TO INTERVENE OR BE NEUTRAL, TO ...

This article was downloaded by: [Universitetsbiblioteket i Bergen] On: 21 April 2014, At: 23:14 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journalism Practice Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjop20

To Intervene or be Neutral, to Investigate or Entertain? Jan Fredrik Hovden Published online: 15 Apr 2014.

To cite this article: Jan Fredrik Hovden (2014): To Intervene or be Neutral, to Investigate or Entertain?, Journalism Practice, DOI: 10.1080/17512786.2014.894332 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2014.894332

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

TO INTERVENE OR BE NEUTRAL, TO INVESTIGATE OR ENTERTAIN? National and intranational factors in the formation of Nordic journalism students’ role perceptions

Downloaded by [Universitetsbiblioteket i Bergen] at 23:14 21 April 2014

Jan Fredrik Hovden

Through a series of surveys of Nordic journalism students in 2005, 2008 and 2012 (N = 4665 respondents from 30 institutions in five countries), this article investigates the differences in students’ role perceptions and their link to national, institutional and personal factors. After discussing some methodological challenges for comparative survey studies of journalists and journalism students, the major differences in students’ role perceptions are extracted using multiple correspondence analysis, which revealed: (1) an opposition of participatory versus neutral ideals, and (2) an opposition between investigative and recreational ideals, which in both cases are linked to a range of factors, including type of educational institution, social background, previous journalistic experience and year of study. While marked national differences in role perceptions are found to be present, subsequent analysis of single countries shows that the above oppositions are also found within the national context and linked to similar sociological characteristics, demonstrating the inadequacy of simple nation-type explanations of journalistic role perceptions. KEYWORDS surveys

comparative methodology; journalism students; Nordic countries; role perception;

Introduction In the statistically oriented research literature on journalists’ role perceptions, the focus has traditionally been on journalists’ adherence to general ideals for the profession, like neutrality and objectivity, setting the political agenda, providing entertainment and relaxation, etc. (e.g. Johnstone, Slawski, and Bowman 1976), often using very similar methodology and questions. The motivation for such studies is manifold. In the case of journalists, the gap between officially sanctioned ideals for the profession and private professional beliefs are often seen as illuminating not only the severe constraints of the realities of the daily work of journalists, but also the general degree of “professionalism” in this crucial elite for democratic societies. With journalism education becoming increasingly important for access to the profession in many countries—a process by some described as “graduatization” (Splichal and Sparks 1994), journalism students have also increasingly become the object of similar studies. Whereas the majority of this kind of research—on both journalists and journalism students—has focused on a single nation (in addition to Johnstone, Slawski, and Bowman [1976], for journalists, see e.g. Weaver and Wilhoit 1986; Weibull 1991; Scholl and Journalism Practice, 2014 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2014.894332 © 2014 Taylor & Francis


2

JAN FREDRIK HOVDEN

Weischenberg 1998; Hovden 2008; for journalist students, see e.g. Delano and Henningham 1995; Bjørnsen, Hovden, and Ottosen 2007), the increasing internationalisation of journalism research has led to a proliferation of national-comparative studies of both journalists (see e.g. Weaver and Wu 1998; Hanitzsch et al. 2011) and journalism students (e.g. Splichal and Sparks 1994; Sanders et al. 2008; Hovden et al. 2009; Mellado et al. 2012). These transnational studies have provided important insights into the variability of journalists’ role conceptions, and sensitised us to the importance of national contexts. Some common methodological problems remain, however, of which three will be discussed briefly here: the trans-national equivalence of survey questions, of comparative samples, and the prevailing “whole-nation bias”. After presenting the data and methodology, the differences between Nordic journalism students’ role perceptions are extracted using correspondence analysis, and then explored in regard to their supplementary characteristics at the national, institutional and personal level. For the question of the “national” character of these differences, the same analysis is repeated separately for four of the countries, suggesting the importance of traditional sociological variables in the determination of journalists’ role perceptions.

Transnational Research, Methodological Problems Three common problems with survey-based transnational research about journalistic role conceptions have been noted. The first is the equivalence of survey questions. Comparing nations means comparing translated questions that might be lexically but often not semantically similar, given that connotations vary culturally (both in terms of a national, common culture and a specific journalistic culture). For example, how can “neutral” have the same connotations for a journalist in the United States as “neutre” for a French journalist, living in a country with a strong tradition of expressive journalism and a very different political system? Such problems—which increase greatly the more diverse the countries and societies involved are—appears grossly under-estimated in comparative journalism research. The second problem regards sampling: who counts as a journalist or a journalism student is not clear-cut in any country, as journalism is a practice marked by a distinct lack of borders, both in the requirements of formal skills, institutional membership and education. This problem is usually handled by researchers in one of two ways. The first, in regard to journalists, is to select random samples of national professional organisations. Such organisations, however, have widely varying success and often quite different membership criteria (PR workers, for example, have been banned from membership in the Norwegian Union of Journalists since 1997, but this is not the case in the other Nordic countries). Who is regarded as a journalist by researchers thus varies historically and nationally, in effect often being determined by the whims of the national journalistic elites, as the question of who “is” a journalist or not is a fundamental struggle of the journalistic field (Hovden 2008).1 Strategic sampling, on the other hand, selecting “similar” institutions—types of news organisations in the case of journalists (e.g. Hanitzsch et al. 2011)—also involves no less problematic judgements: is the BBC, for example, the “same” institution as RAI or PBS? Comparative studies of journalism students give rise to similar problems: first, it is difficult to determine the borders between “journalism studies” and similar studies (e.g. documentary film, media and PR studies) which also often lead to work in journalism.


FACTORS IN THE FORMATION OF STUDENTS’ ROLE PERCEPTIONS

Second, while usually just one or a few schools of the many available in each country are included in national samples, the number and variety of schools in many countries, not only in regard to institutional characteristics (geography, the number of students, the types of specialisations and programmes available, etc.) but also in terms of the students’ profiles (e.g. age, gender, social background and journalistic experience) makes it challenging to convincingly construct comparative national samples. Third, while trans-national studies of journalists and students have improved the Western- and large-nation bias in journalist research somewhat, there is still a notable tendency to gravitate towards national-level comparisons, an imbalance that Stein Rokkan in political science more than 40 years ago termed whole-nation bias, claiming that: “most comparisons have been limited to institutional or aggregate statistical data for each nation as a unit and have tended to neglect highly significant variations…” (Rokkan 1970, 49). If not by words, comparative journalism researchers by research design very often forward two arguments: first, that journalism is, inside a country, a shared culture with little variation, and second, that the important explanations for differences are to be found at a national level. These assumptions are both problematic, given the well-known intranational variations in ideals in regard to types of journalistic work, centre–periphery, gender, social background and so forth (for the Nordic context, see Hovden 2012). Also, one must not forget that when comparing countries, we are not only comparing different journalistic systems, but also different societies. For such reasons, political scientists often choose to focus on regions within a country rather than between different countries, as it becomes difficult to separate the differences under study from the multitude of differences that separate two countries (cf. Lijphart 1971). While these problems can be lessened through the use of multivariate analysis, one can never control for every variable, and this suggests that there are some comparative advantages to be found in studying similar regions when studying journalistic ideals—which will be the design of this study.

Research Design and Data By comparing journalism students in the Nordic countries, we are comparing quite similar societies and journalistic systems, as suggested by Hallin and Mancini (2004), who place them in a distinct, close cluster inside the Democratic Corporatist model. Thus while adopting a between-systems approach, the national similarities also introduce elements of a within-system analysis (Welsh 1974). While shedding light on the variance to be found within a region with similar journalistic and social systems, the closeness of the three Scandinavian languages also alleviates some of the problems of survey equivalence (if far from eliminating it). Furthermore, rather than make a strategic sample of the journalism schools, we have opted for a more complete2 sample of the institutions that provides vocational journalism training in the Nordic countries. Finally, to improve statistical stability and avoid short-term trends, the analysis will be conducted on a large dataset, spanning the years 2005–2012. The data used in this article are the product of three Web questionnaires administered to a selection of Nordic schools of journalism in 2005, 2008 and 2012. In total, 4674 students from 30 institutions responded to the surveys, a response rate of 51 per cent.3 In 2005 and 2008, 19 and 18 schools in Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Finland were surveyed. In 2012, the number of participating schools was raised to 25, including two schools from Iceland. Every journalism student at these schools was surveyed in 2008

3

4

JAN FREDRIK HOVDEN

and 2012, but only first-year students in 2005. The names of the participating institutions, the number of respondents for each year and some of their social characteristics are given in Table 1. The questionnaires4 were translated to each of the five main Nordic languages, and contained over 60 questions covering a wide array of subjects including social recruitment, motivation for studying journalism, preferences regarding future journalistic working life, views on the role of journalism in society, attitudes towards the profession, journalistic ideals, media use and ideas about what traits are most important for journalists.


Journalistic Ideals, Nordic Spaces The first question to be studied is: what are the main differences in journalistic ideals among Nordic journalism students? In the questionnaires, journalism students were asked: “Here are some assertions regarding the professional role of the journalist. What is your opinion of these? A journalist ought to regard himself as…”. The students then rated different statements from “very much agree” to “very much disagree” (or “don’t know”), of which 16 were selected for analysis (percentage in 2012 who “very much agree” is given in parentheses): Investigate the powerful (60), Explain complicated events (55), Facilitate public debate (47), Objectively report news and facts (44), Criticise injustice (44), Be a neutral reporter of events (36), Defend individuals from injustice (34), Stimulate new ideas and thoughts (31), Contribute to intercultural understanding (28), Tell the truth regardless of consequences (23), Be free from all interests (21), Influence public opinion (20), Mirror common opinions (16), Be a spokesperson for local opinions (15), Educate the consumer (14) and Provide recreation (13). These were then recoded into dummy variables (very much agree versus other).5 The problem with the conceptual equivalence of survey questions was noted earlier. This, and the typically radically decontextualized nature of survey questions on journalists’ role perceptions, which as a rule disregard any possible qualifications the respondent may make (e.g. arguing that some ideals are more relevant for some kinds of journalistic work than others), are both compelling reasons for analysing such vague indicators using a reductive statistical technique. For this purpose, multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) was chosen. MCA is a specific form of geometric data analysis, closely related to principal component analysis), and aims to represent optimally a large set of categorical variables (modalities) and individuals as two superimposed clouds of points in a low-dimensional space. The distances are computed on the basis of the χ2 differences between attributes of the total set of modalities that form the basis of the statistical construction (Le Roux and Rouanet 2004). The MCA of the selected questions (Figure 1) suggests four underlying dimensions that oppose the Nordic journalism students in their attitudes to the professional ideals offered: the first axis (not shown) simply divides the students according to their propensity to mark many versus fewer ideals as “very important”. Whereas this is statistically the most important dimension (as it explains most of the variance in the data), it does not appear to have much analytical importance and will be ignored in the following analysis.6 The second axis (the horizontal dimension in Figure 1) opposes the students in a manner close to Johnstone, Slawski, and Bowman’s (1976) well-known separation between a “participatory role” and a “neutral role”: with students on the left side more often mentioning as very important the ideals of criticising injustice, scrutinising the powerful,


Finland

Respondents (N) Female (%) Masters student (%) Mean age (years)

Sweden

Norway

Denmark

Iceland

2005

2008

2012

2005

2008

2012

2005

2008

2012

2005

2008

2012

2012

63 56 0 23.4

245 71 33 24.9

189 81 20 25.8

74 64 0 22.6

573 65 9 24.1

297 62 2 24.6

287 57 0 23.3

511 60 1 22.8

537 64 2 23.2

179 58 0 26.2

854 52 14 25.3

747 52 26 25.4

60 67 45 30.0

The following institutions were included in the sample: Finland—University of Helsinki, University of Jyväskylä, University of Tammerfors, University of Turkua,b, Haaga-Heliaa,b; Sweden—University of Gothenburg, University of Stockholma, University of Sodertörnc, University of Kalmara,c, University of Umeaaa,b, University of Lunda,b, University of Uppsalaa,b, Mid Sweden University; Norway—Volda University College, Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences, University of Stavanger, University of Bergen, University of Nordland, Norwegian Business School, Norwegian School of Creative Studiesb, Bjorknesc, Samisk hs.b; Denmark— Danish School of Media and Journalism (DMJX), University of Roskilde, University of Southern Denmark; Iceland—University of Akureyria,b, University of Reykjavika,b (anot surveyed in 2005; bnot surveyed in 2008; cnot surveyed in 2012).


TABLE 1 The Nordic journalism student surveys, 2005, 2008 and 2012 (N = 4615)

5

JAN FREDRIK HOVDEN


6 FIGURE 1 The space of journalistic ideals (MCA), axis 2–3. Nordic students, 2005, 2008 and 2012, N = 3794. Active categories in capital letters. Schools’ position and indicator for country/gender is based on 2012 data. Position of country and their overall confidence ellipses are based on a sub-sample of nine schools selected to improve comparability: Tampere and Jyväskylä (Finland), Gothenburg and Sweden Mid University (Sweden), Oslo and Volda (Norway), DMJX and Roskilde (Denmark), and Akureyri (Iceland). Eigenvalues and explained inertia axis 1–4: 0.2187 (22 per cent), 0.0991 (10 per cent), 0.0738 (7 per cent), 0.0655 (6 per cent). Additional statistical properties are given in the supplementary online appendix, table A3 (http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/17512786.2014.894332)



stimulating the public to new ideas, influencing public opinion, defending individuals against injustice and contributing to intercultural understanding, whereas the students on the right side more often agree about the importance of being a neutral reporter of events, giving objective information, reflecting common opinions and being free from all interests. I will term this the intervention–neutralism axis. The third axis (the vertical dimension) is first and foremost linked to the question if providing recreation is a very important journalistic ideal. Those who agree with this also tend to agree with the ideal of reflecting society and bringing forward opinions as important. This is opposed to traditional investigative ideals (criticising injustice, defending the individual and scrutinising the powerful). Even if this axis also separates ideals of the press related to a wellfunctioning public sphere versus a well-functioning private sphere, I will term this the investigation–recreation axis.7 When looking at how the students’ positions in this space of ideals are related to other characteristics (the supplementary categories in Figure 1), one should first note the national differences: Finnish and Icelandic students tend more often to agree that being objective and neutral is very important, whereas the Norwegian students are less likely to agree. Danish students, in contrast, are the least likely to agree with ideals related to participatory, neutral and investigative ideals, and are thus placed closer to the pole of recreation, whereas the Swedes in 2008 occupied something of a middle position in this space, but in 2012 appear to be more oriented towards investigative ideals. In regard to the social characteristics of the students—like gender and age—the complex interplay of such variables (and also, with the country) tends to obfuscate their analytical importance in the map. For example, even if males and females within each country overall tend to give quite similar answers, they differ much in regard to specific questions. For example, on the question of neutrality, females in Iceland and Norway more often agree to this ideal than males, but it is the other way round in Finland and Denmark (and there are no such differences in Sweden)—illustrating that there are no simple bivariate relations between gender or country and journalistic ideals. A notable feature of the analysis is that differences between the schools are often larger than differences between countries: students at the older universities, which are usually more academic in scope and have less emphasis on practical skills, tend to place themselves further from the right/neutral (and often also the lower/recreational) pole of this space, compared to other, more vocational schools in the same country. Students from Helsinki (Finland), for example, have ideals more similar to students from Oslo (Norway), Roskilde (Denmark) and Stockholm (Sweden) than the students of Jyväskylä or Tampere (Finland). As these differences are notable even in first-year students surveyed in their first weeks of study, these differences cannot simply be explained as an outcome of pedagogical practices or informal socialisation at these sites, but must be sought in the characteristics of the students who enter these studies.8 The students who adhere most clearly to the investigative type of ideals not only often display stronger links to the profession—they more often have parents who are journalists, are more likely to have done paid journalistic work before starting their studies, and are also more likely to say that they want to work as a journalist (only 28 per cent of the Nordic students in 2012 were “completely sure” of this). They also appear with the strongest attachment to the traditional ideal-type of a journalist: more often than others, they want to work in newspapers with traditional “hard news”: politics, society, crime, international conflicts, etc., and see knowledge of society and a sense of justice as key

7

8

JAN FREDRIK HOVDEN


characteristics of a good journalist. While the other students—who prefer to hold jobs in broadcasting and magazines, or PR or TV/film production—do not differ dramatically from the “traditionalists”,9 they are marked by a clearly stronger interest in lifestyle-type content, culture and entertainment. The interventionism–neutralism axis appears to have a different logic. A leaning towards neutralism and objectivity is more common in students who want to work in local press or local broadcasting, for example, and is also negatively linked to having a father with a masters degree, an indicator of having a dominated habitus (Bourdieu 1984). Not surprisingly, given this social dimension, those leading towards a participatory role for journalism also are more likely to see “charisma” as a more important trait for a journalist than “efficiency”.

The Homology of National Journalistic Spaces Given these main conflicts in ideals among the Nordic journalism students, the second main analytic question in this article concerns the generality of these oppositions: are they also observable at a national level? And if so, are they linked to the same characteristics in the students? By repeating the MCA with the same variables, but this time separate for each country, we can see that the previous oppositions are indeed generally repeated inside each country (Figure 2). The second axis in all countries involves some kind of opposition between the ideals of neutrality and objectivity versus more participatory/intervening ideals, if with some differing weights to the ideals involved (e.g. in Norway the latter appear to more often involve ideals related to investigative and critical journalism, and be less related to the more intellectual ideals of influencing the opinion). The third axis invariably opposes ideals of recreation (and also usually, the ideal of consumer guidance) with ideals of investigative/critical journalism (the public scrutiny of the powerful, a journalism without regard for the consequences, the fight against injustice). The positions of the supplementary variables (Figures 3 and 4) suggest some sociological constants: a taste for neutralism is in most countries most common among first-year students, in those with a preference for local media or national broadcasting, those who are more interested in working with cultural themes than news about society and politics, and those with a father with low educational credentials. A preference for investigative ideals, on the other hand, is in each country more common among males, among older, second- or third-year students with some previous paid experience from journalism, among those who mark themselves more interested in social/political news than culture, and those who would like to work on a newspaper. This analysis also introduces some nuances lost in the earlier, transnational analysis: while the investigative axis is clearly related to job preferences in journalism, there is also a gender logic at work, as the axis opposes male and female students in each country. Another persistent link between journalistic ideals and the students’ habitus is found on the second axis: the preference for intervention rather than being neutral is in all countries related to having parents with a high educational level. The robustness of the link between these two fundamental journalistic dispositions—investigation and intervention—and gender/social class (which have also been found in analyses of journalists, see Hovden 2008) is a reminder that the origin of journalistic values cannot be sought fully inside journalism, in



Categories in bold have an absolute contribution over average for the second axis (the horizontal line), whereas this statistical property is marked by underlining for the third (vertical) axis. In other words, these are the categories which are most important in the orientation of the relevant axis.

FIGURE 2 The space of journalistic ideals, axis 2–3. MCA separate for four countries, 2005, 2008 and 2012. Categories in bold have an absolute contribution over average for the second axis (the horizontal line), whereas this statistical property is marked by underlining for the third (vertical) axis. In other words, these are the categories which are most important in the orientation of the relevant axis

different “journalistic cultures” or the students’ experiences or expectations of journalism, but also needs to be understood as part of more general social dispositions.

Persistence and Change The data for the period 2005–2012 also suggest a slight reorientation in the journalistic values of Nordic journalism students along the two dimensions found:

9

10


JAN FREDRIK HOVDEN

FIGURE 3 “Interventionism–neutralism axis” (axis 2): coordinates of various supplementary characteristics of respondents, country-specific MCA



FIGURE 4 “Investigation–recreation axis” (axis 3): coordinates of various supplementary characteristics of respondents, country-specific MCA. part, part-time; full, full-time; nation, national; loc, local. For preferred theme, Soc > Cult means that the student has ranked “Society and politics” as more desirable than “Culture”, Soc < Cult if the opposite, and Soc = Cult if ranked equally (e.g. saying themselves “somewhat interested” in both subjects). Note that the scale of the y-axis is different for each country to maximise readability

11


12

JAN FREDRIK HOVDEN

investigative ideals are becoming stronger, while interventionist ideals—particularly more intellectual ideals of public engagement and enlightenment—are in decline. That this is happening simultaneously with a weakening attachment to the ideal of justice suggests that we are not here simply seeing a growing interest in critical journalism, but more likely, a strengthening of journalistic ideology (Petersson 1994) in the Nordic countries. At the same time, the countries diverge, as the investigative ideals are most strengthened in Swedish students, the Norwegian students have the clearest decline in intellectual ideals, while the ideal of neutrality is least weakened among Finnish students. To what degree, however, this is due to changes in journalistic markets, increased autonomy of the journalistic field (Hovden 2008) or the increasing recruitment of students with little journalistic experience or enthusiasm for working in journalism, is beyond the scope of this paper.10 Still, the finding of marked and persistent national oppositions in journalistic ideals—especially between the Scandinavian countries and Finland, which display a stronger adherence to neutrality and objectivity—suggest that well-known differences within the Democratic Corporatist model are still persisting. Similarly, the differences in students’ ideals are only partly national in character, as they are echoed inside each country, and usually linked to the same sociological factors. Whereas both investigative and interventionist ideals are related to students’ work preferences, the first disposition appears most clearly related to gender and social integration into the journalistic profession (a correlation which speaks volumes), whereas the latter disposition is related to a class dimension where the participants are, as a rule, more socially privileged than the spectators.

SUPPLEMENTAL DATA Supplemental data for this article can be accessed at http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 17512786.2014.894332.

NOTES 1.

2.

3.

4. 5.

While researchers often try to reduce this problem through additional filtering of the samples, such procedures are often questionable. For example, in the case of Weaver and Wilhoit (1986), all freelancers, most people working in magazines, everyone working in the specialist press, all photographers and camera operators, and everyone working in the non-English press were excluded. Note that whereas we have been able in each country to sample the largest and oldest vocational schools of journalism training at a university level, some of the smallest schools are missing in Sweden and Finland. Note that even if the total response rate for each year is relatively stable (varying from 45 to 53 per cent), it varies much between institutions and the year of their sampling. For a more detailed list of the response rates, see http://hovdabrekka.wordpress.com/thesurveys/. The questionnaires, including an English translation of the 2012 version, can be downloaded from the website above. The reason for this binary coding is the students’ tendency to agree to most ideals presented, which means that the important distinction is not between supporters and opposers, but between those who say they wholeheartedly agree and those who do not.



6.

7.

8. 9.

10.

For the investigative ideals, more than 80–90 per cent agree to the ideals (wholeheartedly or somewhat), and even more controversial ideals like “being neutral” and “educate consumers” are agreed to by 60–70 per cent of the respondents. Note that this is a quite normal result—and procedure—when analysing attitude data in Likert-form with MCA (Le Roux and Rouanet 2004, 219). The main reasons for ignoring this axis is the belief that it mainly expresses differences in response styles (those in the survey who agree to many of the ideals are also much more likely to agree to other, similar questions), and that the axis does not really reflect a clear opposition, as both extremes—to rank every ideal and no ideal as very important—in essence amounts to the same thing, i.e. a lack of prioritising of the ideals. The fact that this propensity appears unrelated to any observable background characteristic of the student is also highly suspicious. The fourth axis, not included in the figure, opposes male and female students, in particular in regard to the ideal of “telling the truth regardless of consequences”. This axis, however, is not statistically significant and will therefore be ignored. See the supplementary online appendix for additional tables and figures (http://dx.doi. org/10.1080/17512786.2014.894332). For example, where 70 per cent of those who wanted to work in a national newspaper in 2012 said that “investigating the powerful” was a very important part of a journalist’s role, 61 per cent of those who preferred magazines and 55 per cent of those who preferred national broadcasting said the same. For a more detailed discussion, see Hovden and Ottosen (2013). Additional tables are found in the supplementary online appendix (http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 17512786.2014.894332).

REFERENCES Bjørnsen, Gunn, Jan Fredrik Hovden, and Rune Ottosen. 2007. “Journalists in the Making.” Journalism Practice 1 (3): 383–403. doi:10.1080/17512780701505085. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Original edition, 1979. Delano, Anthony, and J. Henningham. 1995. The News Breed. London: The London Institute. Hallin, Daniel C., and Paolo Mancini. 2004. Comparing Media Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hanitzsch, Thomas, and Rosa Berganza. 2011. “Explaining Journalists’ Trust in Public Institutions across 20 Countries.” Journal of Communication 62 (5): 794–814. doi:10.1111/j.14602466.2012.01663.x. Hanitzsch, Thomas, Folker Hanusch, Claudia Mellado, Maria Anikina, Rosa Berganza, Incilay Cangoz, Mihai Coman, et al. 2011. “Mapping Journalism Cultures across Nations.” Journalism Studies 12 (3): 273–293. doi:10.1080/1461670X.2010.512502. Hovden, Jan Fredrik. 2008. “Profane and Sacred. A Study of the Norwegian Journalistic Field.” PhD diss., Instiute for Information and Media Studies, University of Bergen. https://bora. uib.no/handle/1956/2724. Hovden, Jan Fredrik. 2012. “A Journalistic Cosmology.” Nordicom Review 33 (2): 57–76. doi:10.2478/nor-2013-0014. Hovden, Jan Fredrik, Gunn Bjørnsen, Rune Ottosen, Henrikka Zilliacus-Tikknanen, and Ida Willig. 2009. “The Nordic Journalists of Tomorrow.” Nordicom Review 30 (1): 137–153.

13


14

JAN FREDRIK HOVDEN Hovden, Jan Fredrik, and Rune Ottosen. 2013. “To Intervene or Be Neutral, to Investigate or Entertain; Persistence and Changes in the Professional Ideals of Nordic Journalism Students 2005–2013.” IAMCR, Dublin, June 25–29. Johnstone, John W. C., Edward J. Slawski, and William W. Bowman. 1976. The News People. A Sociological Portrait of American Journalists and Their Work. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Le Roux, Brigitte, and Henry Rouanet. 2004. Geometric Data Analysis. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Lijphart, Arend. 1971. “Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method.” The American Political Science Review 65 (3): 682–693. doi:10.2307/1955513. Mellado, Claudia, Folker Hanusch, María Luisa Humanes, Sergio Roses, Fábio Pereira, Lyuba Yez, Salvador De León, Mireya Márquez, Federico Subervi, and Vinzenz Wyss. 2012. “The PreSocialization of Future Journalists.” Journalism Studies: 1–18. Petersson, Olof. 1994. “Journalistene som klass, Journalismen som ideologi [Journalists as Class, Journalism as Ideology].” In Media og samfunnsstyring [Governance and the Media], edited by Edvardsen and T. Steen, 25–36. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget. Rokkan, Stein. 1970. Citizens, Elections, Parties: Approaches to the Comparative Study of the Processes of Development. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Sanders, Karen, Mark Hanna, Maria Rosa Berganza, and Jose Javier Sanchez Aranda. 2008. “Becoming Journalists: A Comparison of the Professional Attitudes and Values of British and Spanish Journalism Students.” European Journal of Communication 23 (2): 133–152. doi:10.1177/0267323108089219. Scholl, Armin, and Siegfried Weischenberg. 1998. Journalismus in der Gesellschaft [Journalists in Society]. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Splichal, Slavko, and Colin Sparks. 1994. Journalists for the 21st Century. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Pub. Weaver, David H., and G. Cleveland Wilhoit. 1986. The American Journalist: A Portrait of U.S. News People and Their Work. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Weaver, David H., and Wei Wu, eds. 1998. The Global Journalist. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Weibull, Lennart. 1991. Svenska journalister: ett grupporträtt [Swedish Journalists: A Group Portrait]. Stockholm: Tidens förlag. Welsh, William A.1974. “Towards an Empirical Typology of Socialist Systems.” In Comparative Socialist Systems, edited by Carmelo Mesa-Lago and Carl Beck, 52–91. Pittsburgh: UCIS.

Jan Fredrik Hovden, Department of Information Science and Media Studies, University of Bergen, Norway. E-mail: [email protected]. Web: http://janfredrikhovden.wordpress.com.