european journal of cultural studies-1998-van zoonen-123-43.pdf

123

A professional, unreliable,heroic marionette (M/F)Structure, agency and subjectivity incontemporary journalisms

Liesbet van ZoonenUniversity of Amsterdam

ABSTRACT In this article, journalism in all its popular, educational,sensational, serious and political varieties is examined. This variety is

analytically contained by categorizing the field along two dimensions thatpervade contemporary journalism: gender and goals (mstitutional vs

audience orientations). The four resulting domains of journalism are thenanalysed in terms of structural constraints resulting from the characteristics

of the production process on the one hand, and the diversity of subjectiveinputs of journalists on the other. The particular articulations of structure

and subjectivity found in each domain produce various forms of agencywithin journalism and construct so-called organizational identities of

journalists. Contrary to the professional mythology surrounding traditionalnews journalism, subjectivity in its myriad manifestations is a constitutive

and necessary element of these organizational identities in all genres ofjournalism. It is argued that subjectivity does not contradict objectivity, andthat both could function as ethical standards for contemporary journalisms.

KEYWORDS gender, journalism, media ethics, objectivity, organizationalidentity, popular culture, subjectivity

Copyright C SAGE PublicationsLondon, Thousand Oaks CA

[1367 5494(199801)1 1, 123-143, 002589_

The journalist is a pivotal actor in the production of contemporarycultured Whether she or he is working in the elite press, the magazinesector or in the hybrid TV-infotainment genres, it is the journalists dailywork that is directly behind the texts of journalism. Notwithstanding thewide array of social, cultural, economic and organizational forces bearingon journalists work, they are the people behind the keyboards; theirwords and images end up in the press and on television.We simultaneously know very much and very little about journalists.

at University of Groningen on June 24, 2015ecs.sagepub.comDownloaded from

124

Academic and popular knowledge hovers between stereotyped dicho-tomies : in popular culture, for instance, journalists are often cast in therole of heroic individual fighting for justice and truth against the odds ofbureaucratic social powers, but battling also with the laziness, narcissismand silliness of their fellow journalists. It is the latter image thatresonates in public opinions deep wariness of journalists. When askedthe question Do you trust these people to tell the truth? journalistsinvariably score extremely low in the resulting ratings, together, for thatmatter, with politicians and government ministers.2 In critical academicanalyses, journalists hardly fare better: they are shown to be structurallyaligned to particular class interests, patriarchy and white culture. (E.g.Glasgow Media Group (1977, 1980) on class; Van Dijk (1991a, 1991b) onethnicity; Creedon (1989) on gender). Journalists in these studies areconstructed as interest-driven marionettes, thus adding to rather thanundermining the popular image of journalists as untrustworthy. But theopposite image of the journalist as popular hero has its resemblance insurveys on professional qualities and values among journalists also:results by and large suggest that journalists are mostly inspired by thedesire to help people, finding the investigation of government claimsinfinitely more important than the provision of entertainment andrelaxation. Almost always - or at least more often than not - they seemto be able to select which stories they will work on; see, for instance,Weaver and Wilhoit (1986, 1992, 1994), referred to in Weaver, 1996.

Neither the academic dichotomy of the relatively independent pro-fessional on the one hand and the manipulated marionette of the powers-that-be on the other, nor the parallel popular opposition between thereliable heroes and their sleazy mass of cheating colleagues, captures thecomplexities of working in contemporary journalism. In the image of theprofessional hero, the structural constraints of the profession have dis-appeared, whereas in the unreliable marionette individual honesty andagency are underrated. In addition, journalism is not an undivided field,but consists of a variety of subgenres or domains, each with its own rulesand values.

In this article I intend to develop an in-between view that does justiceto the structural determinations as well as to the moments of agency andsubjectivity in journalism and which incorporates the diversity in thefield. Although there is much work that can inform such a position(showing that the dichotomies I have just set up are extremes that servebetter to introduce the point rather than adequately summarizing thestate of the art) there is next to nothing in terms of theoretical conceptsor models that aim at a general understanding of the wide variety ofpractices and experiences that typify the day-to-day work of contem-porary journalists. To understand journalists work in a general sense iscrucial for critical cultural analyses: not only do journalists claim a direct


125

(albeit in some genres rather ambiguous) relation with truth and theworld out there - a claim legitimized in democratic societies bynumerous social and and legal privileges for journalists - but also, peopleas citizens and consumers rely on and believe in the capacity ofjournalism to present them with a true picture of reality. In addition,journalism has as its social assignment the provision of material withwhich people can make sense of this reality and act according to it,whether in the realm of the public world, in the realm of consumeraffairs or in the realm of the private. In other words, journalism is aprerequisite for civil society.

In this article, therefore, I focus on the institutional workings ofjournalism and in particular on the journalist. My first goal is to showhow the constraints and possibilities for journalists vary across differentjournalistic domains. I then use this empirical variety to develop themore general concept of organizational identity that abridges the mix ofstructural constraints, agency and subjectivity that typifies the work ofcontemporary journalists.

Domains in journalismJournalism at present is a heavily disputed profession, the debate beingoften about the decline of its institutional role in democracy and thepublic sphere and its withdrawal into the realm of popular culture andconsumption. Whereas such changes may certainly be seen to occur inmany news media, it is part of journalisms own mythology to suggestthat such popular tendencies have only recently come to the fore, whilem fact they have a long tradition. Schudson (1978), for instance, hasdescribed story journalism as a constant and historical feature ofAmerican journalism rooted in migrant traditions of story-telling. Birdand Dardenne (1988) analyse the mythic qualities of news narrative,observing many commonalities with urban legends and other elementsof folklore. In addition, many traditional specialisms in journalism havealways been part and parcel of popular culture, the most obviousexample being sports and crime news. Already in 1971 Tunstall pointedat the varying organizational goals of journalistic subfields with sportsand crime firmly aimed at maintaining popularity among largeaudiences (audience goals) and other goals such as financial and foreignnews aimed at gaining prestige in the public arena (non-revenue goals).3If one considers such traces of popular journalism as belonging to thefield as a whole, then other domains need consideration too. Journalistsworking for womens magazines, for instance, have hardly ever beendeemed worthy of research (but see Ferguson, 1983) but differ little fromtheir colleagues working for the womens pages in newspapers, who inturn have much in common with journalists working in other audience-


126

oriented subfields. The present distinction between these fields signifiesmainly an acceptance of a hierarchy of serious and popular news (whichis comparable to the distinction between high and low culture), ratherthan a useful division between truly different kinds of journalism. Sparks(1992: 67), in an argument about the press, suggests: From every point ofview it seems sensible to adopt a more catholic defimtion of journalismand of the scope of the press. In this article then, I will focus onjournalism in its totality, in its popular, educational, serious, political andother expressions in print as well as on television. Nevertheless, thevariety in journalisms is such that for reasons of clarity and analysis anordering device is necessary. For that purpose I use two prominentdistinctions within journalism: goals and gender.GoalsAs I mentioned earlier, journalistic organizations pursue a variety ofgoals that may differ within and between organizations. The commonlyobserved difference is between goals that have to do with the status ofjournalism as a prime institution of democratic societies and goals thathave to do with the journalistic organizations need to satisfy and servetheir audiences. These goals need not be contradictory, but in recenttimes they are often considered to be conflicting, especially by journalistsworking for institutionally oriented media (Hallin, 1996). The instit-utional goal of journalism implies that the frame of reference forjournalists consists of the norms and values provided by the requirementsof democracy and the public sphere (defined narrowly here). Thus, non-partisanship, balance, factual information, the priority of certain themes(politics, finance, business, foreign affairs) and a mode of address thatassumes audiences as citizens are characteristic of such an institutional

goal. Tunstall (1971) has called this the non-revenue goal of journalism,because despite its high social status it has a relatively low profit rate.This and the resistance of audiences towards the traditional forms ofcitizenship belonging to it, has put enormous pressures on the institu-tional goal in journalism to sell out - as it is often perceived - toaudience concerns and needs. Such an orientation towards audiences

produces a frame of reference for journalists that is said to be character-ized by interesting (as opposed to important) issues, convenient andpractical information, commitment and emotionality (rather thanobjectivity and rationality) and a mode of address that assumes audiencesas consumers. Consumer-oriented or market-driven journalism disting-uished by its audience goals like sports and crime has a low social statusbut can be an enormous profit machine. The trend in journalism as awhole, therefore, is towards an audience goal; there are many news textsthat can be considered purely aimed at attracting the largest audiencepossible, but there are very few that are purely institutional.


127

GenderIn popular culture, gender and genre have been recognized and analysedby many authors as closely related. For journalism, such specific analysesare absent. Journalism is usually qualified as a masculine domain becauseof its themes, style, mode of address and the gender divides in itsaudiences (see Fiske, 1987; Morley, 1985). But to define journalism as amasculine domain is only possible if one limits it to institutional forms ofjournalism. Local news, feminist media, talkshows, etc. are all part ofjournalism and cater for mixed or female audiences. In addition, jour-nalism itself thinks along lines of masculinity and femininity in definingits targets groups for new outlets, especially in the magazine market.Gender is also expressed in the composition of the journalistic workforceof the various subdomains: the field as a whole is segregated with menbeing the majority in political, foreign, financial, sports, etc. and womendominating human interest, consumer, health and other such domains.Gender is also one of the determining discourses in journalists identitiesand their texts (cf. Van Zoonen, 1994).~

Projecting the particular goals of journalism and its gender featuresonto each other and placing journalisms genres in them, the followingpicture emerges (Figure 1 ):

Figure 7 Domains m journalism


128

A thorough and empirically grounded location of media and texts in thisfigure would require an additional study. The placement here is tentativeand consists of a mixture of information on production, textual char-acteristics and audiences of various media and genres. Gossip and cele-brity magazines, for instance, are completely tuned towards audiencewishes, cover themes from private lives and are read by female audiencesin particular. Tabloids are aimed at and draw mixed audiences. Sportsjournalism as a whole is characterized by audience goals and masculinitybut sports magazines (soccer in particular) are more masculine thansports television. Reality TV with its focus on crime and accidentsbelongs in the masculine domain because of its topics and the com-position of its audiences. Its feminine parallel is emo-TV, which bringsreal-life surprises, marriage proposals, etc. to people. The quality pressand news magazines have clear institutional goals, especially in theirforeign and financial sections, and are masculine in terms of production(dominance of male journalists), themes (underrepresentation of women)and reception (slight dominance of male audience members). Journalismwith an institutional goal and with clear feminine qualities is quiterare. The womens magazines that were produced during the SecondWorld War could quahfy as such because of their clear commitment tothe maintenance of social and public life in the absence of men (Douglas,1996). Contemporary feminist media also clearly belong in this cluster.The serious local or regional press draw mixed audiences althoughwomen readers seem to have more interest in them than in the national

press. But the relative emptiness of this cluster indicates the historicalexclusion of women from the public sphere (McClaughlin, 1993). Somegenres are truly hybrid and can be located in all four clusters, dependingon the specific form and contents: docudrama is a good example,talkshows another.

Structure, agency and subjectivityHaving divided the whole field of journalism into domains, we can nowconsider in some detail how structure, agency and subjectivity arearticulated in the work of journalists in these domains. Of these terms,agency and subjectivity need some preliminary clarification. Agencyrefers to what journalists do within the structural constraints posed bythe organization of the profession and is thus always embedded inorganizational routines and pressures. It can be seen as the interfacebetween structures and the subjectivity of journalists. Subjectivity seemseasily defined as the opposite of objectivity in journalism. The meaningof objectivity in journalism is heavily contested, however, and can referto the desire to be fair and accurate (in which case subjectivity wouldmean being unfair and sloppy) as well as to the intention of avoiding bias


129

and partisanship (in which case subjectivity would mean taking sides), aswell as to being a detached outsider (in which case subjectivity wouldmean being an interested and committed insider). Such meanings ofsubjectivity relate to professional performance, but there is anotherrelevant meaning of subjectivity that relates to the identities ofjournalists as gendered, ethnic and sexual human beings and which insome cases is said or felt to be at odds with a notion of objectivity asneutrality and detachment. In my discussion of the various domains injournalism, most of these meanings of subjectivity will occur but I focusspecifically on subjectivity defined as gendered, coming back to all formsof subjectivity later.

Because obviously some areas of journalism have been subject to moreresearch than others, the status and kind of information presented belowon the articulation of structures, agency and subjectivity in the fourdomains inevitably vary from undisputed research results to tentativepropositions and suggestions.

1. Institutional, masculineThis is the category that is usually considered as the news; it is assumedto contain all the elements that are necessary for the adequatefunctioning of the public sphere and democracy, and therefore has a highsocial status. Most studies of the production of news concentrate on thisparticular domain and have shown that there is very little room forsubjectivity (defined as personal interests and opinions) because of theorganizational requirements of (daily) news production and the con-straints posed by professional ideology (objectivity, distance andneutrality), which reluctant newcomers will learn through processes ofprofessional socialization (Van Zoonen, 1989). Structures of many kindsall seem to be overriding components of journalists work in this area andagency seems more or less completely determined by these constraints.Gans (1979: 3) therefore says: obviously, journalists are in the endindividuals, but news organizations are also sufficiently bureaucratizedthat very different personalities will act much the same in the sameposition. Similarly, Tuchman (1978) points at the bureaucratic characterof news work, which she calls routinizing the unexpected.

Feminist research on journalism has shown how gender is enclosed bystructures and the resulting notions of professionalism. While femini-nity and professionalism are not inherently at odds with each other, thecurrent definitions of femininity and the historically specific require-ments of this domain produce tensions which - while expressed indifferent forms - are felt by many female journalists. In the Netherlands,for instance, many female journalists feel that they are judged primarilyas women, being subject to continual comment on their appearance andinvitations of male colleagues. Playing this game implies losing a great


130

deal of prestige as professional journalists. Women who ignore it,however - or worse, criticize it - will not be accepted by their malecolleagues as real women (cf. Diekerhof et al., 1985). Senegalese femalejournalists experience a different kind of tension between femininityand professionalism. They are accused of having lost their femininitysince their jobs require them to be away from home and neglect theirhusband and children (Van der Wijngaard, 1992). Whereas such tensionsare primarily the result of externally imposed definitions of femininity,Neverla and Kanzleiter (1984) mention tensions experienced by femalejournalists who feel that their own feminine qualities, such ascompassion, kindness and humanity, are at odds with qualities expectedof journalists, such as a certain amount of directness, distrust andtoughness.

While the pure institutional form of journalism thus favours amasculine subjectivity, its shift towards an audience goal may at leastaffect the gender dimensions in the profession. This can be illustrated bylooking at developments in Dutch national TV news (Van Zoonen, 1991).Since the mid-1980s, the majority of news readers on Dutch national TVnews have been female. They are all highly acclaimed professionals witha vast experience in other fields of journalism and do not feel that thereis anything specifically feminine about their professional performance.Their principals too contend that the women are hired for their superiorcapacities, not because of affirmative action policy or because of supposedattractiveness to audiences. There is, however, an undeniable gender-specific element in their presence that can be considered a by-product ofthe organizational goals and editorial policy of the national news. In themid-1980s the editorial policy and style of the national news was revised.It was thought that the news should offer audiences opportunities toidentify with events and personalities. Human-interest stories thereforehad to be a major ingredient of the news, and news readers were urged totransform their hitherto serious mode of address into a more personaland intimate style. Previously, the rationalistic approach was acclaimedto prevent identification; now the entertainment value and emotionalqualities have to be emphasized. In theory this could have been achievedwith an all-male anchor team, but that would deny the gendered natureof subjects and the gendered nature of cultural expectations and values.While it is definitely not the case that the anchorwomen were recruitedsimply because they were women, it does seem that the change ineditorial policy towards audience goals opened up a space in whichfeminine subjectivity may be quite functional.5

Holland (1987) has observed such tendencies in British TV news and asimilar phenomenon can be seen in war reporting, another formerstronghold of institutional, masculine journalism. Sebba (1994, cited inGallagher, 1996) claims that it is no coincidence that a high proportion of


131

the women journalists who covered the Gulf War worked for television.She argues that war is given added drama when reported by a womanand that the image of women themselves may distract audiences fromthe horrors of the war: The worlds war zones are chock-a-block withwould-be Kate Adies risking their lives for minor stations in the hope oflanding the big story because they know that what the major networkswant is a front-line account from a (preferably pretty) woman in aflackj acket (quoted in Gallagher, 1996: 2).We can conclude then, that in the institutional, masculine domain of

news, organizational routines, requirements and its specific definition ofprofessionalism and objectivity are the prime constituents of journalistsdaily work, preventing journalists from taking sides or being committedto specific causes. Journalists can vary their approaches within theconfines of these constraints, but as gender analyses of journalism haveshown, the gender subjectivity assumed of journalists and that fits withoverall structures is masculine. The latter element may change withjournalisms general shift towards an audience goal, making femininity amore self-evident component of this kind of journalism (Van Zoonen,1998).li. Audience, masculineThis is an extremely popular and profitable category, with sports, crime,sex and cars/motors and a high journalist and audience investment as itsmain features. Compared to the institutional, masculine domain ofjournalism, there is little research in this area (but see Chibnall, 1977).Tunstalls work on journalists ( 19 71 ) and television producers ( 1993) pro-vides some ideas on the articulation of structure, agency and subjectivity,especially in the work of sports journalists.

Television coverage of sports involves an enormous amount of peopleand a rather high level of technical complexity, especially when it comesto the coverage of live events. In addition, the commercial and financialramifications of sports journalism are considerable. Also, as Tunstallpoints out ( 1993: 70), recent developments in TV sports contracts involvea gradual merging of the interests of television with the interests of pro-fessional sport. A telling example of this development could be observedin the Netherlands recently, where the national soccer federation tried tolaunch a commercial sports-channel in cooperation with businessinterests and failed miserably. Also, sports journalists are closer to theiraudiences than journalists in the masculine insitutional domain.

These features of sports journalism produce a daily work routine thatis characterized by closeness to the source and a recognized mutualinterest of journalists and sources; by love or fandom of the topic (sports)rather than distance; and by siding with the audience and asking theirquestions rather than trying to inform them on the basis of objective


132

standards. In addition, it requires a thorough knowledge of the collectiveand individual psychologies of sports people and their subcultures. Sincemost sports journalism is about men, here too it is masculinity (or at leasta thorough understanding of it) that is a key element for professionalperformance. Thus, subjectivity thought of as being a sportsman ratherthan reporting on him seems a necessary part of sports journalism; inmany sports shows, former sportspeople appear as commentators andexperts. Defined somewhat differently as taking sides, subjectivity is alsorequired of sports journalists especially when it comes to coveringnational sportspeople and teams in international contests. Then, ob-viously, we have the best team, and objective statements as to thequalities of the opponent would be rare. In addition, Tudor (1997) in dis-cussing English sports journalism has convincingly argued that sportsreporting is also subjective in terms of its racist treatment of black soccerplayers and teams.

Technical, financial and organizational structures will provide strongconstraints for sports journalists. However, these structures are articu-lated differently with gender than in traditional news journalism. Theblurred line between sports journalism and its field, and the highpersonal and audience investment, seem to require the masculinity of itsjournalists willingly and visibly put in, as opposed to traditional newsjournalism, where masculinity is the hidden norm.

Whether structure, agency and gender are articulated similarly inother genres in this domain is an empirical question. Although it istempting to suggest that in the areas of sex, crime and motoring mas-culine subjectivity seems also necessary to perform as a professional whoknows how to meet structural requirements, historically crime jour-nalism has provided possibilities for women journalists as well, formstance for the sob sisters working for the turn-of-the-century yellowpress (Mills, 1996).111. Audience, feminineIn this cluster, at first sight quite different media texts come together,but local television news and gossip or celebrity magazines seem too farapart to be easily reconciled in one domain. What the texts in this clustershare, however, is a profound sense of community among their audiences.In gossip magazines this is the imagined community of stars, whichfunction as a kind of extended family for readers (Hermes, 1995), in localtelevision news it is the immediate geographic community. Thegendered composition of their journalists and audiences varies but inboth women have a higher visibility than in the two masculine genresdiscussed thus far.The low social status of these texts may be one of the reasons for the

absence of research on the way these media are produced. Feminist


133

researchers have focused somewhat on womens magazine journalists, butfrom a highly critical perspective. Talkshows and local television newshave attracted mainly reception researchers. I draw from Fergusons(1983) analysis of womens magazines, Birds (1992) study of super-market tabloids and some of my own work on Dutch gossip journalists toexplore the articulation of structure, agency and gender in this domain(Van Zoonen, 1997).

Ferguson (1983) calls the editors of womens magazines the highpriestesses to the Cult of Femininity. She describes them as fairlydifferent from each other, with a variety of personal and editing stylesthat makes it impossible to speak of a typical womens magazine editor:As might be expected from such a collection of &dquo;unique&dquo; individuals,their ways of working are various and frequently mysterious (Ferguson,1983: 120). Nevertheless, Ferguson claims that these editors do comprisea group, not only because most of them are female but also because theyshare certain standards of what constitutes professional womensmagazine journalism and because they form a fairly cohesive network.They agree in particular on the definition of professional success incommercial terms, such as circulation and advertisement revenues; theycare for their readers in ethical as well as affective or cognitive terms;and they value therefore practical advice to readers, entertainment andvalue for money. Most of them agree on the utility, validity andlegitimacy of antuition as a guide for action (Ferguson 1983: 141-2,emphasis added); they value autonomy, meaning that they expect to befree from external pressures and free to take decisions on subject andadvertising matters; and they all see themselves as professionaljournalists. As in other genres, womens magazine journalists are con-strained by financial, organizational and genre requirements, but what isparticularly striking in Fergusons account is the role of intuition in theeditorial process. Whereas on closer examination this intuition cansometimes be seen to be the individual translation of various knownaudience and market imperatives, it is quite clear that a thoroughknowledge of and feeling for the world of women is necessary forwomens magazine editors. In other words, gender subjectivity(femininity) accords particularly well with the structural requirementsof womens magazine j ournahsm.

Birds (1992) study of American supermarket tabloids shows thatpartly these journalists work does not differ very much from that ofother news journalists, especially those doing feature stories. They toohave stables of sources, they use similar kinds of background material,write frequently about science, medicine and self-help. Not surprisingly,many tabloid journalists have a background in straight journalism andBird therefore wonders: How is it that experienced newspaperjournalists can so readily adapt to a tabloid setting, even continuing to


134

use many of the same techniques they have learned in daily newspapers?(1992: 105)6 The articulation of structure, agency and subjectivity(meaning individual preferences here), however, is different from trad-itional news journalism. An extremely important structural constraintBird mentions is that of the specific tabloid formula expressed in the useof certain kinds of words, the single metaphor as the gist of every articleand the extensive use of adjectives. In feature writing for straightnewspapers the formulaic constraints seem less. In addition, thecommercial pressure to come up with stories that people want to readleads to what is called creative interviewing and quoting sources that donot exist. Bird quotes a former tabloid journalist who says: stories haveless to do with what is really happening and more to do with what &dquo;theeditor wishes to have happen&dquo; (1992: 89). Such practices are, of course,what have earned the tabloids the reputation of debasement and sleaze,and are well documented for other countries as well. Gunther Walraffsastonishing undercover story of being a reporter at the GermanBildzeltung, for instance, testifies to numerous such practices (1977). Itleaves ample room for the individual crusades of editors and journalists,albeit within the confines of the general editorial policy. In the Dutchgossip press, for instance, analogous to the American supermarket tab-loids, journalists have been seen to use their pencil to fight their personalanimosities with Dutch celebrities or politicians (Van Zoonen, 1997).Within a tighter structure, then, it seems there is more room for sub-jectivity to be defined as being unfair and sloppy, or committed to apersonal cause. On the basis of this literature nothing can be said aboutgender.

IV. Institutional, feminineAs I indicated earlier, the emptiness of this cluster seems to point to thefact that institutionally oriented journalism with feminine overtones isa contradiction in terms. There are some nationally specific examples oftalkshows that could qualify as such (Sreberny-Mohamaddi and VanZoonen, 1998), but the only complete genres that may be seen as part ofthis cluster are womens magazines during the Second World War,feminist media and to a certain extent the local press, particularlybecause of the composition of its readership.

Research in this area is just as scarce and delivers an incompletepicture. From a study on feminist television programmes broadcast bypublic service stations in the Netherlands in the 1980s it appeared thatthese producers had to struggle very hard for decent air-time, technicalsupport and financing. Once these struggles were over - if very rarelywon - producers experienced complete autonomy and by and large theseprogrammes can be seen as the product of the subjectivity - defined inpolitical, feminist terms - of their producers (Hermes and Van Zoonen,


135

1988). However, the enormous distance between the subjectivity of theproducers and the organizational structure most of the time producedever-recurring struggles and thus a lot of dissatisfaction among theproducers. They have all turned away from feminist programming,partly because of the incompatibility of feminist subjectivity withorganizational goals and policies. Similar results have been found amongyoung journalism graduates trying to incorporate feminist ideals in theirperformance as professional journalists; they too experienced conflictingexpectations between their subjective interests and the interests of theiremployers. For some this resulted in a withdrawal from journalismaltogether, but most slowly and sometimes painfully adjusted to organi-zational requirements and their feminist ideals slowly disappeared intothe background (Van Zoonen, 1989). Thus, feminist journalism withinlarger institutionally or audience-oriented organizations seems quiteimpossible, showing how structures allow for subjectivity only whenmore or less in line with accepted goals.

Independent feminist media present only a marginally differentpicture. Whereas here subjectivity in the form of explicit feminist idealsis a requirement that is stimulated by the organization instead of frust-rated, the economic viability of feminist media themselves is a factorpreventing the development of organizational identities altogether.Many of these media (see Jallov, 1996) are produced by volunteers, whoare a continuously changmg group. There are very few feminist mediathat can be called journalistic organizations in the sense that they fre-quently, regularly and continuously produce feminist news. The few thatcan be qualified as such are monthly magazines like Ms, Emma or theDutch Opz*. They have small editorial staff teams and often work with alarge pool of freelancers.

If anything emerges from these preliminary comparisons of the arti-culation of structure, agency and subjectivity in the different domains ofjournalism, it is the collective nature of journalism. In each domain, sub-jectivity is constrained by structural factors resulting in different formsof agency. However, what these factors specifically are, how subjectivity isarticulated and what kinds of agency are the result, differs considerably.

In masculine journalism pursuing institutional goals, the constraintsof organizational routines, relations with sources, editorial policy, etc. areembodied in a professional ideology that prescribes that journalists aredetached outsiders that cannot be caught promoting specific interests.Masculinity is an inevitable but denied component of this kind ofjournalism, which is, however, modified by the increasing tendencytowards the pursuit of audience goals. Agency seems more or less com-pletely determined by structural factors despite professional mythologiesof journalism as a profession of individualists.


136

In masculine journalism pursuing audience goals, the structural con-straints stem primarily from the extremely close, sometimes symbioticrelation with sources. In sports journalism in particular, closeness ratherthan distance is required of journalists and, when it comes to coveringnational sports events, subjectivity is a required instead of the un-desirable element of professional performance. In sports journalism,structural constraints and a professional ideology that prescribes close-ness and subjectivity, thus construe a different form of agency than in themasculine institutional domain; in addition, masculinity is the visiblerather than hidden norm for professional journalism here.

In feminine journalism oriented towards audiences, it is not so muchthe relation with sources that circumscribes journalistic practice, but therequirements of the market or the community that is catered for.Journalists need a thorough understanding of their readers, eitherbecause they are in a sense part of it (as with womens magazines) orbecause they understand the readership. Professional ideology andbehaviour in this domain are typified by intuition and subjectivity, whichdetermine agency as much as structural constraints.

Finally, in feminine journalism connected to institutional goals, pol-itical ideology poses an important structural constraint, requiringdeliberate subjectivity but dependent in its turn on the particularorganizational setting in which it is located.

All four domains are thus typified by structural constraints of varioussorts and by subjective inputs of various sorts, the range of both seeming-ly endless. The research discussed by and large suggests that there is nosuch person as the individual journalist. She or he has to cooperate withcolleagues, has to take the specific needs, routines and traditions of theprofession as well as the organization into account, and is limited by thesocial, economic and legal embedding of the news organization. Never-theless, as Schudson (1991: 141) observes, flesh- and -blood journalists lit-erally compose the stories we call news, and we cannot think ofjournalists as mutually replaceable machines. As has become clear, theirsubjectivities play a part in their performance and are in three of the fourdomains even expected to play a role. Only in institutional, masculinejournalism, subjectivity in whatever form is seen as an undesirableopposition to objectivity. And even in the latter, discussions about sub-jectivity are coming up, partly because objectivity itself has come underfierce attack and has been shown to be built on specific methods thattend to favour dominant institutions, positions and persons (see forexample Hall et al., 1978; Schudson, 1978). In addition, the position ofwomen and ethnic groups in journalism has generated debate on the sub-jectivity of journalists, the key issue being whether particular gender andethnic subjectivities could and should play a role in journalism in orderto improve the representation of women and ethnic groups in news texts.


137

Organizational identitiesThe suggestion resulting from this comparison of different domains injournalism is that structures and subjectivities come together in the dailywork of journalists, resulting in various forms of agency and construingwhat can be called organizational identities in journalism. The conceptintends to show that the journalist as an organizational person or a team-player is the primary actor in journalism, rather than the subjectiveindividual constrained (or not) by structural factors. As such, organi-zational identity is more or less coterminous with agency and can be seenas the interface between structure and subjectivity.

The power of structures is usually conceptualized as limiting anddestructive, inhibiting the expression and impact of subjectivity: struct-ures are thus often theorized as the antithesis of agency, as journalistsbeing forced into action rather than as acting. But organizational power isnot merely restrictive, it is significantly productive as well: specificorganizational policies and budgets, routines, job requirements, marketneeds, etc. are intersected by discourses of subjectivity - among whichare those of gender and ethnicity - and construct an organizationalidentity that reflects both the individual styles and preferences of thecommunicator and the structural imperatives of the media organization,and which is more than the sum of its parts (see Van Zoonen, 1994: 65).

Organizational identity can be visualized as follows (Figure 2):

Figure 2 Organizational identity in journalism


138

At the core of Figure 2 is organizational identity, drawn with a thin andcurling line indicating that it is a product of its constituent parts, whichinter-relate in various ways, depending on the nature of the organization.Thus, a journalist who moves from one kind of journalism to another isexpected to find her or his place and to develop a kind of organizationalidentity that meets the new requirements of professionalism and organi-zation. Likewise, when elements of journalists subjectivities change,their organizational identity may change as well, depending on theavailable space for subjectivity in the specific category. The anecdotalexample here is of journalists becoming parents and suddenly developingan interest in government policy on childcare and education (Diekerhofet al., 1985). Which specific elements of structures and subjectivity arefeeding organizational identity, and the relative strength of each part,depends on the particular genre of journalism one is working in, as hasbeen shown in the discussion of the four domains of the field. The fit (orlack of it) of structures and subjectivity in organizational identity willgreatly determine job satisfaction, performance, status and most impor-tantly the measure of freedom and respect the journalist experiences.The frustration of many female journalists in the institutional masculinejournalism discussed in this article is the most obvious example here.

For the very reason that work, and journalism in particular, with itsmythology of being a 24-hour life-style rather than a profession, fillssuch a big part of life, it seems justified to speak of an organizationalidentity rather than of an organizational role. Whereas the role concept ismuch used in organizational sociology, it seems too limited and toovolatile to capture the particular mixtures of structure and subjectivityelements that come together in journalists day-to-day performance. Alsoit does not seem an appropriate concept to cover the feeling that manyjournalists have that their profession is part of their whole life-style andsense of self - a calling rather than a job.

Discussion

As an offspring of this analysis of organizational identities in jour-nalisms, two issues arise: the fragmentation of present-day journalism;and the meaning of objectivity and subjectivity in contemporaryjournalisms.

It seems obvious that in contemporary studies of journalism andjournalists it has become impossible to take the field as an undividedwhole and consider journalists as a more or less homogeneous group: notonly do journalistic organizations vary with regard to their location insociety, their position in the market and their overall orientation; but alsojournalists themselves comprise an increasingly varied group of peoplediffering in terms of gender, ethnicity, sexuality, political preferences,


139

etc. Together organizations and journalists produce an important part ofthe symbolic environment in which we live and by which our knowledgeabout important, consequential, interesting, trivial and senseless issuesand events is guided. It is imperative in mediated societies like ours toknow and understand how our symbolic environments are constructed,but our comprehension of contemporary journalisms and journalists isarguably limited to a modest understanding of the workings of instit-utionally oriented, masculine journalism. We know comparatively littleabout audience-oriented journalism either aimed at the womens ormens market, nor of institutionally oriented journalism practised in afeminine context. These subgenres all have different market andorganizational logics, different norms of professionalism, are made bydifferent kinds of people, and are differently implicated in theiraudiences or readers social and political life. In many cases, it may evenseem that journalisms are incompatible with each other: is there any-thing a feminist journalist has in common with a motoring reporter? Isthere anything a financial reporter shares with a gossip editor?

The concept of organizational identity enables a simultaneous look atthe differences and commonalities between journalisms and journalists.It shows that for all journalists structures and subjectivities are part oftheir day-to-day performance and constitute their self-understanding asprofessional journalists, that is, knowing how to meet the specificdemands of the organization in time (see McQuail, 1983). It shows at thesame time that, as organizations and subjectivities differ, journalists asthe embodiments of organizational identities differ. Thus organizationalidentities in the context of institutional masculine journalism are quitedifferent from those in the audience-oriented, feminine field. Whereasinvolvement, loyalty and a desire to please audiences would distinguish,for instance, the womens magazine journalist, the political reporterwould stand for detachment, critical distance and a desire to examine thequality of the political process. For both, however, subjectivity is anintegral and necessary part of their performance that is openly ack-nowledged by the womens magazine journalists but suppressed andhidden in the form of invisible masculinity by the political reporter. Aswe saw in the analyses of the different kinds of journalism, contrary to itsmythology the field is indeed pervaded by subjectivity embedded in andenabled by organizational structures and taking on myriad forms.

The acknowledgement of subjectivity as a core element in contem-porary journalisms requires us to look again at objectivity in journalism.Objectivity in journalism has come under siege for various reasons: itsepistemological and ontological untenability; its practical impossibility;its effects as an instrument of domination, etc.; nevertheless, the termitself has maintained its value as a marker of good journalism (seeLichtenberg, 1991), whereas its opposite, subjective journalism, is hard to


140

envisage as positive, except possibly for clearly distmguished advocatepublications. With the ubiquity of subjectivities in journalism, however,it seems more fruitful to consider whether the linguistic contrastbetween objectivity and subjectivity implies a necessary practicalcontrast too, and to examine how subjectivity and objectivity can comple-ment each other in newly defined standards of good journalisms. Whenpertaining to accuracy and fairness, for instance, objectivity can very wellbe articulated with subjectivity, whether defined as taking sides or asbeing part of a specific gender, ethnic or political community. The onlykind of subjectivity it would be at odds with is the sloppiness andpersonal crusading characteristic of gossip and tabloid genres. A pre-requisite for subjectivity to function as an ethical standard of the samestature as objectivity, however, is its explicit presence in journalism. Thevery reason why advocate journalism is often taken seriously is itsexplicitness about its angles and viewpoints. Likewise, the presence oforganizational structures and requirements in journalisms should bemade explicit. The current descriptive and prescriptive denial of subject-ivity and structural constraints undermines the credibility of journalism,and fools no one any more, as the increasing distrust of journalists amongthe larger public seems to suggest. In other words, journalism shouldbecome more open about its own constructedness, subjectively and struct-urally, to maintain its status as a core institution of democratic societies.

Notes1. By journalist I mean here the various professionals involved in making

news media, including among others reporters and editors.2. In a recent poll conducted in The Netherlands only 38 per cent of the

Dutch trusted journalists to tell the truth. In Britain this figure was only 10per cent in 1993, whereas in 1983 it was 19 per cent. Data from theunpublished inaugural address of Holly Semetko, University ofAmsterdam.

3. Tunstall distinguishes furthermore advertising goals (motoring andfashion) and mixed goals (aviation, education, labour).

4. Whereas class and ethnicity are similarly important discourses as gender,for the particular purpose of this article they seem less helpful in trying toorder the diversity of journalism. The journalistic market as a whole isindeed also divided along class lines, for sure, with different genres aimedat different classes, but hardly along lines of ethnicity as the almostcomplete neglect of black audiences both in terms of marketing andjournalistic practices testifies. In addition, the journalistic workforce by andlarge consists of white middle-class men and - to a lesser extent women.Both class and ethnicity, and other discourses of inequity like sexuality, arethus important in specific journalistic contexts, such as the coverage of classand ethmc conflict, or being a minority in the workforce, but, unlikegender, do not pervade the field as a whole.


141

5. The fact that the most popular and successful anchor of Dutch TV newswas a man only shows that feminine qualities are not necessarily absent inmen.

6. This situation is similar among journalists in The Netherlands working forsimilar magazines (called gossip press there); cf. Van Zoonen (1997).

ReferencesBird, E. (1992) For Enquiring Minds. A Study of Supermarket Tabloids.Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.

Bird, E. and R. Dardenne (1988) Myth, Chromcle and Story: Exploring theNarrative Qualities of News, in J. Carey (ed.) Media, Myths and Narratives,pp. 67-87. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Chibnall, S. (1977) Law and Order News. London: Tavistock.Creedon, P. (1989) Women and Mass Communication. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Diekerhof, E., M. Elias and M. Sax (1985) Voor zover plaats aan de perstafel.Amsterdam: Meulenhoff.

Dimmick, J. and P. Coit (1982) Levels of Analysis in Mass Media DecisionMaking, Communication Research 9(1): 3-32.

Douglas, S. (1996) Where the Girls Are: Growing up Female with the MassMedia. New York: Times Books.

Ferguson, M. (1983) Forever Feminine: Womens Magazines and the Cult ofFemininity. London: Heinemann.

Fiske, J. (1987) Television Culture. London: Routledge.Gallagher, M. (1996) An Unfinished Story: Gender Patterns in MediaEmployment. Paris: Unesco.

Gans, H. (1979) Deciding Whats News. New York: Vintage Books.Glasgow Media Group (1977) Bad News. London: Routledge.Glasgow Media Group (1980) More Bad News. London: Routledge.Hall, S., C. Critcher, T. Jefferson, J. Clarke and B. Roberts (1978) Policing theCrisis. London: Macmillan.

Hallin, D. (1996) Commercialism and Professionalism in American NewsMedia, in J. Curran and M. Gurevitch (eds) Mass Media and Society, 2nd edn,pp. 243-64. London: Arnold.

Hermes, J. (1995) Reading Womens Magazines. Cambridge: Polity Press.Hermes, J. and L. van Zoonen ( 1988) Fun or Serious Business. FemimstTelevision Programmes in The Netherlands, paper presented at the ThirdInternational Interdisciplinary Congress of Womens Studies, Dublin.

Holland, P. (1987) When a Woman Reads the News, in H. Baehr and G. Dyer(eds) Boxed In: Women and Television, pp. 133-50. London: Pandora.

Jallov, B. (1996) Womens Voices: Crossing Frontiers, European Directory ofWomens Community Radio Stations and Womens Radio ProductionCollectives, AMARC-Europe.

Lichtenberg, J. (1991) In Defense of Objectivity, in J. Curran and M. Gurevitch(eds) Mass Media and Society, pp. 216-32. London: Arnold.


142

McClaughlin, L. (1993) Feminism, the Public Sphere, Media and Democracy,Media, Culture and Society 15(4): 599-620.

McQuail, D. (1983) Mass Communication Theory. London: Sage.Mills, K. (1996) What Difference do Women Journalists Make?, in P. Norris(ed.) Women, the Media and Politics. New York: Oxford University Press.

Morley, D. (1985) Family Television. London: Comedia.Neverla, I. and G. Kanzleiter (1984) Journalistinnen. Hamburg: Campus Verlag.Schudson, M. (1978) Discovering the News. New York: Basic Books.Schudson, M. (1991) The Sociology of News Production Revisited, in J. Curranand M. Gurevitch (eds) Mass Media and Society, pp. 141-59. London: Arnold.

Sparks, C. (1992) Popular Journalism: Theories and Practice, in P. Dahlgrenand C. Sparks (eds) Journalism and Popular Culture. London: Sage.

Sreberny-Mohamaddi, A. and L. van Zoonen (eds) (1998) Womens Politics andCommunication. New York: Hampton Press.

Tuchman, G. (1978) Making News. New York: Free Press.Tudor, A. (1997) Reporting Sports: Race, Identity and Difference, in K. Brants,

J. Hermes and L. van Zoonen (eds) The Media in Question: Popular Culturesand Public Interests. London: Sage.

Tunstall, J. (1971) Journalists at Work. London: Sage.Tunstall, J. (1993) Television Producers. London: Routledge.Van Dijk, T. (1991a) News as Discourse. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Van Dijk, T. (1991b) News Analysis. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.Van der Wijngaard, R. (1992) Women as Journalists: Incompatibility of Roles?,African Media Review 6(2): 47-56.

Van Zoonen, L. (1989) Professional Socialization of Feminist Journalists in TheNetherlands, Womens Studies in Communication 12(3): 1-23.

Van Zoonen, L. (1991) A Tyranny of Intimacy: Women, Femininity andTelevision News, in P. Dahlgren and C. Sparks (eds) Communication andCitizenship. London: Routledge.

Van Zoonen, L. (1994) Feminist Media Studies. London: Sage.Van Zoonen, L. (1997) The Ethics of Reporting on Private Lives, in K. Brants,

J. Hermes and L. van Zoonen (eds) The Media in Question: Popular Culturesand Public Interests. London: Sage.

Van Zoonen, L. (1998) One of the Girls? The Incipient Feminization of News,in C. Carter, G. Branston and S. Allen (eds) News, Gender and Power. London:Routledge.

Van Zoonen, L. and W Donsbach (1988) Professional Values and Gender inBritish and German Journalism, paper presented to the 38th AnnualConference of the International Communication Association, New Orleans.

Walraff, G. (1977) Verslaggever by Bild. Amsterdam: Van Gennep.Weaver, D. (1996) Women as Journalists, in P. Norris (ed.) Women, the Mediaand Politics. New York: Oxford University Press.


143

Biographical noteLiesbet van Zoonen is Associate Professor and Chair of Media Studies at theUniversity of Amsterdam. She has published widely on gender, media andjournalism in various international journals. She is the author of FeministMedia Studies (1994) and co-editor of The Media in Question: Popular Culturesand Public Interests. ADDRESS: Department of Communication, University ofAmsterdam, Oude Hoogstraat 24, 1012 CE Amsterdam, The Netherlands[email: [email protected]]
