Search

This article examines the relationship between journalists and politicians in Iceland. I illustrate how there are limitations in the existing journalist-source relations literature when it comes to studying journalist-politician relations in a small state like Iceland. Frameworks built on dichotomies between professional and non-professional settings need to be reconfigured to examine the Icelandic case. To do this, I introduce research from "small state studies", focusing on multifunctionalism and personalism. My study is based on 93 interviews with Icelandic journalists and politicians. Findings illustrate that journalists and politicians in Iceland are mainly mobile and autonomous generalists. The journalist-politician relationship in Iceland can be defined in terms of deep social closeness and, at the same time, professional distance. This is in stark contrast to the professional closeness between journalists and politicians that much of the existing journalist-politician research from larger democracies has shown. Iceland's social ecology can make impartiality and critical coverage difficult to achieve. The world's smallest states are routinely absent in research on journalism and politics. My study adds the small state of Iceland to the knowledge base concerning journalist-politician relations and illustrates how existing frameworks need to be expanded to examine these types of relations in other small states. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In an era of post-truth and disinformation, the crucial relationship between journalists and politicians is under increasing pressure. Some politicians publicly question the media's role in spreading inaccurate and false information, and journalists have reason to be critical of politicians too, as they can easily disseminate falsehoods online. This study deals with how politicians and journalists perceive each other's role in spreading disinformation, drawing on surveys with political journalists (N = 148) and local politicians (N = 452) in Belgium. We find that 33 percent of politicians, in particular right-wing politicians, blame journalists for spreading "fake news". Journalists, in turn, are even more critical of politicians: 58 percent of the journalists blame politicians in general, 75 percent blame radical left politicians, and 90 percent blame radical right politicians for spreading disinformation. Importantly, journalists' views of politicians' role in spreading disinformation impact their relationship. Although journalists who believe politicians add to the spread of disinformation are not necessarily less likely to interact with politicians, they are significantly more negative about their interactions with politicians. Such perceptions potentially add to the tense relationship between journalists and politicians we are increasingly observing and could have important ramifications for political news-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper investigates how parties spread news from traditional media on their social network accounts to engage followers. In particular, we address why parties would choose to include in the 'media digest' they carefully craft for their followers also content from 'hostile' media outlets and journalists. We analyze 4,586 Facebook posts published by the main Italian parties during the 2019 European election campaign, assessing the impact on readers' engagement of counter-attitudinal and pro-attitudinal content from either hostile or friendly media. Our results show that parties skillfully exploit friendly and hostile sources alike to alternatively engage or outrage their followers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Before his permanent suspension from Twitter, former President Trump's use of Twitter to harm, harass, hurt, or embarrass individuals was well documented, with academics and mainstream news outlets referring to him as a cyberbully. The current study reports a quantitative content analysis of Trump's Tweets between 2016 and 2019 to determine whether his aggressive behavior online could be considered cyberbullying. Additionally, this study also sought to ascertain Trump's most frequently used cyberbullying tactics. The results highlight that although Trump frequently employed explicit hostility, name-calling, and rumor-mongering, his behavior on Twitter was not repetitive enough to meet the criteria that researchers often use to define cyberbullying. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A free and independent press monitors government actions, broadcasts public grievances, and facilitates debate and dissent among citizens. Because of this, some executives run interference—censoring newspapers, harassing journalists, and shutting down media outlets—whereas other executives do not. What explains this variation? We argue that executives decide to repress or to respect the press based on the sanctions they anticipate from two important constituencies: courts and citizens. We expect that attacks are less likely when courts can make adverse rulings and when citizens can vote leaders out of office. In addition, we suggest that these constraints can function as substitutes; we anticipate the reductive effect of judicial independence wanes as the level of electoral democracy rises, making courts vital to protecting journalists in less democratic systems. We evaluate these expectations using panel data on executive branch attacks on the press in 175 countries, from 1949 to 2016, and find strong support. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines how Brazilian women journalists claim gender-related issues influence the risks they experience in their professional routines and private life. Data was collected through 31 semi-structured interviews with female professionals who experienced episodes of violence during the course of their work between 2019 and 2020. Our investigation emphasizes (a) the connections between the political context and increasing hostility toward women journalists; (b) the impact of aggressions on production routines, family lifestyles, and emotional setbacks; and (c) how the lack of organizational support from news companies is associated with resilience and protection strategies. The results reveal that harassment and violence include physical threats and remarks about appearance, age, and sex life. Avoiding specific assignments or sources is among the journalists' resistance strategies. Women journalists also describe implications on family routines and even dating practices to escape work-related abuse. Some interviewees claimed that news organizations are not prepared to support victims and that there is a government-sponsored "hate machine." To extend beyond a descriptive account, the article discusses a set of factors characterizing the Brazilian media system that promote a thriving hostile environment, such as the male-led structure of news organizations and dependence on government funding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In many parts of the world, journalists tend to see themselves as playing an important role for the betterment of democracy. But what happens when newsmakers are faced with the question of whether to report, and how to report, on ultra-right actors? Whereas on one side, journalists are supposed to report on anything that is relevant, on the other, by reporting on it, they risk amplifying its significance. This dilemma becomes more complex when journalists deal with players who inhabit a grey zone in between legitimacy and deviance, as the ultra-right actors studied here. Although the kind of questions that newsmakers face might be similar to those they encounter when covering far-right populists or even terrorists, the fact that the ultra-right (at least in a country like Italy) has been historically tolerated as part of the normal political dialectic, raises additional concerns. Thus, the fundamental question is how reporters approach those who are known for their fascistic ideologies, yet who at the same time may be organized in political parties or cultural organizations, thus recognized by the state and somehow normalized in the public sphere. The empirical contribution is based upon data from in-depth interviews with 23 Italian journalists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this study, we use institutional theory to explore to what extent public service media (PSM) rely on institutional links and on tight coupling with the environment to develop new products for digital news. This framework is especially relevant for understanding how PSM innovate, as they differ from commercial media, and the mimicry of industry trends can lead to tensions with their public service mission. Thirty-six interviews were conducted with senior managers, editors, and other professional roles involved in project development at eight PSM organizations in six European countries. The results indicate that to reduce uncertainty, PSM follow two partially complementary approaches: mimetic isomorphism, i.e., relying on what is seen as best practice by other players within their sector, and tight coupling, i.e., closely connecting with the environment (especially with the audience). Other PSM are the most important source of inspiration, as relationships are close and organizational forms are similar. In contrast, digital-born media are considered to be successful in attracting younger audiences but differ greatly from PSM. In summary, PSM do not simply mimic other players perceived to be successful but consider their own specificities in terms of audiences, purposes, strengths, weaknesses, and public service mission. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This introduction to the special issue makes the argument that, in order to understand journalistic production and consumption in an increasingly complex digital world, journalism studies must employ research designs that combine methods from different academic perspectives and disciplines. In particular, we propose increased collaboration with scholars working in information technology, the arts, psychology, and data science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper is a critical exploration of the emergence and manifestations of a phenomenon we refer to as "factional" or "succession" journalism within the state media in the context of the tussle over the succession of the late former Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe. Using the state-controlled Chronicle daily newspaper as a case study, we seek to examine the role and influence of editors and journalists in the negotiation of power in the context of reporting a contested succession of Mugabe in 2016. We locate "factional journalism" in the context of the capture of the state media by the ruling party and the virtual erosion of journalistic agency in the state media institutions. We argue that whereas the onset of the "Zimbabwe crisis" spawned the creation of different and polarised forms of journalism in the country (i.e. oppositional and patriotic journalism; see Ranger, 2005. "The rise of patriotic journalism in Zimbabwe and its possible implications". Westminster Papers in Communication and Culture 2: 8–17; Chuma 2008. "Mediating the 2000 elections in Zimbabwe: competing journalisms in a society at the crossroads". African Journalism Studies 29 (1): 22–41), within the "patriotic journalism" camp also emerged a new strand of "factional journalism" linked closely to the fierce contest for the succession of Robert Mugabe within Zanu PF. We also argue that the succession issue presented a poignant moment at which political journalism at the public media became subordinate to whichever faction held sway in the information/media portfolio in government, and which faction deployed its allocative powers to reward and punish specific forms of political reporting. We apply a limited qualitative content analysis of news stories on the succession issue and complement this with qualitative in-depth interviews with journalists reporting on the subject. This approach arguably provides a much more holistic picture of the factors at play in the production of political content on the subject. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Political coverage is strongly influenced by interactions between journalists and political actors. Especially for political actors, these interactions present an opportunity to increase their influence on the news. However, what strategies political actors use in their attempts to steer political journalists when exchanging with them has not been studied comprehensively and on a broad basis. Furthermore, some studies suggest that interactions are dominated by political actors, while others conclude that journalists are at least equally influential. Building on extant research, we first draw an inventory of strategies used by political actors in their exchanges with journalists and investigate their importance based on a mixed-methods study. Our study was conducted in Austria and included a full sample of N = 173 political journalists surveyed with a standardized instrument, and open interviews with 10 additional journalists and 10 political actors. Results show that politicians build political alliances, network with specific journalists, and use intimidation as strategies to control the interactions. In the survey, journalists mentioned basing exchanges on political alignment as the most important strategy. While this strategy indeed helps politicians to control coverage, networking strategies benefit journalists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This essay discusses journalist-source relations but with an emphasis on how such relations influence the understanding and behaviour of politicians. It explores the issue through empirical work conducted at the site of the UK Parliament at Westminster. Findings are based on semi-structured interviews with 60 Members of Parliament (MPs) and 20 national political journalists. The research findings initially confirmed many of the observations of earlier studies in the field. UK journalist-source relations still resemble Gans' (1979) original “tug-of-war” description of an ever-shifting power balance between the two sides. Such interactions, in turn, are reflected in more compliant or adversarial news coverage. Of greater interest here, the interviews also revealed that such relations have come to play a significant role in the micro-level politics of the political sphere itself. This is because reporter-politician relations and objectives have become institutionalised, intense and subject to a form of “mediated reflexivity”. Consequently, politicians have come to incorporate such reporter interactions into their daily thinking and behaviour. As such, journalists are seen as more than a simple means of message promotion to the public. They also act, often inadvertently, as information intermediaries and sources for politicians trying to gauge daily developments within their own political arena. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]