Ryan J. Thomas

‘This is citizen journalism at its finest’: YouTube and the public sphere in the Oscar Grant shooting incident

On 1 January 2009, Oscar Grant was shot and killed in a subway station by Bay Area Rail Transit officers. This event was recorded by several passengers on their cellphones and later uploaded to the video-sharing website YouTube. The videos generated significant protests among online and offline communities, and were eventually used as evidence in the ensuing trial. This study employed a critical thematic analysis to examine audience responses to this act of citizen journalism on YouTube. Results indicated that although some viewers critiqued the video quality and the cameraperson’s passivity, several supportive comments praised the cameraperson’s presence of mind and courage. Furthermore, some viewers called for resistance and retaliation, while others advocated a more prudent response. We argue that these findings necessitate a reconceptualization of traditional notions of the guard-dog media and the public sphere to accommodate new media technologies.

The Ethics of Web Analytics

The collection and reporting of audience data through Web analytics is reshaping the news construction process, with journalists now aware of what their online audiences want. A more important question than understanding this process of adoption of Web analytics in the newsroom is how access to audience metrics impacts on the journalism that journalists produce. In this essay, we pose three interconnected concerns about the use of Web analytics in journalism, guided by journalism’s communitarian role. First, we warn of the danger of viewing the audience as disaggregated segments based on consumer preference. Second, we argue against choice as a moral end and call for distinction between the public interest and what the public is interested in. Finally, we warn against the dangers of journalism studies romanticizing the audience and arguing too strongly against journalistic autonomy.

When old and new media collide: The case of WikiLeaks

In November 2010, WikiLeaks released over a quarter of a million US State Department diplomatic cables to the world’s media, exposing private communications between diplomatic officials at US embassies across the globe and the State Department at Washington, DC. This study analyzes the WikiLeaks controversy through institutional views of the US news media. Our analysis of 83 newspaper editorials found four prominent themes in US newspaper discourse: (1) The contrast between the “discretion and maturity” of traditional journalism and the rash actions of WikiLeaks; (2) The need for “old media” in a new media landscape; (3) The tension between the public’s right to know and national security; and (4) The invocation of the Pentagon Papers as a way of drawing clear lines of difference between journalism’s past and its possible future. Our findings indicate ongoing tension between “old” and “new” media at a time when definitions of journalism are increasingly diffuse.

Journalism’s “Crazy Old Aunt” Helen Thomas and Paradigm Repair

Veteran White House correspondent Helen Thomas abruptly retired in summer 2010 after she gave unscripted remarks widely perceived to be anti-Semitic. This case study applies paradigm repair and attribution theories to explore how mainstream journalists repaired the damage to their profession’s reputation. It concludes that they (1) situated Thomas’s remark against a backdrop of journalistic excellence, subtly reinforcing the point that her career should now come to an end; (2) suggested Thomas’s remarks were caused by senility; (3) condemned her remarks as racist; and (4) raised the norm of objectivity.

Who watches the watchdogs?: British newspaper metadiscourse on the Leveson Inquiry

The British press is notable for its longstanding resistance to accountability. However, the Leveson Inquiry, formed in response to the 2011 phone-hacking scandal, has opened up a dialogue on the culture, practices, and ethics of the British press and, by extension, the roles and responsibilities it is expected to bear. Taking the position that analyzing journalistic “metadiscourse”—journalism about journalism—is critical to understanding how the press views its role in a democracy, this study analyzes editorial comment in mainstream national daily and Sunday newspapers on the Leveson Inquiry from its inception to the conclusion of its hearing phase. We find four central discursive strategies: catastrophization (the slippery slope to state control), self-affirmation (affirming journalisms value to a democratic society), minimization (downplaying the significance of the phone-hacking scandal and therefore questioning the legitimacy of the inquiry), and localization (localizing the damage to the community to acts committed by a handful of members). We argue these findings are indicative of an institutional ideology that is quick to assert rights but largely resistant to notions of attendant responsibilities.

“This Right Here Is All About Living”: Communicating the “Common Sense” About Home Stability Through CBPR and Photovoice

Homelessness remains a major problem in the United States as a result of urban deprivation, economic decline, a rise in housing costs, and a decline in blue-collar wages. Meanwhile, the dominant discourses around homelessness tend to frame the matter in terms of individual deviance rather than structural impediments. This study utilizes Community-Based Participatory Research and the photovoice method to articulate what a small number of “successfully home stable individuals” attribute to helping them to remain home stable as well as those factors that challenge this situation. The study analyzes how these attributions challenge the “common sense” about homelessness by refiguring the concept as a reintegration process with manifold causes and paths into and out of episodic home instability and giving voice to formerly homeless individuals who are successfully navigating reintegration into housed society.

Putting the Work (back) into Newswork

This case study pivots away from the technocentrism of much contemporary scholarship in journalism studies and looks at the intersections of journalisms normative functions and labor processes. Interviews with journalists at local and metropolitan newspapers in the United States reveal a deep commitment to the normative functions of journalism but a growing realization that external pressures are contributing to “normative failure”—the fear of inability to execute these functions. Findings indicate a need for further research on the role of normative functions in how journalists make sense of industry change.

YOU ARE NOT A FRIEND

Much peace journalism research to date has critiqued problems with mainstream media reporting—what some call “war journalism”—through analysis of news coverage of international conflict. This study seeks to determine whether news coverage of putative allies and friends (here the United States and Mexico) during periods of non-violent interactions discursively positions the bilateral relationship as one of conflict or cooperation. We examine The New York Times’ coverage of the May 2006, immigration debates. Employing textual analysis, we find that news stories privilege the perspectives of political elites, reinforce polarized notions of national identity, and set the stage for future, armed violence. News reports construct the border as a site of conflict and contestation, use stereotyped imagery and coded language to dichotomize US and Mexican identities, and portray the bilateral relationship in distinctly hierarchical terms.

Locating The Journalism in Citizen Photojournalism

The proliferation of cameras on cellphones and access to high-quality digital cameras has increased the ability of average citizens to capture and share photographs and video. The inclusion of user-generated visual content by news organizations, especially at a time of newsroom contraction, has been a source of consternation for professional photojournalists, who have emphasized their professional training and skill. Though scholars have explored the perceptions photojournalists and citizen photographers have of photojournalism and of each other, little attention so far has been directed to the visual content of citizen photojournalism, the extent to which it adheres to established photojournalism conventions, and its incorporation by mainstream news organizations. This research addresses this absence. Drawing on a content analysis of user-generated images, this study finds that in a situation involving coverage of an ongoing story of significant impact in a community, there was little citizen photojournalism presented within the mainstream coverage. Further analysis reveals that while there is some overlap between events captured by professional and citizen photojournalists, the photographs made by citizens do not generally reflect the aesthetic standards expected of professionals. The results begin to provide practical examination of conceptual concerns expressed by photojournalists regarding the use of citizen-generated content.

In Defense of Journalistic Paternalism

ABSTRACT This essay introduces paternalism—a concept widely discussed in political philosophy and applied ethics—into media ethics, given that the concept is frequently mentioned but rarely explicated. The purpose of the essay is to defend paternalism as a normatively positive concept. The essay defines paternalism, outlines normative objections to paternalism grounded in autonomy and rationality, and applies the concept of paternalism to journalism. Theoretical connections to virtue ethics and implications for the practice of journalism are also discussed.