Pub Date : 2020-05-20DOI: 10.1177/1522637920914979
Bryan E. Denham
Although studies in mass communication and investigative journalism have examined associations between newspaper reporting and policy formation, little research has focused on the policy influence of magazine coverage. In addition, given research questions that implicitly or explicitly conclude with policy implementation, studies have tended to analyze materials prior to the passage of legislation with little attention paid to subsequent reporting. This monograph examines magazine coverage of patent medicines before and after the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 became law. Patent medicines, which appeared in the form of cure-alls, headache remedies, and soothing syrups, emerged long before the federal government regulated substances such as morphine and cocaine, and nostrums often included these substances in addition to alcohol. Near the turn of the 20th century, magazine journalists began to draw attention to the hazards associated with patent medicines, building an agenda for policy reform. The Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 required manufacturers to list habit-forming substances and the quantities of those substances on product labels, and sales showed an appreciable decline; however, companies continued to profit. An examination of magazine articles showed that, in addition to patent-medicine manufacturers, newspapers received significant criticism for advancing industry interests through advertising. As a partial result of outlandish claims made in advertisements, problems with patent medicines continued after implementation of the Pure Food and Drug Act. Government officials and the U.S. Supreme Court were among those who undermined the 1906 law. Implications for investigative journalism, history, and public policy are discussed.
{"title":"Magazine Journalism in the Golden Age of Muckraking: Patent-Medicine Exposures Before and After the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906","authors":"Bryan E. Denham","doi":"10.1177/1522637920914979","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1522637920914979","url":null,"abstract":"Although studies in mass communication and investigative journalism have examined associations between newspaper reporting and policy formation, little research has focused on the policy influence of magazine coverage. In addition, given research questions that implicitly or explicitly conclude with policy implementation, studies have tended to analyze materials prior to the passage of legislation with little attention paid to subsequent reporting. This monograph examines magazine coverage of patent medicines before and after the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 became law. Patent medicines, which appeared in the form of cure-alls, headache remedies, and soothing syrups, emerged long before the federal government regulated substances such as morphine and cocaine, and nostrums often included these substances in addition to alcohol. Near the turn of the 20th century, magazine journalists began to draw attention to the hazards associated with patent medicines, building an agenda for policy reform. The Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 required manufacturers to list habit-forming substances and the quantities of those substances on product labels, and sales showed an appreciable decline; however, companies continued to profit. An examination of magazine articles showed that, in addition to patent-medicine manufacturers, newspapers received significant criticism for advancing industry interests through advertising. As a partial result of outlandish claims made in advertisements, problems with patent medicines continued after implementation of the Pure Food and Drug Act. Government officials and the U.S. Supreme Court were among those who undermined the 1906 law. Implications for investigative journalism, history, and public policy are discussed.","PeriodicalId":147592,"journal":{"name":"Journalism & Mass Communication Monographs","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131068034","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 : 2020-05-20DOI: 10.1177/1522637920914981
Stephen Siff, S. Siff
{"title":"Muckrakers and Other Manufacturers of Public Opinion on Drugs and Alcohol","authors":"Stephen Siff, S. Siff","doi":"10.1177/1522637920914981","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1522637920914981","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":147592,"journal":{"name":"Journalism & Mass Communication Monographs","volume":"43 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116603391","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 : 2020-05-20DOI: 10.1177/1522637920914980
Carol J. Pardun, Kelli S. Boling
{"title":"Caveat Emptor","authors":"Carol J. Pardun, Kelli S. Boling","doi":"10.1177/1522637920914980","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1522637920914980","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":147592,"journal":{"name":"Journalism & Mass Communication Monographs","volume":"78 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116258668","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 : 2020-02-10DOI: 10.1177/1522637919898274
J. Bekken
{"title":"Restoring Labor to the Public Sphere","authors":"J. Bekken","doi":"10.1177/1522637919898274","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1522637919898274","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":147592,"journal":{"name":"Journalism & Mass Communication Monographs","volume":"241 S1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133203867","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 : 2020-02-10DOI: 10.1177/1522637919898271
M. Stamm
Philip Glende’s “Labor Reporting and Its Critics in the CIO Years” offers a comprehensive and provocative history of labor reporting from the early 1930s to the early 1950s. It is deeply researched and encyclopedic in scope, and Glende explores the range of activities involved in the production, dissemination, and reception of labor reporting. At bottom, this is a history of the development and meaning of the body of reporting about the labor movement published by mostly northern newspapers in the mid-20th century. Its most important line of analysis interrogates whether this reporting was fair or not. Glende concludes that, on balance, it was not, and his explanations of why this pervasively unfair tone persisted are what makes this essay so rich and rewarding. Glende resists the easy explanation that this tone had to do with active opposition to labor from within the ranks of commercial daily newspapers. In keeping with Michael Schudson’s 1997 suggestion in Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly that scholars take care to avoid an “anticommercial bias” in writing with media history, Glende presents a novel argument about how mainstream journalism could be rightly perceived as unfair to labor. For Glende, the causality did not stem from the fact that publishers’ antipathy to organized labor, though certainly present, biased the news in any particular direction. Instead, Glende argues, we need to examine evolving practices of commercial news distribution and professional reporting to appreciate how “institutional forces” shaped the news. “Bias was not personal,” Glende asserts,
菲利普·格伦德(Philip Glende)的《CIO时代的劳动报告及其批评者》(Labor Reporting and Its Critics in the CIO Years)提供了从20世纪30年代初到50年代初的劳动报告的全面而富有争议的历史。它是深入研究和百科全书的范围，和格伦德探索的活动范围涉及生产，传播和接受劳动报告。从根本上说，这是一部关于20世纪中期主要由北方报纸发表的关于劳工运动的报道的发展和意义的历史。它最重要的分析路线是质疑这篇报道是否公平。格伦德的结论是，总的来说，事实并非如此，他解释了为什么这种普遍存在的不公平基调持续存在，这使得这篇文章如此丰富和有益。格伦德拒绝接受这样一个简单的解释，即这种语气与商业日报内部对劳工的积极反对有关。Michael Schudson在1997年的《新闻与大众传播季刊》(Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly)中建议，学者在撰写媒体历史时要小心避免“反商业偏见”。与此一致，Glende提出了一个新颖的论点，即主流新闻如何被正确地视为对劳工不公平。对格伦德来说，这种因果关系并非源于出版商对劳工组织的反感，尽管这种反感确实存在，但却使新闻偏向任何特定的方向。相反，格伦德认为，我们需要审视商业新闻发行和专业报道的不断演变的实践，以了解“制度力量”是如何塑造新闻的。“偏见不是针对个人的，”格伦德断言，
{"title":"The Bias of Commercialism and the Public Presence of Organized Labor","authors":"M. Stamm","doi":"10.1177/1522637919898271","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1522637919898271","url":null,"abstract":"Philip Glende’s “Labor Reporting and Its Critics in the CIO Years” offers a comprehensive and provocative history of labor reporting from the early 1930s to the early 1950s. It is deeply researched and encyclopedic in scope, and Glende explores the range of activities involved in the production, dissemination, and reception of labor reporting. At bottom, this is a history of the development and meaning of the body of reporting about the labor movement published by mostly northern newspapers in the mid-20th century. Its most important line of analysis interrogates whether this reporting was fair or not. Glende concludes that, on balance, it was not, and his explanations of why this pervasively unfair tone persisted are what makes this essay so rich and rewarding. Glende resists the easy explanation that this tone had to do with active opposition to labor from within the ranks of commercial daily newspapers. In keeping with Michael Schudson’s 1997 suggestion in Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly that scholars take care to avoid an “anticommercial bias” in writing with media history, Glende presents a novel argument about how mainstream journalism could be rightly perceived as unfair to labor. For Glende, the causality did not stem from the fact that publishers’ antipathy to organized labor, though certainly present, biased the news in any particular direction. Instead, Glende argues, we need to examine evolving practices of commercial news distribution and professional reporting to appreciate how “institutional forces” shaped the news. “Bias was not personal,” Glende asserts,","PeriodicalId":147592,"journal":{"name":"Journalism & Mass Communication Monographs","volume":"28 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116767515","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 : 2020-02-10DOI: 10.1177/1522637919898270
Philip M. Glende
This monograph examines daily newspaper coverage of organized labor during the burst of union activity that began in the early 1930s. Three factors influenced labor reporting during this period: the dramatic rise of unions as a political, economic, and cultural force in the New Deal; trends in journalism, including the dominance of objectivity as an operating norm and the shift toward interpretive reporting; and journalists, their sources in labor leadership, and the emergence of the American Newspaper Guild. Union leaders were highly critical of the general circulation press and its coverage of labor issues. I argue that labor news was biased against unions, but that bias was not the result of a deliberate attempt to discredit unions. Despite prounion inclinations of some journalists, news values, news gathering routines, and newsroom practices shaped labor reporting in a way that emphasized organized labor’s role in repeatedly challenging and disrupting the status quo.
{"title":"Labor Reporting and Its Critics in the CIO Years","authors":"Philip M. Glende","doi":"10.1177/1522637919898270","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1522637919898270","url":null,"abstract":"This monograph examines daily newspaper coverage of organized labor during the burst of union activity that began in the early 1930s. Three factors influenced labor reporting during this period: the dramatic rise of unions as a political, economic, and cultural force in the New Deal; trends in journalism, including the dominance of objectivity as an operating norm and the shift toward interpretive reporting; and journalists, their sources in labor leadership, and the emergence of the American Newspaper Guild. Union leaders were highly critical of the general circulation press and its coverage of labor issues. I argue that labor news was biased against unions, but that bias was not the result of a deliberate attempt to discredit unions. Despite prounion inclinations of some journalists, news values, news gathering routines, and newsroom practices shaped labor reporting in a way that emphasized organized labor’s role in repeatedly challenging and disrupting the status quo.","PeriodicalId":147592,"journal":{"name":"Journalism & Mass Communication Monographs","volume":"82 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114855847","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 : 2020-02-10DOI: 10.1177/1522637919898272
Elizabeth Faue
{"title":"The Laboring of American Journalism: The Other “Labor Beat”","authors":"Elizabeth Faue","doi":"10.1177/1522637919898272","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1522637919898272","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":147592,"journal":{"name":"Journalism & Mass Communication Monographs","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124420852","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 : 2020-02-10DOI: 10.1177/1522637919898273
T. Gilpin
{"title":"What’s Left Untold: Press Coverage of the Labor Movement","authors":"T. Gilpin","doi":"10.1177/1522637919898273","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1522637919898273","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":147592,"journal":{"name":"Journalism & Mass Communication Monographs","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123943342","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 : 2019-11-06DOI: 10.1177/1522637919878731
Mats Ekström
I am grateful for the opportunity to comment on Bødker’s and Eldridge’s innovative and inspiring contribution to the study of epistemology in news journalism. Research in this area has intensified in recent years, in response to general transformations within journalism, as well as the specific challenges related to the circulation of misinformation and fake news in online and social media. In the monograph, Bødker and Eldridge develop a theoretical framework to analyze journalistic practices of inferential reasoning, applied in case studies of news reporting related to Donald Trump. I will comment on what I understand as key conceptual components in the framework they suggest, that is, the conceptualization of journalism as knowledge, inferences, and the discursive and performative practices in journalism. I urge further theorizing these essential aspects of journalistic epistemology. Before I discuss the building blocks of the theoretical framework, I will briefly comment on two trends in journalism that were mentioned as a background of the study. In the introduction, Bødker and Eldridge argue that the discursive legitimization of journalism through various textual elements has become more explicit and more complex “because news presents not only knowledge but knowledge of a specific kind.” They assert that the knowledge produced in contemporary journalism has become more differentiated. I will come back to the concept of knowledge. Meanwhile, I am not entirely convinced about this clear shift. Diversity also characterized the subgenres of news journalism even before today’s transformations of the digital news media landscape. I think that the hypothesis of increased explicitness remains to be verified and explored more systematically. Implicit epistemological premises and unproblematic constructions of factuality largely characterize contemporary news journalism. Moreover, changes in the explicitness of epistemic claims, and transparency and contextualization of journalistic practices, have been noted in historical research on earlier transformations of journalism. Perhaps, we now see a new shift. However, we should be careful not to infer too casually a set of general conclusions based on observations of certain phenomena.
{"title":"Theorizing the Epistemologies of News Journalism","authors":"Mats Ekström","doi":"10.1177/1522637919878731","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1522637919878731","url":null,"abstract":"I am grateful for the opportunity to comment on Bødker’s and Eldridge’s innovative and inspiring contribution to the study of epistemology in news journalism. Research in this area has intensified in recent years, in response to general transformations within journalism, as well as the specific challenges related to the circulation of misinformation and fake news in online and social media. In the monograph, Bødker and Eldridge develop a theoretical framework to analyze journalistic practices of inferential reasoning, applied in case studies of news reporting related to Donald Trump. I will comment on what I understand as key conceptual components in the framework they suggest, that is, the conceptualization of journalism as knowledge, inferences, and the discursive and performative practices in journalism. I urge further theorizing these essential aspects of journalistic epistemology. Before I discuss the building blocks of the theoretical framework, I will briefly comment on two trends in journalism that were mentioned as a background of the study. In the introduction, Bødker and Eldridge argue that the discursive legitimization of journalism through various textual elements has become more explicit and more complex “because news presents not only knowledge but knowledge of a specific kind.” They assert that the knowledge produced in contemporary journalism has become more differentiated. I will come back to the concept of knowledge. Meanwhile, I am not entirely convinced about this clear shift. Diversity also characterized the subgenres of news journalism even before today’s transformations of the digital news media landscape. I think that the hypothesis of increased explicitness remains to be verified and explored more systematically. Implicit epistemological premises and unproblematic constructions of factuality largely characterize contemporary news journalism. Moreover, changes in the explicitness of epistemic claims, and transparency and contextualization of journalistic practices, have been noted in historical research on earlier transformations of journalism. Perhaps, we now see a new shift. However, we should be careful not to infer too casually a set of general conclusions based on observations of certain phenomena.","PeriodicalId":147592,"journal":{"name":"Journalism & Mass Communication Monographs","volume":"29 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115731180","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 : 2019-11-06DOI: 10.1177/1522637919878732
D. Ryfe
{"title":"Journalism’s Inferential Community","authors":"D. Ryfe","doi":"10.1177/1522637919878732","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1522637919878732","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":147592,"journal":{"name":"Journalism & Mass Communication Monographs","volume":"27 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123577352","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：