International Communication Gazette (2017): Gatekeeping beyond geographical borders: Developing an...

the International

Communication Gazette

2017, Vol. 79(1) 3–25

! The Author(s) 2016

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1748048516656304

gaz.sagepub.com

Article

Gatekeeping beyondgeographical borders:Developing an analyticalmodel of transnationaljournalism cultures

Lea HellmuellerJack J. Valenti School of Communication, University of Houston,

USA

Abstract

This study takes a theoretical approach of gatekeeping by assessing how transnational

networks of news gathering indicate a shift in the conceptualization of journalism

culture. Research on journalism culture, which has traditionally been conceptualized

within a national system, is linked with the historical development of globalization to

propose an analytical conceptualization of journalism culture in a transnational news-

gathering environment. Based on empirical studies from the past six decades, the study

presents three analytical levels of transnational journalism culture—evaluative,

cognitive, and performative—that might provide a conceptual framework for empirical

studies interested in news construction in a transnational space.

Keywords

Gatekeeping theory, global journalism culture, globalization, transnational journalism

Introduction

Global market, borderless information technology, and transnational conglomer-ates are shaping a transnational world (Berglez and Olausson, 2011). Meanwhile,such a transnational world is faced with global challenges that ‘transcend localconcerns and national systems, requiring transnational coordination and engage-ment to solve them’ (Reese, 2015: 2263). International challenges such as globalhealth issues (e.g., Ebola, Zika virus) or global conflicts (e.g., ISIS, the European

Corresponding author:

Lea Hellmueller, Jack J. Valenti School of Communication, University of Houston, 3347 Cullen Blvd.

Houston, TX 77204, USA.

Email: [email protected]

refugee crisis) are highlighted through global media outlets that provide an import-ant connection among geographical spaces. Indeed, news coverage that focuses onglobal issues provides information that affects the awareness of international events(Aalberg et al., 2013) and connects audiences around the world with informationthat trigger engagement, empathy, solidarity, as well as fear.

In addition, global news organizations such as CNN and Al-Jazeera Englishbenefit from new technologies, and as they are operating at a transnational level,they are relatively independent of domestic regulations and state-institutionalizedpolitical elites (Wojcieszak, 2007). Therefore, global media conglomerates canadapt global projects to local contexts, thereby providing global news to localaudiences.

On one hand, the international news coverage shapes the public’s awareness ofinternational events and the transnational coordination of countries and engage-ment (Aalberg et al., 2013). On the other hand, skeptics point to enduring nationalnews prisms and limited audiences for international media and write about themyth of a ‘global village’, in that global media technology is ‘a necessarybut not sufficient condition for global communication’ (Hafez, 2007: 2). Asidefrom global technology, journalists themselves play an important role as agentsin a global public sphere: ‘The global journalist uses a diversity of sources andperspectives to promote a nuanced understanding of issues from an internationalperspective’ (Ward, 2011: 742). Indeed, journalism as a field is increasingly con-fronted by two perspectives: its vertical dimension to present news to a domesticaudience and a horizontal dimension to cover the global and cosmopolitan per-spective of a news story (Reese, 2008). Although national boundaries remainimportant criteria for editorial decisions, the horizontal dimension sheds light onhow globalization has affected the profession of journalism. The interest of thistheoretical inquiry thus lies in the shaping of journalistic cultures, from global andnational contexts.

At the heart of this study is the concept of journalistic culture, defined as‘a particular set of ideas and practices by which journalists legitimate their rolein society and render their work meaningful’ (Hanitzsch, 2007: 369). In otherwords, journalistic cultures include all levels of journalistic gatekeeping that is‘the process through which events are covered by the mass media, consideringconcepts on five levels of analysis’ (Shoemaker and Vos, 2009: 3). Journalisticculture is expressed at the individual level of gatekeeping in that journalists’ behav-iors are guided by cultural norms and roles. On the routine and organizational levelof gatekeeping, journalistic culture is shaped by the way journalists interact withsources, do research, find news stories, and relate those to their audiences. On thesocial institutional level and the social system level, journalistic culture is shaped bythe economic, political, and legal system in which journalists operate.

As journalistic culture manifests in the gatekeeping process, this study asks howjournalistic culture can be re-conceptualized in a global environment to empiricallyanalyze the gatekeeping culture in a global news environment—in an environmentwhere journalists seek out sources across borders (i.e., journalistic practices and

4 the International Communication Gazette 79(1)

routines that span geographical and cultural borders), engage with internationalissues, and inform a global audience on global challenges. The main question in there-conceptualization is the reference point of society in the definition of journalisticculture. If ideas and practices are more informed by the interconnectedness ofcountries, how does that change journalistic culture and the way journalistsrender their work meaningful? Does the reference point of ‘meaningful’ changein a transnational news environment from a domestic to a global audience? Sucha theoretical undertaking is crucial, as journalistic culture traditionally has beenassessed from a within-country perspective or a cross-national perspective. That is,studies predominantly focus on the vertical dimension to explain gatekeeping deci-sions (Shoemaker and Vos, 2009) and the influence on news (Shoemaker andReese, 2015). Meanwhile, conceptualizing transnational journalism culture isnecessary to enrich a field that has been historically organized around analyticalconcepts, epistemologies, and evidence developed in the United States and WesternEurope (Waisbord and Mellado, 2014).

Purpose of re-conceptualizing journalisticculture in a transnational environment

Journalism culture, defined as ‘a particular set of ideas and practices by whichjournalists legitimate their role in society and render their work meaningful’(Hanitzsch, 2007: 369), examines how media organizations and journalists under-stand public governance and their role in society (Baker, 2002). Traditionally,journalism scholars have tended to conceptualize journalism culture as embeddedin specific social systems and thus study journalism culture by comparing onecountry to another. For example, the focus on nation-based elements of journalismcultures becomes evident in a particular selection of several research designs.Studies on journalism cultures have examined journalists functioning in a particu-lar social system such as a country unit (e.g., Keel, 2011; Marr et al., 2001; Weaveret al., 2007; Weaver and Wilhoit, 1986, 1996; Weischenberg et al., 2006) or acomparison of different journalism cultures based on geographical borders(Hanitzsch, 2011; Quandt et al., 2006). This direction of research is to be expected,considering that theories explaining levels of influence on news such as gatekeepingtheory (Shoemaker and Vos, 2009) have rested on the assumption of five levels ofinfluence, in which social systems (e.g., culture, nation-state, individual history ofcountries) represent the outermost level. On the other hand, theoretical and ana-lytical models like gatekeeping theory have power to direct and organize theresearch findings. For example, the nation-state is considered one of the mostinfluential variables to shape the individual professional attitudes of journalists(Hanitzsch, 2011). Explanations for the variation in role conceptions of journalistare typically based on the country as the independent variable. In fact, globaliza-tion has focused more on financial and entertainment flows rather than the chan-ging role of journalism. Journalism has been tied closely to democratic structures,rooted in local communities (Reese, 2015). Meanwhile, globalization has affected

Hellmueller 5

journalism on all levels and offered global news-gathering spaces that need furthertheoretical and empirical exploration.

Therefore, this theoretical examination aims to conceptualize transnationaljournalism culture, the merging of domestic gatekeeping with global gatekeepingapproaches, and explore its contribution to the gatekeeping literature in journalismstudies. The study deconstructs the concept of transnational journalism culture anddevelops a conceptual definition of transnational journalism and journalisticculture. Finally, interrelated conceptual and operational definitions of those twoconcepts provide an analytical way of conceptualizing journalistic culture under theumbrella of a transnational journalism news-gathering environment.

Globalization and transnational journalism

Speaking of globalization, Waisbord (2013: 175) argued that it is ‘an inescapablephenomenon that seeps into every realm of society, politics, culture, or economics’.Media globalization is nothing new and has affected journalism around the world.Historically, the Western press has been the leader in journalistic culture develop-ment in other countries for more than two centuries. U.S. colonial newspapersregularly looked to the British and French press for inspiration on informationand design (Waisbord, 2013: 179). The profession of journalism itself did not ori-ginate before the 1600s, and it has developed worldwide as a product of Europeancolonial expansion (Schudson, 2013: 32). For example, the British Empire betweenthe late 16th and 18th centuries had journalistic practices that shared many char-acteristics of what we consider transnational journalism today (Louw, 2005, 2010).Meanwhile, Ben Franklin’s Pennsylvania Gazette resembled the very few other U.S.papers of the day in printing largely foreign news and not dealing with local con-versations (Schudson, 2013: 30). Papers that focused on local news became morecommon by the 1870s.

In the second half of the 19th century, U.S. and European news agencies main-tained a powerful global presence. Schudson (2013) wrote that the global spread ofjournalism has been particularly influenced by American technological innovationsfrom the 19th century and that American journalists invented and disseminated thepractice of interviewing internationally. Meanwhile, the transnational effects ofbroadcasting became noteworthy during the late 1930s, when Great Britain andGermany used radio broadcasts to influence public opinion, particularly in theUnited States (Seib, 2006: 7–47). In fact, by September 1940, the BBC was offeringmore than 70 news broadcasts each day to audiences outside the United Kingdom.Ultimately, the British and the Americans, as the two great powerhouses of liberalcapitalism, have effectively been the drivers of two centuries of globalization—withthe British Empire being the organizing force of globalization’s first wave in the19th century and the Pax Americana (Louw, 2010) being the organizing force of thesecond wave in the 20th century. Both empires have shared the same commitmentto the processes of modernization, liberalization, and globalization (Louw, 2010:37). And both have set the stage of what we know today as global journalism.


However, what is different today is the massive scale and ease of access to newsproduced according to the conventions of mainstream news in the United Statesand Britain (Waisbord, 2013: 180).

The historical approach elucidates the various forms of transnational journalismand its manifestations on different levels of the gatekeeping process. For example,transnational journalism in reference to foreign correspondents refers to reportersthat not only report news to home audiences from foreign cities but also adapt tothe news-gathering principles of their foreign cities. This may simply result in for-eign correspondents’ lack of access to sources as in the case of DC, because foreignmedia do not bring U.S. politicians any votes (Hellmueller, 2014). It may alsoresult in strict rules on how to interview state department officials (e.g., on therecord, background, deep background, off the record)—rules not familiar to jour-nalists outside the United States and thus transcending national borders whenforeign reporters acculturate to a foreign environment. Another aspect of trans-national journalism consists of organizations that are institutionalized as a trulytransnational undertaking, such as pan-Arab media organizations that do notnecessarily coincide with nation-state boundaries (Hallin, 2009). For example,since 1980, Saudi princes and business partners have expanded their stakes intransnational media as part of ‘a radical transformation of the Arab media land-scape and the rise of multiplatform conglomerates’ (Kraidy, 2011: 190), and thathas led to the creation of the pan-Arab media system. The elements from both theLebanese and Saudi media systems have been particularly powerful in shapingArab media: ‘Saudi moguls with royal connections finance Arab media, whileLebanese journalists, producers, and managers populate the system’ (Kraidy,2011: 178). Although both Lebanese and Saudi media play an important role inthe contemporary pan-Arab media system, the two countries became part of trans-national media at different historical periods. In the 1970s, more than 20 Lebanesedailies were read regularly outside Lebanon and about eight titles were distributedmore widely outside than inside the country. On the other hand, Saudi Arabiafaced external threats and military conflicts and developed a ‘transnationalmedia capacity through various companies that it controls or influences’(Kraidy, 2011: 189).

But although transnational media organizations have characterized the Arabjournalism industry since the second half of the 20th century, Pintak and Ginges(2012: 431) pointed out the irony that ‘it was the launch of a government-financedtelevision channel in 1996 that marked the beginning of the end of the professionalschizophrenia that had defined Arab journalism for more than three decades’.Al Jazeera was created by the emir of Qatar, with the goal of shifting it out ofthe shadow of Saudi Arabia that dominated the Gulf region economically. TheArab television journalists had been trained by BBC’s ethos of balanced and inde-pendent journalism. Their goal was to be free from political interference thatredefined Arab journalism. In the case of Al Jazeera, Arab journalists had foundtheir voice and begun to portray the world from an Arab perspective, often com-bined with the mistrust of their governments. But what is most important about

Hellmueller 7

this case is that the influence of BBC values and ethics changed the system in a waythat the organization started producing a perspective largely ignoring the wishes ofthe Arab governments.

The above example illustrates that transnational journalism can be conceptua-lized at different levels of analysis of the gatekeeping model. Transnational jour-nalism from an individual perspective (i.e., foreign correspondents) or anorganizational level (i.e., pan-Arab media or Al Jazeera) refers to journalistic gate-keeping beyond national borders, where journalists or media organizations areexposed to gatekeeping processes of more than one social system that shapenews content (the one in which they gather news and the media system in whichthe news is aired or published). In the case of Al Jazeera, ‘virtually every Arabcountry expelled Al Jazeera’s news teams or shuttered its bureaus at one time oranother’ (Pintak and Ginges, 2012: 431). These examples also reveal conceptualdifferences between global journalism and transnational journalism. Research onglobal journalism seeks to examine ideas or principles that unite journalism prac-tices around the world, the so-called global space (e.g., Reese, 2008). On the otherhand, what is described in this study as ‘transnational journalism’ is conceptuallydifferent. Transnational journalism describes how journalism can be understoodfrom transcending national boundaries at some level of gatekeeping, while otherlevels remain domestic, so the local aspect may still define news output but isshaped by a transnational flow of information (e.g., foreign reporters).Transnational journalism allows investigation on the national and thetransnational element simultaneously by taking into account a gatekeepingtheoretical framework. For example, foreign correspondents transcend nationalboundaries by working in a foreign environment and adjusting their news-gathering routines to a foreign environment. In some instances, foreign corres-pondents apply a domestication strategy to help make their stories be understoodby the audiences of the country in which their news organization is based.Domestication is an effect of transnational journalism. It is the process of localizingforeign information and presenting it in a relevant way to audiences (Esser andHanitzsch, 2012) in that ‘media maintain both global and culturally specific orien-tations—such as by casting far-away events in frameworks that render these eventscomprehensible, appealing and relevant to domestic audiences’ (Gurevitch et al.,1991: 206).

What is most important for conceptualizing transnational journalism is thenegotiation process of those transnational, national, and local elements simultan-eously shaping gatekeeping that this study defines as transnational journalism. Ifnews content is shaped by at least one level of the gatekeeping process happeningoutside the country or being influenced by other social systems and cultures (e.g.,the sources journalists seek out), those news stories should be analyzed under theconceptual framework of transnational journalism that explains how those newsstories were constructed. The gatekeeping process exceeds national boundaries andthus the news stories may not be explained by the social system in which the news ispresented alone. If such transnational elements indicating the independent variable


and contextual part of a research study are left invisible, the conceptual frameworklacks explanatory power of the construction of the news story.

Theoretically, the analytical concept of transnational journalism takes intoaccount the transnational logic of gatekeeping. The global logic of gatekeepingassumes that a third space arises from the merging of various social systems.Global journalism is often referred to as a ‘third space’, which Reese (2008: 241)described as ‘the reach, interconnectedness, and virtually real-time properties of aglobalized media contribute to our experiencing the world as a whole’. Becausemore and more journalists around the world share the same idea of professionalismor ideals of press freedoms, a global logic is developing that is distinct from bothtransnational and domestic journalism. Whereas the nation is the primary focus oftransnational journalism, at the organizational level of gatekeeping, global jour-nalism draws attention to consensual norms that allow journalistic organizations tofunction globally (Reese, 2008: 248). At the individual level of gatekeeping, globaljournalism is interested in what standards of global press performance emerge.

Distinctions between global and transnational journalism become evident in theresearch questions that are posed. Both concepts present forms of journalism onthe same continuum but offer different perspectives of analysis: If scholars areinterested in the third space, the questions address what is global. For example,how do global organizations such as CNN International and BBC World Serviceoperate and gatekeep news in an interconnected and digital world? Global jour-nalism in such a sense refers to a global logic of gatekeeping based on the inter-connectedness of social systems that create a global space (i.e., a third space), whichis analytically distinct from domestic gatekeeping models (Figure 1).

However, research questions on transnational journalism seek to understandhow both foreign and national forces shape gatekeeping and try to assess thetransitional gatekeeping process between domestic gatekeeping and global gate-keeping on that continuum. The conceptual framework of transnational journalismindicates that although global milieus transcend national borders, transnationaljournalism examines how those transcended elements are integrated into the gate-keeping process where local, national, and global forces intersect. Transnationaljournalism as an analytical concept is important because journalism studies haverelied on geographical borders as the defining element of news output for manydecades (refer to ‘gatekeeping in a national context’ in Figure 1), interpretingjournalism as happening mostly within one social system (i.e., within onenation). On the other hand, global journalism indicates the symbiosis betweentwo or more countries (refer to ‘gatekeeping in a global context’ in Figure 1).Meanwhile, transnational journalism captures the transition from national toglobal journalism that reveals important insights about journalism—as it is chan-ging as a result of globalization (refer to ‘gatekeeping in a transnational context’ inFigure 1).

Comparative communication methods have mostly relied on comparing differ-ent media systems, with a system being conceptualized as a nation-state unit(Hanitzsch and Mellado, 2011) that can be re-conceptualized under the logic of

Hellmueller 9

Figure 1. Journalism gatekeeping in national, transnational, or global contexts. Note: The

specific overlap of the figures is depicted for heuristic purposes only. The journalistic intersec-

tion of individual countries can lead to different forms of overlap.


transnational or global gatekeeping. Also, a comparative communication methodinvolves the comparisons between a minimum of two macro-level cases (systems,cultures, markets, etc.); this differs from single research cases in that comparativeresearch explains differences and similarities between objects of analysis based onthe contextual conditions of those macro systems (Esser, 2013: 115). Comparativescholars define macro cases as ‘(conditions) that help to explain differences andsimilarities in the objects of analysis (outcomes) embedded in the different cases’(Esser, 2013: 115). This is particularly important for the concept of transnationaljournalism, because boundaries to the explanations are based on how the bound-aries for the macro cases are defined (whether by geographical boundaries ortransnational elements).

As scholarly thinking moves from nation-state to transnational journalism, jour-nalism as a practice should consider its ‘traditional vertical orientation withinwhatever nation-state it is carried out and a ‘‘horizontal’’ perspective that tran-scends national frameworks’ (Reese, 2008: 241). The conditions that help to explainjournalism culture may be defined by transnational gatekeeping elements to explainthe conditions in which journalists work. Rather than contextualizing the outcometo one country, the outcome of research on journalism culture could then beattributed to the conditions of transnational journalism gatekeeping (Table 1,Macro Units A and B). Therefore, thoughts on transnational journalism alsoaddress the macro units—specifically, the conditions in which the research out-comes are embedded (Esser and Hanitzsch, 2012). Although journalism culture isthe construct of inquiry, the concepts that relate to journalism culture are theperformative, cognitive, and evaluative levels that constitute journalism cultureand can be examined by the variables or concepts of interests. Comparativeresearch requires ensuring equivalence on the object of investigation to be ableto attribute differences and similarities to macro units. So to identify commonpatterns, professional worldviews of journalists can be studied under the

Table 1. Terminology for basic comparisons of Transnational Journalism Culture Phenomena.

Macro Unit A

(Transnational Journalism, Country 1)

Macro Unit B

(Transnational Journalism, Country 2)

Object of investigation Equivalent object of investigation

Construct: journalism culture Construct: journalism culture

Concepts: performative, cognitive, evaluative Concepts: performative, cognitive, evaluative

Variables: professional worldviews,

cognition, performance

Variables: professional worldviews,

cognition, performance

Note: Differences and similarities in journalism culture are attributed to two forms of transnational journalism

macro units A and B.

Source: Adapted to the transnational context, based on Esser and Hanitzsch (2012: 5).

Hellmueller 11

assumptions on what level (e.g., routines, organizational, social system) the systemsoverlap and how they differ from one another.

Conceptualizing transnational journalismculture on three levels

Having conceptualized the context of transnational journalism, the analysis nowturns to the core concept of this analytical piece. The overall conceptualizingresearch questions can be as follows: How do global or transnational gatekeepingprocesses affect conceptualizations of journalism culture? Journalism culture isconsidered ‘a particular set of ideas and practices by which journalists legitimatetheir role in society and render their work meaningful’ (Hanitzsch, 2007: 369).In a transnational news environment, journalists’ meaning of society may entaildifferent understandings: To what specific context are journalists referring to as‘society’? Are journalists referring to a society from their home country wherejournalists were born and raised or where they were socialized (e.g., their firstjob), or is a transnational context creating its own logic of such a multiculturalsociety?

The theorizing of transnational journalism contexts challenges long-believedassumptions of journalism cultures on at least three levels of analysis: the evalu-ative level, the performative level, and the cognitive level of journalism cultures(Table 2). While occupational ideologies such as objectivity and impartiality areoften perceived as universally shared by journalists all over the world (e.g.,Hanitzsch, 2007), at the evaluative level, transnational journalism spaces challengethe professional worldviews and professional roles of journalists: Does the trans-national element contribute to a cosmopolitan journalism ideology (Reese, 2001),and does the liberal model of fact-based and objectivity-oriented reporting exportto other cultures (e.g., Hallin and Mancini, 2004) based on the interactions ofreporters in transnational cultural spaces? How enduring are journalistic valuesand how resistant is journalists’ first professional socialization when exposed tonew thoughts and values in a foreign country? At the performative level, trans-national gatekeeping contexts challenge the practice of journalism, methods ofreporting, and news coverage in general. Does gathering news in another countryand reporting for domestic audiences make journalists more alike because they

Table 2. The three levels of journalism culture.

Cognitive level Performative level Evaluative level

Perception and interpretation Methods of reporting Professional worldviews

Attribution of news values to

events and/or sources

Interaction with

sources News coverage

Professional role

conceptions

Source: Adapted and revised from Hanitzsch (2007: 369).


interact with similar political sources and experience different reporting methodsthan the ones first learned in their home country? And finally, at the cognitive level,it challenges assumptions about the perception and interpretation of particularnews sources and events: Does the cultural background or the political affiliationof a news organization play a role in how news is gathered and how muchjournalists trust foreign sources? Does a transnational journalism context contrib-ute to sourcing more diverse people, or does the context manifest cultural differ-ences in exactly journalists’ perception of their sources (i.e., sources from theirhome country are attributed the highest credibility and thus are guaranteedhigher prominence in their final news coverage)?

Based on the levels of analysis, the argument toward an analytical model oftransnational journalism culture unfolds in two stages. First, a theoretical argu-ment moves scholarly thinking from the concept of journalistic culture with itsstrong focus on the evaluative component of journalism to reconsider the threelevels of journalism culture (the cognitive, performative, and evaluative levels). Inthe second stage, the three levels of journalism culture are revisited under theassumption of a transnational gatekeeping context.

Journalism culture at the three levels

Hanitzsch’s (2007) theoretical piece published in Communication Theory has greatlycontributed to contemporary understandings of how to operationalize journalismculture to make feasible comparative research on journalism professionalism. It hasled to an increase in comparative research on journalism culture because its the-oretical framework set the stage to examine differences and similarities amongcountries’ journalism culture. The evaluative level was deconstructed intothree constituents—institutional roles, epistemologies, and ethical ideologies(Hanitzsch, 2007: 371)—and the attention of the empirical project that followedthe theoretical conceptualization of journalism culture examined the evaluativelevel of journalism culture solely. This approach makes sense, because althoughmuch of journalism research has focused on the evaluative elements of journalismculture, few scholars have differentiated between levels of culture and its analysisand hence less knowledge exists in journalism studies on how the other levels can betheoretically conceptualized in regard to journalistic culture. Indeed, few scholarshave referred to the different levels of journalism culture. For example, Schudson(2001) distinguished between practices and norms that inform journalistic prac-tices. Taking a closer look at research inquiries in journalism studies, results revealthat journalism scholarship implicitly pays attention to the importance of the twoof the three components of a journalism culture (evaluative and performative) atthe expense of the cognitive level. Indeed, one strand of journalism research hasfocused on the performative level of journalism research investigating news values,news factors (i.e., indicators), source selection, and frames in news reportsby content-analyzing performative elements of journalism (Iyengar, 1991;Stromback and Dimitrova, 2006; Tresch, 2009). The strand of research on the

Hellmueller 13

evaluative level of journalism culture has investigated journalists’ role perceptionor journalism’s institutional role (i.e., its evaluative component), defined as jour-nalists’ perception of journalism’s social functions in society (Donsbach, 2008;Weaver et al., 2007). Those perceived social functions are assumed to shape thestories that journalists ultimately report, and thus the performative element func-tions as pre- or post-justification of such research interest rather than as the logic ofempirical investigation. The implicit assumption that news content (i.e., the per-formative level) is a reflection of journalistic roles (i.e., the evaluative level) guidesmany research projects (Graber, 2002; Hanitzsch, 2011). Although it seems that‘the way in which journalists define their jobs will affect the content they produce’(Shoemaker and Reese, 1996: 101), a normative link between role conception androle enactment should be met with skepticism (Tandoc et al., 2013). In fact, mediaorganizations are influenced by the demands of external factors, such as financialconcerns and competition with other media (Shoemaker and Vos, 2009) that mighthinder the overlap of journalists’ role conceptions and practice. Meanwhile, thelarge amount of scholarly interest in role conceptions may seem surprising, con-sidering that levels of influences and gatekeeping theory (Benson and Neveu, 2005;Shoemaker and Reese, 1996; Shoemaker and Vos, 2009) actually argue that theindividual level of the journalist has the lowest influence over news content.Considering that, it can be concluded that journalists’ role conceptions are hencesubject to limits set by the level of routines of the workplace or the political systemin which reporters operate. This is crucial, as Shoemaker and Reese (1996) arguedthe importance of understanding journalists with respect to their individuality andcreativity but also within their larger institutional context, where the power of theindividual expresses itself mainly through those occupational channels.

Scholars implicitly refer to the performative level of journalism culture, but onelevel of journalism cultures that remains almost absent of any scholarly discourse isits cognitive element, which is important for an analytical framework of trans-national journalism culture. The cognitive level deals with interpersonal and inter-cultural relationships with sources and perception of news events. Findingsfrom journalism studies are therefore complemented with research intointra- and inter-cultural communication to fully capture the cognitive level andits articulation in a transnational journalism setting.

The cognitive level: Journalists’ interpretations

At the cognitive level, journalism culture is shaped by interpretations and percep-tions of journalists, which have become increasingly important to examine in thepast several decades of research. The traditional role of journalists as gatekeeperswho control the public’s access to information has shifted to a nonlinear, inter-active idea of journalism in a networked society, particularly in the Western world.Digital technology enables a variety of people to take up reporting (Singer, 2010).Thus, journalists may no longer hold a privileged gatekeeping position but areinstead thrown into a network of relationships. In a networked society, interactions


and relationships with other information providers become salient. Singer (2007)argued that with journalism becoming increasingly less dependent on organiza-tional structures, the reporter becomes more independent from organizational con-straints. The journalist’s work then focuses on applying professional norms torelationships that he or she holds with sources and interactions within such anetwork. Hence, interpersonal factors become important when moving from aprofession of gatekeeping to a profession that cultivates social relations. For exam-ple, journalists are more likely to grant favorable news coverage to credible sources,which can have serious implications for establishing media frames of their sources(Yoon, 2005). Studies reveal that journalists consider officials from their homecountries to be more credible and newsworthy than officials from foreign countries(Yoon, 2005). Interestingly enough, studies in interpersonal communication havepointed to the exact same relationship between perceived homophily (i.e., similaritythat a receiver perceives to exist between him and an information source) andsource credibility (e.g., Allen and Post, 2004; McCroskey et al., 1975, 2006).

From a journalism perspective, Deuze (2005) theorized multiculturalism asan emerging professional ideology of journalism; thus, it seems helpful to beginthinking about perceptions and interpretations of sources based on interculturalcommunication research. Journalism as a profession has been legitimatized basedon conventions of truth telling such as objectivity, autonomy, impartiality, andindependence (Deuze, 2005), but the idea of journalists shaping news content seemsto represent a distorting force of journalistic norms. Challenging questions have tobe asked to understand the state of journalism in a transnational setting. Forexample, what does it mean to be independent if a journalist’s own backgroundor patriotism is reflected in a story he or she writes?

Based on intercultural communication research, the answer seems more straight-forward. Gudykunst and Kim (2003) pointed out that one’s cultural orientationacts as a filter for processing incoming and outgoing verbal and nonverbal mes-sages. Neuliep et al. (2005: 44) took a same position: ‘To the extent that humans areethnocentric, we tend to view other cultures (and microcultures) from our owncultural vantage point’. Not only does it influence their view of other cultures,but it also guides their interaction patterns. Most important, in a journalism con-text, perceptions of sources are shaped through cultural filters, because no messageis interpreted apart from its source (McCroskey and Richmond, 1996).Intercultural communication research has shown that the more the source andthe receiver have similar backgrounds (i.e., homophilous), the more likely it isfor communication attempts to increase and for communication to be effectivebased on perceived source credibility (McCroskey et al., 1975). Research in jour-nalism studies has pointed in a similar direction, arguing that journalists’ percep-tion of source credibility is a strong predictor of source use (Schotz, 2008; Yoon,2005). Intercultural research is different from cross-cultural research on which mostof research on journalism culture is based (Hanitzsch, 2011) in that communicationdata from one culture are compared with equivalent data from another culture. Ingeneral terms, cross-cultural describes a comparison study between cultures,

Hellmueller 15

whereas intercultural refers to an interaction between people from different cultures(Gudykunst, 1985). Therefore, intercultural research findings are essential forbuilding an analytical framework of transnational culture, as those studiesassume the interaction between people or organizations from various cultures,whereas cross-cultural research examines how the national contexts affects jour-nalism culture. In the early years of intercultural communication research, scholarsassumed that communication in an intercultural setting would be different from anintracultural setting. However, studies extending and theorizing intracultural com-munication to intercultural settings found that there are many areas where findingsfrom intracultural communication can be extended to intercultural settings(Gudykunst, 1985; Gudykunst and Kim, 2003; Klopf and McCroskey, 2007;McCroskey, 2002, 2003; Neuliep et al., 2005; Ting-Toomey and Chung, 2005).For example, in studying intracultural communication, Rokeach (1960) statedthat social distance is determined by perceived similarity of beliefs between twopersons (i.e., the more similar beliefs they share, the less their social distance).Brewer (1968) conducted an intercultural communication study among EastAfrican tribes and found similar findings: Social distance was found to varymost strongly, according to perceived similarity.

Decades of research in intercultural communication have revealed that percep-tions of source credibility and similarity are two key concepts that influence peopleto initiate and maintain communication with someone (King, 1976; Neuliep et al.,2005; Wheeless, 1974). In a journalism context, dimensions that affect whom jour-nalists communicate with have not been explored from an intercultural communi-cation perspective on the cognitive level of journalism culture. In fact, Donsbach(2004) stated that most of the current models or theories of journalists’ newsdecisions concentrate on news factors, whereas studying the underlying processesleading to news judgment has been mostly absent. Donsbach (2004) further arguedthat a need to preserve one’s existing predispositions can explain news decisions.Rosenthal (1987) argued that journalists’ readiness to publish negative rumorsabout a politician varies significantly with their attitude toward this figure. Theprocess of selective perception can hardly be separated from selective attention.German journalists, in particular, believe the influence of one’s predispositions onnews decisions to be legitimate. Therefore, partisanship is more widespread amongGerman journalists than journalists from the United States, the United Kingdom,Italy, or Sweden (Patterson and Donsbach, 1996).

Based on intercultural communication research, it can be concluded that thecognitive level is important in shaping journalism culture. In a transnational con-text, the cognitive element may explain why some sources are chosen over othersand why sources are framed differently based on their background, their country oforigin, and their similarity with journalists’ or a news organization’s own historyand background. While journalists are embedded in an organizational and socialsystem framework, such perceptions and interpretations of news events may beexplained and shaped by organizational cultures and standpoints. The conceptualadvantage of including the cognitive element of journalism culture is to explain that


there is a difference between what journalists think of their normative role and howthey report the news. That process is a news organization’s day-to-day sensemaking and judgment of sources and events to produce news stories for a specificaudience.

The performative level: Journalistic practicein a transnational context

Meanwhile, Druckman (2001) suggested that journalists’ framing of stories may beunintentional. In other words, journalists might not be aware of the influences oftheir own predispositions. This may sound paradoxical, but it may well be thatjournalists have only begun to subscribe to their news organization’s corporateidentity as a result of their professional socialization, with self-perceived indepen-dency conceptualized as a professional illusion (Hanitzsch and Mellado, 2011).Conceptualizing the performative level of a transnational journalism culturerequires looking at constraints and differences in practical terms. For example,previous studies have concluded that foreign correspondents have less access toexclusive sources and are less frequently offered the opportunity to conduct per-sonal interviews (Willnat and Weaver, 2003). Distinctions on the performative levelare visible mainly because of the news context those journalists are reporting forand the news context they are living in that may diverge, such as a U.K. newsorganization having a daily deadline that conflict with the timing of press confer-ences in the United States because of the time difference. It can therefore be con-ceptualized that the performative element as the expression of journalistic work(i.e., news-gathering behavior) is mostly conceptualized in how they approach newsreporting and how they report the news.

Furthermore, the performative level represents the level to be most likelyobserved by the public and a platform to articulate the cognitive and evaluativelevel of transnational journalism cultures. Through transnational cultural analyses,it is possible to observe those interaction patterns and reporting methods (i.e.,performative level) and explain them through the cognitive and evaluative level:‘Journalistic practices are shaped by cognitive and evaluative structures, andjournalists—mostly unconsciously—perpetuate these deep structures through pro-fessional performance’ (Hanitzsch, 2007: 369). The ambiguity of professionals canbe attributed to the constant blending of occupational and normative definitions(Waisbord, 2013). Whereas the performative level explains what journalism does,the normative discourse articulates what standards journalism should pursue. Theblending of the two may hide the reality of the profoundly undemocratic newsindustry by ‘the self-serving justification of the prominent role of journalists in themediated public sphere’ (Waisbord, 2013: 7). Hence, the proposed disentanglementin this study of the performative and evaluative level builds a deeper understandingof the analytically different elements of journalistic culture. Oftentimes, the jour-nalism ideals that journalists would like to fulfill (such as objectivity and account-ability) may not be realized, given the unique circumstances of media systems

Hellmueller 17

(Mellado and Van Dalen, 2014). Hence, the proposed analytical model of trans-national journalism culture disentangles those levels, taking into consideration thedifferent analytical notions of the performative and evaluative level of journalismcultures.

The evaluative level: The worldviewsof transnational journalists

At the evaluative level, journalism cultures manifest in professional worldviews orrole conceptions of journalists. Even though multiculturalism as a professionalideology has emerged on local, national, and global levels of reporting, it is mostcritical on global levels, where audiences still rely very heavily on media coveragebecause of a lack of immediate contacts. Journalists face choices about how tocover cultural conflicts and how to arrive at ethical judgments. Such choices aredifficult and involve ‘hard choices between upholding our own cultural values andconsidering the values of other cultures’ (Ting-Toomey and Chung, 2005: 335).

At the evaluative level, the underlying assumption of the past 60 years was thatthe way journalists define their jobs would affect their performance (Mellado andVan Dalen, 2014). Thus, the evaluative level of journalism culture is much moreoperationalized than theorized because of the seeming transparency of the conceptson that level. For example, scholars seem to agree upon the common understand-ing of the two words, roles and conceptions (Vos, 2005). However, only recentlyhave scholars pointed out a lack of agreement on the performative and evaluativelevels of journalism cultures, making it the loci of empirical examination (Melladoand Van Dalen, 2014). This is particularly interesting when comparing journalistsfrom various countries working next to each other in a transnational setting inwhich the performance of a particular journalistic ideology may become moredifficult. For example, journalists who claim the existence of an objective andultimate truth out there embrace an epistemology that resonates more stronglywith justifying those truth claims empirically. For journalists to gain credibility,they strive to be more trustworthy on the ground and conduct personal interviewswith their sources (Hanitzsch, 2007). However, if they now work in another envir-onment as foreigners, such a manifestation of evaluative components becomesmore difficult, as access might not in any case be granted to foreign correspondents.Thus, the transnational setting requires, more than ever before, conceptualizingjournalism culture on three levels to capture the concept of journalism culture.Especially during transitional periods when new foreign correspondents arehired, the three levels may diverge because of dissimilarities to the contextualenvironment from where they began their journalism career.

Combining levels of transnational journalism culture enables scholars to explainjournalistic performance by culture-specific variables such as country of origin,socialization in their home countries, and their perceptions and interpretations.Such an approach further examines the relationship among the three levels andenables an empirical investigation on the extent each level perpetuates its structures


through another (e.g., how much the evaluative component is visible in journalisticperformance). In developing an analytical framework of transnational journalismculture, the three levels are combined.

Combining the three levels: Analytical frameworkof transnational journalism cultures

The act of comparing cultures using the same dimensions has been criticized that itentails assumptions associated with the etic approach. An etic approach has been acontested area of discussion for its inherent bias toward societies and its lack ofsensitivity to various cultures where a universal yardstick may not be easily used formeasurement (Shearman, 2008). The emic approach, on the other hand, is aninductive approach and conceptualizes culture from its specific cultural context.The findings would not necessarily have to translate from one cultural context toanother (Hanitzsch, 2007). The proposed analytical framework of transnationaljournalism culture makes both approaches possible: From an etic approach,dimensions can be studied that have been found universal, such as role conceptionsor framing strategies as well as reporting methods. From an emic approach, thethree levels could be studied from a bottom-up strategy by either observing theperformance of journalists in a transnational setting and then defining categoriesthat might be unique to that context or analyzing emerging categories from thedata that have not been found in cross-cultural research and relating it to thecognitive, evaluative, or performative level of journalism cultures. To provide ananalytical framework for either an emic or etic approach, the three levels aresummarized and put into a contextual environment. The model presented in thisstudy outlines the linkages among levels. Possible empirical questions to answerwith this framework are as follows: How do correspondents’ perceptions matter fortheir interaction? (i.e., combining the cognitive with the performative level.) Howdo different truth-telling ideologies manifest in correspondents’ sourcing choices?(i.e., explaining the performative level with the evaluative level.) In the pan-Arabmedia system, how does the interpretation of news events based on the culturalbackground of those in management positions influence the way stories are coveredfor a presumably transnational audience?

To answer such research questions, scholars first have to define the macro-levelunit—defining the country and its overlap with other countries by the logic spelledout in Figure 1. Taking the pan-Arab example, Lebanon might represent Country 1and Saudi Arabia might represent Country 2. Although both are getting the newsthrough transnational media organizations, they still remain independent mediasystems, which render the investigation of transnational journalism culture import-ant. Explanation of differences and similarities of the results can then be contextua-lized by the transnational gatekeeping process, explaining in what way gatekeepingis based on transnational elements. Meanwhile, at the evaluative level, one couldinvestigate whether journalists working for a transnational media organizationbecome simultaneously more similar and different from journalists in their country

Hellmueller 19

of origin. At the organizational level, one could examine whether transnational newsorganizations mirror normative discourses of a particular country such as theUnited States, or a specific region, such as the Middle East.

This study’s theoretical analysis attempts to understand transnational journal-ism culture at its conceptual level and redefine its dimensional structure based on atransnational journalism context. The three levels provide the articulation of cul-ture that journalism manifests. However, based on the theoretical examination ofthis study, the model needs to be revised. It makes sense to map the levels next toeach other, but the word level implies that there is some kind of hierarchy in howthe three levels should be conceptualized. In combining the three levels, a revisedconceptualization of transnational journalism is presented that takes into accountthe implied notion of hierarchy and discusses the three levels and their interdepend-ence (Figure 2).

The innermost level is the core level of journalism culture (i.e., the evaluativelevel) because journalists’ profession is based on truth telling (Kovach andRosenstiel, 2001). The evaluative level exists on a rather abstract level definingthe practice of journalists but not in any instance journalists’ performance, asnorms and values can conflict with organizational values or ideals. Evaluativeideas as the fundamentals of journalism are the tool and skill sets that set journal-ism apart from other fields and guarantee its autonomy from heteronomous forces.

Figure 2. An analytical model of transnational journalism culture (as expressed in a

political beat context). Source: Hellmueller (2014); permission received for reproducing

the figure here.


However, studies that combine the evaluative and performative levels of a journal-ism culture are very rare. These studies are much needed to understand journalismculture because of a normative assumption that underlines evaluative elements (i.e.,that norms and roles should be evident in news outputs).

Cultural similarity plays an important role in how journalists define the cred-ibility of their news sources (Hellmueller, 2014). For example, the more journalistsperceive a source to think like them, share similar values, and express similarattitudes, the more likely they will perceive those sources as credible. However,the perfomative aspect matters in how those perceptions influence correspond-ents—particularly in how much autonomy they enjoy. Perceptions can furtherinfluence the way journalists or news organizations cover a source in the news.Thus, by peeling the layers of the transnational journalism culture model, anexplanation can be found as to why performance and news content may varydepending on the cognitive level of the transnational journalism culture. The ana-lytical model of transnational journalism culture offers the theoretical frameworkto examine explanations of why news content turns out the way it does.

Although any conceptual structure can be criticized for its selectivity (i.e., otherdimensions might have provided a better explanation for a conceptual framework),the presented framework relies on journalism research from the past 60 years.Without doubt, the present scholarship probably includes mostly Anglo-Saxonliterature because most research on journalism culture has been published inEnglish-language academic journals. More comparative projects should be under-taken to understand the articulation of those three levels in other parts of the worldand to study their expression through the combination and comparison of thoselevels with one another. The major advantage of the framework is that the thinkingexercise started with transnational contexts. Globalization has affected journalists’practices and thus has changed the way journalism culture is articulated in a trans-national context for over 200 years. It is hoped that this study broadens the under-standing of a key concept of journalism culture and thereby provides a bettertheorizing of how news is constructed when contextualized in a transnationaljournalism context. The significance of the proposed model lies in the analyticalframework it proposes to distinguish among the three levels of journalism culture.Furthermore, it provides theoretical assumptions about how those levels areshaped in a transnational journalism environment to eventually explain the processof transnational gatekeeping.

Acknowledgement

The author would like to thank Dr. Tim P. Vos, Dr. Louis Bosshart and Dr. Lynda L.McCroskey for all their support with completing this doctoral research project.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, author-

ship, and/or publication of this article.

Hellmueller 21

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication

of this article.

References

Aalberg T, Papathanassopoulos S, Soroka S, et al. (2013) International TV news, foreignaffairs interest and knowledge: A comparative study of foreign news coverage and public

opinion in 11 countries. Journalism Studies 14(3): 387–406.Allen JL and Post DJ (2004) Source valence in assessing candidate image in a local election.

Communication Research Reports 21(2): 174–187.

Baker CE (2002) Media, Markets, and Democracy: Communication, Society, and Politics.New York: Cambridge University Press.

Benson R and Neveu E (2005) Bourdieu and the Journalistic Field. Malden, MA: Polity.Berglez P and Olaussen U (2011) Intentional and unintentional transnationalism: Two

political identities repressed by national identity in news media. National Identities 13:35–49.

Brewer MB (1968) Determinants of social distance among East African tribal groups.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 10(3): 279–289.Deuze M (2005) What is journalism? Professional identity and ideology of journalists recon-

sidered. Journalism 6(4): 442–464.

Donsbach W (2004) Psychology of news decisions: Factors behind journalists’ professionalbehavior. Journalism 5(2): 131–157.

Donsbach W (2008) Journalists’ role perceptions. In: Donsbach W (ed.) The International

Encyclopedia of Communication. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 2605–2610.Druckman JN (2001) The implications of framing effects for citizen competence. Political

Behavior 23(3): 225–256.Esser F (2013) The emerging paradigm of comparative communication enquiry: Advancing

cross-national research in times of globlization. International Journal of Communication7: 113–128.

Esser F and Hanitzsch T (eds) (2012) The Handbook of Comparative Communication

Research. New York: Routledge.Graber DA (2002) Mass Media and American Politics. 6th ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Gudykunst WB (1985) An exploratory comparison of close intracultural and intercultural

friendships. Communication Quarterly 33(4): 270–283.Gudykunst WB and Kim YY (2003) Communicating with Strangers: An Approach to

Intercultural Communication, 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.Gurevitch M, Levy MR and Roeh I (1991) The global newsroom: Convergences and diver-

sities in the globalization of television news. In: Dahlgren P and Sparks C (eds)Communication and Citizenship. London: Routledge, pp. 195–216.

Hafez K (2007) The Myth of Media Globalization. Oxford, UK: Polity Press.

Hallin DC (2009) Not the end of journalism history. Journalism 10(3): 332–334.Hallin DC and Mancini P (2004) Comparing Media Systems: Three Models of Media and

Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Hanitzsch T (2007) Deconstructing journalism culture: Toward a universal theory.Communication Theory 17(4): 367–385.


Hanitzsch T (2011) Populist disseminators, detached watchdogs, critical change agents andopportunist facilitators: Professional milieus, the journalistic field and autonomy in 18countries. International Communication Gazette 73(6): 477–494.

Hanitzsch T and Mellado C (2011) What shapes the news around the world? How journal-ists in eighteen countries perceive influences on their work. The International Journal ofPress/Politics 16: 404–426.

Hellmueller LC (2014) The Washington, DC Media Corps in the 21st Century: The Source-Correspondent Relationship. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Iyengar S (1991) Is Anyone Responsible? How Television Frames Political Issues. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.Keel G (2011) Journalisten in der Schweiz: Eine Berufsfeldstudie im Zeitverlauf [Journalists

in Switzerland: Chronological study of professional attitudes]. In: Hoemberg W, PuererH and Blum R (eds) Forschungsfeld Kommunikation (Band 31). Konstanz, Germany:

UVK Verlagsgesellschaft mbH.King SW (1976) Reconstructing the concept of source perceptions: Toward a paradigm of

source appropriateness. Western Speech Communication 40(4): 216–225.

Klopf DW and McCroskey JC (2007) Intercultural Communication Encounters. 1st ed.Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Kovach B and Rosenstiel T (2001) The Elements of Journalism. New York: Three Rivers

Press.Kraidy MM (2011) The rise of transnational media systems: Implictions of pan-Arab media

for comparative research. In: Hallin DC and Mancini P (eds) Comparing Media SystemsBeyond the Western World. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 177–201.

Louw PE (2005) The Media and Political Process. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Louw PE (2010) Roots of the Pax Americana. Decolonization, Development, Democratization

and Trade. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.

Marr M, Wyss V, Blum R, et al. (2001) Journalisten in der Schweiz. Eigenschaften,Einstellungen, Einflusse. Vol. 13 [Journalists in Switzerland: Characteristics, Attitudes,Influences]. Konstanz, Germany: UVK Medien.

McCroskey JC and Richmond VP (1996) Fundamentals of Human Communication: AnInterpersonal Perspective. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.

McCroskey JC, Richmond VP and Daly JA (1975) The development of a measure of

perceived homophily in interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research1: 323–331.

McCroskey LL (2002) Domestic and international college instructors: An examination ofperceived differences and their correlates. Journal of Intercultural Communication

Research 31: 63–81.McCroskey LL (2003) Relationships of instructional communication styles of domestic and

foreign instructors with instructional outcomes. Journal of Intercultural Communication

Research 32(2): 75–96.McCroskey LL, McCroskey JC and Richmond VP (2006) Analysis and improvement of the

measurement of interpersonal attraction and homophily. Communication Quarterly 54(1):

1–31.Mellado C and Van Dalen A (2014) Between rhetoric and practice. Explaining the gap

between role conception and performance in journalism. Journalism Studies 15(6): 859–878.

Hellmueller 23

Neuliep JW, Hintz S and McCroskey JC (2005) The influence of ethnocentrism in organ-izational contexts: Perceptions of interviewee and managerial attractiveness, credibility,and effectiveness. Communication Quarterly 53(1): 41–56.

Patterson TE and Donsbach W (1996) News decisions: Journalists as partisan actors.Political Communication 13(4): 455–468.

Pintak L and Ginges J (2012) Arab journalists. In: Weaver D and Willnat L (eds) The Global

Journalist in the 21st Century. New York: Routledge, pp. 429–442.Quandt T, Loffelholz M, Weaver DH, et al. (2006) American and German journalists at the

beginning of the 21st century. Journalism Studies 7(2): 171–186.

Reese SD (2001) Understanding the global journalist: A hierarchy-of-influences approach.Journalism Studies 2(2): 173–187.

Reese SD (2008) Theorizing a globalized journalism. In: Loeffelholz M and Weaver D (eds)Global Journalism Research: Theories, Methods, Findings, Future. London: Blackwell,

pp. 240–252.Reese SD (2015) Globalization of mediated spaces: The case of transnational environmen-

talism in China. International Journal of Communication 9(19): 2263–2281.

Rokeach M (1960) The Open and Closed Mind. New York: Basic Books.Rosenthal M (1987) Der Einfluss von Sympathie oder Antipathie auf das

journalistischeVerhalten von Tageszeitungsredakteuren bei Konflikten um Politiker [How

sympathy or antipathy influence journalists’ behavior for journalists working in news-paper newsrooms that cover conflicts involving politicians]. Unpublished Master’sThesis, University of Mainz, Germany.

Schotz A (2008) Source credibility is part of our duty. Quill 96(8): 30.

Schudson M (2001) The objectivity norm in American journalism. Journalism 2(2): 149–170.Schudson M (2013) Fourteen or fifteen generations: News as a cultural form and journalism

as a historical formation. American Journalism 30(1): 29–35.

Seib P (2006) Broadcasts from the Blitz: How Edward R. Murrow Helped Lead America intoWar. Dulles, VA: Potomac.

Shearman SM (2008) Culture, values, and cultural variability: Hofstede, Inglehart, and

Schwartz’s approach. Paper presented at the International Communication Association,Montreal, Canada, May 22–26.

Shoemaker PJ and Reese SD (1996) Mediating the Message: Theories of Influences on Mass

Media Content, 2nd ed. White Plains, NY: Longman.Shoemaker PJ and Vos TP (2009) Gatekeeping Theory. New York: Routledge.Singer JB (2007) Contested autonomy: Professional and popular claims in journalistic

norms. Journalism Studies 8(1): 79–95.

Singer JB (2010) Norms and the network: Journalistic ethics in a shared media space.In: Meyers C (ed.) Journalism Ethics: A Philosophical Approach. New York: OxfordUniversity Press, pp. 117–129.

Stromback J and Dimitrova DV (2006) Political and media systems matter: A comparison ofelection news coverage in Sweden and the United States. Harvard International Journal ofPress/Politics 11(4): 131–147.

Tandoc E, Hellmueller L and Vos TP (2013) Mind the gap: Between role conception androle enactment. Journalism Practice 7(5): 539–554.

Ting-Toomey S and Chung LC (2005) Understanding Intercultural Communication. LosAngeles, CA: Roxbury.


Tresch A (2009) Politicians in the media: Determinants of legislators’ presence and prom-inence in Swiss newspapers. International Journal of Press/Politics 14: 67–90.

Vos TP (2005) Journalistic role conception: A bridge between the reporter and the press.

Paper presented at International Communication Association conference, New York City.Waisbord S (2013) Reinventing Professionalism: Journalism and News in Global Perspective.

Cambridge, UK: Polity.

Waisbord S and Mellado C (2014) De-westernizing communication studies: A reassessment.Communication Theory 24(3): 361–372.

Ward SJ (2011) Ethical flourishing as aim of global media ethics. Journalism Studies 12(6):

738–746.Weaver DH, Beam RA, Brownlee BJ, et al. (2007) The American Journalist in the 21st

Century: U.S. News People at the Dawn of a New Millennium. Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum.

Weaver DH and Wilhoit GC (1986) The American Journalist: A Portrait of U.S. NewsPeople and Their Work. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Weaver DH and Wilhoit GC (1996) The American Journalist in the 1990s: U.S. News People

at the End of an Era. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Weischenberg S, Malik M and Scholl A (2006) Journalismus in Deutschland [Journalism in

Germany]. Media Perspektiven 7: 346–361.

Wheeless LR (1974) The effects of attitude, credibility, and homophily on selective exposureto information. Speech Monographs 41(4): 329–338.

Willnat L and Weaver DH (2003) Through their eyes: The work of foreign correspondents inthe United States. Journalism 4(4): 403–422.

Wojcieszak ME (2007) Al-Jazeera: A challenge to traditional framing research. TheInternational Communication Gazette 69(2): 115–128.

Yoon Y (2005) Examining journalists’ perceptions and news coverage of stem cell and

cloning organizations. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 82(2): 281–300.

Hellmueller 25

Date post:	04-Dec-2023
Category:	Documents
Upload:	uh
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

International Communication Gazette (2017): Gatekeeping beyond geographical borders: Developing an...

Documents