Confronting Uncertainty: The Contours of an Inferential Community (original) (raw)
Related papers
In Madison, WI, two news groups -bloggers and local reporters -are squaring off, developing separate value systems and establishing protocols of intergroup activity. This study explored those framing values and documented individual role play within this Midwestern city's information-producing community. An informal interpretive community of citizen journalists offers ways of knowing distinct from the way the press has traditionally practiced, negotiated and shared news stories. Interviews with citizens and professional journalists revealed convergences between these groups of news writers as well as dichotomies. This evidence showed that both the entrenched community of journalists and the emerging one of citizen news writers are framed by values of socially responsible missions, access to information, entitlement to knowledge and informal notions of professionalism. When 'anyone can know' -a quote from these interviews -the result is an adaptive organization of information producers that influence each other and redefine the aims, standards and ideology of journalism.
Social Media & Society, 2020
This article examines the peer-to-peer dynamics of Washington political journalists as Communities of Practice (CoPs) to better understand how journalists connect to and learn from each other and establish conventional knowledge. We employ inductive computational analysis that combines social network analysis of journalists’ Twitter interactions with a qualitative, thematic analysis of journalists’ work histories, organizational affiliations, and self-descriptions to identify nine major clusters of Beltway journalists. Among these are an elite/legacy community, a television producer community inclusive of Fox producers, and CNN, as its own self-referential community. Findings suggest Washington journalists may be operating in even smaller, more insular microbubbles than previously thought, raising additional concerns about vulnerability to groupthink and blind spots.
Foreclosing Deliberation: Journalists' Lowering of Expectations in the Marketplace of Ideas
This study examines how journalists responded to intellectual dissent from prevailing understandings of the 9/11 attacks in a controversy surrounding an essay by Professor Ward Churchill. By triangulating textual analysis with interviews of Colorado newspaper journalists, we explore how reporters and editors made sense of their participation in a foreclosing of deliberation. The findings suggest that paradigm repair is not sufficient as a framework for how professionals perceive their work when news construction conforms to hegemonic logic. We introduce the concept of professional realism, whereby journalists lower expectations for themselves as participants in a marketplace of ideas. Professional realism is less about repair of normative journalism than a retreat from deliberative principles and a defense of news practices that reaffirm cultural boundaries of political dissent. We nonetheless document ambivalence and regret in journalists' evaluation of their work, along with a kind of backstage, personal resistance to anti-deliberative practice.
Journalism: Theory, Practice & Criticism, 2017
A growing series of news platforms such as live blogging, tweeting, and push notifications are struggling with the extreme pressure of immediate reporting. The current study explores which strategies of knowledge acquisition and knowledge presentation journalists who operate immediate channels are using to address the mounting pressures and enhanced risk of error. It focuses on online news flashes that at least in the Israeli case enable systematic comparison of four types of output: routine and crisis news flashes and routine and crisis final items that follow them. Findings show that news flash editors develop special practices to acquire and present knowledge-the most prominent being minimization of knowledge claims. However, significantly higher use of modality, evidentiality, and source responses (measures for minimizing journalists' knowledge claims) was found only in crisis flashes. This may suggest that journalists find themselves outside their epistemic comfort zone only under the convergence of crisis and immediacy. According to 'inductive error' theory, the studied websites act as responsible epistemic actors, who are so concerned about 'false-positive' errors (untrue publications) that they do not hesitate to make 'false-negative' ones (delaying publication, minimizing knowledge claims, and sharing them with third parties).
From Suspicion to Wonder in Journalism and Communication Research
Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 2020
In this article, we call for a critical reflection on the lens that we adopt when researching journalism and communication. Adopting a lens of wonder can enhance our ability to consider the rich diversity that can be found in the field. Through a variety of research projects, we show how through wonder we cannot only understand how journalism is becoming but also make space for ‘becoming with’: we show how we are complicit in journalism’s future. Focusing on the paradoxical nature of journalistic practices as something we learned from our work with journalists, we illuminate and open up the much-at-onceness of journalistic life.
With professional journalism facing vigorous competition over its jurisdiction in information production from online aggregators and networked forms of journalism, this article examines how journalists publicly construct their own reporting work in opposition to a networked alternative and argue to the public for its value. It does so through a qualitative analysis of discourse from mainstream journalistic sources regarding the document-leaking group WikiLeaks, identifying distinctions journalists made to differentiate their work and its professional value from that of WikiLeaks. The analysis suggests that journalists assign less importance to the sociocultural conventions and objects of evidence that have traditionally constituted professional newswork – documents, interviews, and eyewitness observation – and more significance instead to the less materially bound practices of providing context, judgment, and narrative power. In doing so, journalists cast themselves fundamentally as sense-makers rather than information-gatherers during an era in which information gathering has been widely networked.
Journalism Practice, 2013
This paper examines a news genre that is designed for the enactment of interpretive journalism: the live studio correspondent commentary on Swedish news. We trace how the role of expert commentator/interpreter of events has evolved during a 30-year period with a focus on the relation between interaction and surrounding context. How is the expert interpreter role multimodally achieved, and how do technologies enable or constrain the enactment of an expert identity in these dialogues? As we discuss our results, also basing our argument on other studies of the same interactional phenomena, we will propose that the existence of this particular news format can be related to an ongoing power struggle between journalists and politicians. We see these interactions as providing journalism with a perhaps yet underestimated powerful resource in the framing of news, and argue that they should not be written off as merely supplying lightweight, gossipy comments about politics in a glossy studio environment.
Terms of Choice: Uncertainty, Journalism, and Crisis
Journal of Communication, 2015
This article considers whether thinking about journalism's present set of challenges is best served by the notion of "crisis." It argues that adopting such a notion to explain a diverse set of technological, political, economic, social, occupational, moral, and legal circumstances misses an opportunity to recognize how contingent and differentiated the futures of journalism might be. It also raises critical questions about how institutions deal with uncertainty at their core, obscuring a fuller understanding of the permutations that get eclipsed by perceiving crisis as a unitary phenomenon.
Undurraga 2017 Knowledge Production in Journalism long version 8800 words.pdf
Based on a multi-site ethnography of two influential newspapers in Brazil, this article examines how Brazilian journalists mediate knowledge claims made by experts, policy makers and the lay public. It asks whether and how these journalists experience themselves as knowledge-makers. More specifically, it argues that Brazilian journalists index their production of knowledge in reference to four main characteristics: depth, authorship, influence, and expertise. Journalists tend to consider newsmaking a contribution to knowledge when: (1) they have the resources to do proper investigative reporting (depth); (2) they are able to help define the public agenda through their reporting and to express their opinion (authorship); (3) they have impact on the polity, the economy or other fields they cover (influence) and (4) their journalistic knowledge is recognized by readers and by specialists (expertise). In practice, however, there are multiple obstacles that make Brazilian journalists hesitant about their contribution to knowledge, including intensified working conditions, the lack of plurality within the mainstream presses, and their informal methods for dealing with knowledge claims from other fields. This research reveals that Brazilian journalists have different understandings of the nature of knowledge in journalism. These understandings cluster around two distinct poles: an expert notion of knowledge associated with disciplinary boundaries, and a distinct conception associated with journalists’ capacity to mediate between jurisdictions. When journalists’ production is assessed from the former point of view, the informality of their methods is seen as undermining their knowledge credentials. By contrast, when journalists’ contribution is assessed from the latter point of view, their ‘interactional expertise’ comes to the fore.
Disagreements as a form of knowledge: How journalists address day-to-day conflicts between sources
Disagreements over facts, in which news sources are leading journalists in opposite directions, are an ultimate test of journalists' knowledge, forcing them to develop their own understanding of the actual state of affairs. This study focuses on how reporters think, act, and establish knowledge during the coverage of day-today disagreements-contrary to former studies, which focused on large-scale scientific and political controversies based on content analysis that narrowed their exposure to the epistemic realities of disagreements. Using a combination of quantitative and qualitative reconstruction interviews we show that rather than eliciting an 'epistemic paralysis', as widely expected in the literature, disagreements attract significantly greater knowledge-acquisition energy. Findings support the problem-centered approach of epistemology and pragmatics that highlight the complexities of disagreements, rather than the adjudication-centered approach of journalism studies, which push for more journalistic 'bottom lines'. Maximizing adjudication seems too ambitious and unrealistic for the time frame of daily reporting and the mixed epistemic standards seen in this study.