Abstract
In an era when the President of the United States routinely refers to news as “fake” and increasing parts of the public doubt its credibility, reflection on the nature of journalistic authority is clearly of central relevance for journalism studies. Matt Carlson, currently associate professor of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of Minnesota, makes an excellent contribution to thinking through the concept here. Carlson conceives of journalistic authority as the right to be listened to, or—a slightly circular definition—“a right to create legitimate discursive knowledge about events in the world for others.” He argues for what he calls a “relational” conception of journalistic authority, which sees it as produced in interaction between journalists and other actors, including audiences, sources, and other communicators with which journalists may compete. The point is well argued: The authority of journalism is a social reality rooted in the behavior of audiences in relying on news accounts, the willingness of sources to talk to journalists, and the tendency of a variety of actors to orient their discourse and actions around the news journalists produce.
Carlson develops his argument in two parts, looking first at the practices journalists use to legitimate their authority, and second at the roles of other actors. The first part of the book includes chapters on journalistic professionalism, on news texts and the ways in which forms of news presentation encode conceptions of authority, and on “metajournalistic discourse,” through which journalists debate and defend the legitimacy of their role and product. The second part consists of a chapter on audiences, which includes a valuable discussion of the distinction between credibility and authority; one on sources; one on technology (somewhat heterogeneous in the kinds of phenomena it addresses); and one on media criticism.
Carlson’s argument is advanced against a background of challenge to established models of journalistic authority and of historical change, and he stresses that, “the practices and arguments that underlie [journalistic] authority vary in response to cultural, political, economic and technological shifts.” He argues convincingly that the relational approach is particularly suited to conceptualizing “the contingency of journalistic practice across a wider temporal milieu.” But the book is less successful in conceptualizing change and diversity than it is in conceptualizing the traditional professional model. Carlson acknowledges that the book is limited in focusing on the single case of the United States—a legitimate choice, given the difficulty of dealing adequately with multiple cases. He also discusses at many points the forces that are changing the nature of journalistic authority—the ability of sources to reach audiences directly, for example, or the automation of journalism (though he does not much discuss either the political or the economic context of news production). He includes an interesting discussion of differences between informational and narrative journalism. And, he points to an important general direction in the conclusion by focusing on the shift toward a polyvocal rather than a monovocal news environment as crucial to thinking about the changing context of journalistic authority. But in general, he does not attempt to conceptualize very fully other forms of journalistic authority apart from the standard professional model.
One chapter begins with an account of the incident during the 2016 U.S. election in which Jorge Ramos, the anchor of Univisión’s primary newscast, was kicked out of a Trump press conference. The incident is used to open a discussion of professional norms in journalism, and Carlson discusses arguments about whether Ramos had violated professional norms by stepping out of the role of neutral observer, or had upheld them by interrogating a powerful political actor. The discussion, though, seems to abstract from the specificity of Ramos’ role, and in so doing to miss an opportunity to think about different models of journalistic authority. Ramos does, of course, have to answer to standard professional norms to maintain his legitimacy. But in important ways, his authority as a journalist has a distinct basis. He has authority with his audience to a large degree because he is seen as representing the rights of the Latinx community of belonging in American politics, their right to have those in power respond to their questions and concerns. He has authority with political figures like Trump—who made a show of readmitting him—because a significant voting bloc sees him in this way. His authority, in this sense, is not based solely on the representation of events, but on the representation of a particular community. Something similar could be said of many Fox journalists. Thinking through these different forms of journalistic authority would enrich the discussion and make the conceptualization of change and contingency more substantive. Carlson’s discussion could benefit, for one thing, from a dialogue with other scholars who have addressed the shift from objectivity to subjectivity as a basis for journalistic legitimacy, like Geoffrey Baym (From Cronkite to Colbert, 2009) or Reece Peck’s new work on Fox news (Fox Populism: Branding Conservatism as Working Class, 2018).
Carlson provides excellent conceptual tools here, and raises important questions about how journalistic authority is being restructured. But there is much we still need to think through to understand this process of change.
