Notions of life and death hold a prominent place in our metaphorical repertoires.As oppositional pairs go, there are few more stark and palpable, and this is probably why it’s not only tempting but also persuasive to present the claim for journalism’s worth in similar terms. If journalism is indeed the ‘lifeblood of democracy’ and all
If journalism is indeed the ‘lifeblood of democracy’ and all this implies, societies with an unhealthy press are evidently at risk. Pleas for solutions to improve journalism’s conditions therefore, tend to go hand in hand with doomsday scenarios about the broader losses for society if journalism-as-we-know–it should cease to exist. While such thinking may not always be put in austere terms,it is nonetheless a constitutive part of the discourse that surrounds journalism as well as the basis for many concerns over its future. Journalism has long and successfully claimed to be ‘the primary sense-making
Journalism has long and successfully claimed to be ‘the primary sense-making practice of modernity’ (Hartley, 1996, p. 12). While it has always been one sense-making practice among many interrelated others, its value to society has been and still is widely acknowledged, not least by journalists, politicians, and journalism scholars. In the course of its modernist professional project, journalism carved
In the course of its modernist professional project, journalism carved out a specific place and function in democratic societies, fulfilling distinctive needs for citizens. This period, which took hold over the course of the twentieth century in much of the Western world, witnessed the rise of the mass press as well as the appearance of many of the paradigmatic claims about journalism’s value and necessity (Broersma, 2007), which still hold sway to this day. This was a time of grand theories and strong normative stances, and for the most part, such claims seemed laudable and worth striving towards, albeit challenging to realize in practice.
While admittedly fairly complicated and nuanced, it nonetheless remains that a key characteristic of this period was the appearance of durability and predictability when it came to many social institutions, forms of and approaches to knowledge (Beck, Giddens and Lash, 1994), including those associated with journalism. However, as we move beyond modernity – late, reflexive, liquid, post- or otherwise – this stability is increasingly challenged. Public trust and reliance on the ‘expert’ forms and institutions that modernity helped create is now continually being re-assessed as people turn to emerging alternatives. In addition, the development of personal media devices, 4G telecommunications, and Web 1.0, 2.0 and(soon) 3.0 fundamentally disrupt previous patterns of information provision and circulation. With this backdrop, it is no wonder that the tenor of post-millennial discussion about the news industry has been characterized by an emphasis on change. Technological advancement and economic models are the typical culpritsidentified in terms of how they are disrupting journalism practice and the news,and impacting journalism’s ability – both positively and negatively – to deliver on its historical promises.
