of professions perspective, I found that the Knight Foundation altered the rhetorical and actual boundaries of journalism jurisdiction. Knight moved away from “journalism” and toward “information” as a way of seeking the wisdom of the crowd to solve journalism’s problems. This opening up of journalism’s boundaries created crucial space in which innovators, from inside and outside journalism, could step in and bring change to the field. In particular, these changes have allowed the concept of citizen participation, which resides at the periphery of mainstream newswork, to become embraced as an ethical norm and a founding doctrine of journalism innovation. The result of these efforts has been the emergence of a new rendering of journalism—one that straddles the professional-participatory tension by attempting to “ferry the values” of professional ideals even while embracing new practices more suited to a digital environment.

Ultimately, this case study matters for what it suggests about professions in turbulent times. Influential institutions can bring change to their professional fields by acting as boundary-spanning agents—stepping outside the traditional confines of their field, altering the rhetorical and structural borders of professional jurisdiction to invite external contribution and correction, and altogether creating the space and providing the capital for innovation to flourish.