Redefining Journalism

The public legitimacy and institutional character of journalism – objectives achieved in the second millennium – need to be revalidated, at a time of so many changes in the journalistic field. Mediatization since modernity, understood in its double aspect (Schulz, 2004), shows that the media has emerged as an independent institution with its own logic while simultaneously becoming an integrated part of other institutions, such as politics, work or family, as more and more of these activities are carried out through interactive and collective media (Hjarvard, 2008). But the changing roles of media and journalists, which are a constant because of the transformations in the ecosystem in recent years, make it advisable, if we want to rethink journalism in the current communicative ecosystem, to analyze those most relevant aspects of the moves, among which is the institutionalization of new media, that cause the transition from mediation to mediatization (Hjarvard, 2014; Kammer, 2013).

The fact that the media are at the center of social processes, together with political institutions and citizenship (Blumler & Kavanagh, 1999), has positioned them within the information and knowledge society. The network at the heart of this society is the center of communicative strategies, populated by a set of actors that have penetrated the fabric of politics, war and even everyday life to the extent that they no longer ‘mediate’ events external to them, but have merged with those events (Hutchings, 2019). Interactions between journalists and politicians have moved from being close and sometimes uncomfortable (Blumler & Gurevitch, 1981) to a more or less intimate relationship, with constant negotiation (Ripollés, 2008). This relationship kept the shadow of conflict very present, in a context where many politicians need the media to be politically successful (Aalberg & Strömbäck, 2011; Strömbäck & Aelst, 2013).

In the current communicative ecosystem, where technological and social platforms take center stage, political coverage is still strongly influenced by interactions between journalists and political actors (Maurer & Beiler, 2018), which grants degrees of power to journalists and politicians. The prosumption of ‘politainment’ on the Internet is characterized by a massive consumption of information, but a very passive behavior in its production and participation (Berrocal-Gonzalo, Campos-Domínguez, & Redondo-García, 2014). Prosumption in social networks has a positive relationship with online participation and with the heterogeneity of the discussion (Yamamoto, Nah, & Bae, 2020). The use of social networks, however – highly present in modern journalism – has led to the need for many journalists to compete more directly with experts, commentators, sources and other actors, which implies renewed interactions between political journalists and their audiences (Bruns & Nuernbergk, 2019), as well as with politicians.

Institutional logics remain in today’s network society, where affordance and homogenization shape dominant news that is oriented to serve the public interest (Benson, Neff, & Hessérus, 2018). The renewal of the public sphere, through the new dispersion and deliberative dimensions inspired by the Internet (Dahlgren, 2005) and the great transformation in the digital scenario this century (Desai, 2013), has established a new scenario for relations between journalists and politicians, deliberation and audiences, initially greeted with optimism about the renewed possibilities of strengthening democracy through current technologies, which has become, in recent years, a critical skepticism (Masip, Suau, & Ruiz-Caballero, 2019). What is certain is that social networks have instituted new parameters for political conversation in the digital public sphere and that demographics, cultural factors and proximity to centers of political power are now factors that condition the structure of digital political debate (Casero-Ripollés, Micó-Sanz, & Díez-Bosch, 2020).

The current ecology of hybrid media – embedded in decision-making in political institutions and the media – demands new approaches to rethinking political communication (Bennett & Pfetsch, 2018) and rethinking journalism (Peters & Broersma, 2017). This reinvention of the media and journalism, necessary due to the metamorphosis experienced in recent years, is what frames much of current journalistic research and the pronouncements of the main professional organizations.

Roles of journalism and the practice of the profession

The perception of journalistic activity by professionals, citizens and experts allows us to evaluate the current state of journalism in Spain, as an initial step to investigate the relationship with the political sphere.

Journalists undoubtedly consider that their main role at present (Table 4) is to inform (71.8% chose this option). This category is related to other roles they indicate for journalism: some journalists state that their main roles include controlling power and sources (11.7%), denouncing and giving voice (4.3%) or mediating between facts, power and society (3.7%); functions of control and vigilance form the tasks of the profession: to investigate, analyze and go deeper (17.0%), to educate society and form public opinion (8.5%), to verify in response to disinformation (5.9%), to explain (3.2%) or to explain and contextualize (5.9%). Some 4.3% of journalists consider that among their main roles is also the need to entertain.

Table 4. Role of the journalist (survey of journalists)

Note: categories coded from open-ended questions. Source: own elaboration.

From the point of view of the experts consulted, the most important – and consensual – functions of journalism today (Table 5) are: providing information (4.1 out of 5), analyzing and interpreting events (4.1), acting as verifiers (3.9), and monitoring the government (3.7). Regarding the role of journalists today (Table 6), the experts point out that they should act as intermediaries between society and the public, economic and social powers (3.6 out of 5), loudspeakers for citizens (3.5) and watchdogs (3.4). In all cases the assessments achieved the expected level of consensus (RIR≤0.5).

Table 5. Functions of today’s journalism (group of experts)

Source: own elaboration.

Table 6. Role of the journalist (group of experts)

Source: own elaboration.

The perception of journalists in relation to the trust that Spanish citizens have in them is not positive (4.6 out of 10) and they ascribe this to the low credibility of media and professionals, an audience aware of the bias and interests that influence them, and sensationalism and spectacularization, among other reasons, but also due to the influence of social networks and misinformation, or that the audience seeks affinity and reaffirmation of their ideas.

On the other hand, citizens express a critical view of the practice of journalism: 59.0% perceive that journalists do not comply with the codes of their profession, such as objectivity, impartiality or honesty. Nevertheless, Spanish citizens consider themselves to be sufficiently well informed (Avg.=6.25), with 52.1% scoring 7 or more on a scale of 1 to 10. Spanish society is therefore critical of the professional practice of journalism, although they consider themselves to be well informed. In light of these data, and given the skepticism towards journalism professionals noted above, we wonder what criteria citizens value in order to consider a journalist trustworthy and we find that they prioritize multiple sources and fact-checking (59.3%), being a specialist in some subject (29.4%) and working in a medium with a good reputation (28.4%). Analyzing these results by age group, we observe that the youngest (18-44 years old) appreciate more the fact that they are present in social media. Regarding whether they are loyal to an ideological line, those over 65 are the ones who value this quality the most, who also take into account if they work in a news media outlet with a good reputation.

Interferences and relationship with politics

The issues that shape public opinion (Figure 1), according to journalists, are mainly defined by political (75.6%) and economic (73.6%) sources. This marked bias contrasts with 39.1% who consider that journalists themselves define the issues, or 35.0% who include the audience as a determining factor. Among the responses outside the main categories, 4.6% mentioned pressure groups, opinion leaders and other influences as actors in the definition of priority issues.

The experts agree that it is political sources that determine public opinion issues to a greater extent (78.6%), but they also point to virality in social networks, a cause that determines the issues for 71.4% of the experts in the study. Less common determinants of public opinion were said to be the journalistic organizations themselves, economic sources, the audience, and journalists.

Source: own elaboration.

Although the topics are largely defined by political and economic sources, 50.3% of journalists say that they are the ones who decide on the approach to the topics, compared to the news sources that provide the information first (37.1%) and the directors and managers of newspaper companies (24.9%). The experts’ perspective differs from that of the professionals, since they all agree that it is the companies that define the approaches, together with the journalists (57.1%) and other factors such as the sources.

The journalism-politics relationship is a central issue for journalism professionals and for citizens. Journalists consider their profession to be incompatible with involvement in a political party (3.8 out of 10 points): 42.6% indicated that they totally disagreed, while 23.8% agreed (scoring 7 or more). As for citizens, they perceive that journalists’ surveillance towards politicians is moderate (6.0) and believe that they are more interested in getting along with power than in reporting what is happening in society (6.8) – in this aspect, 58.1% scored 7 or more out of 10. By age, those over 65 score highest both in recognizing journalists’ surveillance of politicians and possible interest in getting along with power. Figures 2, 3 and 4 visualize these data in simplified form, showing the degree of agreement with the statements under the category “no” (responses from 1 to 5) and “yes” (from 6 to 10).

Source: own elaboration.

Source: own elaboration.

Digital journalism: Challenges and threats for the future

Recent changes in the field of communication have also affected journalism and, by extension, its relationship with politics. According to the experts, the development of digital journalism has led to changes at three levels: in the very conception of journalism, in the faster publication and updating of information, and in the inclusion of citizen participation (nine of the fourteen experts consulted named all three levels). For half of the experts, it has meant the definition of new professional roles; two out of ten consider that it has affected the quality of information, and one thinks that it has improved the relationship with sources.

Regarding the relationship with the audience, journalists consider that citizenship can help to improve the veracity of information and add value as sources and collaborators. In support of this idea, they emphasize that taking care of this connection contributes to a better listening to society (29.9% of professionals point out this reason), since citizens are sources and provide testimonies and specialized or localized knowledge. In addition, they state that the audience is responsible, critical and controls journalism (9.6%), while openness to receiving feedback and the management of the relationship with the audience are positive for the debate (4.1%). However, those who see more risks than opportunities in collaboration with the public justify their position in distrusting citizen journalism (5.1%), skepticism towards the role of citizens (4.6%) – because of its partial, polarized and even propagandistic vision and because the production of truthful information is a responsibility of journalists and the media (2.5%).

Delving into the relationship between journalists and the audience, 53.1% of the professionals consider that a specialized team should manage this relationship, while the remaining 46.9% consider that it is the direct responsibility of each reporter. The main methods of collaboration they point out are: direct contact with journalists through email and social networks (81.8%), sending confidential or sensitive information using secure mailboxes (75.3%), and participation in open processes of elaboration of journalistic pieces (25.9%).

Regarding the challenges of digital journalism, experts point out the search for new professional roles, the lack of income derived from open access to content, the need to engage the dispersed audience and technological adaptation (in all cases with the expected level of consensus). Interference by governments and politicians was rated at a medium-high level, without reaching consensus (3.4 points out of 5; RIR=0.63).

Social networks have an unquestionable impact on the information context, in production, distribution and reception. A total of 44.8% of Spanish citizens say that they use social media once or several times a day to get informed, with significantly lower data for those over 55 years of age. By gender, although it is not the objective of this research, 48.8% of women and 40.0% of men indicate this daily use of social media platforms for information. The close link between social networks and the rise of circulating misinformation prompted a question to citizens about the effect of hoaxes and fake news on the informative process – they expressed significant concern because they hinder access to information (8.2 out of 10). It is noteworthy that 43.6% of respondents indicated the highest level on the scale (10) and 80.8% chose a value greater than or equal to 7. Despite the concern about misinformation in the current context, citizens do not blame journalists for this phenomenon (4.8), with only 6.0% indicating the highest level of agreement.

The contemporary digital communication scenario cannot be understood without the impact of artificial intelligence. Journalists report a moderate level of influence of automation in the media in which they work (6.8 out of 10), with a mode of 8 pointing to a frequent influence. Experts rate it similarly and with consensus at a high level (3.9 out of 5; RIR=0). In turn, journalists perceive that the automation of sources in journalistic work is slightly more present (7.2). The experts point out that this use in political sources has a medium influence (2.9 out of 5), without reaching the expected consensus (RIR=0.67).

When asked specifically about the use of bots in political communication, journalists indicate that their presence is moderate (6.7), but relevant, since 72.0% scored 7 or more. The purposes of these tools are:

a)To generate disinformation, infoxication and biased information; (b to influence public opinion; (c to guide the debate and the news agenda; and (d) to feed political campaigns.

Note: 1 means "extremely low"; 10 means "extremely high". Source: own elaboration.