259.full

7/27/2019 259.full

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/259full 1/25

http://jou.sagepub.com/ Journalism

http://jou.sagepub.com/content/3/3/259The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/146488490200300301

2002 3: 259Journalism

Mats EkströmEpistemologies of TV journalism : A theoretical framework

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Journalism Additional services and information for

http://jou.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jou.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://jou.sagepub.com/content/3/3/259.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Dec 1, 2002Version of Record>>

by Sheila Accioly on October 5, 2012 jou.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jou.sagepub.com/



http://jou.sagepub.com/content/3/3/259



http://www.sagepublications.com/

http://jou.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts


http://jou.sagepub.com/subscriptions


http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav


http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://jou.sagepub.com/content/3/3/259.refs.html



http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml



http://jou.sagepub.com/content/3/3/259.full.pdf





http://jou.sagepub.com/content/3/3/259.full.pdf


http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav







7/27/2019 259.full


Epistemologies of TV journalism A theoretical framework

Mats Ekström

University of ¨ Orebro, Sweden

A B S T R A C T

This article sketches a theoretical framework for studies of the epistemologies of

journalism. In this context epistemology does not refer to philosophical inquiries into

the nature of true knowledge but to the study of knowledge-producing practices and

communication of knowledge claims. The focus in the article is mainly on TV

journalism. The theoretical framework distinguishes three fundamental areas and three

main questions for research on the epistemologies of journalism: (1) form of

knowledge (What are the characteristics of the knowledge that television journalism

produces and offers its audiences?); (2) production of knowledge (What rules,routines, institutionalized procedures and systems of classification guide the

production of knowledge and how do journalists decide what is sufficiently true and

authoritative?); and (3) public acceptance of knowledge claims (What conditions are

decisive for the public’s acceptance or rejection of the knowledge claims of television

journalism?). The article develops the framework by way of theoretical

conceptualizations and empirical illustrations from concrete forms of TV journalism.

K E Y W O R D S epistemology form of knowledge investigative

journalism journalism knowledge claims news television

1. Introduction

Journalism, in its various forms, is clearly among the most influential

knowledge-producing institutions of our time. Renderings of reality are pro-

duced and published day in and day out, with unparalleled penetration.

People obtain knowledge of the world outside their immediate experience

largely from mass media, where journalistic content predominates. Journal-

istic ways of depicting reality, journalists’ models and modus operandi alsoinfluence other social institutions: politics, market actors, educational institu-

tions and so forth (see Eide, 1998; Bourdieu, 1998). Even so, journalism has

not received much attention within the sociology of knowledge. Studies

Journalism

Copyright © 2002 SAGE Publications

(London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi)

Vol. 3(3): 259–282 [1464-8849(200212)3:3;259–282;028478]

ARTICLE








7/27/2019 259.full


focusing on scientific institutions are considerably more common (see e.g.

Gibbons et al., 1999). However, questions concerning the quality of the

knowledge produced, and how journalism and television influence public

knowledge, have interested many television and journalism researchers(Corner, 1999).

My intention in this article is mainly to sketch a theoretical framework for

sociological analyses of the epistemologies of journalism. Epistemologies are

developed and applied in all forms of social practice that produce and

communicate knowledge. In philosophical inquiries the term ‘epistemology’

refers to theories of the nature of knowledge and of the possibilities and the

principal foundations of truth in science. In a sociological study of knowledge-

producing practices – like the present one – epistemology instead refers to the

rules, routines and institutionalized procedures that operate within a social setting

and decide the form of the knowledge produced and the knowledge claims

expressed (or implied). It also refers to the question of how these claims are

justified, both within the organizations and vis-a-vis the public and other

social institutions (see Ettema and Glasser, 1987, 1989).

The legitimacy of journalism is intimately bound up with claims to

knowledge and truth. It is thanks to its claim of being able to offer the

citizenry important and reliable knowledge that journalism justifies its posi-

tion as a constitutive institution in a democratic society. Knowledge claims arejustified and legitimated within the framework of epistemologies.

The knowledge claims of journalism have been studied from different

perspectives. In the 1970s and 1980s Westerståhl’s (1972, 1983) work was

influential in Sweden and abroad (Ekström and Nohrstedt, 1996; McQuail,

1987). Westerståhl’s aim was to operationalize the concept of ‘objectivity’ and

then, on the basis of that operationalization, to gauge the objectivity of news.

Quite a different approach has been taken by researchers who see both the

truth and objectivity claims of news journalism as totalitarian strategies in an

ongoing power struggle (Fiske, 1989). In the present inquiry I am not inter-

ested in evaluating how truthful or objective journalistic accounts may be. But

neither do I subscribe to a perspective that reduces truth claims to expressions

of power. My ambition instead is to contribute to the branch of sociological

inquiry that examines journalism from within by trying to identify the

epistemologies that are characteristic of journalism as a knowledge-producing

and communicative practice.

Bourdieu’s (1998) On Television is probably one of the most widely known

and controversial sociological analyses of television and journalism of ourtime. Bourdieu’s work is at least in part oriented toward the sociology of

knowledge. I return to several of Bourdieu’s insights in the following but in

contrast to Bourdieu’s, in many respects, tendentious attack on journalism, it

260 Journalism 3(3)






7/27/2019 259.full


is my ambition rather to outline some points of departure for systematic,

theoretically founded empirical inquiry.

This article focuses specifically on TV journalism, in which I include

newscasts and current affairs programming, talk shows and documentariesproduced in journalistic contexts. It is, as we shall see, precisely the combina-

tion of journalism and the television medium that forms the epistemologies

that are in focus here. In the first section I present three areas that constitute

the cornerstones of the theoretical approach. Ensuing sections develop and

illustrate the areas individually, with empirical examples and references to the

existing literature.

2. A theoretical framework

The theoretical framework that I present in this article distinguishes three

areas in the epistemology of journalism: what I call form of knowledge, produc-

tion of knowledge and public acceptance /legitimacy of knowledge claims. Each area

consists of structures that have been conceptualized in earlier research. Each

area brings one main research question to the fore.

1 Form of knowledge: What are the characteristics of the knowledge that television

journalism produces and offers its audiences? Television journalism offers partlyspecific forms of knowledge, ways to perceive and comprehend reality. Television

journalism, as a combination of the medium (television) and a set of institution-

alized procedures and specific genres (journalism), distinguishes itself from the

communication of knowledge in the context of, for example, the theatre, science

and schools (cf. McLuhan, 1964; Postman, 1985).

2 Production of knowledge: What rules, routines, institutionalized procedures and

systems of classification guide the production of knowledge, and how do TV

journalists decide what is sufficiently true and authoritative? This is the area of TV

production and journalistic practices, including institutionalized relations and

patterns of action that are essential to this particular kind of knowledge produc-tion. The focus is on internal social practices viewed as epistemological practices.

Important in this context are also the cognitive frameworks and systems of

classification that guide journalists’ understanding and manner of dealing with

reality. These factors influence the form of the knowledge produced, how it will be

produced and even the ways in which the knowledge claims are justified within

the organization (Ettema and Glasser, 1987; Tuchman, 1972, 1980).

3 Public acceptance of knowledge claims: What conditions are decisive for the public’s

acceptance or rejection of the knowledge claims of television journalism? Under

this heading we shift the focus towards the public, the audiences. However the

main object of study is not whether individual audiences believe in journalism or

not. The focus is on the conditions for legitimate – i.e. publicly acceptable –

knowledge claims. I conceive of ‘epistemology’ in a communicative perspective, as

partly a question of what is to be considered acceptable and sufficiently true

knowledge by those who produce programmes and by those who watch them. The

Ekström Epistemologies of TV journalism 261






7/27/2019 259.full


concept of validity claims is central here. The term ‘claim’ indicates that it is not a

question of determination. Texts have no compelling force but they are con-

structed with a view to redeeming knowledge claims (Ekström, 1996; Silverstone,

1999).

3. The form of knowledge

The concept of knowledge has been used in a lot of different meanings and

theoretical contexts in the study of journalism and television (see e.g. Post-

man, 1985; Ettema and Glasser, 1987; Bourdieu, 1998; Corner, 1999; Gripsrud,

1999). As Corner (1999: 108) argues: ‘The question of television’s impact upon

popular knowledge . . . has been the most frequently asked question in

television research.’ A common question behind these studies can be formu-

lated as follows: What are the characteristics of the knowledge that television and

journalism produce and offer their audiences?

One important research tradition has focused on mass media as a domi-

nant institution in the production and mediation of common knowledge,

social definitions, representations and ideologically based stereotypes. To give

just one example, we might mention the research on the role of media in

constructing representations of risks and environmental crises in late modern

society (Cottle, 1998). The inter-relatedness of knowledge, culture, discourse,ideology and power has been a common core in this research tradition (see e.g.

Approaches to Media: A Reader, by Boyd-Barrett and Newbold [1995]). Here,

knowledge is understood as closely related to culture, as a signifying system.

This research tradition can be called the culture and meaning paradigm of the

study of knowledge.

A different way to approach this question is to focus on the form of

knowledge that is communicated in the frame of different media technologies

and institutions. This shift towards what might be called a form of knowledge

paradigm is perhaps, first and foremost, associated with Marshall McLuhan’s

thesis that the medium is the message. McLuhan argues that the most

important aspect of the media is not the content or the cultural ideological

meaning of the message but how media technologies and forms of commu-

nication influence perceptions and social relations. This is also the perspective

that dominates Neil Postman’s well-known work.

In his book, Amusing Ourselves to Death (1985), Neil Postman analyzes how

characteristics of television itself structure the knowledge it communicates

and, by extension, our understanding of the world. The medium lends itself toaesthetically appealing and dramatic representations but is less appropriate for

logical and factual argumentation, discriminating descriptions of reality and

in-depth analyses. Television is primarily a medium of sensations, pleasure

262 Journalism 3(3)






7/27/2019 259.full


and entertainment. Postman has been rightly criticized for his sweeping

conclusions and one-sided pessimistic view of the medium (see Dahlgren,

1995; Corner, 1999). Unfortunately, Postman’s provocative rhetoric and dras-

tic conclusions about the ideology of entertainment have dominated thereception of the book at the expense of his insightful analyses of the episte-

mology of television.

Of course, the distinction between the culture and meaning paradigm of

knowledge and the form of knowledge paradigm is a simplification and there

is a lot of research that we cannot put in one or the other of these two

paradigms. In this article I have chosen to focus primarily on TV journalism as

a form of knowledge.

In such a study it is important to avoid a mediacentric perspective. It is

not primarily television as a medium that includes a particular form of

knowledge. Such a perspective tends to be deterministic. It is too simple to

deduce a form of knowing and relating to the world from the properties of the

medium as such. Television as a medium and a technology is used and

incorporated in different institutions, social practices and forms of commu-

nication. Depending on the context, the medium is connected to different

communicative strategies, production processes and roles of the audiences/

spectators. In this article I focus on television in the context of TV journal-

ism.The knowledge TV journalism produces is regarded with ambivalence. On

the one hand, it is made use of without further ado, not only in everyday life

but also in the spheres of culture and public affairs, politics and science.

Journalistic accounts of reality are frequently cited and often serve as starting

points in public discourse. On the other hand, the knowledge journalism

offers is met with scepticism, at times even ridicule. Intellectuals tend to look

upon both television and journalism as poor copies of science and literature.

What they forget is that these are completely different forms of knowledge,

produced under quite different conditions and with different claims. As

Corner (1999) argues, a ‘badness perspective’ on television knowledge has

dominated a great deal of the research. It is my intention here to avoid such a

bias. However, it is not my ambition to discuss either the problems or the

potentialities of TV journalism but only to describe some characteristics of the

knowledge produced.

In the following I want to present some possible characteristics of TV

journalism as a form of knowledge. The four characteristics that I put forward

do not claim to be exhaustive. My aim is primarily to illustrate this particularperspective on the epistemology of TV journalism, and to suggest some

characteristics on the basis of the existing literature. It is a task for future

research to develop this framework and critically investigate the validity and







7/27/2019 259.full


generality of the characteristics that I present here. Future research should also

explore the differences and similarities between various forms (and genres) of

TV journalism.

The primacy of presentation and visualization

Journalism’s presentational aspects, its visuality and its discursive visualizations,

can be understood not as the unfortunate contaminants of an otherwise pure and

factual realism but as the very purpose of journalism, from the very start.

(Hartley, 1996: 43)

In this sentence, John Hartley calls attention to something that is obvious but

also fundamental. Television journalism is produced primarily for presentation

and visualization. The form of presentation is the actual point of the produc-

tion. All TV journalism is produced with the presentation and the viewer in

mind. Interviews are not conducted primarily to elicit information, but are

staged performances produced for an overhearing audience (Heritage, 1985).

This is one decisive point of difference between journalistic and scientific

interviews. When scientists conduct an interview, no prospective audience

influences the interviewer’s or the interviewee’s behaviour.

The primacy of presentation is a trait that journalism shares with art and

advertising but not science. It makes the practice of journalism directlydependent on the characteristics of the medium. Proper use of the potential-

ities of the medium will make the content attractive to a mass audience.

Visualization is television’s forte. Knowledge about the world is articulated

visually. The medium represents reality, creates powerful engagement, identi-

fication, fascination, thoughts and values through pictures (Corner, 1995,

1999). Viewing and ways of seeing are dominant modes of reception (and

knowing) in this context. There is today an ongoing scholarly discussion

concerning the relation between visuality, ways of seeing and knowing (see

Rose [2001] and Sturken and Cartwright [2001], among others).

Investigation and presentation are, in some sense, common to both

journalism and science but, in the case of journalism, presentation is a sine

qua non. It is a defining property of journalism and a key to its unique

contribution. But it is (in principle) quite possible to perform journalism

without any sophisticated method of investigation. The situation is the

inverse in the case of science. The unique contribution of scientific inquiry is

precisely that, inquiry. Science is not dependent on any mass audience; it

is hardly dependent on any audience at all. The scientific communities havedeveloped a system of documentation, an extensive flora of peer-reviewed

journals that are able to survive despite the fact that rather few people read

them.

264 Journalism 3(3)






7/27/2019 259.full


Content is more or less interchangeable in journalism. Journalists can

bring up practically any topic as long as it can be fitted into the format of the

programme at hand. Innovation in television journalism is largely a question

of developing new programme formats, new dramaturgical solutions and

aesthetics. Even in the case of investigative journalism a good portion of the

production process is oriented directly or indirectly toward visualization.

Access to good visual material actually decides what gets investigated. Inter-

views are carried out with a view to fitting them into the dramaturgical

structure of the narrative. Editing is of crucial importance (Ekström and

Eriksson, 1998).

Powerful, emotive and simplified messages

Television offers viewers a specific kind of reception. We follow TV pro-

grammes in a prescribed order, which is set out in the production. In contrast

to a written text, where the reader can start anywhere and go back and read

again, stop and think, television is produced to make an immediate impression

and for immediate comprehension. Television productions also presume and

are adapted to a standardized pace of reception. When we read, we are free to

skim when we like or to stop and savour certain passages. Television does notallow this; the pace of the narrative is calculated to suit everyone. This has

crucial consequences for the form in which TV journalism presents knowl-

edge. Complex, discriminating, multifaceted presentations seldom make good

television. Consequently, television journalism tends to simplify (Ekström and

Eriksson, 1998).

Being an eminently visual medium, television excels at constructing

powerful meanings, at creating vivid impressions, associations and eliciting

emotional involvement. It is not so good at presenting lots of facts and the

kinds of messages where attention to nuances, reservations and contradictions

is vital. TV reportage seldom allows longer explanations or accounts. In studio

debates speakers are commonly interrupted when they verge into details or

dwell on specifics (Corner, 1995; Ekström and Eriksson, 1998).

The form of knowledge that television conveys best arouses feelings and

empathy on the part of the viewer. Television journalism does not generally

invite critical reflection or questioning of the facts presented. This is not to say

that television mesmerizes its audiences, rendering them totally uncritical.

Reception studies that we have conducted show, however, that viewers’criticism tends not to focus on the truth or validity of statements and stories

but rather on the persons involved in the stories, their actions and appearance

or on the programme and programme format (Ekström, 2000a).







7/27/2019 259.full


The construction of extraordinary events

Journalistic texts represent an event-oriented form of knowledge. Journalism

informs its audiences that something worthy of note has happened. News-worthy events are of short duration and take place in a specific place; they are,

what is more, something out of the ordinary, an aberration from normal

everyday routines. If social, economic or political processes are to be made into

news, something new, decisive, abnormal or deviant has to have occurred.

Ordinary, banal ‘everyday life’ is uninteresting (see Bourdieu, 1998). This

preoccupation with events is reflected in journalists constantly being on the

look-out for events (ranging from traffic accidents to political scandals).

Journalists are trained to spot potential events, even in what non-journalists

might simply regard as ‘business as usual’. Many of the events related by news

organizations are of journalists’ own making. Studio debates and interviews

staged by television reporters sometimes blossom into major media events,

which make headlines even the following day (Ekström, 2001).

One of the most fundamental criteria of ‘good television’ in producers’

eyes is that something is happening. This applies to all kinds of programmes:

soap operas, reportage, a debate or a newscast. TV should never be dull, i.e.

uneventful. This principle guides how television journalism is edited; and it

decides who gets invited to sit in studio armchairs. In some cases the events inquestion have the character of attractions that are staged precisely to attract

and fascinate an audience (Ekström, 2000b).

The transience and immediacy of knowledge

‘On to the next SOB!’ That is the gist of how the Swedish TV journalist and

talk-show host Robert Aschberg characterized his relation to the topics in his

show when I interviewed him some time ago. The comment (a jingle-like

rhyme in the Swedish original) reflects the cynical humour that is his trade-

mark. It also says something about the kind of attitude toward knowledge that

television journalism encourages.

In the realm of television journalism knowledge is a fleeting phenom-

enon. This is partly a consequence of the inherent demand for immediacy in

journalism. Journalism is primarily about news and current interests. The

transience is also expressed in the character of television schedules as a whole,

in the structure of individual texts, in the production process and in viewers’

relationship to the medium. What is said has import for the moment butbefore anyone really has a chance to think about what was said, it is gone and

forgotten. The flow of messages, topics and news items passes by so rapidly

that one can hardly reflect on more than a fraction of it all. Whatever is said

266 Journalism 3(3)






7/27/2019 259.full


or shown has to be immediately comprehensible. The transience of television

content is mirrored in television viewing as a practice. We watch event after

event, topic upon topic, without committing very much at all to memory.

Viewers tend to be restless.The room for thinking, pondering and digging deeper naturally varies

between productions. Some desks work on the same subject for several weeks,

even months, whereas others handle dozens of subjects a day. What they

have in common is the fact that all are drawn into, and form a part of, the

same culture of television, where images and narratives succeed one another

in a steady flow, where what is ‘the top of the news’ just now will remarkably

soon be ‘old hat’. Talk shows that we have studied had this fleeting quality. A

variety of items were dealt with each day. The information that cannot be

obtained quickly is not worth thinking about. People who are unable to say

what they have to say quickly and succinctly make bad guests. Production

staff are constantly worrying that the programmes may be paced too slowly

and dull.

Bourdieu (1998) asserts a negative relationship between haste and

thought. When not given enough time, one cannot think. In the sector of the

public sphere that television journalism reigns over, there is never enough

time. Few people are able to speak under such conditions. TV journalism

favours what Bourdieu calls ‘fast thinkers’. What makes these ‘fast thinkers’successful under the constraints of television is that they have understood that

it is more important how you say something than what you say. Those who

have not understood this simple axiom run a great risk that their debut on

television will also be their finale.

4. Production of knowledge

Processing news leaves no time for reflexive epistemological examination. None-

theless, the newsmen need some working notion of objectivity to minimize the

risks imposed by deadlines, libel suits, and superiors’ reprimands. (Tuchman,

1972: 662)

Tuchman’s pioneering studies of the news take their point of departure in a

central sociological insight relating to knowledge. All knowledge-producing

activity presumes certain generally accepted, tacit assumptions and concepts

that the individual makes use of in his/her striving to satisfy claims and

expectations within a particular situation and institution. It is in part thanksto these practical ‘working notions’, as Tuchman calls them, that journalists

manage to maintain an adequate degree of objectivity, accuracy and critical

position – consistently, day after day.







7/27/2019 259.full


In this section I dwell on two points. First, I argue that epistemologies are

institutionalized or, as one might rather put it, the production of knowledge is

embedded within institutionalized practices. Then, with the help of some

empirical examples I demonstrate how different genres of television journal-ism apply somewhat different institutionalized epistemologies.

Epistemology and institution

Institutions have two aspects. The one consists of the collective and coordinat-

ing codes of behaviour, social routines, enduring procedures and relationships.

We might call these social practices (see Jepperson, 1991). The other aspect –

what we can refer to as the cosmology – consists of the community of values,

norms, perceptions and the culture that makes institutions cohesive (see

Douglas, 1986). Naturally, the two aspects are very closely related.

Tuchman’s study focuses on the relationships between cosmology and

social practices. Tuchman attaches great importance to shared conceptions of

reality in her explanation of how news is generated and why journalists do

what they do. Typification is a central concept here. The concept of ‘typifica-

tion’ is a loan from the phenomenologist Alfred Schutz. Tuchman (1973)

defines it for her purposes as ‘classifications whose meanings are constituted in

the situations of their use’ (p. 112). One of Tuchman’s main points is that newsorganizations manage to handle unexpected and complex events in a

routinized manner precisely by classifying the events in terms of ready-made

typifications. Thus, events are dealt with as types of news stories, each of

which activates a set of routines geared to produce knowledge, very often

under the pressure of tight deadlines.

A central idea within the sociology of knowledge is that social practices

include and reproduce classifications of reality . Social practices are classification

activities. Individuals orient themselves in the world around them by means of

collective, deeply rooted, but not immutable distinctions. This thesis is a basic

assumption shared by a good number of scholars who have contributed to the

sociology of knowledge (Durkheim, Schutz, Berger and Luckman, Douglas,

Luhmann). Classifications are never neutral. They are normative; they include

assumptions about what is good and bad and how people should act in

different situations. Classifications have consequences; they make a differ-

ence. Classifications serve various social functions: they allow people to meet

and master concrete situations; and they reproduce and legitimize the social

order (Douglas, 1986).As a knowledge-producing institution, journalism bears a dual relation-

ship to such classification activities. First, journalism actively contributes to

producing, reproducing and naturalizing collective conceptions of reality.

268 Journalism 3(3)






7/27/2019 259.full


Second, journalistic work is based on classifications that serve more or less as

tacit points of departure for the production of knowledge.

The epistemologies of journalism include many different (constant or

variable) classifications. For example, there is the classification of news sour-ces, whereby what some sources say needs verification but others not. Another

example is the classification of simplifications and dramatizations in headlines

and presentations; some are acceptable, others not. Yet another classification

determines who may be referred to as an ‘expert’. The list could be much

longer. Although no classifications have been set out explicitly on paper, and

the distinctions may be rather diffuse, they imbue the practice of journalism

and are internalized and reproduced as a more or less implicit frame of

reference by all who work together in the production of a TV programme

(Ekström and Nohrstedt, 1996).

Journalism is based on a number of established modi operandi, patterns of

behaviour and interaction. These are permanent and sufficiently widely shared

to be considered institutional. On an overall plane we might describe journal-

istic practice as the coordination of numerous different tasks within the

framework of what Schlesinger (1987) has termed a ‘stop-watch culture’.

Journalistic knowledge production is steered by the demands of predictability

and control over the ingredients of a programme that has a predetermined

format, that will be ready at a given point in time and that recurs with acertain regularity (often daily).

Knowledge production also involves a set of more specific practices and

forms of interaction. Perhaps the most important of these is the journalistic

interview. As analysts of conversation have shown, the news interview repre-

sents an institutionalized form of interaction characterized by a distinct

pattern of turn-taking (Heritage and Greatbatch, 1991). The taking of turns is

organized in a way that distinguishes the news interview from ordinary

conversation. The roles of interviewer and interviewee are associated with

specific expectations that structure the parties’ behaviour. The ways in which

the interview is used to produced knowledge constitute a central feature of the

epistemology of journalism (see Heritage, 2000; Ekström, 2001).

Institutions can be hard to define and delimit. In part this is because they

can be of widely different scope and display different degrees of internal

cohesion. It is reasonable to approach journalism as a more or less cohesive

institution, consisting of distinctive values, practices and relations. Within

journalism, however, there are a number of more delimited clear-cut in-

stitutionalized procedures, namely activities. The news interview is one suchactivity (Heritage and Greatbatch, 1991). Institutions are never entirely mono-

lithic. Some are more uniform than others. Journalism is no monolith but

comprises a multitude of different activities, some of which are more closely







7/27/2019 259.full


bound up with the core of the institution than others. We may speak of

different degrees of institutionalization. Within the institution of journalism,

some forces act to strengthen the institution’s internal cohesion, whereas

others are disintegrative (see Altheide and Snow, 1991).There is no single epistemology that applies to television journalism.

Criteria of truth and the knowledge claims expressed, the methods used to

gather and justify the knowledge to be presented, and so forth, differ between

different journalistic genres. I shall use some results from empirical studies in

order to illustrate two different epistemologies that essentially belong to the

genres of news-reporting and investigative journalism.

News-reporting

Perhaps the most essential element in the cosmology of news-reporting is a

belief in the news, the shared conviction that this specific form of knowledge is

important and of value in society. The news represents a specific mode of

describing reality and members of the profession share a set of criteria as to

what constitutes good news. News should be unusual rather than common-

place, surprising rather than expected, it should be about concrete events

rather than complex processes, dramatic rather than humdrum, etc. The

journalist’s belief in this form of knowledge is confirmed in the course of his/her day-to-day work. Certain rituals are particularly important in this regard.

News staff gatherings at early morning roundtables are rituals where news is

treated as sacred (Ekström and Nohrstedt, 1996).

News-reporting involves producing a considerable body of knowledge in a

short span of time for regular distribution at given points in time. News-

reporting means producing texts under far greater demands of productivity

than apply in, say, art, science or research. Meanwhile, the news must be

justifiable by criteria of truth and objectivity. How can it be done? The short

answer is: through institutionalization. Institutionalization reduces uncer-

tainty.

Reporters seldom have time to do their own investigations or reflect on

the reliability of various pieces of information. Nor is this expected of them.

Instead, the reporter makes use of an established network of sources who

deliver information that is assumed, a priori, to be justified. Typically, accord-

ing to this epistemology, the journalist assumes very little personal responsi-

bility for assessing the truth of various statements (Tuchman, 1972; Fishman,

1980; Ekström and Nohrstedt, 1996). An established system of classificationteaches journalists to differentiate sources with different knowledge status

(Ettema and Glasser, 1987). Frequently used sources of pre-justified knowledge

are, of course, news bureaux, government agencies and well-known experts;

270 Journalism 3(3)






7/27/2019 259.full


information published in other media are often accorded the same status.

Many news reports are based on recycled accounts that have been published in

other media. Once published, information is often accorded the status of

inviolable truth.The epistemology of news-reporting also includes strategies for dealing

with potential problems relating to truth. Truth is largely reduced to a matter

of the accuracy of individual facts. The important thing is that the facts are

correct, that quotes are accurate, etc. Meanwhile, news journalists can be

rather cavalier in constructing the news story and sensational events, without

critically reflecting on how true or accurate the news story as a whole may be.

There is a strong tendency to overlook the influence journalists exert over the

meanings created when facts are incorporated in given text constructions

(Ekström and Nohrstedt, 1996; Ekström, 2001).

Another important ingredient in the epistemology of news-reporting is

the set of discursive techniques that the experienced news journalist has

learned to use in constructing texts, all of which are designed to underline the

objectivity and formally neutral position of journalism. Letting two people

carry on a dialogue in a news item without evaluating either of them; avoiding

the first person as a grammatical form in voice over and news interviews; using

quotes to shift the responsibility for the truth onto someone else; these are but

a few examples. The techniques are institutionalized and they are applied todeal with expectations of the news as a specific form of neutral knowledge

(Heritage and Greatbatch, 1991; Clayman, 1992).

Investigative journalism

Investigative journalism is a genre that expresses special claims to knowledge and

truth. Programmes and items in this genre make explicit claims not only to

present facts, but to critically examine common assumptions and to expose

untold truths about moral disorders. (Ettema and Glasser, 1998)

Ettema and Glasser (1987, 1998) have analyzed the differences between the

respective epistemologies of ordinary news-reporting and investigative jour-

nalism. One important difference is that in the latter case it is not possible to

rely solely on established sources to justify the claims. Investigative journalists

must bear responsibility for the assertions. They have to judge the information

they obtain and make sure that they have enough evidence to allow them to

expose misdoings and to assign responsibility and blame. Methods have been

created for doing this. Investigative journalists work within a specific ‘contextof justification’ (Ettema and Glasser, 1987).

Ettema and Glasser (1987) identify four steps in the method investigative

journalists use to justify their assertions: First, they assess various tips and







7/27/2019 259.full


ideas. Are they credible? Can they be turned into a good story? But also: Will

the reportage achieve something? In the second step, information is collected

and evaluated with respect to its value as evidence. There is a hierarchy of

evidentiary weight. Footage showing an event of importance in the storyweighs heaviest. In the third step, the pieces of the story are fitted together into

a narration suitable for television. The parts are evaluated in relation to each

other and to the story as a whole. The more pieces that fit into the pattern, the

more justified the story. Fourth, the journalists make a final evaluation of the

story as a whole. Alternative narratives, alternative explanations are tested and

the staff test the story for possible faults. The final result is then a sufficiently

justified story.

This description of the methods applied to justify the knowledge claims of

investigative journalism corresponds quite well with the observations we

made in a participant-observation study of the production of Striptease, a

weekly programme of investigative journalism carried by the Swedish public

service broadcaster, Sveriges Television (Ekström and Eriksson, 1998). The

study of Striptease also indicated a very close relation between the method of

justification and investigative journalism as a form of knowledge. In the

context of some TV formats investigative journalism is oriented towards the

construction of exciting, dramatic and astounding stories. The epistemology

applied has to be understood in relation to these objectives. What is deemed tobe sufficiently true, what is accepted as a sufficiently corroborated thesis, is

determined not simply by how the journalists weigh the facts and how they

intend to back up their assertions. Presentational and dramaturgical priorities

as well as the overall objective of presenting an undeniable and hard-hitting

story of moral disorder also play in.

Four (closely related) characteristics were evident in the epistemology that

was applied in the production of Striptease. These are essential parts of the

institutionalized practices of this kind of investigative journalism. However,

there are important differences between investigative journalism in various

media contexts.

1 Journalism makes a point rather than tests hypothesis. In all the reportages we studied,

the team of reporters decided early on what they wanted the story to say and then

set about gathering evidence to support that message. The journalist searches

selectively and focuses on statements that support the point s/he is trying to make.

The stories often include several people’s testimony in support of the point but

exclude others whose statements might blur the issue or raise doubts. The point to

be made largely decides the further course of their work. It guides not only the

choice of people to interview but also the nature of the questions asked. A ‘good’

interview in the eyes of the team is one that fits the role the interviewee will play

in the story. One crucial part in the production of investigative reportage is

visualization (on-site documentary footage). The journalists we interviewed said

272 Journalism 3(3)






7/27/2019 259.full


they needed to have a clear idea of what the story should say, i.e. the point to be

made, before they set about either of these tasks. All recording (including staging

interviews on camera) should, as far as possible, be geared to dramatizing a well-

documented point.

2 The construction of general truths out of individual non-representative cases. A good

story needs one or more illustrative cases. A single (abnormal) case with dramatic

and aesthetic potentiality is often the impetus for a reportage. Good stories require

good cases. The individual cases are the timbers on which the journalists construct

a more general truth. A variety of discursive techniques are employed to transform

extreme, non-representative individual cases into general truths. They are made to

seem representative of general trends or conditions.

3 The construction of hard-hitting exposures of moral disorder . The prime objective of

most investigative journalism is to find and disclose scandals and other abnor-

malities in society at large (see Protess et al., 1991; Lull and Hinerman, 1997;

Ekström, 2000b). Such investigations are central to the identity of the programme,

which promises astounding revelations week after week – which ostensibly pre-

supposes a society rife with wrongs and potential moral scandals. This naturally

forms the epistemology applied. Biased or slanted descriptions are given priority

over balanced ones and the journalist finds it quite natural to ignore circumstances

that complicate and blur the issue.

4 Story-telling and the production of correspondence and coherence. Investigative journal-

ism is a form of story-telling. Events are described in the form of coherent and

exciting narrations. The epistemology applied is oriented toward the production of

both correspondence and coherence (see White, 1978; Potter, 1996: 169). Corre-

spondence is produced by means of a set of techniques that all help to underline the

relationship between the events in the story and the real world outside. These

techniques range from the construction of the programme’s overall identity as a

source of factual information, to presentations of legitimate sources, close-ups of

passages out of documents, interviews with eye-witnesses, etc. Coherence is pro-

duced when facts are inserted into a narrative that has a structure that is familiar to

the viewer. When facts are embedded in a coherent narration that appears to be real

and authentic, they become plausible and convincing. The programme staff assess

the facts of the story partly according to how well they fit into the story they plan

to tell and how they contribute to an arousing dramatization, i.e. ‘good television’.

It is the story that largely steers the choice of facts to be presented not vice versa. The

production of coherence is particularly salient in the editing process.

5. Public acceptance of knowledge claims

The power and legitimacy of journalism is intimately related to the readiness

of the general public to accord journalism validity as a form of knowledge. But

what criteria must be filled in order for the public to accept televisionnewscasts as reliable knowledge about things like foreign wars and inter-

national crises? What is needed for people to continue to turn to journalism to

orient themselves about the world outside? Under what conditions is journalism







7/27/2019 259.full


accepted as a valid form of knowledge? A theory of the epistemology of journal-

ism should include a conceptualization of these conditions.

This question is not to be confused with the question of why people watch

the programmes offered to them. Reasons for viewing do not solely, perhapsnot even primarily, have to do with the validity of knowledge. Other factors,

like entertainment and relaxation, and the ability of television newscasts to

provide vicarious adventure and spectacular attractions also play in (Corner,

1995, 1996; Ekström, 2000). Nonetheless, I would argue that in order to

maintain its central position in society, television journalism is dependent on

its ability to redeem knowledge claims on high levels of ambition. I would go

so far as to posit that the redemption of certain fundamental knowledge claims

belongs to what makes journalism journalism.

In recent decades, researchers have begun to speak of journalism as

marginalized and under threat from various quarters. Commercialization has

been described as a threat (Kellner, 1990; McManus, 1994; Bourdieu, 1998), as

has the ideology of entertainment (Postman, 1985). Fictionalization and media-

tization, the trend in journalism toward dramatized narration and slavish

adaptation to media formats are pointed to as threats (Altheide and Snow,

1991). But exactly what has been marginalized? What are the features of

journalism without which it is no longer journalism but something else? What

is it that justifies journalism as something distinct from other forms of entertaining television production? I will not dwell on these very big ques-

tions but only assert what I believe to be one important answer: legitimate and

public acceptable knowledge claims.

The knowledge claims vary somewhat between different journalistic gen-

res. However, I will argue that some essential claims are common to all kinds

of journalism. If I should venture to summarize them in a single sentence:

Characteristic of journalism is its claim to present, on a regular basis, reliable,

neutral and current factual information that is important and valuable for the

citizens in a democracy. Regularity, reliability, neutrality, currency and value are

key concepts. This is not to say that all journalism lives up to these claims. In

the present context I am not at all interested in that question. What I am

saying is that these knowledge claims are sine qua non to the institution of

journalism (at least in western democracies). And the question is: Under what

conditions can these claims be accepted by the public?

Institutions that produce and communicate statements about reality on a

regular basis (schools, the scientific community, applied research, advertising,

courts of law, news journalism) legitimate their knowledge claims within theframework of partly distinguishing social structures and via sets of specific

mechanisms. In this section my aim is to identify conditions (structures and

mechanisms) that are crucial to the public acceptance of journalism as a valid

274 Journalism 3(3)






7/27/2019 259.full


form of knowledge. As I see it, at least six kinds of conditions, on different

levels, affect audiences’ willingness to accept the knowledge claims of TV

journalism. The levels are closely related yet distinct. The conditions are not

primarily about audience characteristics. They include everything from thegeneral structure of broadcasting to rhetorical strategies in the text produc-

tion.

Journalism as the link between the citizens and the society

Among the most fundamental structural terms that apply to the public

acceptance of the knowledge claims of journalism is the organizational differ-

entiation that characterizes all broadcasting: that between what informs

(journalism), what the information is about (different parts of society, e.g.

politics, the economy, law enforcement) and who is informed (the citizens/the

audiences). This differentiation involves a kind of dependence: the citizens are

dependent on journalism for information about conditions and events beyond

their own horizons. It is primarily via news journalism that we regularly

acquire information about foreign wars and crises, political proposals, about

fires, earthquakes and stock quotations.

This differentiation is reproduced in part through the roles, relationships

and patterns of behaviour that are essential to the established form of journal-ism but also through the particular ideology that characterizes journalism’s

self-understanding. According to this ideology, society in essence consists of

three groups: journalists, the powerful and the citizens. Journalism represents

the public in relation to the power bloc. One expression of this overall scheme

of things is the fact that politicians seldom or never are permitted to use

television to speak directly to an audience. Instead, they speak within the

framework of journalists’ critical interview questions and scrutinizing report-

age.

New digital communication technology may pose a severe challenge to

this fundamental structure. The internet allows people to obtain news and

information from a myriad of sources, some of which are independent of

journalistic treatment. The roles of the citizens will become increasingly

interactive. On the new news market created by the Net news may be

published by actors outside the institution of journalism (Ekström and

Buskqvist, 2001).

The ubiquity of television and journalism

Over the course of the 20th century, journalism has been established as the

most ordinary form of public knowledge. TV viewing and newspaper-reading







7/27/2019 259.full


are the most regular routines in many people’s lives. Through journalism we

all keep up on the world around us.

The ubiquity of journalism serves as a mechanism influencing the public

acceptance of knowledge claims. A commonplace form of knowledge veryeasily becomes a valid form of knowledge. The ‘dailiness’ of television (and

also radio and newspapers), the continuity in the flow of texts and pro-

grammes and its links to everyday routines are essential traits of the media and

broadcasting (see, e.g., Scannell, 1996). Continuity provides a kind of security;

it normalizes. The media help to create order in our ideas about the world

around us. But the media and journalism also in themselves constitute a kind of

order, a natural form of communication and knowledge. One expression of

this is the regularity with which familiar programme genres recur. The news

genre may change but the change is very gradual so that familiarity remains

dominant. The same is true for the narrative forms of news. As Schudson

(1995: 53) argues, the power of news is, to a large extent, a question of how the

world is incorporated into familiar and unquestioned narrative forms.

TV viewing as a communicative practice

TV viewing is a specific communicative practice with its own norms and

routines. It differs from other institutionalized practices in which peoplecommunicate and validity claims are expressed (e.g. court proceedings, re-

search seminars or classroom teaching). Each such practice has its social

routines, roles and expectations, all of which influence the way in which the

participants relate to the knowledge that is communicated. In some commu-

nicative situations, like seminars and court proceedings, the participants are

expected to be critical and carefully evaluate the truth and validity of various

statements. Television makes no such demands of its viewers. Everyday TV

viewing does not primarily invite critical evaluation. This is not to say that

viewers are passive but as an everyday practice viewing is largely associated

with diversion, relaxation, pleasure and a superficial registering of what is said

and shown. When the ordinary viewer sits down in front of the television set,

s/he chooses the programme that best suits his/her taste and frame of mind

and is not mainly set on critically examining what is said.

The reputation and confidence capital of journalism

The extent to which journalism is accepted as a valid form of knowledgedepends partly on its reputation and what might be called its confidence

capital. Journalism enjoys special status among institutions in society in the

sense that it largely controls mass media and, through them, the public

276 Journalism 3(3)






7/27/2019 259.full


(media) discourse of different institutions – including the public discourse of

journalism itself. Nonetheless, a growing chorus of voices has begun to call the

reputation and the confidence capital of journalism into question. Some say

that this capital is being undermined by commercial forces (Boethius, 1997).Fallows (1996) observes that journalism is losing its credibility; he perceives a

major gap opening up between journalism’s self-perception and the public’s

perceptions of journalism. Swedish studies, however, show that Swedish view-

ers have a high degree of confidence in television news as a source of

knowledge (Elliot, 1997). The confidence capital of journalism is probably

influenced by both the official rhetoric about journalism, by events that give

rise to negative publicity, by stories about journalism in a variety of contexts

(debate columns, feature films, textbooks) and by the character of ordinary

journalistic products consumed in everyday life.

Genre conventions, discursive and rhetorical techniques

The knowledge claims of journalism, I argue, are not primarily legitimated

through official declarations, policy documents or other metadiscourses but

through concrete texts/text constructions. Ultimately, it is by communicating

within the framework of established genres, making use of a set of discursive

and rhetorical techniques, that one can persuade the public that the newsstories are neutral accounts, that the facts are facts, that reportage is truthful,

that the experts are reliable, that investigative journalism is important, etc.

This level in our theoretical framework involves any number of mechanisms

that influence audiences’ willingness to accept journalism as a kind of knowl-

edge. It would lead too far afield to examine this vast area of inquiry in depth.

However, I will give some examples from research of great relevance.

Journalism communicates in terms of more or less established genres.

Genres may be defined as systems of codes, conventions and expectations (see

Feuer, 1992). They give cues as to the nature of the interaction and the

intentions underlying it and they indicate how what is said should be taken.

As viewers we recognize TV newscasts immediately and we tend to perceive

what is said in a certain way. As Dahlgren (1987) points out, genres and

programme formats also communicate images, symbolic identities, of journal-

ism. Many modern news anchors read the news in a setting that is full of

computers, video displays and reporters at work. Together with the various

genre traits, these features emphasize the programme’s interface with the

entire world.Several researchers have argued that the legitimacy of news and current

affairs has, to a larger extent, become a function of the communicative ethos

– the charisma, credibility, authenticity – of the journalists (Morse, 1986;







7/27/2019 259.full


Ytreberg, 1999). The anchors have increasingly become ‘personalities’; and

they communicate within a subjective mode of presentation. However, the

construction of a formally neutral position remains crucial in news journalism

(and investigative journalism). How is this done? Scholars in two differentresearch traditions offer at least partial answers to this question.

In conversation analysis the news interview has been studied as a particu-

lar form of institutionalized conversation (Heritage, 1985; Heritage and

Greatbatch, 1991; Nylund, 2000). In news interviews the journalist typically

demonstrates a neutral position for the benefit of the viewing audience. One

of many expressions of this position is the so-called ‘third turn’, i.e. the turn

that follows the interviewee’s response (Heritage, 1985). In ordinary conversa-

tion the third turn may consist of an evaluative response to the answer of the

question or a so-called ‘continuer’ (‘mm, aha’). Third turns in ordinary

conversation signal a relationship between the actors. The parties to news

interviews are not talking on an equal footing; rather, the interviewer is

interrogating the other. Here, the third turn is often a new question, e.g. a

counter-question (Nylund, 2000). With the counter-question the journalist

expresses a critical stance and shows that s/he is a neutral interrogator and

seeker of truth, not for personal reasons, but in the service of the viewing

audience.

In discourse analysis there are studies of how the factual nature of knowl-edge is constructed discursively or how actors’ identities and relationships to

the content of the texts are constructed through discursive techniques (see e.g.

Potter, 1996). The text production in both science and journalism is partly

oriented towards the construction of ‘out-there-ness’ (Potter, 1996). Potter

describes these discursive techniques or procedures as follows:

In other words, they construct the description as independent of the agent doing

the production. More specifically, these procedures draw attention away from

concerns with the producer’s stake in the description – what they might gain or

lose – and their accountability , or responsibility for it. (1996: 150; emphasis in the

original)

News journalism seeks legitimacy by diverting attention away from journalism

as a producing, interpreting and arguing activity. The anchor, the reporter and

interviewers in any newscast all generally footing themselves as ‘animators’,

i.e. they communicate what others have said (see Goffman, 1981). Choice of

grammatical forms represents one of the tools used in this context. The first

person singular is consistently avoided. An important type of mechanism in

the construction of objective facts and authoritative knowledge is also whathas been called the ‘category entitlement’. Potter (1996: 133) describes cate-

gory entitlement as ‘the idea that certain categories of people, in certain

contexts, are treated as knowledgeable’. Those who shall serve as authoritative

278 Journalism 3(3)






7/27/2019 259.full


experts require special framing. Entitlement can be built up through a number

of different discursive techniques.

Traits specific to the medium

Television as a medium and technology has several characteristics that in this

context facilitate public acceptance of knowledge claims. One characteristic

mentioned earlier is the standardized pace and prescribed order of reception.

The viewer cannot go back and review, stop, view slowly, focus or reflect, let

alone actually analyze what has been said and shown.

Another characteristic is that television can present events ‘live’, as they

happen. Moving pictures on television have, as Corner (1995: 12) puts it, an

‘indexical quality’. The picture appears to be a rendering of reality or even

reality itself. Television sets can be like telescopes that we use to see what is

happening in the world outside. Distances, in time and space, melt away.

Viewers can become eye-witnesses to all manner of events. We see, with our

own eyes, what happens, that it actually has happened. We see things as

though they were here and now. That the presentation may have been

constructed to support a certain ‘message’ or interpretation of the event, that

the end product is the result of a series of strategic choices does not occur to us

unless we start reflecting on the background, on how the images we see wereproduced. Images also have a highly documentary and evidential character

that can be exploited to create messages, the truth of which is seldom

actualized or questioned. Various production techniques are used to create this

documentary effect.

6. Conclusion

The aim of this article has been to outline a theoretical framework for

systematic empirical studies on the epistemologies of TV journalism. The

framework distinguishes three fundamental areas in the study of institution-

alized epistemologies: (1) form of knowledge; (2) production of knowledge;

and (3) public acceptance of knowledge claims. Each area actualizes particular

questions for empirical research. Each area has a distinct focus on structural

conditions and mechanisms which are conceptualized and illustrated in the

article. On the basis of the theoretical framework set out here, we can proceed

to carry out epistemological studies on concrete forms of journalism; journal-ism in different genres, journalism produced under different conditions and

communicated in different contexts. In relation to such empirical studies we

can also revise and develop the framework suggested in the article.







7/27/2019 259.full


References

Altheide, P. and R. P. Snow (1991) Media Worlds in the Postjournalism Era. New York:

Aldine De Gruyter.Boethius, M.-P. (1997) Några som inte älskar oss håller på att förändra vårt land.

Stockholm: Norstedts.

Bourdieu, P. (1998) On Television. New York: New Press.

Boyd-Barrett, O. and C. Newbold (eds) (1995) Approaches to Media. A Reader . London:

Arnold.

Clayman, S. (1992) ‘Footing in the Achievement of Neutrality: The Case of News-

interview Discourse’, in P. Drew and J. Heritage (eds) Talk at Work, pp. 163–98.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Corner, J. (1995) Television Form and Public Address. London: Edward Arnold.

Corner, J. (1996) ‘Reappraising Reception: Aims, Concepts and Methods’, in J. Curranand M. Gurevitch (eds) Mass Media and Society , pp. 280–304. London: Arnold.

Corner, J. (1999) Critical Ideas in Television Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cottle, S. (1998) ‘Ulrich Beck, Risk Society and the Media. A Catastrophic view?’,

European Journal of Communication 13(1): 5–32.

Dahlgren, P. (1987) ‘Berättande och betydelse i TV-nyheter’, in U. Carlsson (ed.),

Forskning om journalistik, pp. 53–64. Göteborg: Nordicom.

Dahlgren, P. (1995) Television and the Public Sphere. Citizenship, Democracy and the

Media. London: Sage.

Douglas, M. (1986) How Institutions Think. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.

Eide, M. (1998) ‘Det journalistiske mistaket’, Sociologisk Forskning 35(3–4): 123–42.Ekström, M. (1996) ‘The Validity of TV Journalism. Theoretical Starting Points for

Critical Journalism Research’, The Nordicom Review 1: 129–52.

Ekström, M. (2000a) Vad är det som står på spel. Om Journalistikens giltighetsanspråk och

publikens makt. Orebro: Orebro University.

Ekström, Mats (2000b) ‘Information, Storytelling and Attractions: TV Journalism in

Three Modes of Communication’, Media, Culture and Society. 22(4): 465–92.

Ekström, M. (2001) ‘Politicians Interviewed on Television News’, Discourse and Society

12(5): 563–84.

Ekström, M. and U. Buskqvist (2001) Nyheter på nätet. Organisering, arbetsformer och

teknik. Orebro: Orebro University.

Ekström, M. and G. Eriksson (1998) Avslöjande journalistik och underhållande dramatik.

Orebro: Orebro University.

Ekström, M. and S.-A. Nohrstedt (1996) Journalistikens etiska problem. Stockholm:

Raben Prisma.

Elliot, M. (1997) Förtroendet för medierna. Institutionen för Journalistik och Masskom-

munikation, Göteborgs Universitet.

Ettema, J. and T. Glasser (1987) ‘On the Epistemology of Investigative Journalism’, in

M. Gurevitch and M. R. Levy (eds) Mass Communication Review Yearbook, Vol. 6.

London: Sage.

Ettema, J. and T. Glasser (1989) ‘Investigative Journalism and the Moral Order’,

Critical Studies in Mass Communication 6: 1–20.

Ettema, J. and T. Glasser (1998) Custodians of Conscience. Investigative Journalism and

Public Virtue. New York: Columbia University Press.

280 Journalism 3(3)






7/27/2019 259.full


Fallows, J. (1996) Breaking the News. How the Media Undermine American Democracy.

New York: Pantheon Books.

Feuer, J. (1993) ‘Genre Study and Television’, in R. C. Allen (ed.), Channels of Discourse,

Reassembled , pp. 138–60. London: Routledge.

Fishman, M. (1980) Manufacturing the News. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Fiske, J. (1989) Reading the Popular. London: Routledge.

Gibbons, M., C. Limoges, H. Nowotny, S. Schwartzman, P. Scott and M. Trow (1999)

The New Production of Knowledge. London: Sage.

Goffman, E. (1981) Forms of Talk. Pennsylvania, PA: University of Pennsylvania

Press.

Gripsrud, J. (ed.) (1999) Television and Common Knowledge. London: Routledge.

Hartley, J. (1996) Popular Reality: Journalism, Modernity, Popular Culture. London:

Arnold.

Heritage, John (1985) ‘Analyzing News Interviews: Aspects of the Production of Talkfor an Overhearing Audience’, in T. A. van Dijk (ed.) Discourse and Dialogue,

pp. 95–117. London: Academic Press.

Heritage, J. (2000) ‘Designing Questions and Setting Agendas in the News Interviews’,

(unpublished manuscript)

Heritage, J. and D. Greatbatch (1991) ‘On the Institutional Character of Institutional

Talk: The Case of News Interviews’, in D. Boden and D. H. Zimmerman (eds) Talk

and Social Structure, pp. 93–137. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Jepperson, R. L. (1991) ‘Institutions, Institutional Effects, and Institutionalism’, in W.

W. Powell and P. J. DiMaggio (eds) The New Institutionalism in Organizational

Analysis, pp. 143–63. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Kellner, D. (1990) Television and the Crisis of Democracy. Boulder, CO: Westview

Press.

Lull, J. and S. Hinerman (1997) Media Scandals. New York: Columbia University

Press.

McLuhan, M. (1964) Understanding Media. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

McManus, J. H. (1994) Market-driven Journalism. London: Sage.

McQuail, D. (1987) Mass Communication Theory. An Introduction. London: Sage.

Morse, M. (1986) ‘The Television News Personality and Credibility’, in T. Modleski

(ed.) Studies in Entertainment. Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University Press.

Nylund, Mats (2000) Iscensatt Interaktion. Strukturer och strategier i politiska medi-esamtal[Staged Interaction; Structures and Strategies in Political Conversation in the

Media]. Helsingfors: Svenska litteratursällskapet.

Postman, N. (1985) Amusing Ourselves to Death. New York: Viking.

Potter, J. (1996) Representing Reality. Discourse, Rhetoric, and Social Construction. Lon-

don: Sage.

Protess, D. L., F. L. Cook, J. C. Doppelt, J. S. Ettema and M. T. Gordon (1991) The

Journalism of Outrage. Investigative Reporting and Agenda Building in America. New

York: The Guilford Press.

Rose, G. (2001) Visual Methodologies. London: Sage.

Scannell, P. (1996) Radio, Television and Modern Life. Oxford: Blackwell.

Schlesinger, P. (1987) Putting Reality Together. London: Methuen.

Schudson, M. (1995) The Power of News. London: Harvard University Press.

Silverstone, R. (1999) Why Study the Media? London: Sage.







7/27/2019 259.full


Sturken, M. and L. Cartwright (2001) Practices of Looking. An Introduction to Visual

Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Tuchman, G. (1972) ‘Objectivity as a Strategic Ritual’, American Journal of Sociology 77:

660–79.

Tuchman, G. (1973) ‘Making News By Doing Work: Routinizing the Unexpected’,

American Journal of Sociology 79: 110–31.

Tuchman, G. (1980) Making News. A Study in the Construction of Reality. New York: Free

Press.

Westerståhl, J. (1972) Objektiv nyhetsförmedling . Stockholm: Akademiförlaget.

Westerståhl, J. (1983) ‘Objective News-reporting’, Communication Research

10: 403–24.

White, H. (1978) Topics of Discourse. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University

Press.

Ytreberg, E. (1999) Allmennkringkastingens autoritet. Oslo: Oslo University.

Biographical note

Mats Ekström is a professor in the Media and Communication Studies Depart-

ment, Orebro University. He has published a number of books and articles on

methodology, journalism, television and the mediatization of politics. In the field of

television studies he is particularly interested in the relations between production,

text and audience reception/involvement (see e.g. ‘Information, Storytelling and Attraction’ in Media, Culture and Society 22(4), 2000). In recent years he has

researched the conditions for politics in the media society, with a prime focus on

the role of the journalistic interview (see e.g. ‘Politicians Interviewed in Television

News’, in Discourse and Society 12(5), 2001).

Address : Department of Media and Communication Studies, University of Orebro,

S-701 82 Orebro, Sweden. [e-mail: [email protected]]

282 Journalism 3(3)

259.full

Documents

Transcript of 259.full