Pub Date : 2023-03-01DOI: 10.1177/15226379231155919
A. S. Hayes
{"title":"How “Busybodies” Changed Journalism in the 21st Century","authors":"A. S. Hayes","doi":"10.1177/15226379231155919","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15226379231155919","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":147592,"journal":{"name":"Journalism & Mass Communication Monographs","volume":"55 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132230924","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-03-01DOI: 10.1177/15226379231155917
S. Bates
In a common pattern, journalists reject outside criticism and denounce the critics. Resistance to criticism sometimes follows a second pattern, one largely overlooked by scholars: Journalists kill a large-scale research project before it gets under way and thereby prevent criticisms from even being articulated. This monograph examines four major research projects that got canceled in the face of opposition from the press: studies of international news in the early 1920s, public opinion about the press in the late 1930s, press accuracy and ownership in the late 1930s, and coverage of a presidential campaign in the mid-1950s.
{"title":"“Busybodies With Time on Their Hands”: Accountability, Research, and Resistance","authors":"S. Bates","doi":"10.1177/15226379231155917","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15226379231155917","url":null,"abstract":"In a common pattern, journalists reject outside criticism and denounce the critics. Resistance to criticism sometimes follows a second pattern, one largely overlooked by scholars: Journalists kill a large-scale research project before it gets under way and thereby prevent criticisms from even being articulated. This monograph examines four major research projects that got canceled in the face of opposition from the press: studies of international news in the early 1920s, public opinion about the press in the late 1930s, press accuracy and ownership in the late 1930s, and coverage of a presidential campaign in the mid-1950s.","PeriodicalId":147592,"journal":{"name":"Journalism & Mass Communication Monographs","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124844768","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-03-01DOI: 10.1177/15226379231155920
Kevin M. Lerner
Near the end of his valuable monograph about efforts by the U.S. press to stymie largescale public research projects into press performance, Stephen Bates quotes the man perhaps most identified with such studies, Robert Maynard Hutchins, who had led the Commission on Freedom of the Press. The press, Hutchins wrote, “does not care for criticism, even self-criticism.” Hutchins was reacting to a study that had been proposed by the journalism organization SDX, which had been shot down by other journalists, but his sentiments, frustrated and even cynical though they might be, resonate beyond their immediate historical context. Bates details four of these studies, including the one proposed by SDX, and investigates how “the press” stopped them from ever taking off. These abortive studies form an obvious pattern, as Bates amply demonstrates. These studies were instigated by a sense of crisis. Some combination of scholars and journalists set them up. Money was available to fund them, often from foundations, or from the press itself. But the press reacted negatively to them when word got out, and they were shuttered before they began. But one common element that Bates identifies stands out as a potentially fatal flaw: These studies were all designed to cause the press to change in some positive way. In fact, in distinguishing attempts at accountability from a mere sense of responsibility, Bates defines them as intended to effect change. That desire is fatal, though, because the U.S. press, steeped in a tradition of independence and convinced that its primary job is to hold other institutions to account, does not like to take criticism from outsiders, and rarely even engages in self-criticism. This is true not just of the large-scale, one-off studies that Bates describes. The press as an institution avoids changing in response to press critics, scholarly studies, good-faith and bad-faith political criticism, public comments on social media, and even to its own in-house ombudsmen. Hutchins was spot-on. The American press does not care for criticism.
斯蒂芬·贝茨在他那本关于美国媒体如何阻碍媒体表现方面的大规模公共研究项目的宝贵专著的末尾引用了罗伯特·梅纳德·哈钦斯(Robert Maynard Hutchins)的话，哈钦斯是新闻自由委员会(Commission on the Freedom of press)的负责人，他可能是最认同这类研究的人。哈钦斯写道，媒体“不喜欢批评，甚至不喜欢自我批评。”哈钦斯是在回应新闻组织SDX提出的一项研究，该研究遭到了其他记者的抨击，但他的情绪，尽管可能有些沮丧，甚至有些愤世嫉俗，却在当时的历史背景之外产生了共鸣。贝茨详细介绍了其中的四项研究，包括SDX提出的一项研究，并调查了“媒体”是如何阻止这些研究的开展的。这些失败的研究形成了一个明显的模式，正如贝茨充分证明的那样。这些研究是由一种危机感鼓动起来的。一些学者和记者的组合建立了它们。资助他们的资金通常来自基金会或媒体本身。但当消息传出后，媒体对他们的反应很负面，他们在开始之前就被关闭了。但贝茨指出的一个共同因素是潜在的致命缺陷:这些研究都是为了让媒体以某种积极的方式改变。事实上，贝茨将问责制的尝试与单纯的责任感区分开来，将其定义为旨在影响变化的尝试。然而，这种渴望是致命的，因为美国新闻界浸透了独立的传统，并坚信自己的主要工作是让其他机构承担责任，不喜欢接受外界的批评，甚至很少进行自我批评。这不仅适用于贝茨描述的大规模一次性研究。媒体作为一个机构，避免在回应媒体批评、学术研究、善意和恶意的政治批评、社交媒体上的公开评论，甚至是其内部监察员时做出改变。哈钦斯说得很对。美国新闻界不喜欢批评。
{"title":"The Recalcitrant U.S. Press","authors":"Kevin M. Lerner","doi":"10.1177/15226379231155920","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15226379231155920","url":null,"abstract":"Near the end of his valuable monograph about efforts by the U.S. press to stymie largescale public research projects into press performance, Stephen Bates quotes the man perhaps most identified with such studies, Robert Maynard Hutchins, who had led the Commission on Freedom of the Press. The press, Hutchins wrote, “does not care for criticism, even self-criticism.” Hutchins was reacting to a study that had been proposed by the journalism organization SDX, which had been shot down by other journalists, but his sentiments, frustrated and even cynical though they might be, resonate beyond their immediate historical context. Bates details four of these studies, including the one proposed by SDX, and investigates how “the press” stopped them from ever taking off. These abortive studies form an obvious pattern, as Bates amply demonstrates. These studies were instigated by a sense of crisis. Some combination of scholars and journalists set them up. Money was available to fund them, often from foundations, or from the press itself. But the press reacted negatively to them when word got out, and they were shuttered before they began. But one common element that Bates identifies stands out as a potentially fatal flaw: These studies were all designed to cause the press to change in some positive way. In fact, in distinguishing attempts at accountability from a mere sense of responsibility, Bates defines them as intended to effect change. That desire is fatal, though, because the U.S. press, steeped in a tradition of independence and convinced that its primary job is to hold other institutions to account, does not like to take criticism from outsiders, and rarely even engages in self-criticism. This is true not just of the large-scale, one-off studies that Bates describes. The press as an institution avoids changing in response to press critics, scholarly studies, good-faith and bad-faith political criticism, public comments on social media, and even to its own in-house ombudsmen. Hutchins was spot-on. The American press does not care for criticism.","PeriodicalId":147592,"journal":{"name":"Journalism & Mass Communication Monographs","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128029716","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-03-01DOI: 10.1177/15226379231155918
S. C. Jansen
{"title":"Behind the Searchlight: Walter Lippmann and Press Reform","authors":"S. C. Jansen","doi":"10.1177/15226379231155918","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15226379231155918","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":147592,"journal":{"name":"Journalism & Mass Communication Monographs","volume":"29 1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125690023","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-01DOI: 10.1177/15226379221131045
B. Calfano, Costas Panagopoulos, Elisa Raffa
In this monograph, we assess audience reactions to local TV news political coverage across an array of topics and research designs. First, we trace the development in local TV news of the now universally recognized reporter-driven emphasis: the local Eyewitness News model. That format’s role in establishing reporters as local elites is our basis for comparing how audiences respond to local reporters associated with the “eyewitness” brand versus reporters from national broadcast outlets. Using a combination of survey and field experiments, we investigate how audiences respond to eyewitness reporters. First, we vary audience exposure to partisan and policy frames sourced to these reporters. Across these experiments, audiences, and especially Republicans, respond more favorably to local than to national reporters and to the use of a policy than a partisan frame. Our second set of experiments test false balance and truth-telling in local TV stories about the 2020 presidential election. Again, the local reporter bests a national counterpart in terms of audience, especially Republican, reactions. In our third set of studies, we examine different combinations of human-interest content in the traditional thematic and episodic framing approaches in TV news for their effect on audiences’ climate change attitudes. We conclude by showing how these results inform an expansion of the topics and approaches local TV news affiliates should take to offer political coverage of value.
{"title":"Government Eyewitness: Considering New Approaches to Political Coverage Through Local TV’s Greatest Strengths","authors":"B. Calfano, Costas Panagopoulos, Elisa Raffa","doi":"10.1177/15226379221131045","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15226379221131045","url":null,"abstract":"In this monograph, we assess audience reactions to local TV news political coverage across an array of topics and research designs. First, we trace the development in local TV news of the now universally recognized reporter-driven emphasis: the local Eyewitness News model. That format’s role in establishing reporters as local elites is our basis for comparing how audiences respond to local reporters associated with the “eyewitness” brand versus reporters from national broadcast outlets. Using a combination of survey and field experiments, we investigate how audiences respond to eyewitness reporters. First, we vary audience exposure to partisan and policy frames sourced to these reporters. Across these experiments, audiences, and especially Republicans, respond more favorably to local than to national reporters and to the use of a policy than a partisan frame. Our second set of experiments test false balance and truth-telling in local TV stories about the 2020 presidential election. Again, the local reporter bests a national counterpart in terms of audience, especially Republican, reactions. In our third set of studies, we examine different combinations of human-interest content in the traditional thematic and episodic framing approaches in TV news for their effect on audiences’ climate change attitudes. We conclude by showing how these results inform an expansion of the topics and approaches local TV news affiliates should take to offer political coverage of value.","PeriodicalId":147592,"journal":{"name":"Journalism & Mass Communication Monographs","volume":"24 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130501711","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-01DOI: 10.1177/15226379221131043
Subramaniam Vincent, Don Heider
The key argument of Calfano et al.’s monograph is this: Local TV news about politics does not and should not need to use the partisan coverage frames used by network TV outlets. Instead, the authors encourage local TV news to use policy, thematic, and human interest frames. They argue that such coverage is less likely to be ignored or dismissed as biased, especially by Republicans. We comment on the authors’ core argument, strengthen the direction of their findings, highlight a few gaps, and outline new opportunities for reinventing local political coverage in TV news. We note that the authors’ findings do demonstrate an opportunity for local TV news to intervene in the discourse on political issues in an emotionally and democratically more open manner. But for this to happen, additional considerations about the situation and journey ahead for local TV news must be taken into account. Our observations do not undermine any of the findings. They lay out the terrain ahead. We offer insights in three areas: Beats and Expertise, Polarization and Discourse, and Bringing Ethical Rigor to Human Interest Frames. We note that these are opportunities for new work that may help local political journalism find an ethical and sustainable identity apart from the hegemony of network television and the elite national newspapers.
{"title":"Challenges and Opportunities for Local Journalism in Reinventing Political Coverage","authors":"Subramaniam Vincent, Don Heider","doi":"10.1177/15226379221131043","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15226379221131043","url":null,"abstract":"The key argument of Calfano et al.’s monograph is this: Local TV news about politics does not and should not need to use the partisan coverage frames used by network TV outlets. Instead, the authors encourage local TV news to use policy, thematic, and human interest frames. They argue that such coverage is less likely to be ignored or dismissed as biased, especially by Republicans. We comment on the authors’ core argument, strengthen the direction of their findings, highlight a few gaps, and outline new opportunities for reinventing local political coverage in TV news. We note that the authors’ findings do demonstrate an opportunity for local TV news to intervene in the discourse on political issues in an emotionally and democratically more open manner. But for this to happen, additional considerations about the situation and journey ahead for local TV news must be taken into account. Our observations do not undermine any of the findings. They lay out the terrain ahead. We offer insights in three areas: Beats and Expertise, Polarization and Discourse, and Bringing Ethical Rigor to Human Interest Frames. We note that these are opportunities for new work that may help local political journalism find an ethical and sustainable identity apart from the hegemony of network television and the elite national newspapers.","PeriodicalId":147592,"journal":{"name":"Journalism & Mass Communication Monographs","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127001119","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-01DOI: 10.1177/15226379221116640
Kelsey Mesmer
Given rising hostility toward journalists in the United States, this monograph illuminates how journalists experience hostility from news sources. Drawing on 38 in-depth interviews with U.S. journalists, this project uses the theory of intersectionality to understand how journalists experienced hostility and how they changed their journalistic routines in response. Participants described four forms of hostility from news sources: general distrust of the news media, boundary crossing, safety-violating hostility, and microaggressions. Boundary crossing was primarily used toward younger women, and microaggressions were used toward White women and men and women of color. Although safety-violating hostility occurred least often, it was the most intense form of hostility and was disproportionately experienced by women, whose gender, race, age, tenure, and even their geographical location worked against them to create hostile and unsafe situations. These findings should inform how news editors think about story assignments and reporters’ safety on the job so that editors empathize more with reporters and do away with more dangerous reporting scenarios, such as person-on-the-street interviews and door knocking. Finally, as many reporters were unprepared for the hostility they experienced, journalism instructors should focus on hostility as a reality journalists will likely face in the field.
{"title":"An Intersectional Analysis of U.S. Journalists’ Experiences With Hostile Sources","authors":"Kelsey Mesmer","doi":"10.1177/15226379221116640","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15226379221116640","url":null,"abstract":"Given rising hostility toward journalists in the United States, this monograph illuminates how journalists experience hostility from news sources. Drawing on 38 in-depth interviews with U.S. journalists, this project uses the theory of intersectionality to understand how journalists experienced hostility and how they changed their journalistic routines in response. Participants described four forms of hostility from news sources: general distrust of the news media, boundary crossing, safety-violating hostility, and microaggressions. Boundary crossing was primarily used toward younger women, and microaggressions were used toward White women and men and women of color. Although safety-violating hostility occurred least often, it was the most intense form of hostility and was disproportionately experienced by women, whose gender, race, age, tenure, and even their geographical location worked against them to create hostile and unsafe situations. These findings should inform how news editors think about story assignments and reporters’ safety on the job so that editors empathize more with reporters and do away with more dangerous reporting scenarios, such as person-on-the-street interviews and door knocking. Finally, as many reporters were unprepared for the hostility they experienced, journalism instructors should focus on hostility as a reality journalists will likely face in the field.","PeriodicalId":147592,"journal":{"name":"Journalism & Mass Communication Monographs","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114420305","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-01DOI: 10.1177/15226379221116644
Kaitlynn Mendes
{"title":"Hostile Sources in a Hostile World","authors":"Kaitlynn Mendes","doi":"10.1177/15226379221116644","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15226379221116644","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":147592,"journal":{"name":"Journalism & Mass Communication Monographs","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125344505","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-01DOI: 10.1177/15226379221116645
Lisa M. Cuklanz
{"title":"Historical Contexts for Considering the Significance of Source Hostility","authors":"Lisa M. Cuklanz","doi":"10.1177/15226379221116645","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15226379221116645","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":147592,"journal":{"name":"Journalism & Mass Communication Monographs","volume":"76 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127497276","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-01DOI: 10.1177/15226379221116646
Tracy Everbach
{"title":"What Will It Take for Newsroom Leaders to Support and Defend Journalists?","authors":"Tracy Everbach","doi":"10.1177/15226379221116646","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15226379221116646","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":147592,"journal":{"name":"Journalism & Mass Communication Monographs","volume":"113 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124730881","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：