Human beings play a central role in journalism. We can refer to the individuals involved in journalism, and the organizations they work for, as social actors.
The most obvious social actor in journalism is the “journalist.” But what constitutes a “journalist” is the subject of great debate.
In the past, it may have been enough to say that anyone who was employed to do editorial work for an organization that produced news was effectively a “journalist.” However, news organizations and the journalism ecosystem are simply too complex today for that to be a good definition.
There are two helpful approaches we can consider when trying to define who a “journalist” is.
Sociologically, we can say that they are individuals with particular skills and knowledge who both adhere to the shared ideals of what is recognized as journalism within a given context and believe they are participating in shaping the profession’s standards of proper practice. Put another way, the sociological approach looks at a combination of what the individual does, how they do it, and the role they play in shaping the profession.
Normatively, we can say that a “journalist” is simply someone who reports news while holding certain values, such as seeking to report honestly and independently from commercial and social pressures, committing to verifying information before disseminating it, and being responsible, methodical, and transparent in their work. Put another way, the normative approach focuses less on what a person does and more on the values they adopt and try to apply in their work. Those norms, in turn, serve as identity markers for the individual, helping them define “who I am.” They also serve as boundary markers separating journalists from non-journalists, helping them define “who I am not” as well as “who is not me.”
More concretely, news organizations have a range of social actors who are typically associated with the label of “journalist”—whom we may call editorial actors. These include reporters and correspondents, who collect and analyze information, and then produce news reports about newsworthy events; photojournalists, who try to capture those events through still and moving images; and anchors and presenters, who serve as the faces and primary interpreters in broadcast news programs.
In addition to those more front-facing social actors, you also have individuals who work behind the scenes who are sometimes also labeled as “journalists.” These include editors, who assign stories to reporters, review their work, and have the ability to make substantial changes to the news reports that reporters produce; copy editors, who review reports for accuracy, grammar, adherence to the organization’s journalistic style, and often write the headlines; community engagement editors, who help tailor content for social media and build community around stories; and news designers, who employ different aesthetics like fonts and visual hierarchy in order to call attention to certain aspects of a story.
There are also some content producers whose work is regularly featured alongside that of “journalists” but whose practices, norms, or styles result in their being considered “journalists” only some of the time. These include columnists, who write regular analyses of news that typically conveys an explicit point of view or personal experience; cartoonists, who often seek to convey an explicit point of view on an issue through illustration; and the editorial board, which will write anonymous editorials that convey the news organization’s view on an issue. The work from these individuals is often–but not always—explicitly separated from that of the aforementioned actors, such as by being included in an “opinion” section.
In addition to those social actors, there are also individuals who are crucial to the operation of a news organization but are less likely to be labeled a “journalist.” Two key groups among these are economic actors and technical actors.
Some of the key economic actors within news organizations are managers and proprietors. Management covers a broad category of social actors who play a role in defining and implementing the organization’s business strategy, including its revenue model, economic targets, budgets and resource allocations, and hiring choices. Proprietors refer to the actors who own news organizations. These actors may be hands-off and allow the organization to operate with considerable independence—provided they reach specified targets—but may also actively engage in the day-to-day decision-making by assigning stories and serving as the ‘final word’ in the newsroom.
News organizations also require a range of technical actors in order to operate successfully. These include camera operators, who set up and work the cameras for news broadcasts; sound mixers, who record, synchronize, and edit audio for news segments; and web and app developers, who design and operate content manage systems and user-facing applications. Simply put, these individuals help design and operate the tools needed to create the news products that an organization wants to put out.
These are just a small sampling of the many social actors involved in journalism, all of whom could fall under a single news organization’s umbrella, provided it is large enough. However, it is imperative to note that not only are there many social actors involved in journalism but those actors can operate either inside or outside of a newsroom.
For example, consider the content management system used by a news organization to allow a reporter to easily write their story, have an editor review it, and publish it on a website. Such systems are often developed by a separate organization that generally produces software for businesses in different industries, and thus generally operates outside the space of journalism. As such, the coders who create that system may rarely ever interact with journalists, and they may even produce the software with a different user base in mind, such as lifestyle bloggers. Nevertheless, the coder’s decisions partly shape what the reporter can and cannot do. For example, the editor may not be able to ‘track changes’ while editing a story because the coders never considered that need, and thus did not program the system to allow that functionality.
We could call such a coder an interloper because they would likely be seen as a non-journalist who operates outside of typical journalistic spaces—even though that individual is an actor who contributes meaningfully to journalism, despite that contribution perhaps being unintentional. Some interlopers do intentionally seek to contribute to journalism, though, even as they do not seek recognition as journalistic actors. An example of this might be an open-data advocate who digitizes records of complaints against police offers so that data journalists can write stories about that issue.
Interlopers are important because they often challenge the orthodoxies of journalism, either through explicit critique or implicitly by introducing new practices and ways of thinking due to their distinct background and training. Those challenges, over time, have the potential to structurally reshape aspects of journalism.
It is important to note, however, that some outsiders may seek to interlope and gain recognition as journalistic actors—if not as outright “journalists.” An example of this may be a comedian who claims to be a “journalist” because they regularly feature news material in their bits and provide news analysis through the lens of comedy. Such efforts are sometimes successful but are more often unsuccessful as the interloper’s interventions may be deemed too extreme and instead serve as an example against which a boundary for what does constitute “journalism” is set.
Given that there are so many kinds of people within journalism, it can be helpful to think about journalism through a network lens, wherein different actors are connected to one another.
Such an exercise not only helps to make sense of the many different actors involved in journalism but, crucially, helps illustrate that producing news is rarely a solitary endeavor. Instead, it involves interactions, interrelations, and tensions among a range of actors. That, in turn, leads to frequent reshapings of the ideas, norms, and practices that define who is (and is not) a “journalist” and what “journalism” is (and is not).
For example, as web developers became more central to creating interactive data visualizations, some newsrooms physically relocated them to desks that were closer to the data journalists in the newsroom—which, in turn, gave those coders reputational credit within journalistic spaces.
Finally, although particular actors may be thought of as being central to or on the periphery of journalism, it is important to recognize that their positions are often fluid—meaning they can move from the periphery to a more central position over time, or the network may be re-centered toward certain kinds of actors. Those fluid linkages within the social network can thus grant different actors different forms and amounts of power over time.
Social actors refer to the human individuals and the organizations they work for within a given space, like journalism.
There is a wide range of editorial, economic, and technical actors in journalism, and they may operate within and outside the newsroom. Examples of these actors include reporters, proprietors, and web developers.
In addition to traditional actors, there are also interlopers, or actors who are not typically recognized as journalistic actors and may operate outside of typical news spaces but nevertheless exert substantial influence on journalism.
Journalistic spaces are shaped in large part through the interactions, interrelations, and tensions within the assemblage of actors in that space.
Over time, actors can move between central and peripheral positions within a network of social actors in journalism (or some subset of it). Alternatively, the center of a network can also move toward certain kinds of actors.