Abstract
‘What is this?’ the keynote speaker at the 2016 International Symposium on Online Journalism asked about a gadget appearing on the screen. ‘A pen drive’, ‘a USB’, ‘a flash drive’, were some of the answers offered by audience members, but they were not what the speaker, Yoani Sánchez, had in mind. Sánchez (2016), the founder and director of the Cuban digital news outlet 14ymedio, said: ‘Really? This is much more than a little piece of technology. This little object that fits in your pocket is freedom. For many Cubans, this is the difference between having access to information or not, between being silent or having a word’. Sánchez spoke about the distribution of journalistic content that challenges official versions of events reported by traditional media, demonstrating that journalism facilitated by digital affordances could matter.
Distribution and affordances are among the most mentioned words in The SAGE Handbook of Digital Journalism, according to its index. Digital tools and networks possess affordances, which are broadly described as possibilities for action (Evans et al., 2017). They allow diverse actors to create and distribute content, as well as to interact with one another. As such, affordances can potentially be leveraged to ‘move journalism away from more hierarchical closed structures of traditional news outlets’ (Russell, Ch. 10 of the Handbook, p. 150) and to facilitate newer forms of storytelling (Wahl-Jorgensen, Ch. 9). Thus, it is worth rethinking the field of journalism and considering novel ways to examine it. This handbook invites its readers to do just that.
The Handbook comprises 37 chapters by 52 scholars, including leading scholars in journalism studies. It is organized into four sections: The first (‘Changing Contexts’) addresses contexts in which journalism is shaped, such as the political, social, economic, and technological. It looks at forces of change and continuity while discussing issues of democracy, power, money, ethics, norms, and social media. The second (‘News Practices in the Digital Era’) examines ways in which diverse actors are involved in the production, distribution, and usage of news. It explores networked journalism, hybrid news practices, innovation in the newsroom, outsourcing news work, source–journalist relations, citizen witnessing, activists as news producers, and hyperlocal news. The third section (‘Conceptualizations of Journalism’) offers various approaches to theorizing journalism and its components, such as viewing journalism as a field/institution, through the lenses of actor–network theory or through an ecosystemic approach. It also addresses normative models, the human–machine divide in journalism, the act of sharing content, spaces of news consumption, liquid journalism, and the concepts of mass, audience, and the public. Finally, the fourth section (‘Research Strategies’) offers methodological reflections and sensibilities. It addresses the ethnography of digital news production, material sensibility, reconstructing production practices through interviewing, sampling liquid journalism, big data analysis, Q-method, audience-centered research perspective, and multi-method approaches.
As its editors state, the Handbook does not draw on one consensual paradigm. Rather, it offers a multitude of perspectives, some of which are incompatible and therefore involve tensions and contradictions. However, the Handbook embraces them, acknowledging that journalism is complex and messy; in fact, the editors argue that this is its strength. I agree and think their approach resulted in a superb book that provides a rich collection of insights and tools, challenges prevailing assumptions, and raises important questions to grapple with. In addition, the book is well organized and convenient to use (e.g. each section of the Handbook is introduced by one of the four editors, helping to orient the reader).
While the Handbook does not provide a consensual view of journalism, it does contain a key theme or concept I find particularly helpful when thinking about journalism in the digital age: hybridity. According to Chadwick (2013), hybridity ‘captures heterogeneity and those things that are irreducible to simple, unified essences’; rejects ‘either/or’ in favor of ‘not only, but also’ patterns of thought; and draws attention to flux and in-betweenness (pp. 4–8). Journalism in a digital environment seems to hybridize – or blend – technologies, forms, genres, norms, and behaviors, leading Hamilton (Handbook, Ch. 11) to challenge the oppositional categorization of ‘mainstream’ versus ‘alternative’ and encouraging Meraz and Papacharissi (Ch. 7) to theorize networked framing and gatekeeping. Indeed, what is hybridized in different contexts and how it occurs are questions worthy of further exploration using diverse research methods and designs.
Several chapters in the Handbook address another theme I wish to highlight: listening. If we want to know not only what people do but also what it means for them, we need to listen to them. Costera Meijer (Ch. 36) suggests including listening as an analytical category and good professional practice for journalism scholars and practitioners. She asserts that listening with an open mind can facilitate the understanding of a wide range of user practices and experiences that are not necessarily in line with the researcher’s existing categories and expectations. Also, Kreiss and Brennen (Ch. 20) stress the importance of the right to be heard, which has not been adequately addressed by journalism scholars, who instead tend to emphasize people’s ability to speak in the digital media environment. Furthermore, Barnes (Ch. 12) suggests considering the silent majority that ‘listens’ to the contributions of others. I concur that we should be mindful of the need to be good listeners and to pay attention to other listeners.
We would also do well to listen to several challenging voices. In their chapter on normative models, Kreiss and Brennen consider ways participation, deinstitutionalization, innovation, and entrepreneurialism may undermine valued journalistic roles. This is an important perspective in the conversation about the future of journalism. That conversation may also benefit from considering what has not changed and why. In his chapter on the intimization of journalism (Ch. 8), Steensen provides a historical perspective on how journalists are balancing private and professional roles, suggesting that social media add complexity to the already existing paradoxes of journalism. Furthermore, in his chapter on news institutions (Ch. 25), Ryfe demonstrates why the rules of journalism remain relatively persistent. It is worth taking these perspectives into account when discussing possible changes in the digital age.
I have two points of criticism. In the first issue of this journal, Schudson (2000) called for studying journalism around the globe, emphasizing the need for ‘broad historical and comparative perspectives that are so far underdeveloped in the typically nation-centered studies of the press’ (p. 56). This is still a major challenge. The Handbook is an impressive collection of contributions by scholars based in North America, Australia, United Kingdom, northern Europe, and some other Western countries, but while it does mention several other settings, we need to know more about journalism in diverse countries and we need more comparative studies. Second, more attention should be paid to the economic aspects of journalism. In his excellent chapter on the business of news (Ch. 4), Rasmus Kleis Nielsen argues that ‘the lack of familiarity with the economic underpinnings of journalism is a serious limitation for journalists and journalism scholars alike in terms of understanding the profession, its role in society, its institutional preconditions, and how these are changing’ (p. 52). Some chapters in the Handbook seem to exemplify this limitation by not critically engaging with economic issues. I believe that the conversation about the future of journalism will benefit from critically considering such issues.
All in all, I strongly recommend the Handbook, which can be a highly valuable resource for those who are both interested in journalism and not afraid to be left with more questions than answers after finishing reading. Hopefully, looking for answers to these questions will contribute to furthering journalism studies.