The so-called “Schudson-Carey” debate epitomises the normative divide within journalism studies. In short, what is journalism for? This thesis lacks the space to painstakingly outline the intricacies of the debate, but instead summarises the key positions relevant to this particular study and the context of Colombia. Each side of the debate is closely linked to a particular epistemology outlined above.
For Michael Schudson (2002, 2008), journalism is the provision of current news and information. The citizen simply needs to be informed. Journalism adopts a “monitorial” role within democracy (Keane 2010). Schudson defends professional expertise and the “regime of objectivity” (Maras 2013, p. 22). Hackett and Zhao (1998) argue that this “regime” is comprised of five aspects, which (briefly) are: (1) a normative ideal, which indicates the goals and values reporters should strive for; (2) an epistemological stance, which constitutes the belief that it is possible to report the news without bias; (3) a clear set of newsgathering practices; (4) a measure or way in which the audience can assess the performance of journalists; and (5) an
institutional framework characterised by news organisations, which are independent of the state and with legal guarantees on press freedom (see also Hackett and Gurleyen 2017, pp. 54-55).
James Carey (1978, 1989, 1997, 2000), on the other hand, is an “anti- professionalist”, who believes that professionalisation is linked to prestige, status
34
enhancement and class control, which ultimately damages the public sphere and has a negative impact on democracy (Anderson 2017). For Carey, the citizen needs to be involved. Journalism assumes a “facilitative”, “radical” and “collaborative” role(Christians et al. 2009), endorsing a model of participatory and deliberative
democracy. For Carey, objectivity impinges dramatically on the independence of the journalist and their traditional roles of advocacy and critique (1997, p. 138). For Carey, modern journalism has become bound to the function of reporting, which manifests an artificial commitment to balance or what journalist Geneva Overhosler (2006) refers to as “a tyranny of evenhandedness. Little more than he said, she said journalism”.
Carey warns that democracy is not a “self-perpetuating machine that will run itself” and calls for journalists to abandon their “agnostic” stance “to prevent us from unconsciously lurching back into domination” (2000). Carey makes a call to action in which he asks journalists to take a stance and reject the “regime of objectivity” in favour of more interpretive and advocacy styles of storytelling. In times of what this thesis will define in Chapter 4 as an alternative social (dis)order, journalism has a responsibility to reject neutrality and look for ways to support and sustain “positive” peace (Galtung 1964), as defined in Chapter 1. Indeed, this is a challenge that journalism in Colombia appears to have accepted, as we will see below. This normative divide therefore extends beyond the debate between Schudson and Carey, as further examination of “professionalism” will demonstrate.
2.4 “Professional” journalism
Proponents of professionalism argue that it offers clear normative values about what journalism should be (Rosen, 1999; Hughes 2002; Schudson 2002, 2008; Kovach and Rosenstiel 2003; Beam et al. 2009; Davis, M. 2010). It is, in other words, “shorthand for the kind of journalism that is desirable in democracy” (Waisbord 2013, p. 95). Critics, however, question professionalism and argue it is not an appropriate model to shape the purpose of journalism and is in fact antithetical to the democratic ideals of expression, diversity, participation and criticism (Carey 1978, 1989, 1997, 2000; Aldridge and Evett 2003; Carpentier 2005; Dent 2008; Dodson, 2010; Shaw, 2012). Stuart Allan has argued that the expansion of professionalism internationally suggests “the reconfiguration of what counts as journalism in the global network society” (2003, p. 31), but it is important to recognise that “there is no unanimous definition of professional journalism” (Waisbord 2013, p. 7). That said, it remains a central concern for journalism studies because wrapped up in this debate are questions about what journalism is and what it is for. In the context of Colombia, this
35
is potentially a matter of war or peace, as we will see below and in subsequent chapters.Waisbord conceptualises “occupational” and “normative” definitions of professionalism (2013, p. 6). The former focuses on “understanding journalism in terms of how journalists give meaning to their newswork” (Deuze 2005b, p. 444) or “what journalism does” (Waisbord 2013, p. 6), whilst the latter brings to the fore desirable models of journalism in democracy or “aspirational arguments” (Waisbord 2013, p. 6) about why journalism should pursue common standards.
Another approach combines both occupational and normative frameworks to conclude that there are no universal standards, but common aspirations surrounding autonomy, detachment and watchdog reporting (Splichal and Sparks 2004;
Hanitzsch and Mellado 2011; Mellado and Lagos 2014). Others acknowledge country-specific circumstances and different cultural contexts (Donsbach and Klett 1993; Deuze 2006). Pamela Shoemaker and Stephen Reese suggest it is possible to speak of dominant occupational ideology on which most newsworkers base their professional perceptions and praxis, but which is interpreted, used and applied differently among journalists across global media (1996, p. 11). David Weaver disagrees and concludes there is too much disagreement on professional norms and values to claim an emergence of “universal occupational standards” in journalism (1998, p. 488).
In the Latin American context, the “ambiguity” of Latin American journalism means there are “multiple meanings of some of professionalism’s central ideas” (Waisbord 2000b, p. 146). The nature of this “ambiguity”, which emphasises the diverse practice on the continent is further developed below, especially within the context of Colombia (see also Waisbord 1996, 2000a, 200b, 2013 and Salwen and Garrison 1992). Indeed in an attempt to dissect the amateur/professional dichotomy, subsequent sections will decipher professionalism as it has been applied to modern journalism more widely, including a consideration of the specific challenges, which manifest themselves during times of “war” or violence, before attention turns to the impact of so-called “citizen” journalism.
a). Contesting professionalism.
This dissertation shares Silvio Waisbord’s judgment that professionalism is a multifaceted concept (2013, p. 129). Universalistic assumptions about one single understanding of “good journalism” are problematic for a world of diverse journalistic cultures and occupational ethics pulled in different directions by political, economic and social forces. Waisbord claims there are elements of both “homogenization” and
36
“heterogenization” (2013, p. 200), depending on which aspect of the “modern news paradigm” one considers (Hoyer and Pottker, 2005).Deuze highlights what he describes as a “consensual occupational ideology”, which includes five values: (1) public service (journalists provide a public service as watchdogs, active collectors and dissemination of information); (2) objectivity (journalists are neutral and thus credible); (3) autonomy (journalists must be autonomous, free and independent); (4) immediacy (journalists have a sense of immediacy, actuality and speed); and (5) ethics (a sense of values, validity and legitimacy) (2005b, p. 447). These values provide a useful architecture to begin an assessment of professionalism, but in the context of my study, it soon unravels, as we will see in Chapter 5.
Zelizer also draws up a framework for how journalists talk about their work and knowledge (2004, p. 31). She defines five categories of journalism as: (1) a sixth sense (or a ‘nose for news’); (2) as a container (where journalism is seen to contain the day’s news, holding information for what has happened and using it to fill the news space in a newspaper or broadcast bulletin); (3) as a mirror (where news is seen as all that happens or as a lens on the world without any filtering activity on the part of the reporter); (4) as a child (which identifies news as a phenomenon in need of nurturing); and (5) as a service (which positions journalism in the public interest and in conjunction with the needs of citizenship).
Deuze defines his typology as an ideology, as “a collection of values,
strategies and formal codes characterising professional journalism and shared most widely by its members” (2005b, p. 446). Zelizer, on the other hand, refers to “habit and custom” rather than ideology, suggesting more informal behavior and wider interpretation (2004, p. 29). In other words, what is becoming globalised is the logic of journalism or “its unique epistemology and form of producing knowledge”
(Waisbord 2013, p. 195), rather than any sense of professional ethics. For Waisbord, this “distinct epistemic community” is based on “a common interest in a rush of deadlines, the thrill of scoops, disaster news, ‘now’ news and a drive towards entertainment” (Waisbord 2013, p. 199). Chapter 5 will illustrate that only traces of this this “distinct epistemic community” can be found in the area of study in
Colombia, where occupational norms are very closely connected with normative assumptions.
Both journalists and journalism scholars highlight a reporter’s commitment to public service in their occupational definitions of journalism, but as Waisbord (2013) points out, there are fundamental questions about whether professionalism is an appropriate model to shape the purpose of journalism. This becomes clearer when
37
we consider Waisbord’s multi-perspectival criticism of professionalism from Marxist, communitarian and Foucauldian approaches (2013, pp. 97-110). Let us briefly consider each of these perspectives as presented in his work.The Marxist critique stems from the belief that professionalism is inseparable from capitalism. Waisbord characterises this a journalism that is “embedded in business structures, driven by profit rather than public good” (2013, p. 98). For Meryl Aldridge and Julia Evetts (2003), professional journalism serves to control labour and reproduce the ideological status quo. For Jacques LeBohec (2000), professional journalism is a myth that reflects the distance between the reality of journalistic work and the aspirations of journalists. Professionalism is a “straitjacket”, which
discourages journalists from inserting their perspectives on story selection and frames to bolster claims to independence and neutrality (Waisbord 2013, p. 100).
The communitarian critique charges professionalism with undermining the true missions of the press in democracy (Carey, 1978, 1989, 1997, 2000). Instead, it prioritises elites and experts instead of citizens, and in turn reinforces social
inequalities and favours established powers with significant access to the news. Professionalism “cements clear divisions between those who have the power to talk and those who do not” (Waisbord, 2013, p. 101). From a communitarian perspective, the “regime of objectivity” therefore prioritises the interests of the media owners and the political and economic elite, while the professional norms bound up within this regime (which were defined above) incorporate a form of censorship, enforcing a rigid practice and prohibiting journalistic freedom. The section below on alternative journalism develops this argument further and suggests what communitarian alternatives might look like.
From a Foucauldian perspective, professionalism is in the service of power. It represents a “tool of governmentality” in the service of the regime of truth (Waisbord 2013, p. 103). By sidelining ideas that challenge dominant knowledge, professional journalism solidifies notions of acceptability and deviance. It forgoes the reporting of a multitude of diverse voices in favour of perspectives that fit conventional notions of acceptable views (Carpentier, 2005; Dent, 2008; Dodson, 2010). While such an interpretation is invaluable to the critique of professionalism, perhaps this approach encapsulates an over-simplification of Foucault’s philosophy. In short, while this position offers a substantial critique of professionalism, it may also simultaneously identify alternatives:
38
Discourse transmits and produces power; it reinforces it, but also undermines and exposes it, renders it fragile and makes it possible to thwart (Foucault 1998, pp. 100-1).Although an in-depth analysis of Foucault’s philosophy is beyond the scope of this chapter, the recognition that resistance is integral to power, rather than antithetical to it, potentially highlights alternatives for a counter-hegemonic journalistic practice. The characteristics of such a practice are explored in the section on alternative journalism below and become important as this thesis presents the idea of journalism as
resistance in subsequent chapters.
All three of these forms of critique outlined above apply in the Latin American context and more specifically to Colombia. These structures of elite political and economic power outlined by Waisbord take on added meaning in what Chapter 4 will describe as alternative social (dis)orders. These structures propagate war and propaganda models, which are in direct contrast to peace-oriented journalism (see Lynch and McGoldrick 2005), as we will see in below.
b). “Newsification”
Professionalism also results in what Silvio Waisbord calls “the newsification” of public life (2013, p. 144) (see also Bennett, 1996, 2010; Jones, 2009; Petersen, 2003; Strömback, 2008). That is to say that journalistic rules determine that public life is covered in particular ways, which particular parties, politicians and others observe. There is a need to increasingly conform to journalistic definitions of news to gain publicity (Strömback, 2008). Petersen (2003) highlights how journalists focus on short-term events and are therefore reluctant to pay significant attention to longterm, general and abstract issues. This short concentration span even applies to what Waisbord has called “watchdog journalism” in Latin America, which he argues has its “feet firmly placed in the market” (2000b, p. 247). Muckrakers in Latin America “concentrate on individual crimes rather than on the long-term concentration of power, and present superficial rather than in-depth reports about abuses” (Waisbord 2000b, p. 250). This is attributed directly to professionalism by Waisbord, which ignores social conditions in favour of “back-stabbing among political elites” (Waisbord 2000b, p. 250). For Waisbord, journalism prioritises the conventions of news and disregards the telling of news (2013, p. 147). There is therefore not only a
“newsification of public life”, as he puts its, but what this chapter argues is a
newsification of journalism. That is to say that news is similarly defined across news organisations. This similarity of news reflects the importance of organised processes, routines and norms (Waisbord 2013, p. 138). Unfortunately, journalism in the Global North has become almost synonymous with these rigid formulas of news.
39
c). A universal theory of journalism cultures?Thomas Hanitzsch (2007) outlines seven “constituents” and “principle dimensions” of journalism, which he suggests can be used to deconstruct the competing cultures of journalism, as characterised by Voltmer (2013). Hanitzsch’s aim is to formulate a theory, which can dismantle the dominant Western
understanding of news and include experiences from other parts of the world (2007, p. 372). Each aspect of this theoretical framework is presented briefly below and is explored in more detail in relation to the findings of this thesis in Chapter 5.
Interventionism
This dimension reflects the involvement of the reporter and the extent to which they “pursue a particular mission” and “promote certain values”. There is a clear divide between “the interventionist, socially committed” journalist and the “detached, uninvolved” journalist “dedicated to objectivity and impartiality” (2007, p. 372).
Power distance
One end of this pole is the “adversary”, counterpoised by the “loyal”. The former relates to what we have come to expect in liberal democracies as the “fourth estate” or “watchdog”, while the latter is more firmly attached to those in power and propaganda models of journalism (2007, pp. 372-73).
Market orientation
The third dimension is “reflective of the primary social focus that guides news production”. Market orientation is high in journalism cultures dictated by consumer needs and the “logic of the market” and low where the priority is given to the “public interest” and citizenry (2007, p. 374).
Epistemologies
As we saw above, epistemological debates within journalism “raise the question of whether or not news can provide an objective and value-free account of the truth”. Epistemologies of journalism can be classified between “objectivism” and “empiricism”, as defined in a previous section of this chapter (2007, pp. 375-78. See also Hanitzsch 2011, pp. 40-41).
Ethical ideologies
This final constituent of journalism culture in Hanitzsch’s framework is
focused on moral values and what he characterises as a relativist-ideological divide. Moral values are “specific to the cultural context in which they are embedded” (relativist), but the question is the extent to which journalism ethics might be considered universal or idealistic (Hanitzsch 2007, p. 378). While Western values may emphasise freedom, independence and honesty, among others (see Herrscher
40
2002, pp. 280-281 and Plaisaince and Skewes 2003 p. 839 both cited in Hanitzsch 2007, p. 378) some non-Western cultures “give priority to social harmony and unity” (Hanitzsch 2007, p. 378). As we will see below, in the Colombian context, current ethical practice emphasises a support for a sustainable peace (see also Appendices IV and V).Figure 3. The constituents and principal dimensions of journalism culture.
(Source: Hanitzsch 2007, 2011).
Each of the dimensions outlined above is presented as a simple binary for ease of explanation, as demonstrated in Figure 3. However, Hantizsch takes great care to cover a multitude of positionalities within the “poles” he specifies, which is currently beyond the scope of this thesis. This theoretical approach is, however, extremely useful because it combines “relatively diverse and sometimes isolated scholarly discourses” to construct a “seven-dimensional space of journalism cultures” (Hanitzsch 2007, p. 380). However, as Chapter 5 will argue, though such an approach constitutes a detailed theoretical framework to consider journalism as an institution or a set of practices, it risks falling short of being able to adequately
account for the specific motivations of individual reporters, and what this might tell us about the contexts within which they work.
d). The Latin American and Colombian context: advocacy journalism If understood as training, salaries, and career, then Latin America has made significant progress towards professionalism in recent decades (Waisbord, 2000a, 2000b). However, in Colombia, 44% of reporters say they have additional jobs because journalism does not pay enough for them to get by (Arroyave and Barrios, 2012, p. 407). Professionalism emerged in Colombia, during the period of the National Front between 1958 and 1974 when Colombia’s two main political parties, the Liberals and the Conservatives, agreed to rotate power after one of the country’s bloodiest periods (see Appendix I). It was also an agreement to end the military coup d’état, which had been in place since 1953. This period was characterised by a rather calmer partisanship than Colombia had been used to and as a result gave rise
41
to an increasing style of impartiality in the main newspapers. It also coincided with advances in printing technology and is the period in which newspapers began to operate like businesses. Therefore, Colombian journalists developed a higher professional consciousness in the 1960s (Waisbord, 2000b), yet this decade also saw the birth of Colombia’s powerful and leftist alternative press. This is the reason many journalists engaged in independent practice today prefer the label“independent” to “alternative” because they seek to separate themselves from leftist ideology, which more recently has been closely associated with the country’s internal armed conflict and the guerrilla movement.
The emergence of what we might therefore call the professional reporter was also closely linked to historical circumstances in Europe. The detached neutrality, which became the main feature of professional reporting and which many scholars perceive to be characteristic of journalism’s democratic shortcomings today, was actually a response to widespread public skepticism after World War I and an attempt to “insulate” reporters from specific interest groups including politicians and advertisers (Gitlin 2003, p. 269; see also Schudson, 2002, 2008; Allan 2004; Maras, 2013).
In Colombia, however, the impartiality that emerged did not give rise to the neutrality, which dominates European schools of journalism. The development of objectivity has instead taken the form of balancing sources and accuracy. There is an acceptance that both personal and editorial preferences inevitably slant news
(Waisbord 2000a, 2000b). As Arroyave et al. argue (2007), these are positive developments, which distinguish the country’s journalistic tradition. This honesty combined with the contribution of authors and poets to journalism in Colombia gave birth to a literary form of reportage in the country. This is the cronica, which is indeed a popular genre across Latin America and a regular feature of J-school curricula on the continent. As journalists Gerardo Reyes told Silvio Waisbord (2000) in 1995:
Latin American journalism accepts literary license and sacrifices facticity. It paraphrases rather than cites sources. It doesn’t believe in quotes. It interprets without facts (Reyes 1995 in Waisbord 2000, p. 140).
This style has been able to more easily influence public opinion, because it is “more carefully read” (Arroyave and Barrios 2012, p. 400), yet it has also resulted in the development of “a special type of advocacy reporting”:
Colombia’s continuing struggle with large-scale social, economic, and cultural contradiction has led many journalists to develop a special style of advocacy reporting that goes beyond normal news coverage. Instead, journalists tend