News organizations,ideology,and work routines: A multi-level analysis of environmental journalists

Shifting from hierarchy to spaces

The initial conceptualization of the HOI model was done under a more rigid media environment, where citizen journalism and content production was not at the capacity that it is at today (Papacharissi, 2015). The reconfiguration from hierarchy to spaces is in large part a response to this new media environment, but it is also a response to the growing amount of scholarship on journalistic boundaries and spaces (Reese and Shoemaker, 2016). The new media environment that society occupies has complicated the notion of ‘journalistic space’ and has therefore complicated the organizational and institutional boundaries of journalism. The top-down, one-way flow of information that journalistic intuitions have for the longest time exerted has now become a multi-way process that has become increasingly fluid (Lewis, 2012). For example, citizen journalists can now provide more context and information to newsworthy events, while at the same time the nation-state’s political policies may improve or hinder access to credible sources. Together all these factors work together create a new ‘journalistic space’ that is ripe for analysis (Reese, 2016).

One example of the new journalistic space that comes from ethnographic work reveals that there is a clear divide in how newsrooms structure the print and online staff (Tameling and Broersma, 2013). This division has essentially created two different ‘spaces’ within the newsroom. While some scholars have noticed that newsrooms are going through a convergence in terms of how they are physically structured (Larrondo et al., 2016), Tameling and Broersma (2013) argued that there is a de-convergence in the relationships between different newsroom entities. Online and print teams exist in same physical space, but they are separated entirely when it comes to interactions between employees and the decision-making from the editorial managers. Despite this de-convergence, online journalists have been successful in forming new norms that have had an impact on the journalistic routines in newsrooms (Agarwal and Barthel, 2013). HOI can be helpful here in understanding what rules and practices are consistent in a de-converging newsroom or what new norms may arise from this practice.

Another major shake-up among new media institutions is in the way resources are now being allocated among personnel. Research shows that newsrooms are incorporating freelancers at a higher level than they once did before (Kuhn, 2016). This has led to the development some new networks that have emerged as online news becomes increasingly global in its scope (Hellmueller et al., 2017). Research shows that freelancers have embraced a role of ‘intrapreneurial informant’ (Holton, 2016) and are used to fill in holes left behind by budget cuts and layoffs. Newsrooms have also started making more frequent use of crowdsourcing information (Carvajal et al., 2012). In other words, the newsroom has expanded beyond the physical space of the organization. This has stretched the journalistic boundaries of these institutions.

The results from these studies show how the changing social structures of the newsroom, and the broadening of journalistic space, this has led to profound changes in how content is produced. The newly recalibrated HOI model can be used to trace the multiple influences on the production of content within these new media spaces such as the influence ideology can exert at different levels within the model.

Tracing journalistic ideology

Although ideology was renamed into social system level, ideology is still a component of what Shoemaker and Reese (2013) consider to be a social system. Reese (1990) in the past has drawn attention to the ‘journalistic paradigm’. This concept posits that journalism operates under a set of rules, beliefs, and practices, which fall in line with the greater ideology of the nation-state. The reconfigured social institution level borrows from this concept of journalistic paradigms, by emphasizing that ideology acts as the underlying force that structures a social system. It’s imperative that any multi-level analysis takes into consideration an ideological component because a close analysis of the different levels of HOI should reveal traces of ideology across all levels, since it is a component of the overarching social structure. In order to trace journalistic ideology, it’s important to understand the relationship between ideology and journalism.

The earliest form of a journalistic ideology comes from Gramsci (1971) and his conceptualization of media hegemony. Gramsci’s argument is that media cultivates ‘a way of representing the order of things’ that ‘makes them appear universal, natural and conterminous with ‘reality’ itself’ (p. 65)’. Gramsci (1971) argued that journalists reinforce ideology due to their tendency to obtain consent from ‘intellectual and moral leadership’ (p. 57). In other words, journalists’ reliance on elite official sources serves to reciprocate the ideology and personal agenda of people in power, with little challenge to these positions. This has brought forth arguments that journalism and what journalists feel their role is within the political structure of society is also an ideology within itself (Deuze, 2005; Galtung and Ruge, 1965). Deuze (2005) argued that it’s ‘possible to speak of a dominant occupational ideology of journalism on which most newsworkers base their professional perceptions and praxis, but which is interpreted, used and applied differently among journalists across media’ (p. 445).

An example that builds on this argument comes from Carpentier’s (2005) analysis on journalistic identity. He identified four nodes that help shape the identity of the media professional, and how these nodes are derived from assumption that the press serves as a counter-hegemonic force. These nodes are semi-professionalism; responsibility, property, and management; individualism; and objectivity. Together, these nodes construct the media professional as someone who disrupts hegemonic power via the notion that they are part of a ‘free’ press. Carpentier (2005) points out that this counter-hegemonic construction does not remove journalism from hegemony and instead makes it more difficult to see, articulate, and analyze.

Evidence of this can be seen in how some environmental journalists see themselves as advocates for the environment (Tandoc and Takahashi, 2014). Schudson (2001) pointed out that the notion that the journalist is an advocate highlights an ideological conflict between journalists who feel they should be ‘objective’ versus adversarial. Advocating for a cause such as the environment presents the opportunity to introduce opinion which is opposed to the journalistic norm of objectivity that ‘guides journalists to separate facts from values and to report only the facts’ (Schudson, 2001: 150). This is further complicated when taking into account the type of organizations journalists work at. Weaver et. al (2009) noted the percieved roles of journalists varies across print, broadcast, or online media platforms. This is further supported by scholarship that reveals that different organizational business models lead to variations in the type of content that is produced (Dunaway and Lawrence, 2015; Lacy et al., 2013).

Journalistic ideology is in a complicated relationship with journalism itself. Although journalists need to stand up to power, they also need to rely on the powerful in order to construct what we know as the news. A reliance on elite, official sources affectively allows the dominant ideology of the nation-state to continue to reciprocate itself among the pages of the newspaper. This situation is even more precarious in the realm of environmental journalism, where as pointed out earlier, journalists walk a fine line between advocacy and objectivity.

Emerging trends in environmental journalism

Howarth (2012) argued that environmental journalism is still rooted by the journalistic principles established over 250 years ago. This argument posits that environmental journalists have to break away from these norms in order to appropriately report on issues such as climate change, which to the average reader is too abstract of an idea that can be conveyed in typical reporting fashion. Research supports this argument by showing that journalists are more likely to use official political sources in stories about the environment, while neglecting scientific sources (Major and Atwood, 2004; Takahashi, 2011). Other research shows that environmental news in the United States suffers from a lack of information-based coverage that helps contextualize and educate mass audiences about what climate change really is (Boykoff and Boykoff, 2007) and instead emphasizes discussion about political policies and debates.

Howarth (2012) also argued that journalists struggle with how to report on scientific information because there is no clear evidence of ‘harm’ and there is also no clear evidence of ‘safety’. Complicating things is the tendency for journalists to at times include contrarian viewpoints in environmental news coverage (Antilla, 2005). The consequence of this ‘scientific uncertainty’ has grown to become the leading political issue when it comes to politicians discussing environmental policies (Carvalho, 2007). Scientists themselves have been shown to be uncooperative with journalistic inquiry at times due to the notion they may lose credibility with colleagues for giving oversimplified statements, unease over the fact they have no control over their statements, or fear of instilling more confusion due to the over complexity of explaining an environmental issue (Peters, 1995; Smith, 2005).

There is also the notion that environmental journalism is in a precarious position when compared to other, more highly read professional beats. Gibson et al. (2015) observed that environmental reporters come up with creative solutions for their reports to make it past editors and into the hands of audiences. Fahy and Nisbet (2011) have revealed that online environmental reporters are taking an increasingly critical stance in their reporting on environmental issues. These findings show that environmental reporters are dramatically changing the journalistic norms and the ideological beliefs of how news should be reported within this journalistic beat.

Brüggemann and Engesser (2014) argued that environmental reporters have become an interpretive community. This community consists of both reporters and scientists, who have come under a mutual understanding that climate change is real. This has led to a sort of deviation in the norm of ‘objective’ reporting within environmental news stories. Now, climate change deniers are not given a platform in mainstream publications. These non-believers are outliers whose opinions have no space within the discourse that emerges within this journalistic space.

In summary, environmental journalism provides an interesting avenue for theorizing about journalistic space and the different levels of the HOI model. The rapid changes in the industry, promoted by increased globalization and the rapid development of technological tools, has led to a shift in journalism that positions it as a networked sphere, which stands in contrast to the older and more rigid tiered levels of influence proposed by the older HOI model. Different levels intertwine with each other and shift theorization away from ‘hierarchy’ into a more spatially defined conceptualization. In order to explore these concepts, the following research question has been proposed:

The structured environment and work routines

There is a complex dynamic that was present when considering the business model of news making institutions. They effectively serve to create what is known as journalistic space. The freedom of journalistic work routines is in large part set by organizational structures. This structured environment creates a space where the beliefs, practices, and ultimately, story creation, are routinized over time. All occupants that take part in this space must confer to the norms that occur within these different organizations.

One striking example comes from an environmental reporter who works for ‘hybrid’ news organization. This organization employs both environmental reporters and scientists who conduct research on climate change. This dichotomy creates a journalistic space where both science and editorial go hand in hand. The environmental reporter benefits from scientists being on staff because they can assist him in ‘translating science’. Likewise, scientists benefit from the journalistic presence in their organization because they cover topics that are relevant to them. Both groups inform each other’s needs. Adam describes his journalistic space below:

I think, you know, our organization is a little bit different than a lot of others. We are ostensibly a scientific journalism outfit. And we, Publication Omitted, are a kind of hybrid organization where we conduct journalism without any particular agenda, but we also do independent research on our own and we employ a team of scientists as well that’s in a different office in a different city. But I think we have gained a certain amount of respect among scientific organizations and universities. So it’s, you know, fairly easy for us to gain access to the scientists. I’ve rarely, ever had a problem’. (Adam)

What’s interesting here is that physically, Adam and his scientific colleagues do not reside in the same office nor in the same city. However, this does not dilute Adam’s experienced connection with his colleagues. They all reside in the same networked space that persists without the need for them to reside in the same room nor share the same occupation. Adam establishes a strong linkage with his scientist colleagues because the work they both do serves environmental concerns. Adam writes about the environment, scientists study the effects of human activity on it, and the publication synthesizes this information for its audience.

Adam says that ‘we conduct journalism without any particular agenda’, which suggests that he believes that a journalistic agenda can exist without there being a scientific research agenda. It also suggests that journalism should not have an agenda, and instead good journalism is driven by an absence of agenda or bias. This presents an interesting paradox since Adam described that his news stories focus on ‘climate change, and academic research findings’. This suggests that the presence of scientists on staff does provide an agenda, but it’s never overtly accepted that this agenda is in fact real, by Adam. Even though all of Adam’s stories cover the same topics and push forward scientifically accepted principals, it isn’t seen as bias or agenda building construction by Adam. Instead, he is detached from that notion because he only sees his work as news.

Another interesting thing to note is that because the organization is known to employ scientists, this dynamic contributes toward Adam’s work routines. Adam directly attributes his ease of access to academic sources because of this reputation. This subtle but very important influence on his work routines comes into play because of the prestige and reputation his organization has among the scientific community. Another journalist who worked for a newspaper that was national in its scope and reach fully admitted that his job is easier due to the preconceived notion that his organization was important. Roberto explained the benefits of working for a ‘prestigious’ organization:

I think for a lot of researchers, a lot of researchers I have come across seem interested in having the general public know what they are doing. Obviously, there is some advantage to them in having an organization as big and as far reaching as the [publication omitted] report on their research. I think it raises their profile if they’re interested in that kind of thing. I suppose in some way, some small way it might help them with their funding if it’s a project that’s getting plenty of interest and publicity. Generally speaking, once I find them it’s not that difficult to get them to talk’. (Roberto)

This name-dropping tactic serves to influence another institution into speaking to Roberto. It also highlights how power reproduces itself within the social institution. Roberto’s acknowledgement that his publication carries a strong weight within his field shows this power at work. First, it firmly places Roberto within this space, and it signals to the person he is talking to that they too can become a part of this elite, prestigious space if they talk to him. This name-dropping tactic is so useful that the freelance journalists often described how they would never refer to themselves as freelancers and would always use the name of the publication they were reporting for when initiating contact with sources. It’s better to be in-network than outside of it.

Business models and work routine agency

Perhaps, the most common influence on work routines comes from whether or not the organization is for-profit or nonprofit. Among the journalists interviewed, the ones who worked at for-profit news organizations were under more constraints in terms of what stories they could pursue and how much time they had to pursue them. For journalists, they routinely had to bend to the organization and its financial needs. Shane, a journalist for an online for-profit publication explains this pressure:

It’s definitely a lot of pressure to get eyeballs, and it’s measured in different ways. Paid subscriptions, viewers, people who look at ads, people who might buy experiences, memberships to organizations, it’s always a challenge to keep getting people to pay in some way for what we do, to attract audience. – Shane

In this example, the assumed audience also serves as a constraint. This conceptualization of the audience is driven down from the editorial managers at the publication and is used in a manner that influences the work routines of journalists. The audience itself is an institution that influences and imposes its will on the journalistic space, and it does this because it provides the financial resources for these organizations to continue to survive. Journalists who worked at nonprofit news organizations explained that they felt they had more freedom in their work routines because they didn’t have the pressure to attract an audience nor attract revenue. They have essentially freed themselves from pressure of audience as an institution. Freelancers also felt like they had more freedom in their work routines because they didn’t have the same stringent deadlines that staff reporters do. The freelance journalists who were interviewed provided some thoughtful insight that comes from the perspective of someone who is more fluid in their organizational associations. Freelancers don’t necessarily reside within the organization but must abide by the rules of that organization when they are contracted for stories. The one journalist who did see himself as an advocate was a freelancer. He explained that he sees his personal role in journalistic space as someone who ‘tries to convince people to care about the environment, by using facts’. Although he is advocating for the environment, he continues to hold onto the common ideological principles that guide journalistic work. The same principles that guide people that are staffed by an organization still hold strong with freelancers who are technically not directly employed by these organizations.

There was also an interesting dynamic that was revealed when analyzing organizational structure and journalists’ descriptions of their work routines that showed that organizational structure can at times lead to a contradiction in journalistic ideological principles. Journalists often expressed frustration and at times regret for the way they had to approach stories in the past. Although journalistic principles include accuracy, fairness, and objectivity, the constraints of the organization would at times put these ideological beliefs into a precarious position. Some journalists overtly expressed frustration with these constraints not because it made their jobs more difficult, but because it threatened their ideological beliefs. In the passage below, Jeff expresses his point of view on his ability to craft a story within the structure of a daily newspaper:

Working for a daily newspaper, I think sometimes it’s just not an option. You could always make a story better I guess. You can always make an extra phone call. And I do whenever I can. But you know, you’re juggling multiple deadlines, and multiple stories every day. So sometimes you have to look at a story and say ‘well this is complete representation of the issue’. Could it be more in depth? Could I add, you know, ten more inches of detail by talking to someone else involved? Absolutely. (Jeff)

Jeff is overtly aware that from a journalistic perspective, his story was not the best it could be. He admits that at times he is not able to talk to the appropriate source due to the constraints of his organization. These constraints put into conflict his ideological principles. Is Jeff being truly objective, if he self admittedly wasn’t able to include the best source for his story? To Jeff, the answer is no. However, Jeff, as well as other journalists, would not criticize the organization itself. In Jeff’s case, he frames the shortcomings of his organizational predicament as his own self-failing. He could have made the extra phone call, and he could have made the story better. But he places the burden on himself and not the organization’s business model or editorial structure.

Ideologically driven work routines

The final connection that the findings suggested was the relationship between a journalist’s ideological beliefs and the overt influence this has on their work routines. Some of the environmental reporters interviewed described a certain tenet of principles that they openly admitted influenced their work routines. This personal ideological code serves as a guiding force for journalists in how they choose to approach their news stories about the environment. One example comes from Karen, a freshly graduated environmental reporter who works for a nonprofit news organization on the west coast. She explained that one of the things she tries to do is include minorities as sources in her stories:

I do try to get a more diverse sources if I can. If I can choose between two people equally qualified and equally elegant people, I do contact the minority. I do try to make a conscious effort. Often times as journalists we go with the person who is most quoted in other articles or, we fall back to the default which is old white men in science. If I see interesting research done by a young Latina, I do pay extra attention to that. (Karen)

This open admission to purposely going for a minority scientist as a source for her stories reveals the influence that personal beliefs that are drawn from journalistic ideology can affect the decision-making process and work routines of these reporters. Karen explained that the reason she targets minorities as sources is due to her belief that they are underrepresented in media discourse. Karen’s attempt to include them is a rectification of this imbalance. She explained that she believes that White male scientists dominate news stories about the environment; therefore, in order to achieve what she called ‘balance’ she needed to make sure she included as many minority scientists as she possibly could. Her case serves as an example of how ideological beliefs about what the news industry should try to accomplish is an influential factor that operates outside of any organizational constraints that are imposed her. When probed about whether or not this hindered her ability efficiently do her job, she explained that it did not. Her initial outreach had now created a network of sources that she could reliably contact about important environmental issues that exist outside the typical White male scientific network. The other reason she said she could do this was because her editors give her longer time than what she feels is the average for producing a news story.

Other important ideological factors include deciding on what is newsworthy. Samantha explained that

I want something excited that we didn’t know before. If your write a study that says gravity is what holds us to the earth, I think I’ll skip that for something that says if you take vitamin C you can defy gravity.

This provides an example that suggests that news factors largely driven from ideological beliefs of what is ‘newsworthy’ is a force that influences journalists’ motivation to tackle stories to begin with. When Samantha was probed about whether or not long-term issues such as climate change was considered newsworthy, she explained that ‘climate change as an issue is not new, but the scientific reports that present evidence of climate change are’. Other journalists also shared this sentiment as well.

The biggest source of frustration for journalists was when they felt that the institutional structure itself disrupts their work routines. A huge source of strife comes from dealing with surrogates in federal agencies or private companies who act as an intermediary between the journalist and the scientist who is trying to be reached. Some of the roadblocks described include asking the journalists for interview questions beforehand so they could be ‘screened’. In some extreme circumstances, they were even told that the responses from the scientists would be returned via email. In all these reported cases, the scientist would have never been spoken to, and all communication would have gone through a surrogate. Lois explains the feeling of frustration of these tactics from a federal agency:

What they were wanting me to do was to basically script my interviews. They wanted me to send them my questions and then they would decide, you know, if I could talk to the scientists after they got that list, or they would decide which questions I could ask. And so kinda the crux of that whole stink was I was like, this is censorship. This is not how I conduct interviews, it is not ok for you to ask me for my questions up front, it is not ok for you to prevent certain journalists from talking to certain scientists. These are government scientists who are being paid by the public, this is, you know, important public information. (Lois)

The ideological belief that drives Lois was the notion that she was seeking truth and challenging power. When faced with the red tape from a federal agency, she expresses disdain for what occurred to her. This tension arises because she sees these intermediaries as residing outside of her network. What should be a clear and quick connection between a journalist and a scientist is instead disrupted by an outsider to this conceived virtual space. She even posits that this disruption is censorship. Her notion of free speech is violated because the routines needed to articulate that speech are disrupted by the very institution she feels should be granting her that right. The institution itself has violated the ideological principles Lois believes it follows.