42
Drifting Apart? European Journalists and their Audiences
Monika Metykova
Department of Media and Communications
Goldsmiths College, University of London
Keywords: European journalists, European audiences, technological
change, competition
Abstract
How do the current technological changes and socio-political developments impact on the
relationship between European journalists and their audiences? This article draws on selected
findings from a larger research project conducted in eleven European countries. Focusing on
European journalists’ understanding of their audiences, the paper suggests that in many
European countries digital technologies and increased competition play a significant role in the
changing relationship between journalists and their audiences. The literature reviews undertaken
in the eleven European countries indicate that the relationship between journalists/media
professionals and their audiences has undergone significant changes. While the interviewed
journalists are alert to a shift towards journalistic practices and formats which permit certain
forms of audience participation, many of them sense an increasing disconnection from the public
and severe mistrust by citizens; which crucially impacts on their relationship with audiences.
Introduction
In the last two decades technological changes as well as socio-political
developments have impacted on European media and journalists in a variety of
ways. The effects of the Internet on established media systems, journalistic
practices and the consumption of media contents have been widely documented
and further changes are expected with the digital switchover in European
countries. Developments brought about by technological changes can be identified
at a number of levels, from the overarching level of media systems and their
transformation (e.g. changing positions in the market, increased competition
between various media, emergence of new types of media) to the level of the
everyday conduct of journalists’ work (e.g. the increase in multi-skilling).
During the same period of time a number of socio-political changes have also
impacted on media and media professionals in Europe. At the level of media
systems the evident example is the fall of communism and the subsequent
emergence of new media systems (with public service and commercial media) in
______________________________
Westminster Papers in Communication and Culture © 2008 (University of Westminster, London), Vol. 5(2):
42-59. ISSN 1744-6708 (Print); 1744-6716 (Online)
Metykova, Drifting Apart?…
43
Eastern European countries. Increasing levels of migration from within Europe, as
well as from beyond, have also had consequences for media and the journalistic
profession (e.g. migrants are targeted as audiences, migrant media are founded,
contents that deal with immigration related issues are produced etc.). Another
feature shared across the European media space has been the questioning of the
legitimacy and role of public service broadcasting and the rise of new forms of
journalism (citizen journalism has been studied in particular).
This article reports on an attempt to map the changes occurring in the profession
of journalism in Europe since 1992 and it is based on the findings of 89 interviews
conducted with journalists in eleven countries – the Czech Republic, France, Great
Britain, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia and
Spain. Within the framework of an EU-funded research project1, relevant media
and communications literature published in these countries was also reviewed. The
current article2 discusses one aspect of the findings from this research project, by
focusing on changes in the relationship between European journalists and their
audiences. The article largely relies upon reports from individual national research
teams; thus drawing together the threads from the different countries. I will open
up with an overview of the developments identified as key to the changing
relationship between journalists and audiences (or indeed, audiences and
journalists); then move on to a discussion of the findings from the interviews with
89 media professionals in order to shed light on the journalists’ points of view.
New Technology: Bridging the Producer/Consumer Gap?
The impact of new technologies on journalism has been widely explored. John
Pavlik (2000), for example, identifies four broad areas in which new technologies
influence journalism: journalists’ work, news content, structure and/or
organisation of the newsroom, as well as the relationship between media,
journalists and their audiences/publics. In reference to the latter, Pavlik argues that
journalistic work resembles a dialogue between the press and the public, especially
so in the case of news organisations committed to online publishing, in these cases
in particular, audience members have joined in significant numbers in online
discussions with reporters and editors to debate and discuss coverage of important
events. E-mail has become a vital and instantaneous link between readers and
reporters, often shaping reporters’ knowledge and attitudes as much as an initial
report may have influenced the public (Ibid, 235).
It has also been argued extensively that online media content provides audiences
with more options for creating personalised information environments (cf. Geens
et al. 2007) and that this increased personalisation of information – concerns have
been raised particularly about news – might enable audiences to be cut off from
larger currents of public information in society, thus effectively further
Westminster Papers in Communication and Culture 5(2)
44
fragmenting news audiences. Journalists, thus, address and compete for
increasingly more fragmented audiences whose media use tends to be selective and
individualised. One implication of this situation is that in order to target media
products more successfully journalists (and media organisations respectively) need
to gain better knowledge of their audiences.
There is no doubt that the last decade witnessed an increase in the possibilities for
audiences/publics not only to interact with content providers but to create their
own contents. However, the question remains as to what extent these ‘new’ forms
of interactivity differ from previous ones (such as letters to the editor, for
example); particularly in the degree to which they are controlled and the extent to
which they contribute to blurring the distinction between media content producers
and media content consumers (cf. Thurman 2008, who demonstrates that formats
of reader participation tend to be overwhelmingly edited or pre-mediated).
Likewise, existing research does not provide clear confirmation of the thesis about
the audiences’ increased interactive use of journalism as a result of new
technologies. Researchers have so far concentrated in particular on news
consumption on Internet sites (cf. e.g. Hujanen and Pietikainen 2004) with
research results indicating that the audiences’ use of interactivity here is limited. In
addition, we need to bear in mind that at least in terms of news consumption
audiences continue to rely on television as their main source of news. According to
a report by the UK Office for Communications in 2002 65% of the UK adult
population identified television as their most important source of news. This share
remained the same in 2006, though in comparison the share of those who
identified the Internet as their main source of news grew from 2% in 2002 to 6%
in 2006 (2007, 17). The prevalence of television news viewing – characterised by
little interactive potential – indicates that the relationship between journalists and
audiences is not necessarily characterised by increased interactivity. As suggested
above the thesis about journalists’ growing responsiveness to audience demands as
a consequence of the use of new technologies can thus not be considered valid as a
rule.
In the light of the above outlined theoretical arguments we expected that the
journalists we interviewed in the various European countries would comment on
the impact of technological changes on their relationship with audiences and
would also touch upon the changing balance in this relationship. However, before
moving on to the discussion of the journalists’ views on this subject I want to
consider another factor that is likely to play a major role in journalists’
understandings of their relationship with audiences – the increasingly competitive
media market.
Metykova, Drifting Apart?…
45
Commercial Pressures: The Art of Wooing Audiences
Increased competition for audiences, combined with tendencies towards
deregulatory policies (on media deregulation cf. e.g. McChesney 2003; Murdock
1992) have lead some researchers to voice concerns about the quality of
journalistic content. The phenomena labelled ‘dumbing down’, tabloidization and
infotainment have been widely studied, and occur as a result of a combination of
various economic and socio-political developments (cf. Winston 2002; Djupsund
and Carlson 1998; Sparks 2000). In the case of Italy, for instance, tabloidization
began in the mid-1980s and intensified in the 1990s as a result of increased
volumes of advertising investment, an opening up of the market, a boom in local
news and local media, the increased visibility of new social groups (in particular
women and young people) in media audiences, an extended geographical coverage
of news and the emergence of varied types of news as well as growth in the
importance and autonomy of news media in society (Buonanno cited in ter Wal
2006). Although this article does not deal particularly with tabloidization trends,
the topic is relevant at least in two respects: firstly, academics as well as journalists
(the latter in particular) argue that changes in journalistic practices also relate to
audience ‘demands’, hence pointing out that journalists are working in a highly
competitive field and need to provide audiences with ‘what they want’ (cf. also
Deuze 2005). Secondly, tabloidization plays a role in ‘provoking responses from
viewers and stimulating talk and discussions among them’ (Dahlgren 1997, 94);
thus potentially fostering audience participation.
In some cases, media organisations are particularly dependent on audience
demographics. Meryl Aldridge (2003) demonstrates that local and regional media
in the United Kingdom are in a particularly difficult position when attracting
audiences, above all young audience members whom advertisers find most
attractive. Arguably, in these cases journalists are under great pressure to adjust the
conduct of their profession to audiences’ (perceived) demands and expectations,
and to building a particularly strong relationship with them.
In the preceding sections I have briefly outlined some changes affecting the
journalistic profession which are linked to new technologies and increased
commercial pressures. These developments are likely to have an impact on the
relationship between journalists and audiences and they might indeed be decisive
for a shift in power within this relationship. The media and communications
literature is inconclusive in terms of a shift of power from journalists to audiences
as a result of increased interactivity enabled by new technologies. Competitive
pressures raise a number of complex questions concerning the relationship
between journalists and audiences. Similarly as with the impact of technological
changes, the pressure to attract larger audiences might bring about changes in the
balance in the relationship between journalists and their readers/viewers/listeners.
It can be argued that increased pressures to attract audiences make journalists
Westminster Papers in Communication and Culture 5(2)
46
more sensitive to their (perceived) needs, demands and interests. At the same time,
however, journalists may feel increasingly under pressure not to alienate them, for
example by publishing on controversial issues. Some journalists may even feel that
the profit oriented nature of their work jeopardises professional values. These are
only some of the possible issues that journalists may comment upon in relation to
the impact of increased commercial pressures on their relationship with
readers/viewers/listeners. I should, however, note that despite the clear
significance of these issues they have been under-researched at least within the
European context. The literature reviews conducted in the eleven European
countries offered very little insight into this aspect of the journalists’ professional
conduct and identity. This article attempts to rectify at least to some extent this
lack of literature, and in the following sections it moves on to the discussion of
empirical research that centred on journalists’ perceptions of the changing nature
of their relationship with audiences.
Methodology
One of the areas that the EMEDIATE research project explored was the changing
conduct and nature of the journalism in Europe. The relationship between
journalists and their audiences represents one aspect of these changes and it was
explored through literature reviews conducted in a number of European countries
as well as in-depth interviews with senior media professionals in 11 European
countries. Apart from Serbia, all were member states of the European Union. The
selection of these countries was guided by the aim to cover the varied practice and
development of journalism in Europe. Some of the differences in the development
of European media systems and journalism are obvious, e.g. it is hardly
questionable that countries with a totalitarian past and those with a democratic one
have experienced radically different phases of media development (e.g. postcommunist
countries started developing public service broadcasting less than two
decades ago). On the other hand, the development of education programmes and
of professional organisations for journalists in various European countries
represents perhaps a less evident albeit equally important factor (cf. Preston and
Horgan 2006). Altogether 89 interviews were conducted. The semi-structured indepth
interviews used the same set of questions in all of the countries under
investigation. This included the question ‘Has the relationship between journalists
and readers/viewers changed in the past 10-15 years and, if so, in what
way(s)?’This is particularly relevant for this article. However, I also consider
responses to some of the other questions where they are relevant for the following
discussion3.
The interviews were conducted by project partners based in various European
universities4 who were selected according to their expertise on the region,
geographical and linguistic factors as well as personal access to interviewees. For
Metykova, Drifting Apart?…
47
example, the team at Dublin City University conducted the interviews in Great
Britain and Ireland, but also in the Czech Republic and Slovakia as one of the
researchers on the team was a Czech media sociologist. All interviews (apart from
the ones conducted in the Czech Republic and Slovakia) were held in late 2005 and
early 2006. The Czech and Slovak interviews were commissioned at the end of
2006 in order to enlarge the pool of empirical data. The majority of interviews
were conducted in person, in exceptional cases over the telephone. The interviews
were planned to last for about 45 minutes; however, in some cases they lasted for
up to two hours.
The selection of interviewees followed a number of criteria set up to ensure comparability
of findings. The media targeted in the search for interviewees were to reflect the differing
journalistic cultures and methodologies of print and broadcast media; the balance
between national and regional media as well as the balance between privately and publicly
owned media. Also, in a number of countries included in the research the mass media
demonstrate class-specific characteristics with target audiences belonging to specific social
classes, a fact that was to be reflected in the selection process. However, to map the classspecific
nature of mass media proved to be a difficulty for the teams interviewing in
former communist countries. They could not use this criterion in the selection of
interviewees as it is not applicable to the media stratification in these countries. Table 1
presents basic data on interviews, providing information on their number and type of
medium.
Table 1: Interviews by country and type of medium
Country Total
Interviews
Press Broadcast Other
Britain 7 4 3 ~
Czech Republic 8 5 2 1
France 9 4 5 ~
Hungary 7 3 3 1
Ireland 8 6 2 ~
Italy 7 5 2 ~
Netherlands 6 3 3 ~
Serbia 11 6 3 2
Slovakia 6 4 1 1
Slovenia 10 4 6 ~
Spain 10 4 5 1
TOTALS 89 48 35 6
Similarly to the process of media selection potential interviewees were also identified on
the basis of identical criteria. We targeted media professionals whose careers spanned all
or a great deal of the period since 1989, operated at senior levels in a gate-keeper or
editorial role, and in addition had well-established professional reputations and (ideally)
experience in both print and broadcast media. In some cases, finding interviewees who
fulfilled all these criteria proved difficult: the French team, for example, found it
Westminster Papers in Communication and Culture 5(2)
48
challenging to gain access to journalistic ‘stars’. In exceptional cases, interviewees working
in other than print and broadcast media were approached either because of the influence
of the organisation for which they worked on the news making process (e.g. news
agencies, consultancies), their expert knowledge (for instance, a media studies scholar) or
their previous work experience (for example, former editors). An overview of the print
and broadcast media (and other organisations) that the interviewees were affiliated with,
as well as their work positions at the time of interviewing is provided in Table 2.
Table 2: Interviewees’ affiliation and position by country.
Country
(Total interviews)
Media Outlets Interviewees’
Positions
Britain (7) Press:SundayTimes;Sun;Scotsman;Unidentifiedmid-market
Broadcast: BBC News 24; ITV News; Sky News
Editorial staff
Czech Republic (8) Press: MF Dnes; Brněnský deník; Lidové noviny;
Mladá fronta (no longer exists)
Broadcast: Český rozhlas 1 – Radiožurnál; Česká televize
Other: Unidentified media consultancy
A retired editor, a
consultancy owner
and editorial staff
France (9) Press: Ouest France; Le Monde Diplomatique; Le Monde
Broadcast: France Inter; Radio Monte Carlo; TF1;
France 3; France 2
A retired editor, 3
correspondents
and editorial staff
Hungary (7) Press: Népszabadság; Dunántúli Napló; Blikk
Broadcast: TV2; Magyar Televízió; Magyar Rádió
Other: Magyar Távirati Iroda (national news agency)
Chairman, editorial
staff
Ireland (8) Press: Irish Star; Sunday Independent;
Irish Examiner; Irish Independent; Unidentified daily
Broadcast: Radio Telifís Éireann; News Talk 106
A former editor, a
correspondent and
editorial staff
Italy (7) Press: La Repubblica; Quotidiano Nazionale; Il
Giornale di Reggio; Il Messaggero; Il Manifesto
Broadcast: RAI 1; TG3
A former editor
and editorial staff
Netherlands (6) Press: Trouw; De Volkskrant; NRC Handelsblad
Broadcast: RTL Nieuws; NOS Journaal
A former editor, a
reporter and editorial
staff
Serbia (11) Press: Nin;Blic;Vreme;Politika;Danas
Broadcast: B92; Radio televizija Srbije; B202
Other: Beta (independent news agency)
A director and
editorial staff
Slovakia (6) Press: SME; .týždeň; Plus jeden deň; Pravda
Broadcast: Rádio Slovensko
A freelancer, a
columnist and
editorial staff
Slovenia (10) Press: Delo; Primorske novice; Večer
Broadcast: TV Slovenija; Radio Slovenija; Radio Robin;
TV Primorska; Radio Murski Val
2 former editors
(currently
directors), editorial
staff
Spain (10) Press: El Pais; El Correo Español- El Pueblo Vasco;
La Vanguardia; El Norte de Castilla
Broadcast: Radio Galega; Radio Madrid; Cuatro; Radio
Televisión Valenciana; Canal Sur
Other: University of Malaga
A media analyst,
editorial staff
Note: In some cases, two interviewees were employed at the same medium, this applies to the Czech MF Dnes, the French
Le Monde, the Dutch NOS Journaal, the Serbian Danas and Beta as well as the Slovenian Delo and TV Slovenija.
Metykova, Drifting Apart?…
49
Ethical issues were also considered and interviewees were offered the option of
remaining anonymous, in some cases not only the identity of the interviewee but
also of the medium for which s/he worked were not disclosed. The interviews
were recorded and transcribed, and subsequently analysed by the individual teams
who wrote a report in English5. The present discussion of findings is grounded in
the unpublished project reports (one of the exceptions in this respect is the
comparative report by Preston and Horgan 2006).
The empirical part of the investigation was concerned with soliciting journalists’
views on whether they understood their relationship with audiences as a changing
one and if so, which aspects of the relationship were changing and how.
Interview Findings
Overall Attitudes to a Changing Relationship
The obvious starting point for our interviews was to identify whether the
journalists actually perceived changes in their relationship with audiences. Indeed,
all of the interviewed journalists acknowledged that there were changes in their
relationship with readers/viewers/listeners and they tended to associate these
changes with technological developments, increased competition and significant
socio-political changes. Journalists’ views on the degree and significance of
changes were very varied; it has to be pointed out, however, that there was general
agreement in two cases. Both represent instances when journalists did not fulfil
their professional roles well. One was Dutch journalists’ failure to correctly
estimate public opinion at important political junction points (the rise of the antiimmigration
Pim Fortuyn List party in 2002 and the referendum on the European
Constitution in 2005) and the other related to distrust that Eastern European
journalists perceived on the part of their audiences. Journalists understood both
cases as marking a severe alienation from their audiences.
The media professionals interviewed in the eleven European countries were
outspoken in their views on the impact of new technologies on the journalistic
profession, as well as their relationship with audiences. Indeed, the increased
interactive nature of this relationship was stressed by the majority of journalists
regardless of the country in which they practised journalism. The interviewees
particularly pointed out that email and text messaging had opened up the lines of
communication between media producers and consumers, and that the use of new
technologies allowed editors to know which stories were generating most interest
among viewers/readers (this is enabled by simple devices monitoring traffic on the
website). Such enhanced knowledge about their audiences was often understood as
crucial to the commercial success of a medium (an issue discussed in more depth
later on) but also to fulfilling the obligations that public service broadcasters have.
Westminster Papers in Communication and Culture 5(2)
50
Conforming to ‘What the Audience Wants’
Throughout the eleven countries a number of journalists in our sample drew close
links between knowing what the audiences want on the one hand, and changing
news values on the other. They perceived a shift away from foreign news coverage
and towards more ‘light’ news topics such as lifestyle or health. This was often
interpreted as a consequence of conforming to audience demands and everyday
interests of readers, viewers and listeners. An Italian print journalist working for
La Repubblica explained this shift in news selection and values in the following way:
We now worry more about talking to a reader with less cultural capital as we
aim to extend the market but also knowledge. There is the invasion in
newspapers of so-called ‘infographics’ which also aims to explain better to
the reader what we are talking about. This is the technical problem of the
linguistic and informative approach, the other problem is that of the choice
of topics where we try to choose topics that can interest people, not only the
development of the crisis in the Middle East but that it gives you, for
example, a guide to how to confront headaches rather than children’s
education and here, although it is an interesting research, maybe sometimes
we exaggerate because perhaps the news becomes too light and superficial.
(ter Wal and Valeriani 2006 [Report by the Dutch team])
Perhaps unsurprisingly, journalists from all eleven countries pointed out that
market pressures and increased competition had a major impact on their work and
their relationship with audiences, in addition to new technological possibilities. I
have already mentioned that European journalists pointed out a better knowledge
of their audiences’ expectations and interests as a key element in the changing
relationship. However, they also frequently pointed out that the quest for such
knowledge had been driven by commercial pressures. Due to the increasingly
competitive environment (for instance, print media competing with television,
broadcast media competing with the Internet) journalists said they had made a
greater effort to gauge the interests and opinions of media consumers and to tailor
news content to appeal to them, as well as making it more accessible6. This was
mentioned by interviewees regardless of their country of residence or the type of
medium they worked in. For example, a Dutch interviewee working for De
Volkskrant summed up the situation in this way:
Low culture can now also be published front page once in a while. In the past
you only had the acronyms of the trade unions in the headlines on the front
page. We think most readers are interested in that [light news] even if they
would not admit it to themselves. Research shows this. The culture of ‘we
[journalists] determine what is interesting’, whole page articles about boring
subjects … is gone. Today we think more about: Do people actually find it
interesting? Can they understand it? Is it presented accessibly enough? The
newsrooms now think about all this. This is in my view an improvement and
they have to. (ter Wal and Valeriani 2006 [Report by the Dutch team])
Metykova, Drifting Apart?…
51
In terms of the need to attract large audiences, our interviewed media
professionals perceived a general pressure to appeal to the entire population;
however, some social groups were seen to have been sought after more than
others due to their increased attractiveness to advertisers. For example, a British
journalist with the Sunday Times, noting that his newspaper was attempting to target
younger readers, observed:
In order to do that, we are running stories that we might have rejected a
number of weeks ago. …Similarly, if I can have a story that will appeal
particularly to women we’ll go for that. (Preston 2006 [Report by the Irish
team])
Likewise, an Irish interviewee working for the Irish Star spoke of the significance of
the Joint National Media Research figures and their impact on the content of
newspapers by encouraging the desired socio-economic and age makeup of the
readership:
There is a sense that in general, and in Ireland in particular, society has
become more middle class. This has tended to produce forms of journalism
that are more consumer-driven – by that and by lifestyle issues. (Horgan
2006 [Report by the Irish team])
An interviewee working for the French commercial Radio Monte Carlo expressed a
similar view:
A broadcaster, a radio, a TV, a paper, today in France, are also private
companies which need to live, to survive, and market data naturally affect
the way to work … in choosing the subjects, we have some kind of
marketing approach. (Guyot et al. 2006)
Such pressure was also perceived in public service media. A Czech journalist
working for public service radio explained that the listener is ‘the boss’:
Not to a tabloid extent but we are here for him and he is paying us. … I
respect them [listeners] enormously; we attempt to provide public service.
… But there are limits which we will not cross – people who have a
simplifying view that when they pay for the radio then they own it and they
would like to shape the programme as well … not that. (Waschkova
Cisarova 2007a [Report by the Irish team])
Clearly, a number of the journalists viewed compliance with audience demands and
needs as a threat to the quality of their work, and in this respect they held a
negative view of their audiences. An interesting observation was made by an Italian
journalist employed at Quotidiano Nazionale who suggested that the press in general
considered the audience’s intelligence and critical abilities too low. She claimed that
Westminster Papers in Communication and Culture 5(2)
52
conceding to present information which is easily understandable rather than
complex and in-depth is based on the misleading presumption that the public is
ignorant. Her concern, however, was not shared by other interviewees who
commented on the ‘decreased’ quality of news reporting, while offering the rather
negative perception of having to conform to the public’s ‘low taste’, to use the
expression of a Serbian journalist (Zagar and Zeljan 2006a [Report by the
Slovenian team]). The scope of this article does not allow me to deal in detail with
journalists’ views on the quality of reporting. I can note that all of the interviewed
journalists argued that their professional values had not changed in the past 15
years which would imply that they saw the quality of their outputs as stable. Yet on
the other hand some journalists related decreased quality to the pressure to
conform to audiences’ demands, to the increased reliance on new technologies
(they found the high speed of news production particularly problematic in terms of
increasing the possibility of errors) and in some cases interventions in content, a
consequence of pressure from politicians or advertisers.
A Changed Power Relationship?
Despite such wide-spread concerns about increasing pressures to conform to
audience demands, only a few of our interviewees commented on the supposedly
increased power of audiences to effectively influence media content. In other
words while at a very general level journalists identified the need (almost an
obligation) to acquire a better knowledge of what media contents their audiences
seek and acknowledged the role of new technologies in facilitating this knowledge,
most media professionals pointed out that the decisions regarding which content
to focus on were still entirely in the journalists’ hands. One of the French
journalists employed at Le Monde expressed the opinion that:
the reader is not the one who tells us what to write. The reader can tell us
which issues are interesting, but about what we put in the paper, for example
the death penalty, we don’t give a damn whether the reader is for or against.
We are against. (Guyot et al. 2006 [Report by the French team])
This view should perhaps not come as a surprise as it is in line with the actual
professional status of our interviewees. Most of the journalists we interviewed
worked in the position of editors – also known as gatekeepers – who decide which
information is newsworthy.
If the journalists expressed their opinion on interference with media content at all,
they would give examples of political or economic interventions. It was very rarely
that journalists would claim direct involvement in cases when a politician or an
important advertiser attempted to prevent the publication of certain contents. On
the other hand, and this was particularly the case with interviewees from former
communist countries, they had knowledge of such cases. These journalists either
Metykova, Drifting Apart?…
53
referred to a shift from political control under communism to economic control
after regime change, or offered personal knowledge of cases of political
interference in the media after the fall of communism. I should, however, stress
that the large majority of interviewees drew a clear distinction between the
influence of owners on media content (which none of them acknowledged) and
the influence of market pressures (in particular financial constraints that led to
limitations on news supplies as well as the decrease in foreign news). A related
issue that was brought up by a small number of journalists from across all the
eleven countries was self-censorship. Journalists who talked about it pointed out
that even if there was no pressure in an actual form to encourage or prevent the
publication of certain contents, individual journalists may opt to reject some
contents as they would perceive them as potentially damaging for the medium (e.g.
it would result in a drop in readership or withdrawal of an advertiser).
It follows from the above discussion that – judging by the journalists’ views –
influences on media contents represent a rather complex issue. The journalists
acknowledge a number of indirect influences on content (exercised by audiences,
advertisers and politicians and also a consequence of market competition) but very
little direct interference with contents. It appears that in terms of journalists’
everyday professional conduct the main choices and decisions remain with our
interviewees’ editors.
A Sense of ‘Disconnection’
Perhaps the most striking finding in relation to the question about changes that
our interviewees could identify in their relationships with readers/viewers/listeners
relates to the journalists’ understanding of the way their profession is perceived by
the general public. In virtually every country at least some interviewees pointed out
that trust and respect for journalism had been on the decline. Typical comments in
this respect were along these lines: ‘Today, there is a reaction of rejection towards
information and journalists that was not so strong before […] But now, it is
general, there is a total rejection.’ (Guyot et al. 2006 [Report by the French team])
Interviewees perceived factual mistakes in reporting, but also miscomprehension
of the public’s view at key moments as reasons for this distrust. For instance, a
French interviewee working for Le Monde Diplomatique pointed out:
[media professionals] cannot be totally disconnected from what the majority
of people think … They got it wrong with the referendum as all the media,
almost the majority of them, in quite a scandalous way, were favourable to
the ‘yes’ and disparaged the ‘no’. 56% of the people said ‘no’. This is a slap
in the face for the media. They haven’t drawn any consequences from it.
(Guyot et al. 2006 [Report by the French team])
Westminster Papers in Communication and Culture 5(2)
54
The sense of ‘disconnection’ from the public was most notable in the case of
Dutch journalists. All Dutch interviewees mentioned the rise of the populist
politician Pym Fortuyn in spring 20027 as a key event that has changed Dutch
editorial culture and relationships with audiences. In the words of an interviewee
employed at the Dutch De Volkskrant:
The reader is now as displaced and emancipated as the voter. The voter no
longer lets his party or pillar tell him what he should think. You could say
the reader has also become more emancipated. He can get his information
from anywhere. He no longer lets you tell him what to think. It [reporting]
has become much more cautious also in the editorial comments of the
editor-in- chief today that goes in all directions that is no longer only leftwing.
So we also feel this emancipation, and that we can no longer force an
opinion onto the reader. (ter Wal 2006 [Report by the Dutch team])
The situation resulted in various attempts by Dutch journalists to reconnect with
society, as another Dutch interviewee working for NOS Journaal explained:
I at least was shocked, and we have organised things differently with regional
correspondents; going into the neighbourhoods more, going outside the
Randstad area, keeping track of developments in all strata of society. And
that affects your coverage because you make more varied topics, because
you pay more often attention to maybe also injustice, poverty issues because
we have started dealing differently with the migration issue. After all, we
started looking in a harsher way at asylum issues, not only being politically
correct but also let the opponents have their say; that has changed the
coverage because our attitude towards the public has changed. (ter Wal 2006
[Report by the Dutch team])
Interestingly, journalists from former communist countries pointed out that media
professionals valued their audiences more, but at the same time readers and
viewers trusted the journalists less – even less so than they did under communist
rule. A certain sense of disconnection from the public was also expressed by these
journalists who interpreted this issue as a result of major socio-political changes.
The former communist countries in the sample have undergone major changes
since the fall of communism in the late 1980s/early 1990s which, naturally,
affected the media system as well. In less than two decades, public service
broadcasting as well as commercial media were established (cf. e.g. Sparks 1998;
O’Neil 1997). In some cases post-communist governments interfered significantly
in the independence of the media. In the case of the Slovak Republic, a nationalist
government led by Prime Minister Vladimír Mečiar gained control of public
service broadcasting. This government interfered in the allocation of licenses for
commercial broadcasting (cf. Metykova 2004). At a more general level, Mečiar’s
style of governing and his practices split not only media professionals into progovernment
and opposition ones (e.g. only selected journalists could attend
Metykova, Drifting Apart?…
55
government press conferences) but also polarised the public at large. Eventually
the government fell in 1998; yet some of the journalists we interviewed in 2007 still
perceived the impact of this polarisation on their relations with the public. A
Slovak journalist working for the national daily Pravda commented on the
decreasing quality in the relationship between readers and journalists in the
following way:
It is probably connected to the political polarisation in Slovakia, it was really
during the 1990s under the Mečiar government that the polarisation was
really huge and...journalists were positioned on the one side or on the other
very clearly... the polarisation was such also in the relationship between
journalists and readers and other journalists because they were actually
political figures which was abnormal. I think that the relationship is now
more neutral than it was in the 1990s. (Waschkova Cisarova 2007b [Report
by Irish team])
Slovak and Czech journalists in particular argued that the degree of trust in their
relationship with audiences was, paradoxically, worse than it used to be in
communist times. A Slovak interviewee employed at the weekly .týždeň explained:
Today there is more scepticism about what appears in the papers, on
television … the relationship between media and readers has paradoxically
worsened, media enjoy less trust than under communism which is weird ...
today they are not taken seriously ... they are understood more as
entertainment. (Waschkova Cisarova 2007b [Report by Irish team])
Sharing this opinion, a Czech journalist working for the daily MF Dnes
commented:
The readers used to play the game with us, they understood although we
were only writing between the lines … today that reader is not so
committed, he has a much greater chance to choose and question. (Ibid)
Similar to this, Czech and other journalists from the various European countries
also pointed out that their audiences had been becoming more demanding and
selective, ‘because people have more diversity and have more to choose from’ – to
use the words of a Spanish interviewee working for the daily La Vanguardia (Guyot
et al. 2006 [Report by the French team]). Moreover, journalists also perceived
criticism of their work on the increase; both inside the profession as well as from
the general public. As pointed out by a former employee at the French Le Monde:
Journalism has lost its sacred aura. Now, the public asks the journalist for an
explanation for the way he fulfils his job. And people are right to show this
demand. Criticising media takes part in a healthy democracy. Being a
Westminster Papers in Communication and Culture 5(2)
56
journalist means asking for accounts as well as being accountable. (Guyot et
al. 2006 [Report by the French team])
Journalists appear to understand the changes outlined in this section as most dramatic in
the last 15 years. This is understandable as, in contrast with, for example, the impact of
technological changes the ‘failures’ described above are perceived as seriously questioning
the role of the media in democratic societies, journalists’ professional conduct and equally
importantly their professional legitimacy. Trust that journalists build up in their
relationship with audiences, as well as with sources appears to be a central value to the
profession and in the increasingly competitive environment with abundant media
contents and fragmented and highly individualised consumption patterns, trust and
trustworthiness seem to be crucial for success.
Conclusion and Prospects for Future Research
Most of the findings from the research are in line with general trends documented
in media and communications literature – not only in relation to European
countries. One of the aims of the research was to explore whether the relationship
between journalists and audiences was indeed changing. The literature review
suggested that this was the case, and the view was also confirmed by the journalists
interviewed for the project. In terms of what aspects of the relationship were
changing and how, two obvious areas were identified on the basis of literature
reviews: technology-driven changes and competition-driven ones. Most journalists
we interviewed understood technology-driven changes as enabling a more
interactive and direct relationship with audiences. However, this tended to be seen
as empowering journalists to do their jobs better rather than blurring the
distinction between content producers and content consumers. What the
journalists understood as improved through the introduction of new technologies
largely involved better knowledge of their audiences’ expectations and interests –
hence an improved ability to attract larger numbers of readers, viewers and
listeners. Some journalists argued that it was beneficial to be able to reach less
cultured or less educated audiences; however, for a few journalists in our sample
the pressure of attracting larger audiences resulted in the view that they needed to
conform to low(er) standards and tastes. There are many possible explanations for
the journalists’ overwhelming view that despite the new technologies’ empowering
potential for audiences, power remains with media professionals. The controlled
nature of the technology mediated interaction was seen to leave power in the
hands of media professionals, while technologies were primarily perceived as
‘tools’ enabling media organisations to win larger audience shares in a tough
competitive environment. It is equally important that new technologies and their
impact on the relationship between journalists and audiences were not perceived as
a challenge to the journalists’ legitimate role of interpreters – in line with Zygmunt
Bauman’s (1987) understanding of the changing nature of intellectual work in the
Metykova, Drifting Apart?…
57
post-modern period, who argues that journalists play the role of interpreters,
translating between knowledge systems based on different traditions.
The most significant shift that the interviewed journalists identified involved what
they termed ‘loss of trust’ or ‘disconnection’ from the public. It is in this respect
that their role of interpreters was challenged in a very significant way. The vast
majority of interviewees (regardless of their nationality) identified changing public
attitudes towards journalists and journalism, which in some cases took the extreme
form of a perceived loss of trust. However, even in less ‘extreme’ cases, journalists
referred to increased demands on their journalistic work, as well as more public
criticism and scrutiny. This phenomenon of loss of trust or ‘disconnection’ from
the public can be related to important socio-political developments in which the
various roles of media and journalists were ‘tested’. Journalists from former
communist countries referred to past polarisations of the audience as well as the
journalistic profession on a political basis, and suggested that the consequences
continued to be felt. French and Dutch journalists referred to cases in which the
drift away from the public was understood as the result of a journalistic failure to
detect (and represent) the prevalent public opinion.
While I have primarily concentrated on the common threads running through all
or at least the majority of interviews from all countries in this article, there are, of
course, more subtle differences. The various national journalistic legacies, media
landscapes, legislations and traditions of journalistic education in particular can be
seen as influencing journalists’ relationships with their audiences (on some of these
cf. Preston and Horgan 2006; Wahl-Jorgensen and Franklin 2007; Löffelholz and
Weaver 2008). Yet, as the scope of this article does not make it possible to explore
these in detail, an investigation into cross-national differences and the context they
relate to make a good starting point for further research on the subject.
Notes
1 EMEDIATE: Media and Ethics of a European Public Sphere from the Treaty of Rome to
the ‘War on Terror’, project no.CIT2-CT-2004-506027.
2 This article is a significantly re-worked version of a paper presented at the IAMCR
conference held in Paris, France on 22 - 25 July 2007.
3 E.g. responses to the questions on the influence of technological changes on journalistic
practices and on the practices and processes that operate in the coverage of controversial
issues.
4 The teams involved in the interviewing were based at the Central European University in
Budapest, Hungary; Dublin City University, Ireland; Educational Research Institute in
Ljubljana and University of Primorska, Slovenia; Université de Paris 8 Vincennes Saint
Denis Paris, France and Utrecht University, the Netherlands.
Westminster Papers in Communication and Culture 5(2)
58
5 The individual teams analysed the interviews they conducted on the basis of shared
methodological criteria and prepared a report. This article works primarily with data from
the individual unpublished national reports.
6 It should be noted in this respect that the journalists’ perception of having to conform to
audience demands was (in some cases) contrasted with a rather strong refusal to do so. This
finding can indicate that for at least some journalists the ‘exclusive right’ to make decisions
about contents formed a core part of their professional identity/integrity and was not to be
jeopardised due to commercial pressures.
7 The rise of Pim Fortuyn and his party came as a surprise to many Dutch media
professionals. In February 2002 Pim Fortuyn founded his anti-immigration party, the Pim
Fortuyn List (LPF) and created a powerful new presence on the Dutch national political
centre stage. On 6 May 2002 he was shot dead by a lone gunman. A week later LPF came
second in the Dutch general election, taking 26 seats.
References
Aldridge, M. (2003) ‘The ties that divide: Regional press campaigns, community and
populism’, Media, Culture & Society, 25(4): 491-509.
Bauman, Z. (1987) Legislators and Interpreters: On Modernity, Post-Modernity and Intellectuals,
Oxford: Polity Press.
Dahlgren, P. (1997) ‘Enhancing the Civic Ideal in Television Journalism’, in K. Brants, J.
Hermes and L. van Zoonen (eds.) The Media in Question: Popular Cultures and Public
Interests, London: Sage, pp. 89-100.
Deuze, M. (2005) ‘Popular journalism and professional ideology: Tabloid reporters and
editors speak out’, Media, Culture and Society, 27(6): 861-882.
Djupsund, G. and Carlson, T. (1998) ‘Trivial stories and fancy pictures? Tabloidization
tendencies in Finnish and Swedish regional and national newspapers, 1982–1997’,
Nordicom, 19(1): 101-114.
Geens, D., Picone, I. and Vandebrande, K. (2007) ‘Another breach in the wall:
Organisational dynamics of today’s news ecology’, Paper presented at the Future
of Newspapers conference, Cardiff, UK, 13 September 2007.
Guyot, J., Mattelart, A. and Multigner, G. (2006) ‘Editorial cultures: Report on France and
Spain’, EMEDIATE Project, WP3 National Report, unpublished report.
Horgan, J. (2006) ‘Ireland: Editorial Cultures’, EMEDIATE Project, WP3 National Report,
unpublished report.
Hujanen, J. and Pietikainen, S. (2004) ‘Interactive uses of journalism: Crossing between
technological potential and young people’s news-using practices’, New Media and
Society, 6(6): 383-401.
Löffelholz, M. and Weaver, D. (2008) (eds.) Global Journalism Research: Theories, Methods,
Findings, Future, London : Blackwell.
McChesney, R. W. (2003) ‘Theses on media deregulation’, Media, Culture and Society, 25(1):
125-133.
Metykova, Drifting Apart?…
59
Metykova, M. (2004) ‘Establishing public service broadcasting in the Slovak Republic
(1993-2004): From state control to the European single market’, Trends in
Communication, 12(4): 223-232.
Murdock, G. (1992) ‘Citizens, Consumers, and Public Culture’, in M. Skovmand and K.
C. Schrøder (eds.) Media Cultures: Reappraising Transnational Media, London:
Routledge, pp. 17-41.
Ofcom (2007) ‘New News, Future News: The Challenges for Television News after
Digital Switch-over’, An Ofcom Discussion Document, available at
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/research/tv/reports/newnews/newnews.pdf
(accessed 14 May 2008).
O'Neil, P. H. (ed.) (1997) Post-Communism and the Media in Eastern Europe, London: Frank
Cass and Co.
Pavlik, J. (2000) ‘The impact of technology on journalism’, Journalism Studies, 1(2), 229-237.
Preston, P. (2006) ‘Editorial Culture in Great Britain’, EMEDIATE Project, WP3 National
Report, unpublished report.
Preston, P. and Horgan, J. (2006) ‘Comparative Report on Newsmaking Cultures and
Values’, EMEDIATE Project, WP3 Comparative Report, available at
http://www.iue.it/RSCAS/Research/EMEDIATE/documents/WP3Comparat
iveD7.pdf (accessed on 14 May 2008)
Sparks, C. and Reading, A. (1998) Communism, Capitalism and the Mass Media, London: Sage.
Sparks, C. (2000) ‘Introduction: The Panic over Tabloid News’, in C. Sparks and J.
Tulloch (eds.) Tabloid Tales: Global Debates over Media Standards, Lanham, MD:
Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, pp. 1-40.
ter Wal, J. (2006) ‘Editorial Culture: The Netherlands’, EMEDIATE Project, WP3 National
Report, unpublished report.
ter Wal, J. and A.Valeriani (2006) ‘Editorial Culture in Italy’, EMEDIATE Project, WP3
National Report, unpublished report.
Thurman, N. (2008) ‘Forums for citizen journalists?: Adoption of user generated content
initiatives by online news media’, New Media and Society 10(1): 139-157.
Wahl-Jorgensen, K. and Franklin, B. (2007) ‘Journalism and Research in the UK’, Paper
presented at the International Association for Mass Communication Research
conference, Paris, France, 22 - 25 July 2007.
Waschkova Cisarova, L. (2007a) ‘Report on News Cultures in the Czech Republic’,
EMEDIATE Project, WP3 National Report, unpublished report.
——————— (2007b) ‘Report on News Cultures in Slovakia’, EMEDIATE
Project, WP3 National Report, unpublished report.
Winston, B. (2002) ‘Towards tabloidization? Glasgow revisited, 1975-2001’, Journalism
Studies 3(1): 5-20.
Zagar, I. and K. Zeljan (2006a) ‘Final Report on Editorial Cultures: Serbia’, EMEDIATE
project, WP3 National Report, unpublished report.
———————— (2006b) ‘Final Report on Editorial Cultures: Slovenia’,
EMEDIATE project, WP3 National Report, unpublished report.
Westminster Papers in Communication and Culture 5(2)
60