Journalism culture

Compared to Southern, Eastern or less democratic countries like China and Russia, additional virtues like impartiality, the reliability and factualness of information and adherence to universal ethical principles are perceived to be of great importance for Western journalists.[8] Additionally, the study found Western journalists to be less supportive of any active promotion of particular values, ideas or social change.[9]

Western journalism culture is classified by a dominance of watchdog journalism with a tendency of more South-Western democracies like Spain additionally harboring a strong journalistic culture of "populist disseminator".[10]

Especially in the 1990s "US government and media initiatives"[11] have worked to establish a US-modeled "objective" press model in emerging democracies in South America and Eastern Europe. This move assumed "US-style journalism [to be] a natural and inevitable world model",[12] yet current studies regarding journalism culture in Eastern European countries do not see a natural adoption of Western journalism standards. Instead, the establishment of a less objective and more entertainment- and audience-oriented journalistic culture driven by the countries themselves (e.g. "populist disseminator" journalism in Bulgaria) can be observed.[13]

Within-country level journalism research in developing or emerging countries is described as lacking.[14] This can either be explained with under-financed or non-existent research institutes within the respective countries or the neglect of certain research topics. Arnold S. de Beer, journalism researcher at Stellenbosch University, South Africa, is criticizing South African journalism research of the 90s and early 2000s as both too focused on areas like "public relations, marketing or other forms of corporate communication"[15] and, on the side of the critical researchers, as having a too strong interest in journalism research of post-Apartheid specifics. This overpopulation with specific-interest studies created a deficit in South African conclusions about their own journalism culture.

Study design for journalism culture research provides challenges for appropriate methodological operationalization. Its complexity arises due to journalistic professionalism being a multi-leveled concept consisting of various journalistic values, tenets, and practices, which different journalism cultures balance in their own unique ways.[18] Research in journalism culture can be conducted within one nation, mostly led by journalism researchers originating from the country itself,[19] or in a comparative manner cross-nationally conducted with the help of international teams of researchers. Comparative journalism research is fore-mostly conducted cross-nationally, with "nation" being an important level of analysis, resulting in comparative studies on country-by-country basis.[20] Derived from comparative media system research, comparative journalism culture research uses the nation as "object, context, unit of analysis, or as component of a larger system".[21][22]

Used methods in journalism culture research are surveys and interviews, content analysis, observation or a combination thereof.[23]

Using the dimensions of analysis system suggested by Brüggeman and Wessler, media research can be conducted using three dimensions of analysis:[24] (1) Research perspectives, (2) research levels and (3) objects of analysis. Practically applying this system on journalism culture research shows:

1. The use of "comparison" as prevalent research perspective
2. The use of "state/society" (nation) as dominant level of analysis
3. The use of various and often combined objects of analysis

The combination of various objects of analysis, such as "media structures", "content production" and "media contents" is explained in the complex nature of the "culture" aspect in journalism culture. As communication researcher Hanitzsch puts it: "One can generally speak of culture as a set of ideas (values, attitudes, and beliefs), practices (of cultural production), and artifacts (cultural products, texts)."[25]

Notable comparative research can be found in Weaver's 1998 The Global Journalist, Sigal's 1973 Reporters and Officials: The Organization and Politics of Newsmaking comparing reporting practices in the United States and Great Britain, the journalism-focused parts of Hallin and Mancini's 2004 Comparing Media Systems: Three Models of Media and Politics and Hanitzsch’ 2011 Worlds of Journalism Project. Rosten's 1937 Washington Correspondents is considered the first study to describe journalists’ work lives.[26] More recent comparative research into journalism and journalism culture also include works by Deuze,[27] Donsbach[28] and Splichal & Sparks.[29]

Theoretical and practical research has found many journalism cultures and ideologies discussed in communication science literature. Among them are journalism cultures and genres such as watchdog journalism, civic journalism, popular journalism or advocacy journalism characterized by its strong use of journalistic interventionism.[30]

Many, especially emerging nations, criticize the form of applying a US- or Western-centric view of journalistic culture onto under- or developing nations[31] as a form of cultural imperialism neglecting specific cultural backgrounds or social cleavages. Additionally, journalism research is often criticized as employing a too traditional view of "journalism".[32][33] Most journalism studies still focus on established and institutionalized journalism in newspaper, television or radio. Journalism researchers are struggling with comparative methods of conceptualizing emerging and new media,[34] like journalism in weblogs, podcasts or other versions of citizens’ journalism. Beside these specific points of criticism there is a general methodological problem defining the concept of "culture".[35] The term culture is often used unsystematically and can lead to problems of congruent comparison of journalism culture studies.

The Adequate Information Management in Europe (AIM) Project, a multinational European social science project conducting several studies on journalism structures and processes of daily reporting about the European Union between 2004 and 2007, found that impulses for European professional journalism are not found in an explicit interest in European topics or special knowledge concerning European matters, as assumed.[36] Rather, they are determined by "day to day operations and subsequent media performance", structural on-site factors, or "on-the-job and trial-and-error"[37] practices. Furthermore, reporting about Europe is determined by national views and national and individual journalistic practices and thus lacking coherence and proper context.[38] The AIM study concludes that these daily deficiencies, neglects and misapprehensions lead to myopic reporting about European matters.[39] The theory of a common European culture on reporting about European matters thus cannot be supported.

Shoemaker's and Reese's 1996 volume Mediating the Message: Theories of Influences on Mass Media established a theoretical framework for analyzing levels of influences that shape media contents. The levels range from micro to macro, going from individual, over routines, organizational level, extra-media level, to ideological level.[40] A similar approach was used by Hanitzsch in his extensive cross-national journalism culture study Worlds of Journalism. The model used by Hanitzsch allows for influences on journalists’ reporting decisions on a super-level (globalization, diffusion and interdependence), a macro-level of societies or nations (political, economic, legal, social and cultural contexts as well as media system), a meso-level (editorial organization, the media organization and the medium as such) and the micro-level as the journalist as an individual (journalists' backgrounds and individual characteristics).[41]

Results from the study among 2100 professional journalists found that "organizational, professional and procedural influences are perceived to be more powerful limits to the journalists' work than political and economic influences".[42] This produces the meso-level of professional hierarchy, aka the editorial organization and medium's organization, as the most influential factor of journalistic conduct and thus the biggest influencer of the professional part of journalism culture.

The European AIM study found a growing openness, especially among younger generations of professional journalists, towards news methods and ways of communication and production. A growing tendency of not relying exclusively on institutionalized information systems can be observed.[43] Further technological development within the world of the Internet points to a trend of increased usage of "non-institutionalized, non-governmental, non-administrative and clearly transnational information"[44] during reporting and research work.

Besides Western journalists adopting new media as a means of reporting, a surge in new technology usage can especially be seen in authoritarian or developing nation contexts.[45][46] Increased governmental controlling of journalists’ media access and/or freedom of expression can lead to the need of finding new and less controlled ways of expression. One of the best studied examples of suppressed journalists’ resourcefulness can be found in research of Chinese journalists and their use of blogs, cellphones[47] and microblogging, shaping the contemporary Chinese reporting culture.