“Journalism” is a highly contested term, both in general society and within the news industry. Put another way, you will often get a wide range of responses when you ask a group of people to define “journalism.”
For example, you can define “journalism” as a product. Under this view, an investigative news story about the mayor taking bribes might be treated as “journalism” because the cultural object—that is, the written story—contains certain things thought to be journalistic, like quotes from multiple interviewees.
Similarly, “journalism” can be defined in terms of the aesthetic properties of that product. If a story or broadcast looks a certain way or follows certain linguistic patterns, then some people might treat it as “journalism.”
“Journalism” can also be defined in terms of the people who are involved. If something is produced by a certain kind of person, perhaps someone with a particular degree or professional training, then some people might treat their work as “journalism.” In some countries, people have to be certified by the government in order to legally do “journalism” or receive legal protections.
“Journalism” can also be defined in terms of the institutions that create such products. If something is produced by a particular kind of organization, such as The New York Times or the BBC, then it may be treated as “journalism” under that view.
Definitions of “journalism” can go beyond the product level though.
“Journalism” can also be thought about as a set of practices through which news is collected, organized, presented, and circulated. For example, someone might believe something to be “journalism” only if it involved first-hand observation by the would-be journalist or interviews with multiple witnesses. That person may also require all accounts to be subjected to verification practices by the would-be journalist.
Additionally, “journalism” can be understood as a service that is guided by certain goals and values, such as identifying and seeking to address community information needs or striving to link citizens with their elected officials. From this perspective, “journalism” is less about what the product looks like, who made it, or how they made it, but rather about what the person was hoping to accomplish through their endeavor.
More broadly, “journalism” can also be understood as an occupation that is bound by a particular ideology involving different elements of product, people, practice, and service.
For example, in the United States, this might entail values like: seeking to provide a public service; striving to be objective, fair, and trustworthy; working autonomously and independently; being committed to an operational logic of providing first-hand accounts of events in a timely fashion; and being governed by a professional sense of ethics.
In other contexts, that ideology might be different. For example, it might instead promote social stability by having journalists be more deferential to government authorities and less critical of the status quo.
Regardless, from this perspective, those who act in line with the dominant occupational values of a society may be seen as practicing “journalism.”
In short, there are many ways to define “journalism.” Not only do different countries and different groups of people within the same country often understand it differently, but those same countries and groups have also understood it differently through history.
What this tells us is that “journalism” is a fluid and contested thing. Changing social, cultural, economic, political, and technological conditions change how people understand “journalism.” For example, technological advance have made it possible for a kindergarten teacher to regularly blog about their city’s Board of Health public meetings to a large online audience—in effect, arguably allowing that teacher to perform acts of “journalism” in ways that were not previously possible.
The way “journalism” is broadly understood within a society is of great consequence to journalists and the public because it impacts how symbolic resources are translated into material rewards. For example, think about a press conference or a trial that has limited space for seating. Some of those seats may be reserved for those who practice “journalism.” To determine who is eligible for consideration—that is, who might be allowed in—someone has to first define what “journalism” is.
In many societies, “journalism” also receives a special social status as being the authority on “news.” You can see evidence of this in the way it is enshrined in foundational documents and legal protections of some countries. For example, in the United States, the First Amendment protects a “free press” because of its presumed importance to a well-informed democracy.
With such status comes expectation, and perhaps even deference, from individual citizens and the broader public. For example, if someone considers The New York Times to engage in “journalism” but does not consider Fox News to do so, then they will typically hold The New York Times to a higher standard when the Times makes a mistake. At the same time, they will be more likely to give the Times the benefit of the doubt when that someone can’t independently verify some reported information themselves. Put another way, that someone is effectively granting The New York Times a degree of legitimacy that they are not be granting Fox News because of how that someone understands “journalism.”
This grants the individuals and organizations that are perceived to be legitimate considerable power as they are deemed to be authoritative by some group. That, in turn, allows those organizations to become the primary definers of “news” for that group.
Although we have talked about “journalism” in the singular form, it is important to recognize that journalism is not some monolithic thing. Thus, one could very easily talk about journalisms—that is, journalism in a pluralized sense.
For example, we often hear about “sports journalism,” “data journalism,” and “solutions journalism.” These prefixes refer to more than just genres or technologies. They recognize that there is something substantively different about that particular rendition of “journalism,” whether in its purpose, people, processes, or products. Those differences, in turn, result in distinct symbolic associations, material rewards, and social expectations within that area of “journalism.”
These definitional challenges thus help us to appreciate that “journalism” is actually a very dynamic and multifaceted thing.
Journalism can be defined in many ways, which means that “journalism” is a contested term that means different things to different people.
In the U.S. and many liberal democracies, journalism is associated with certain occupational values that stress a public service orientation, objectivity, independence, immediacy, and professional ethics.
How “journalism” is understood matters because it affects how symbolic resources are translated into material rewards and expectations.
There is a plurality of journalisms (e.g., “data journalism” and “solutions journalism”), each with distinct norms, values, and processes. This points to a recognition that journalism is not a single, monolithic entity.