The financial news ecosystem: Journalists’ perceptions of group hierarchy

Abstract

While global financial journalism has grown substantially in recent decades, little is known about journalists’ perceptions of the key players in this news ecosystem. This study draws from research into social group hierarchies and prestige media to explore this question within the United States, the largest market for financial journalists. A national survey of financial journalists (n = 349) shows that The Wall Street Journal and Andrew Ross Sorkin of The New York Times are perceived as the most influential financial media outlet and journalist, respectively. However, financial journalists are not a monolithic entity in terms of their perceptions of the leaders in the field. Some differences exist among the respondents as a function of their demographic and work-related characteristics. The theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

Keywords

Business news financial journalism group hierarchies news ecosystems prestige media

Surveys of journalists have typically centered on perceptions of their profession and assessments of credibility. Although existing journalism studies provide important insights into the news ecosystem, as well as its routines and norms (Becker and Vlad, 2009; Bourdieu, 2005; Brownlee and Beam, 2012; Reich and Hanitzsch, 2013), there is a lack of attention to journalists’ evaluations of leading media entities and news professionals, whose influence is recognized by their peers. In reality, group hierarchies are a universal, natural feature of social groups as people rank order group members (Anderson and Kilduff, 2009a, 2009b).

‘Prestige’ organizations and individuals perceived as having superior expertise tend to set trends and influence the decisions of group members (Bikhchandani et al., 1988, 1992; DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). Journalism is one such field in which imitative behavior is prevalent (Boczkowski, 2010). An important professional routine is the cross-checking of elite media outlets to guide story selections and news decisions (Dearing and Rogers, 1996).

The vast majority of research into the influence of the key players within a news ecosystem has largely focused on political reporting (Breed, 1955; Crouse, 2003; Gans, 1979). While business journalism has witnessed explosive global growth in the past two decades (see Kjaer and Langer, 2005; Koikkalainen, 2007; Shrikhande, 2004; Tambini, 2010; Usher, 2013), research into the inner workings, as well as perceptions, of members of this professional group remains cursory (Davis, 2000; Doyle, 2006; Oberlechner and Hocking, 2004). Some business news experts proclaim which media entities lead the pack (e.g. Roush, 2009; Starkman, 2009), yet these rankings are largely anecdotal. Consequently, little is known about which news outlets and professionals are actually perceived as being influential among financial journalists as a whole, and whether there are differences in opinion among journalist subgroups.

This study attempts to fill this gap. The purpose of the current undertaking is to advance our empirical understanding of the group hierarchy within the financial news ecosystem, a subset of business journalism (Doyle, 2006). The United States was selected as the setting for this study as it has the world’s largest financial markets and employs the most financial journalists (Roush, 2011; Usher, 2013). The inferences reported here have important implications for both journalism theory and practice at a time when business news is increasingly relevant to civic life.

Literature review

Journalists’ perceptions and group hierarchies

Journalism studies have long been interested in news people’s perceptions. This literature gauges how journalists perceive their work roles and news routines (Becker and Vlad, 2009; Berkowitz, 1993; Sigal, 1973; Tuchman, 1972, 1978). Related work focuses on levels of perceived professional autonomy (Reich and Hanitzsch, 2013; Weaver et al., 2007), factors journalists believe to influence their work (Berkowitz, 1993; Hanitzsch and Mellado, 2011), and job satisfaction (see Brownlee and Beam, 2012, for a review). To a lesser extent, scholars study perceived credibility as it pertains to journalists’ attitudes toward sources (Hanusch, 2012), poll data (Kohut, 1986), and media trust (Cassidy, 2007; Stroud and Lee, 2013).

Nevertheless, research remains lacking in examining journalists’ assessments of the influencers within a news ecosystem. Studies of the sociology of the news indicate that journalism has its own sets of routines, traditions, norms, and values, similar to other social groups and systems (e.g. Becker and Vlad, 2009; Bourdieu, 2005; Breed, 1955; Gans, 1979; Shoemaker and Reese, 1996; Shoemaker et al., 2009). Due to limited time and resources, journalists rely on these routines to make their work manageable, including cross-checking higher prestige media outlets and journalists to form, validate, and confirm their sense of the news (Boczkowski, 2010; McCombs et al., 2011). Therefore, it is necessary to further explore how journalists perceive the leaders they look up to.

According to social competition theorists, group hierarchies emerge whenever people congregate (Anderson and Kilduff, 2009a, 2009b). Groups tend to give influence to members who possess superior competence, expertise, or prestige, which specifically refers to social rank granted to individuals who are recognized and respected for their skills, success, or knowledge (Henrich and Gil-White, 2001; Magee and Galinsky, 2008). Economists use somewhat different language, saying organizations and individuals choose to follow those that are perceived as having ‘superior information’ (Bikhchandani et al., 1988, 1992; Lieberman and Asaba, 2006) or have attained greater success. Social systems typically agree upon a hierarchy of elite actors and imitate some of their behaviors, leading to homogenization.

The business news ecosystem

Some studies (Dominick, 1981; Ragas, 2014) show that business news coverage across the media often overlaps, although there is little empirical work into which media outlets and which journalists lead the rest of the pack. Previous scholarship does indicate that business journalists turn to the work of their peers as a source for story ideas (Doyle, 2006; Oberlechner and Hocking, 2004; Usher, 2013). Doyle’s (2006) study of UK business journalists, for example, finds that most ideas ‘stem from scanning other media (especially newswires)’ (p. 436). Furthermore, Usher’s (2013) study of US business news organizations recognizes The New York Times as an influential leader in the field.

Much of the research into business journalism has focused on the roles, responsibilities, and performance of watchdog journalism following the 2000 stock market collapse (e.g. Doyle, 2006; Henriques, 2000), the 2007–2009 housing market bubble, and the global financial crisis (e.g. Tambini, 2010; Usher, 2013). The current study takes on a different task. It deals with how financial news organizations and journalists perceive influential players in their news ecosystem. If we want to further investigate the normative expectations of this field, then it is important to understand a group hierarchy as seen through the eyes of the journalists working within it.

Anecdotal evidence of group hierarchy

Looking beyond the academic research, there is a mix of anecdotal evidence regarding the perceived financial journalism hierarchy. Most notably, The Wall Street Journal is hailed by many as the bellwether for financial news (Kurtz, 2001; Roush, 2009, 2011; Starkman, 2009). Roush (2009) identifies the following outlets as ‘the powerful players’ (para. 24): The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, the Washington Post, Bloomberg Businessweek, and FORTUNE. Starkman (2009), in turn, offers his own list: The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, Bloomberg News, the Financial Times, FORTUNE, Businessweek, and Forbes. In addition, Reuters and Dow Jones News have also been highlighted (Chozik and Barbaro, 2012; Kurtz, 2001).

Turning to individual journalists, the business columnists at The New York Times are noted for having a wide following (e.g. Kurtz, 2001; Roush, 2009; Starkman, 2009). Andrew Ross Sorkin and Michael Lewis receive accolades for their reputation and influence on fellow financial journalists (Pressler, 2011; Sherman, 2009). While not always discussed in flattering light, news people at CNBC, particularly Jim Cramer and Maria Bartiromo, are singled out for their high profiles (Brady, 2003; Stelter, 2011; Tkacik, 2009).

Based on this review of the literature, financial journalists, as with any other social group, should be able to collectively articulate a group hierarchy in terms of who holds positions of perceived influence within their field. Although anecdotal evidence helps identify such influential financial media outlets and professionals, no scientific, empirical findings are available to confirm these lists. Therefore, the first set of research questions is submitted:

RQ1a. What is the rank order of most influential financial news outlets according to the surveyed respondents?

RQ1b. What is the rank order of most influential financial journalists according to the surveyed respondents?

Variations in perceptions

While journalists share values, norms, and routines, they have never been a monolithic entity (Benson, 2006; Bourdieu, 2005). Surveys of journalists suggest that journalists’ assessments may differ among groups, depending on various determinants. Becker and Vlad (2009), for instance, suggested that news routines vary across settings, among organizations, and among journalists. As early as the 1970s, Sigal (1973) subdivided journalists by their individual and organizational characteristics to gauge perceptual differences.

Subsequent studies (Reich and Hanitzsch, 2013; Weaver et al., 2007) further define individual factors as journalists’ professional backgrounds and functions (e.g. experience, editorial rank, beat, income) as well as personal characteristics (e.g. gender, age, race, education, political view). Structural characteristics of the organization are defined by size, medium, and geography among others (Cassidy, 2007; Filak, 2004). Recent research divides journalists into subgroups based on their demographics and work-related conditions (Brownlee and Beam, 2012; Hanusch, 2012; Stroud and Lee, 2013). These variables, in different degrees, have been found to stimulate variations in the way groups of journalists perceive credibility (Cassidy, 2007; Hanusch, 2012; Stroud and Lee, 2013), professional autonomy (Reich and Hanitzsch, 2013; Weaver et al., 2007), news routines (Becker and Vlad, 2009; Berkowitz, 1993), and job satisfaction (Brownlee and Beam, 2012).

No previous studies have examined the influence of demographic and work-environment characteristics on the way journalists perceive and rank the key players in a news ecosystem. However, it is plausible and important to look at possible variations based on the characteristics of respondents. Filak (2004) demonstrates that journalists carry characteristics of groups in an intergroup-bias dynamic, in which members of competing groups tend to show favor toward their own group. Individuals, including journalists, choose to associate with certain social groups in order to gain a sense of belonging. Once the decision is made, they enact their role within the group and adopt intergroup-bias in making judgments (Filak, 2004). Applied to the present study, the researchers set out to explore whether demographic and work-related variables have some predictive value in financial journalists’ perceptions of the most influential outlets and individuals within their field. Thus, the following research questions are presented:

RQ2a. Which demographic characteristics are significant determinants of respondents’ nominations of influential financial media outlets?

RQ2b. Which work-related characteristics are significant determinants of respondents’ nominations of influential financial media outlets?

RQ3a. Which demographic characteristics are significant determinants of respondents’ nominations of influential financial journalists?

RQ3b. Which work-related characteristics are significant determinants of respondents’ nominations of influential financial journalists?

Methodology

Data collection

The data for this study were collected through an online, self-administered survey of US-based financial journalists, defined as those responsible for gathering, reporting, and disseminating finance-related news and information. These included reporters/writers, editors, columnists, and producers/news directors (Brownlee and Beam, 2012). This survey of financial journalists, one of the first of its kind in the United States, was completed in December 2011. A month prior to data collection, a pilot test was conducted and the main study questionnaire was refined based on this feedback.

In order to solicit participation, the researchers used a journalist database maintained by the Gorkana Group, an international media intelligence firm that tracks professionals in the world of business journalism (Doty, 2008). An invitation was delivered to 3,109 e-mail addresses, informing potential participants that for each journalist completing the survey, a US$2.50 donation would be made to the Society for American Business Editors and Writers (SABEW). Each respondent had the option of entering to win an Apple iPad2 as an incentive. In addition to advanced notifications, three waves of reminder e-mails and/or phone calls were conducted to reach out to non-respondents (Kaplowitz et al., 2004; Keusch, 2012). This process drew participation from 349 individuals, who identified themselves as journalists primarily covering finance-related beats. Overall, the response rate was 11.2 percent, which is typical for surveys of US business journalists (SABEW, 2013) and list-based online samples (Keusch, 2012).

The study sample represented a diverse community of experienced financial journalists. For those who provided information regarding their age (n = 232) and work experience (n = 237), an average participant is 43 years old and has worked in financial journalism for over 13 years. Table 1 detailed other characteristics of the surveyed respondents.

Table 1.

Respondent profile.

Variable	Valid percentage	Total percentage
Editorial rank	Junior: 56.4	Junior: 38.1
(n = 236)	Senior: 43.5	Senior: 29.5
Newsroom size	Fewer than 10 reporters/editors: 35.7	Fewer than 10 reporters/editors: 24.1
(n = 235)	Between 10 and 20 reporters/editors: 15.7	Between 10 and 20 reporters/editors: 10.6
	Between 21 and 30 reporters/editors: 5.5	Between 21 and 30 reporters/editors: 3.7
	Between 31 and 40 reporters/editors: 3.0	Between 31 and 40 reporters/editors: 2.0
	Between 41 and 50 reporters/editors: 4.	Between 41 and 50 reporters/editors: 3.2
	More than 50 reporters/editors: 35.3	More than 50 reporters/editors: 23.8
News platform	Online: 42.1	Online: 28.1
(n = 233)	Traditional: 57.9	Traditional: 38.7
Work location	Northeast: 68.9	Northeast: 47.0
(n = 238)	Others: 31.1	Others: 21.2
Race	Caucasian: 83.7	Caucasian: 54.4
(n = 227)	Non-Caucasian: 16.3	Non-Caucasian: 10.6
Gender	Male: 59.7	Male: 40.4
(n = 236)	Female: 40.3	Female: 27.2

Measures and analysis

In order to examine perceptions of leading media outlets, participants were asked to respond to an open-ended question asking them to name up to three news organizations they perceived as being the most influential in financial journalism. Perceptions of influential financial journalists were gauged in a similar way. Respondents were allowed to nominate up to three individuals. The raw number of nominations mentioned by the respondents was counted and aggregated to form a list of five media outlets and five professionals perceived as being the most influential in financial journalism in the United States. The researchers examined the responses from each participant to screen out duplications, ensuring that every count was unique.

In an effort to offer greater insight into the way financial journalists nominated influential media outlets and professionals, the survey questionnaire asked respondents to provide details pertaining to their demographic and work-related characteristics. Demographics comprised race, gender (female vs male), and age. Work-related variables consisted of professional experience (years of work experience), editorial rank, newsroom size (Likert-scale with ‘1’ being ‘fewer than 10 reporters/editors’ and ‘6’ being ‘more than 50 reporters/editors’), news platform (dominant medium for work published), and work location (regions of the country).

Variations in perceptions of influential media outlets and journalists as a function of respondents’ characteristics were examined through logistic regression analysis, a statistical procedure used to predict categorical outcome variables from various categorical and continuous independent variables (Agresti, 2013). In order to facilitate data analysis and to address issues pertaining to non-response, some variables were recoded. Specifically, race was collapsed as Caucasian and non-Caucasian.¹ Editorial rank was coded as junior (reporter/writer) and senior (editor/producer/news director/columnist). News platforms were categorized as Web/online and traditional media. Work locations comprised the Northeast United States and others (i.e. non-Northeast).

Results

RQ1a asked about the rank order or perceived hierarchy of influential business news outlets according to the respondents. Overall, 889 nominations were made for 62 news organizations. As shown in Table 2, The Wall Street Journal captured the top spot in the US business news ecosystem, receiving nominations from 71.9 percent (n = 238) of the respondents. In second place was Bloomberg News with nominations from 6 out of 10 respondents (n = 199, 60.1%). After the top two, there was a significant drop-off in the number of nominations with The New York Times in third place (n = 107, 32.3%). Rounding out the top five was Reuters News (n = 86, 26%) and the Financial Times (n = 66, 19.9%), both global media outlets that are headquartered in London. The top three outlets are all based in New York City.

Table 2.

Top five most influential financial news outlets and journalists in United States.

	All respondents (percent)	Respondents without missing data (percent)
Financial news outlets
The Wall Street Journal	71.9	68.5
Bloomberg News	60.1	59.7
The New York Times	32.3	31.9
Reuters News	26.0	23.1
Financial Times	19.9	19.9
Financial journalists
Andrew Ross Sorkin, The New York Times	23.9	15.0
Gretchen Morgenson, The New York Times	21.1	14.4
Michael Lewis, Vanity Fair and author	17.7	12.0
Paul Krugman, The New York Times	15.3	9.7
Jim Cramer, CNBC and TheStreet	9.1	6.0

Note: Respondents were asked, ‘In your opinion, what is the most influential financial news outlet in the United States today?’, and ‘In your opinion, who is the most influential financial journalist in the United States today?’. Respondents were allowed to nominate up to three choices for each question.

RQ1b examined the rank order of influential financial journalists. A total of 456 nominations were made for 158 different individuals. According to the respondents, The New York Times employs the top two most influential financial journalists (Andrew Ross Sorkin and Gretchen Morgenson) and three of the top five (see Table 2). Sorkin and Morgenson attracted nominations from 23.9% (n = 50) and 21.1% (n = 44) of respondents, respectively. In third place was Michael Lewis, the best-selling business book author (n = 37, 17.7%). Receiving the fourth most nominations (n = 32, 15.3%) was the economist Paul Krugman, also a columnist for The New York Times. Closing out the top five was former hedge fund manager and CNBC and TheStreet commentator Jim Cramer (n = 19, 9.1%).

In order to avoid non-response bias, an additional analysis was conducted with cases containing no missing data in all demographic and work-related variables (n = 216). The results further confirmed the rank order of influential news organizations and journalists with minor percentage fluctuations (see Table 2).

The second set of research questions (RQ2a, RQ2b) examined respondents’ characteristics as determinants of whether or not they had nominated these top five news outlets for their perceived influence. Because the list consisted of five media outlets, the analysis involved the probability of respondents selecting each of the five, given a set of independent variables. There were five different outcome variables, which were not mutually exclusive, rather than five mutually exclusive categories of one single dependent variable. Thus, five separate regression models were constructed and run, one at a time. In each model, the outcome variable was binary: whether the respondent nominated (1 = Yes) or did not nominate (0 = No), a news organization that was ranked collectively as one of the top five outlets. Both work-related characteristics and demographics served as predictors. An interaction term for work-related variables and another interaction term for demographic variables were also included. Because the additive models (i.e. main effect of each predictor on the odds) showed a poor fit, the presence of interactions helped explain more variance in the models. This approach sought to account for the combined effect of each set of predictors on each outcome variable. After the data had been checked against the assumptions underlying logistic regression (Field, 2009), all variables and interaction terms were entered for each model simultaneously. Due to missing data across the selected variables, 216 valid cases were retained for analysis.

According to the results, a test of the full model against a constant-only model was significant in the case of Reuters, indicating that respondents’ characteristics as a whole distinguished between those who nominated Reuters and those who did not when ranking influential news organizations, χ²(10) = 27.62, p < .005. The Nagelkerke R² value of .18 indicated a moderate relationship between prediction and grouping. Prediction success overall was 78.7 percent. As shown in Table 3, newsroom size was the best predictor in the model, suggesting that when newsroom size increased by one unit, the odds ratio of nominating Reuters was 1.3 times higher. The confidence interval (CI) for this ratio was above 1.00, which is satisfactory. All other predictors in the model were not significant.

Table 3.

Respondents’ characteristics as predictors of nominations of influential news outlets.

Outlet nominated	Respondent’s characteristics	B (SE)	Odds ratio	95% CI
The Wall Street Journal	Professional experience	0.01 (0.02)	1.01	0.96–1.06
	Editorial rank	0.50 (0.38)	1.65	0.79–3.44
	Newsroom size	−0.01 (0.08)	0.99	0.85–1.17
	News platform	0.45 (0.34)	1.58	0.80–3.08
	Work location	−0.57 (0.36)	0.57	0.28–1.15
	Interaction (work-related)	−0.01 (0.01)	0.99	0.99–1.01
	Race	−0.36 (0.58)	0.70	0.22–2.18
	Gender	−1.45 (0.64)	0.24	0.07–0.82
	Age	−0.05 (0.02)*	0.95	0.91–0.98
	Interaction (demographic)	0.03 (0.02)*	1.03	1.00–1.06
	Constant	3.36 (1.10)**
Bloomberg News	Professional experience	0.01 (0.02)	1.01	0.96–1.05
	Editorial rank	−0.25 (0.34)	0.78	0.40–1.51
	Newsroom size	−0.06 (0.07)	0.94	0.81–1.09
	News platform	0.15 (0.32)	1.16	0.63–2.15
	Work location	0.01 (0.33)	1.01	0.53–1.91
	Interaction (work-related)	0.01 (0.01)	1.00	0.99–1.01
	Race	0.23 (0.47)	1.25	0.50–3.15
	Gender	0.45 (0.53)	1.56	0.56–4.40
	Age	−0.01 (0.02)	0.99	0.96–1.03
	Interaction (demographic)	−0.01 (0.01)	0.99	0.97–1.02
	Constant	1.27 (0.99)
The New York Times	Professional experience	0.02 (0.02)	1.02	0.98–1.07
	Editorial rank	−0.29 (0.36)	0.75	0.37–1.52
	Newsroom size	−0.13 (0.08)	0.88	0.75–1.03
	News platform	−0.01 (0.34)	0.99	0.51–1.91
	Work location	−0.59 (0.34)	0.56	0.29–1.09
	Interaction (work-related)	0.01 (0.01)	1.01	0.99–1.02
	Race	0.08 (0.51)	1.08	0.40–2.94
	Gender	0.30 (0.57)	1.35	0.45–4.08
	Age	−0.01 (0.02)	0.99	0.96–1.03
	Interaction (demographic)	−0.02 (0.01)	0.98	0.96–1.01
	Constant	0.15 (0.94)
Reuters	Professional experience	−0.06 (0.03)	0.95	0.89–1.01
	Editorial rank	0.11 (0.44)	1.12	0.47–2.67
	Newsroom size	0.28 (0.09)**	1.32	1.10–1.58
	News platform	0.39 (0.40)	1.48	0.68–3.25
	Work location	0.20 (0.44)	1.22	0.52–2.91
	Interaction (work-related)	0.01 (0.01)	1.01	0.99–1.02
	Race	0.66 (0.61)	1.94	0.58–6.46
	Gender	0.92 (0.64)	2.50	0.71–8.84
	Age	0.01 (0.02)	1.01	0.97–1.06
	Interaction (demographic)	−0.02 (0.02)	0.98	0.95–1.01
	Constant	−3.12 (.1.19)**
Financial Times	Professional experience	−0.04 (0.03)	0.96	0.92–1.02
	Editorial rank	0.45 (0.43)	1.56	0.68–3.59
	Newsroom size	0.03 (0.09)	1.04	0.87–1.24
	News platform	0.19 (0.40)	1.21	0.55–2.64
	Work location	0.75 (0.44)	2.12	0.90–4.97
	Interaction (work-related)	0.01 (0.01)	0.99	0.98–1.01
	Race	−0.46 (0.60)	0.63	0.19–2.06
	Gender	0.20 (0.64)	1.22	0.35–4.25
	Age	0.03 (0.02)	1.03	0.99–1.07
	Interaction (demographic)	0.01 (0.02)	1.01	0.98–1.04
	Constant	−2.86 (1.12)*

B = beta; SE = standard error; CI = confidence interval.

p < .05; **p < .01.

While the full model for The Wall Street Journal was not statistically robust, χ²(10) = 16.21, p = .094, the interaction term of demographic variables was significant, indicating that race, gender, and age as combined helped predict whether or not respondents nominated this media outlet as being influential. According to the odds ratio and CI (see Table 3), Caucasian, male, and older journalists were 1.03 times more likely to nominate The Wall Street Journal. Age alone seemed to negatively associate with the probability to rank this news organization, but the value of the proportionate of change in odds and the CI were below the 1.00 benchmark and difficult to interpret.

The remaining regression models for Bloomberg News, The New York Times, and the Financial Times were not statistically significant and no variables, whether demographic or work-related characteristics, were found to predict whether respondents nominated these media outlets as being influential.

RQ3a and RQ3b were concerned with respondents’ characteristics as predictors of whether or not they had nominated each of the top five individuals in financial journalism. Because there were five binary dependent variables, five logistic regression models were analyzed in a similar manner described in the previous section. These models were run separately with the outcome being whether the respondent actually did (1 = Yes) or did not nominate (0 = No) an individual identified as one of the five most influential financial journalists. Work-related and demographic predictors and two interaction terms (one for each set of predictors) were entered for each model simultaneously, following the forced entry method. The analysis was conducted on 216 valid cases. In comparison with the main effect models, adding interactions improved model fits and helped gauge the effect of each set of predictor variables in combination.

As indicated in the results, the full model in the case of Sorkin was an improvement as compared to the constant-only model. Respondents’ characteristics, as a whole, helped predict those who nominated and perceived Sorkin as influential and those who did not, χ²(10) = 20.89, p < .05. According to the Nagelkerke R² value of .16, there was a significant association between prediction and outcome. Prediction success overall was 86.1 percent. A closer examination of the odds ratio and CI suggests that editorial rank was the most significant predictor. Senior journalists were 4.55 times more likely to rank Sorkin. According to Table 4, there seemed to be a significant contribution of the interaction term for work-related variables. However, both the odds ratio and its CI crossed 1.00, indicating a lack of robustness in this finding.

Table 4.

Respondents’ characteristics as predictors of nominations of influential journalists.

Journalist nominated	Respondent’s characteristics	B (SE)	Odds ratio	95 percent CI
Andrew Ross Sorkin	Professional experience	0.04 (0.04)	1.04	0.97–1.11
	Editorial rank	1.52 (0.52)**	4.55	1.65–12.58
	Newsroom size	0.14 (0.11)	1.15	0.94–1.42
	News platform	0.09 (0.47)	1.10	0.44–2.75
	Work location	0.42 (0.49)	1.52	0.58–3.98
	Interaction (work-related)	−0.03 (0.01)*	0.97	0.95–0.99
	Race	0.99 (0.87)	2.71	0.49–14.84
	Gender	1.36 (0.90)	3.90	0.67–22.75
	Age	−0.05 (0.03)	0.95	0.90–1.02
	Interaction (demographic)	−0.02 (0.02)	0.98	0.93–1.02
	Constant	−2.74 (1.68)
Gretchen Morgenson	Professional experience	−0.01 (0.03)	0.99	0.93–1.05
	Editorial rank	−0.12 (0.48)	0.89	0.35–2.27
	Newsroom size	−0.13 (0.11)	0.88	0.71–1.10
	News platform	0.07 (0.46)	1.07	0.44–2.61
	Work location	0.52 (0.48)	1.68	0.65–4.34
	Interaction (work-related)	0.01 (0.01)	1.01	0.99–1.02
	Race	0.27 (0.77)	1.31	0.29–5.88
	Gender	0.81 (0.80)	2.26	0.47–10.82
	Age	0.04 (0.02)	1.04	0.99–1.08
	Interaction (demographic)	−0.02 (0.02)	0.98	0.94–1.02
	Constant	−3.61 (1.33)**
Michael Lewis	Professional experience	0.05 (0.04)	1.05	0.98–1.12
	Editorial rank	−0.08 (0.56)	0.92	0.31–2.74
	Newsroom size	−0.08 (0.12)	0.93	0.74–1.16
	News platform	0.07 (0.51)	1.07	0.40–2.88
	Work location	1.22 (0.60)*	3.38	1.05–10.91
	Interaction (work-related)	−0.01 (0.01)	0.99	0.98–1.01
	Race	1.99 (1.44)	7.32	0.44–121.74
	Gender	3.35 (1.45)*	28.46	1.65–490.06
	Age	−0.01 (0.03)	0.99	0.94–1.06
	Interaction (demographic)	−0.06 (0.03)	0.95	0.89–1.01
	Constant	−5.81 (2.50)*
Paul Krugman	Professional experience	0.07 (0.04)	1.08	0.99–1.16
	Editorial rank	−0.23 (0.57)	0.79	0.26–2.43
	Newsroom size	0.03 (0.12)	1.03	0.81–1.31
	News platform	−0.88 (0.54)	0.46	0.14–1.20
	Work location	−0.07 (0.53)	0.93	0.33–2.67
	Interaction (work-related)	−0.01 (0.01)	0.99	0.98–1.02
	Race	2.43 (1.50)	11.41	0.60–215.44
	Gender	2.83 (1.50)	16.89	0.90–317.70
	Age	0.01 (0.03)	1.00	0.95–1.06
	Interaction (demographic)	−0.07 (0.03)*	0.93	0.88–0.99
	Constant	−5.11 (2.40)*
Jim Cramer	Professional experience	0.03 (0.04)	1.03	0.94–1.12
	Editorial rank	−0.32 (.84)	0.72	0.14–3.75
	Newsroom size	0.37 (0.16)*	1.44	1.06–1.97
	News platform	0.41 (0.71)	1.51	0.38–5.99
	Work location	0.02 (0.71)	1.02	0.26–4.09
	Interaction (work-related)	−0.01 (0.01)	0.99	0.96–1.01
	Race	18.61 (6020.46)	120639.11	0.00–0.00
	Gender	0.96 (2.80)	2.62	0.01–633.55
	Age	0.01 (0.07)	1.00	0.88–1.14
	Interaction (demographic)	0.01 (0.07)	1.01	0.89–1.14
	Constant	−23.93 (6020.46)

B = beta; SE = standard error; CI = confidence interval.

p < .05; **p < .01.

Although the complete model for Lewis was not statistically significant, χ²(10) = 16.34, p = .090, Table 4 shows the significant role of work location and gender as two stand-alone predictors of whether respondents chose to nominate Lewis. Specifically, those based in the Northeast United States were 3.38 times more likely to nominate him; and the odds of a male respondent who nominated Lewis were almost 29 times higher than those of a female respondent.

Newsroom size proved to be a single determinant in Cramer’s case, though the full model was not significant, χ²(10) = 17.34, p = .067. As suggested by the odds ratio and CI, when newsroom size increased by one unit, the probability of nominating Cramer increased 1.44 times. In other words, journalists in larger newsrooms were more likely to nominate Cramer.

The logistic regression models for Morgenson and Krugman were not statistically significant, and all variables did not predict the way respondents ranked the two individuals. There seemed to be a significant contribution of the interaction term for demographic variables to the Krugman model, but this finding could not be confirmed due to inadequacies in the odds ratio and its CI, all of which were below 1.00 (see Table 4). Overall, decisions to nominate Morgenson and Krugman did not vary as a function of respondents’ demographic or work-related characteristics.

Discussion

Across a wide range of fields, professionals often engage in imitative behavior, monitoring and following the perceived trendsetters within their particular ecosystem (Lieberman and Asaba, 2006). Within journalism studies, the cross-checking of prestige news outlets and journalists for guidance is an established news routine (Boczkowski, 2010; Du, 2013). While business news has witnessed global growth, little is known about the perceived hierarchy of media outlets and journalists among the news people working in this field (Doyle, 2006; Usher, 2013). This study, based on a national representative survey of financial journalists in the United States, explored this topic.

By and large, the hierarchical list of financial media outlets revealed by this national survey aligns with the anecdotal claims made previously. Many business news experts (e.g. Kurtz, 2001; Roush, 2009, 2011; Starkman, 2009) have long called The Wall Street Journal the top business news source in the United States (Benson, 2006). The results of this survey empirically bear this out. Following close behind was Bloomberg News. Third on this list was The New York Times, long viewed as a general barometer of journalistic excellence on a global basis (Benson, 2006; Gans, 1979; Golan, 2006; Reese and Danielian, 1994).

Business news has been described as a niche global news product that is increasingly produced for a global professional audience (Machin and Niblock, 2010). As evidenced by the 2008–2009 global financial crisis, financial markets are increasingly interconnected, which necessitates the need for more than simply an American perspective on the markets. Not surprisingly, all five of the news organizations viewed as most influential by US financial journalists have news bureaus around the world. Two of these organizations – Reuters News and the Financial Times – are headquartered in London rather than the United States. Increasing globalization in the years ahead may further contribute to the blurring of country boundaries in business news (Brownlee and Beam, 2012; Machin and Niblock, 2010; Weaver and Willnat, 2012). Already the Financial Times has announced that it is moving to a single global print edition (Yu, 2013).

Andrew Ross Sorkin and Gretchen Morgenson, both columnists for The New York Times, were perceived by survey respondents as the top two most influential financial journalists in the United States. What all five of the most nominated journalists share in common (besides having large media platforms to distribute their work) is that they do not simply provide reporting, but rather focus on expert inputs and unique insights. Given that the respondents are already well-versed in the business news of the day, this suggests that financial journalists may interpret influence through the prism of which fellow journalists they feel best contextualize and advance the news.

Overall, these results indicate that the opinions of financial journalists in the United States often converge in terms of which outlets and individuals they perceive as being the most influential. However, subtle perceptual differences among respondents were also detected. Half of the logistic regression models (i.e. five out of ten) detected significant differences in at least one demographic or work-related variable regarding the likelihood to nominate that outlet or individual. Most notably, men were much more likely to nominate Michael Lewis than women, suggesting perhaps that Lewis’ work appeals more broadly to men than women. Of the variables examined, the work-related variable of newsroom size appeared to be the greatest predictor of differences in perception, emerging in two cases. In short, financial journalists (just like journalists working in other fields) should not be treated as a monolithic entity (Benson, 2006; Bourdieu, 2005); there were isolated points of divergence among the general patterns of agreement. Detailed statistical analysis of this sort is necessary so as to not make sweeping generalizations that may not be fully supported by the data upon deeper analysis.

Theoretical implications

This study and its outcomes contribute new theoretical perspectives and help advance existing perspectives in journalism studies. Prior research tends to gauge journalists’ perceptions from a generic approach, which lumps individuals from a variety of fields into an aggregate sum representing the journalism world as a whole (Brownlee and Beam, 2012; Reich and Hanitzsch, 2013). Although financial journalists constitute a distinct group that is growing in size and importance on a global scale, little empirical, theory-driven work exists to offer insights into this niche population (Doyle, 2006; Tambini, 2010; Usher, 2013).

This survey is among the first to explore journalists’ perceptions within the financial news ecosystem, specifically its group hierarchy. By focusing on a narrowly defined sample, while looking beyond journalism studies for theoretical connections in other disciplines (Anderson and Kilduff, 2009a, 2009b), the data reported here help enrich our theorizations within the field. This study finds that the news outlets and individuals perceived by fellow news people as the most influential tend to have the greatest visibility, audience reach, financial resources, and recognized successes. Group hierarchy research, which theorizes prestige and dominance as possible pathways to social rank attainment (Cheng et al., 2013; Henrich and Gil-White, 2001; Magee and Galinsky, 2008), might provide a tentative explanation for these rankings.

The findings further confirm that journalists’ characteristics (demographic and work-related variables) can play at least a modest role in detecting differences in their perceptions of influential news outlets and professionals. Past research has documented variations pertaining to journalists’ assessments of their job or perceived credibility in the broader context of journalism. The present analysis found this phenomenon applicable to perceived group hierarchies among financial journalists, a subset of the larger field (Filak, 2004; Usher, 2013).

These findings also have implications for other theoretical perspectives within journalism studies. Bourdieu’s (2005) field theory recognizes the central role of elite media organizations and journalists in wielding ‘symbolic power over the entire field’ and playing ‘a crucial role in establishing or modifying the dominant “rules” of journalistic practice’ (Benson, 2006: 190). Field theory scholar Benson (2006) has argued that The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal play this role; the results of the current study empirically support this.

The results of this study also have implications for agenda-setting scholars. Inter-media agenda-setting examines how elite media outlets and leading journalists influence the news patterns within a media ecosystem (Reese and Danielian, 1994). Determining which media outlets and journalists are perceived as most influential by fellow journalists is essential to advancing work in this area (Du, 2013). Up until this study, some assumptions (Carroll, 2011) had been made about which outlets may drive inter-media agenda-setting for financial news, but empirical testing has been limited.

Moreover, this study offers a reference point to revisit a technological determinism view in journalism studies (see Örnebring, 2010 for a review). An influx of online technology in the media system has led to the notion that a big gap would emerge between the new and old media worlds and only those who thrive on the new technology would prosper. These data suggest otherwise, particularly when looking at a certain degree of homogeneity in opinions reported here. Specifically, no differences were found in the way financial journalists across platforms ranked outlets or individuals they perceived as being influential.

Practical implications

There are also several notable practical implications to this study’s findings. Faced with uncertain job prospects (Brownlee and Beam, 2012), journalists are increasingly interested in building their personal brands. Based on the journalists perceived as most influential in this study, several observations relevant to career growth may be made. The nominated journalists tend to work across multiple platforms and outlets (e.g. Sorkin is not only a columnist for The Times, but a CNBC co-host with a large Twitter following and a best-selling book); they all have unique and recognizable voices that go beyond straightforward reporting; they have generally received high-profile awards for their work (Pulitzer Prize, Nobel Prize, Gerald Loeb awards); and they are generally accessible to fellow media for quotes and interviews.

This study’s findings also point to the increased convergence taking place not only in financial journalism but across journalism as a whole. Looking at these lists, while news organizations with traditional print roots still play an important role, outlets and journalists with electronic news wire, cable TV, and website origins also dot these rankings.² This suggests that financial journalists may be fairly platform agnostic when it comes to journalistic influence, paying more attention to the quality of the work product and its impact.

Business journalists have been criticized for not playing enough of a watchdog role (Henriques, 2000; Tambini, 2010). Normatively speaking, an encouraging note from this study is that financial journalists are most likely to name as leaders outlets and individuals that are known for upholding high journalistic standards and values. This does not excuse financial journalism for not more aggressively covering the global crises of the past decade, but it does at least indicate that the field still coalesces around those journalists that believe in fact-checking, accuracy, and fairness, rather than speed, gossip, and rumors.

Limitations and future research

As with any study, there are limitations that should be taken into account. First, self-reports and self-selection bias are a potential weakness of any self-administered survey. Second, while the Gorkana media database represents one of the largest sample frames available, these results are not necessarily generalizable to financial journalists not included in this database or based in other countries. There is an opportunity for future cross-national studies that compare the findings of the current research with similar surveys in Europe, Asia, and other parts of the world (Doyle, 2006; Kjaer and Langer, 2005; Koikkalainen, 2007; Shrikhande, 2004).

In addition to future media analyses assessing the inter-media relationships between the news content produced by various outlets and journalists, more qualitative research is also needed (Tambini, 2010). The current study importantly identifies which outlets and journalists are perceived as ‘leading the pack’, but it cannot answer why and how journalists came to these conclusions. Qualitative and quantitative research can further probe into the underlying motivations and specific criteria used by journalists when ranking influential group members. Understanding social hierarchies is a topic that is not only relevant to financial journalism, but many other beats. There is an opportunity to replicate and extend the design of this study into other areas of journalism. In conclusion, it is hoped that this study will serve as a springboard for not just future financial news research, but more studies into the dynamics of news ecosystems as a whole.

Footnotes

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Notes

Author biographies

Matthew W Ragas is Assistant Professor of Strategic Communication in the College of Communication at DePaul University in Chicago. His research examines mass media processes and effects in political and corporate settings, including business news. He is co-author of the forthcoming Business Essentials for Strategic Communicators (Palgrave Macmillan, 2014).

Hai L Tran is Assistant Professor of Journalism in the College of Communication at DePaul University. He studies multimedia news, journalism theories, online agenda-setting, and research methodology. His research has been published in several mass communication journals.

References

Agresti

(2013) Categorical Data Analysis, 3rd edn. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Anderson

Kilduff

(2009a) The pursuit of status in social groups. Current Directions in Psychological Science 18(5): 295–298. DOI:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01655.x.

Anderson

Kilduff

(2009b) Why do dominant personalities attain influence in face-to-face groups? The competence-signaling effects of trait dominance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 96(2): 491–503. DOI:10.1037/a0014201.

Becker

Vlad

(2009) News organizations and routines. In: Wahl-Jorgensen

Hanitzsch

(eds) The Handbook of Journalism Studies. New York: Routledge, pp. 59–72.

Benson

(2006) News media as a ‘journalistic field’: What Bourdieu adds to new institutionalism, and vice versa. Political Communication 23(2): 187–202. DOI:10.1080/10584600600629802.

Berkowitz

(1993) Work roles and news selection in local TV: Examining the business-journalism dialectic. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 37(1): 67–81. DOI:10.1080/08838159309364204.

Bikhchandani

Hirshleifer

Welch

(1988) Learning from the behavior of others: Conformity, fads, and informational cascades. Journal of Economic Perspectives 12(3): 151–170. DOI:10.1257/jep.12.3.151.

Bikhchandani

Hirshleifer

Welch

(1992) A theory of fads, fashion, custom, and cultural change as informational cascades. Journal of Political Economy 100(5): 992–1026. DOI:10.1086%2F261849.

Boczkowski

(2010) News at Work: Imitation in an Age of Information Abundance. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

10.

Bourdieu

(2005) The political field, the social science field, and the journalistic field. In: Benson

Neveu

(eds) Bourdieu and the Journalistic Field. Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 29–47.

11.

Brady

(2003) Makeover: CNBC fell from grace when the bubble burst. How does it look now? Columbia Journalism Review 42(4): 50–51.

12.

Breed

(1955) Social control in the newsroom. Social Forces 33(4): 326–355. DOI:10.2307%2F2573002.

13.

Brownlee

Beam

(2012) U.S. journalist in the tumultuous early years of the 21st century. In: Weaver

Willnat

(eds) The Global Journalist in the 21st Century. New York: Routledge, pp. 348–362.

14.

Carroll

(ed.) (2011) Corporate Reputation and the News Media. New York: Routledge.

15.

Cassidy

(2007) Online news credibility: An examination of the perceptions of newspaper journalists. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 12(2): 478–498. DOI:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00334.x.

16.

Cheng

Tracy

Foulsham

. (2013) Two ways to the top: Evidence that dominance and prestige are distinct yet viable avenues to social rank and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 104(1): 103–125. DOI:10.1037/a0030398.

17.

Chozik

Barbaro

(2012) Bloomberg weighs making bid for The Financial Times. The New York Times, 9 December. Available at: http://nyti.ms/WWOReV (accessed 27 February 2013).

18.

Crouse

(2003) The Boys on the Bus. New York: Ballantine Books.

19.

Davis

(2000) Public relations, business news and the reproduction of corporate elite power. Journalism 1(3): 282–304. DOI:10.1177/146488490000100301.

20.

Dearing

Rogers

(1996) Agenda Setting. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

21.

DiMaggio

Powell

(1983) The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organization fields. American Sociological Review 48(2): 147–160.

22.

Dominick

(1981) Business coverage in network newscasts. Journalism Quarterly 58(2): 179–191. DOI:10.1177/107769908105800201.

23.

Doty

(2008) E-newsletter tracks job changes of business journalists. The New York Times, 25 February. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/25/business/media/25gorkana.html?_r=0 (accessed 9 March 2013).

24.

Doyle

(2006) Financial news journalism: A post-Enron analysis of approaches towards economic and financial news production in the UK. Journalism 7(4): 433–452. DOI:10.1177/1464884906068361.

25.

(2013) Intermedia agenda-setting in the age of globalization: A multinational agenda-setting test. Global Media and Communication 9(1): 19–36. DOI:10.1177/1742766512463038.

26.

Field

(2009) Discovering Statistics using SPSS, 3rd edn Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

27.

Filak

(2004) Cultural convergence: Intergroup bias among journalists and its impact on convergence. Atlantic Journal of Communication 12(4): 216–232. DOI:10.1207/s15456889ajc1204_3.

28.

Gans

(1979) Deciding What’s News. New York: Pantheon Books.

29.

Golan

(2006) Inter-media agenda setting and global news coverage: Assessing the influence of the New York Times on three television evening news programs. Journalism Studies 7(2): 323-334. DOI:10.1080/14616700500533643.

30.

Hanitzsch

Mellado

(2011) What shapes the news around the world? How journalists in eighteen countries perceive influences on their work. International Journal of Press-Politics 16(3): 404–426. DOI:10.1177/1940161211407334.

31.

Hanusch

(2012) Travel journalists’ attitudes toward public relations: Findings from a representative survey. Public Relations Review 38(1): 69–75. DOI:10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.10.001.

32.

Henrich

Gil-White

(2001) The evolution of prestige: Freely conferred deference as a mechanism for enhancing the benefits of cultural transmission. Evolution and Human Behavior 22(3): 165–196. DOI:10.1016/S1090-5138(00)00071-4.

33.

Henriques

(2000) What journalists should be doing about business coverage – But aren’t. Harvard International Journal of Press-Politics 5(2): 118–121. DOI:10.1162/108118000569038.

34.

Kaplowitz

Hadlock

Levine

(2004) A comparison of web and mail survey response rates. Public Opinion Quarterly 68(1): 94–101. DOI:10.1093/poq/nfh006.

35.

Keusch

(2012) How to increase response rates in list-based web survey samples. Social Science Computer Review 30(3): 380–388. DOI:10.1177/0894439311409709.

36.

Kjaer

Langer

(2005) Infused with news value: Management, managerial knowledge and the institutionalization of business news. Scandinavian Journal of Management 21(2): 209–233. DOI:10.1016/j.scaman.200.02.012.

37.

Kohut

(1986) Rating the polls: The views of media elites and the general public. Public Opinion Quarterly 50(1): 1–10. DOI:10.1086/268954.

38.

Koikkalainen

(2007) The local and the international in Russian business journalism: Structures and practices. Europe-Asia Studies 59(8): 1315–1329. DOI:10.1080/09668130701655176.

39.

Kurtz

(2001) The Fortune Tellers: Inside Wall Street’s Game of Money, Media and Manipulation. New York: Touchstone.

40.

Lieberman

Asaba

(2006) Why do firms imitate each other? Academy of Management Review 31(2): 366–385. DOI:10.5465/AMR.2006.20208686.

41.

McCombs

Holbert

Kiousis

. (2011) The News and Public Opinion: Media Effects on Civic Life. Malden, MA: Polity Press.

42.

Machin

Niblock

(2010) The new breed of business journalism for niche global news: The case of Bloomberg News. Journalism Studies 11(6): 783–798. DOI:10.1080/14616701003760543.

43.

Magee

Galinsky

(2008) Social hierarchy: The self-reinforcing nature of power and status. Academy of Management Annals 2(1): 351–398. DOI:10.1080/19416520802211628.

44.

Oberlechner

Hocking

(2004) Information sources, news, and rumors in financial markets: Insights into the foreign exchange market. Journal of Economic Psychology 25: 407–424. DOI:10.1016/S0167-4870(02)00189-7.

45.

Örnebring

(2010) Technology and journalism-as-labour: Historical perspectives. Journalism 11(1): 57–74. DOI:10.1177/1464884909350644.

46.

Pressler

(2011) It’s good to be Michael Lewis. New York Magazine, October. Available at: http://nymag.com/news/features/michael-lewis-2011-10/ (accessed 27 February 2013).

47.

Ragas

(2014) Intermedia agenda setting in business news coverage. In: Hart

(ed.) Communication and Language Analysis in the Public Sphere. Hershey, PA: IGI-Global, pp. 332–354.

48.

Reese

Danielian

(1994) Intermedia influence and the drug issue: Converging on cocaine. In: Shoemaker

(ed) Communication Campaigns against Drugs: Government, Media and the Public. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 47–66.

49.

Reich

Hanitzsch

(2013) Determinants of journalists’ professional autonomy: Individual and national level factors matter more than organizational ones. Mass Communication and Society 16(1): 133–156. DOI:10.1080/15205436.2012.669002.

50.

Roush

(2009) Unheeded warnings. American Journalism Review, December/January. Available at: http://www.ajr.org/article.asp?id=5023 (accessed 29 December 2012).

51.

Roush

(2011) Show Me the Money: Writing Business and Economics Stories for Mass Communication, 2nd edn. New York: Routledge.

52.

SABEW (2013) SABEW poll: Majority of business journalists have seen a pay raise in the past year. Available at: http://sabew.org/?s=salary+survey (accessed 11 October 2013).

53.

Sherman

(2009) The information broker. New York Magazine, 8 November. Available at: http://nymag.com/news/media/61870/ (accessed 27 March 2013).

54.

Shoemaker

Reese

(1996) Mediating the Message: Theories of Influences on Mass Media Content, 2nd edn. White Plains, NY: Longman.

55.

Shoemaker

Vos

Reese

(2009) Journalists as gatekeepers. In: Wahl-Jorgensen

Hanitzsch

(eds) The Handbook of Journalism Studies. New York: Routledge, pp. 73–87.

56.

Shrikhande

(2004) Business news channels in Asia: Strategies and challenges. Asian Journal of Communication 14(1): 38–52. DOI:10.1080/01292988042000195143.

57.

Sigal

(1973) Reporters and Officials. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath and Company.

58.

Starkman

(2009) Power problem: The business press did everything but take on the institutions that brought down the financial system. Columbia Journalism Review 48(1): 24–30.

59.

Stelter

(2011) Market ills give CNBC a bounce. The New York Times, 14 August. Available at: http://nyti.ms/1bh4aL0 (accessed 27 February 2012).

60.

Stroud

Lee

(2013) Perceptions of cable news credibility. Mass Communication and Society 16(1): 67–88. DOI:10.1080/15205436.2011.646449.

61.

Tambini

(2010) What are financial journalists for? Journalism Studies 11(2): 158–174. DOI:10.1080/14616700903378661.

62.

Tkacik

(2009) Waiting for CNBC: A tragicomedy in one long act. Columbia Journalism Review 48(1): 35–39.

63.

Tuchman

(1972) Objectivity as strategic ritual: An examination of newsmen’s notions of objectivity. American Journal of Sociology 77(4): 660–679. DOI:10.2307/2776752.

64.

Tuchman

(1978) Making News. New York: Free Press.

65.

Usher

(2013) Ignored, uninterested, and the blame game: How The New York Times, Marketplace, and TheStreet distanced themselves from preventing the 2007-2009 financial crisis. Journalism 14(2): 190–207. DOI:10.1177/1464884912455904.

66.

Weaver

Willnat

(eds) (2012) The Global Journalist in the 21st Century. New York: Routledge.

67.

Weaver

Beam

Brownlee

. (2007) The American Journalist in the 21st Century: U.S. News People at the Dawn of a New Millennium. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

68.

(2013) ‘Financial Times’ moves to single global edition. USA Today, 9 October. Available at: http://usat.ly/1fZHUsl (accessed 11 October 2013).