Content uploaded by Mark Deuze
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mark Deuze on Nov 10, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
‘NETWORK JOURNALISM’: CONVERGING COMPETENCES OF OLD AND NEW
MEDIA PROFESSIONALS.
Jo Bardoel & Mark Deuze
University of Amsterdam/Indiana University
The Netherlands
Published as:
Bardoel, Jo, Deuze, Mark, (2001). Network Journalism: Converging Competences of
Media Professionals and Professionalism. In: Australian Journalism Review 23 (2),
pp.91-103.
Keywords: Online Journalism, Internet, Public/Civic/Communitarian Journalism,
Journalism Studies
1. Introduction
The impact of the Internet and other new information- and communication
technologies on the profession of journalism should not be underestimated. The
Internet is changing the profession of journalism in at least three ways: it has the
potential to make the journalist as an intermediary force in democracy superfluous
(Bardoel, 1996); it offers the media professional a vast array of resources and
sheer endless technological possibilities to work with (Quinn, 1998; Pavlik, 1999);
and it creates its own type of journalism on the Net: so-called digital or rather:
online journalism (Singer, 1998; Deuze, 1999).
This contribution will take the developments in journalism on the Internet as the
starting point for a discussion about the changing face of journalism in general.
The key characteristics of journalism on the Net - convergence, interactivity,
customisation of content and hypertextuality - put together with the widespread
use and availability of new technological ‘tools of the trade’ are putting all genres
and types of journalism to the test. The outcome seems to suggest a turn towards
what the authors of this article call 'network journalism’; the convergence between
the core competences and functions of journalists and the civic potential of online
journalism.
This contribution will first briefly discuss the developments and characteristics of
journalism on the Internet, drawing on our research covering the range of scholarly
and professional literature, discussions on mailing lists for (online) journalists and
relevant newsgroups. Secondly, the paper will refer to the public journalism
debate, paying more specific attention to the shift towards the audience (or:
publics) in contemporary journalism.
Concluding the authors argue that convergence as such takes place on several
levels: technological, professional and cultural (see also: Jenkins, 2001). The
combination of these levels of convergence socially constructs ‘network
journalism’. Although convergence as it is introduced in this paper – in the context
of journalism on the Internet – has a powerful deterministic component in terms of
(the uses and impact of) technology, it must be stressed here that technology in
itself cannot be seen as the determining factor in defining what professional
convergence and overall change in journalism means.
This last point turns back upon the notion of the role that journalism plays in a
given democracy: reinforcing the ideal of participatory citizenship through effective
dissemination of public information. It must be noted though that in an
individualised, electronic society, notions such as social integration, political
participation, community and debate, are definitely becoming less self-evident and
seem to be in need of redefinition in a contemporary context (see Bardoel, 1996;
Schudson, 1999).
2. Journalism and the Internet
The fourth kind of journalism - next to radio, television and print - is online
journalism, seen as gathering and distributing original news content on the
Internet. Research shows that the genre has outgrown the status of ‘shovelware’
production: online journalists do not merely repurpose content for the Web, and
more of them are generating original content (see for example the Ross and
Middleberg online journalism surveys of 1996-2000; Deuze, 2000). The definition
of journalism online and indeed journalism in general has posed researchers for
problems throughout the history of journalism studies (see for example debate in
Sparks and Splichal, 1989; Scholl, 1996). A working definition of journalists in
general and online journalism in particular should nowadays be sensitive towards
calls in the literature for a broader and wider notion of journalism - in other words:
a call for a more ‘catholic’ definition of journalism (Sparks, 1991: 67). Such a
definition would adopt hierarchical elements of journalism varying from the micro
level of the communicator and the meso level of his or her professional
environment (i.e. the workplace) to the macro level of (inter-) national economics,
politics and culture influencing the individual media professional. At the same time
a wider definition would include a horizontal view on journalism, looking at the
range of different genres, niches and specialisation’s contemporary journalists
work for (Deuze, 1999). In the context of the Internet, a definition must have a
technological dimension, since the practice of journalism online is in its essence
hardly different from any kind of other journalism; its main determining
characteristic is that it is being practised in an online (or ‘wired’) computer-
mediated communication environment (Singer, 1998). Journalism in general is
defined here as the professional selection of actual news facts to an audience by
means of technological distribution methods – which general definition allows for a
particular discussion of online journalism in a distinctly technology-driven context
(Bardoel, 1997). Especially in recent years the role of technology in effectively
distributing media messages has changed and has taken centre stage in the
modern journalistic theatre and should therefore serve as essential or even
starting point of any scholarly venture into online journalism (Deuze, 1998). With
respect to the individual communicator this means that journalists are those
individuals working within an editorial board or newsroom (be it full-time or
freelance) who perform one of four core journalistic tasks: selecting, researching
(or: gathering), writing (or: processing) and editing news more or less exclusively
for the World Wide Web (Scholl, 1996: 335; Deuze, 1999). In short, this refers to
editors and reporters working within an online newsroom of a media outlet and/or
organisation. An editorial board or newsroom is an independent working unit within
a media organisation - whereas a media organisation can be referred to on two
levels as a broadcast, print, cable or online media outlet and as a media
organisation incorporating more than one media outlet. As such, online journalism
can be functionally differentiated from other kinds of journalism by using its
technological component as a determining factor in terms of (operational)
definition. The relevance of defining online journalism in this way, and its meaning
for the profession as a whole can be summarised quoting Dahlgren’s observation
that:
“Journalism is carried out in specific institutional circumstances, within concrete
organisational settings and under particular technological conditions. The advent
of cyberspace will inevitably impact on the factors which shape how journalism
gets done - and may well even colour how we define what journalism is”
(Dahlgren, 1996: 60).
The literature suggests that the essential characteristics of online journalism are
interactivity, customisation of content, hypertextuality and convergence or rather:
multimediality – which characteristics all contribute to the time-space distantiated
and potentially asynchronous nature of news and information online (see
Newhagen and Rafaeli, 1996; Singer, 1998; Pavlik, 1997 and 1999; Deuze, 1999
and 2001a). The convergence of communication modalities leads to an integration
and possible specialisation of information services, where the existing unity of
production, content and distribution within each separate medium will cease to
exist (Bardoel, 1998). Media professionals can for example produce news content
which then can be published through a variety of communication channels - so-
called ‘windowing’ of content (see this argument already offered in Fulton, 1996).
This in turn means that more and more emphasis will be put on the journalistic
core function of gathering and disseminating of updated information that will not be
directly linked to existing media types, genres or ways of distribution.
The developments on the Internet in terms of news and journalism lead to a
classification of its key characteristics:
• interactivity;
• customisation of content
• hypertextuality; and
• multimediality.
Although other media have also a claim to the fame of interactivity - one could
think of Talk Radio - this aspect is generally referred to as the main discerning
characteristic of the online environment. Especially when looking at online news,
the interactive element seems to be of essential importance. The key to
understanding this is to see interactivity as a purely audience-related feature. It
has not so much to do with the speed of news and journalistic activity - although it
does facilitate fast work - but with the fact that online news has the potential to
make the reader/user part of the news experience. This can be done through a
number of ways: through direct or indirect e-mail exchange between the journalist
or staff and the user, through a bulletin board system available on the newssite,
through a ‘send your comments’-option box underneath each news story or, more
recently, through Web chat possibilities, even introducing the people who are
featured in the story to the users together with the journalist responsible for the
piece in an ultimate interactive environment.
The second essential element is not surprisingly also an audience-related feature:
customisation of content. Although the literature speaks of ‘personalisation’ or
‘individualisation’, a reflection on the current practices and ideas in online
journalism suggests it is better to use customisation of content as the defining
characteristic here, since personalisation also implies a trend associated with the
debate on the modern-day blurring of the lines between the public and the private
sphere - especially in the media. The technology of the Internet not only allows for
fast interaction between journalist, organisation and user, but also for
customisation of that particular interaction (especially by the user). This would not
mean adapting the paper or the program to the perceived needs and wants of a
faceless audience probed by marketing research firms. This means putting a
journalistic product together to cater for the individual citizen. Examples of such
customised news products are ‘pull’ content (the online archive is the obvious
example), ‘push’ content (subscriber news pushed to individual computers, very
popular a few years ago, now in decline) and ‘custom content’. This third option
could be described as a hybrid between push and pull used by news sites like
CNN as well as search engines such as Excite and Yahoo, and gives the user an
option to create his or her own homepage at the search- or newssite, consisting of
pre-selected news topics and services such as horoscopes, stock quotes and so
on. Such services - called ‘custom news’ as for example “my.cnn” - allow the
reader to login at any time to a certain Web page and watch their personal picks of
the moment’s news. The central point remains the same: customisation of content
is one of the key discerning elements of online journalism.
With hypertextuality, we can refer to the specific nature of journalism online, which
is the professional aspect of offering information about information - producing
‘beyond information’ if you will. The phenomenon of hypertext and hyperlinks can
be seen as the starting point of the World Wide Web, whereas the journalist online
may use this characteristic to supply original news content with for example
hyperlinks to original documents such as press releases and annotated reference
material which could include links to the pros and cons in the issue at hand, links
to other sites with information and a selection of material in the news archives
(Pavlik, 1999). With the explosive increase of information on a worldwide scale,
the necessity of offering information about information has become a crucial
addition to the journalist’s skills and tasks (Deuze, 1999). This redefines the
journalist’s role into an annotational or orientational one - a shift from the watchdog
to the ‘guidedog’ (which term comes not surprisingly from the civic journalism
movement in the USA – see Black, 1997). For the user, this means that he or she
can opt for either concise or in-depth reporting, thus further eroding the traditional
difference between types of news (cf. broadcast and print) and genres within the
news (cf. reporting and commenting).
The fourth characteristic is multimediality. Multimediality in the context of online
journalism is the convergence of traditional media formats - (moving) image, text,
sound - in one story told online (Guay, 1995). In this respect, one could argue that
this characteristic is the technological media component of hypertextuality. The
Word Wide Web offers the individual user the option to choose between the
respective elements of the story and offers the journalist to ‘play around’ with
these elements: every single story can have a different angle, a different way of
telling the story. The technology for full multimedia content is not generally
available at the time, but will be in a matter of years. The fact that there is a choice
- for both user as well as journalist - is the discerning element here. Content
analyses show the online newspapers may be better – if applied at all, that is – in
offering interactivity, while broadcast media online generally are better at supplying
the surfer with multimedia (Schultz, 1999; Jankowski and Van Selm, 2000).
Interactivity, customisation of content, hypertextuality and multimediality are
redefining journalism from the perspective of the Internet, yet their components
have implications for journalism in general. Such impact can be contextualised
when one considers online journalism as the catalyst for change in the profession
as a whole; whereas the journalist used to depend on a media organisation to offer
him or her full-time employment and therefore job security, the new journalism is a
job with multiple skills, formats and employment patterns at the same time – an at
once functionally differentiated and more holistic profession (see Weischenberg
and Scholl, 1998). In terms of journalism education this is translated at a call for
multi-skills training (Bierhoff, 1999; Deuze, 2001b). Still, some influential authors
feel this interpretation of convergence is a dangerous road to take – especially in
journalism training (Medsger, 1998). Multiple formats requite the journalist to be
much more aware of possible entries into the news story – leading towards
alternate ways of storytelling (Rich, 1997). Finally, employment patterns in recent
years suggest that more and more journalists are changing jobs frequently
(especially within broadcast journalism), opting for part-time contracts or even
freelance reporting (see for example remarks made in journalist surveys worldwide
reported in Weaver, 1998). This may not be a direct result from new media
technology like the Internet, but the online environment and communities certainly
facilitate new directions for the professionals involved. This also reflects on the
redefinition of the audience/publics-journalist relationships, which features
particularly in the online journalism characteristics of interactivity and
customisation. This paper will now explore the terrain of the public, in particular in
terms of its relationship with media professionals in society.
3. Journalism and the Public
Network journalism might well change the relation between the journalists and
their public in a fundamental way that affects the profession as a whole; its major
characteristics as we have pointed out before seem to reflect clearly a shifting
balance of power between information suppliers and users. We shall examine this
changing relationship on three levels: technological, social-cultural and
professional.
It is clearly the technological convergence that is the prime drive for the changing
communications relations we are assessing here. Digitalisation and computer
networks offer the opportunity to combine existing communication modes and
media that operated separately before, thus creating - in the now dominant
economic vocabulary - new distribution channels or information 'value chains', in
which 'windowing' becomes a common practice (Bardoel, 1997). As a result new
intermediary practices come up, in which journalism is just one of many
‘middlemen’, whereas at the same time disintermediation - as a result of an
increasing self-service facilitated by the combination of new technologies and
active information seeking individuals - becomes possible. This is not to say that
the end of mediated communication is near, but it only shows that due to new
technology the exclusive hold of journalists on the gatekeeping function to private
households comes to an end. Ironically, it was the old (newspaper) technology that
has brought journalists in this privileged position, and it is the new (on-line)
technology that might remove journalists from that position again.
At the same time we should be cautious not to mix up technological possibilities
with social realities; technology does not determine what will happen here, but it
will take a patient process of 'social shaping' that determines what will be the
impact of the new communications technologies, especially in the private sphere.
Therefore it is important to look at social-cultural trends that either reinforce or
hinder the acceptance of the opportunities that new technology offers.
Looking at relevant social-cultural developments we however see a good chance
for new services where they are linked to dominant soci(ologic)al trends such as
individualisation, 'time-space distantiation' and the privatisation of information
provision. Greater individual freedom of choice can be symbolised by the
supermarket metaphor for (post) modern media consumption. At the same time
the new communications technology allows for new, virtual community formation,
on a global, local or special interest basis, thus blurring the boundaries of the
existing nation-state. Apart from new societies, less dependent of geographical
distance or - better - nearness, a new type of citizen emerges, less involved -
according to Giddens (1991) - in old-fashioned collective 'emancipatory politics'
but engaged in individual 'life politics'. Instead of quite homogeneous collectives
we see very heterogeneous individuals that belong - thanks to the death of
distance and the increased span of control caused by new technologies - to many
communities - big and small, near or distant - at the same time. These new (post)
modern citizens need, because of the multiple lives they live and the multiple
communities they are part of, more information and orientation then ever, but in a
new, non-paternalistic manner. For journalists it is quite a challenge - or should we
say less ironically a threat - to serve this multi-faced and fragmented public, for
whom the news 'product' is no longer sacred in se. Since the scarcity of the
offering has turned into abundance people can make a choice, for journalistic
selection and scope or for other information intermediaries. This, again, shows that
the power relation is shifting.
At the - third - level of the journalistic profession we see that, as we have pointed
out earlier, after journalism's self-liberation from ideological prerogatives and
hierarchical conditions by means of increased professionalization, the public in
turn is liberating itself by means of individualisation. The shift in the relationship
between supplier and user to the advantage of the latter, changes the old,
paternalistic relationship into a new, more pragmatic arrangement and leads to a
new emancipation of the information user (Bardoel, 1997). Traditional journalism
is, more then the profession realises or is willing to admit, a product of industrial
society with its centralised, hierarchical and paternalistic characteristics
(Heinonen, 1999). In embracing the professional model not only the value of
independence, but also the interest of autonomy and self-sustainability were
served. As a reaction to this self-satisfaction and irresponsiveness waves of
criticism, both from outside and inside the profession, were heard from time to
time; the debate on public or civic journalism in the US is maybe the most recent
illustration of this concern (see for example Black, 1997). Because of trends
described above the primacy of political journalism might lose ground and the
journalists’ activity, as an inevitable intermediary between the citizen and the
outside world, will assume a more voluntaristic character. Journalism will become
a profession that provides services not to collectives, but first and foremost to
individuals, and not only in their capacity as citizens, but also as consumers,
employees and clients. Of course these trends are going on already, as anyone
can see who reads newspapers, but it is clear that the new technologies might well
reinforce these trends. As a reaction to this blurring of distinctions and to the
increased competition, the profession will need to emphasise its added value. The
convergence of information supply and the competition of communication
professions will force journalism - on-line and off-line - to become more
transparent, responsive and indeed interactive. These are all, in our opinion, great
new challenges to an old profession.
Nevertheless, the situation brings threats as well. Journalism might become,
because of the increased opportunities for targeting and feedback, become more
'market-driven', whereas the blurring of editorial and commercial contents and of
formulas and formats - cf. the rise of ‘infotainment’ and ‘edutainment’ - represent
similar risks for public communication. And the multimediality of on-line content
and the windowing of content might result in a weakened 'grip' of the journalistic
professional practice and culture on mediated content, and with it a tradition of the
struggle for independent information provision during the last one or two centuries.
4. Network Journalism
The arguments in this contribution lead to the conclusion that 'network journalism'
indeed can be seen as a new form of journalism that cannot be insulated though to
the new media alone. Because of the converging nature of the new technology the
borders between new and old media become blurred and in turn increase
competition between information providers and stimulate new distribution ways,
like windowing. Consequently journalistic practises gradually break free from
existing media formats and consequently the (redefinition of) core competencies of
journalism will become more important then ever. Technology will not become
more important, but at the contrary may prove to be less relevant at the end of the
day.
However, this journalism of the future will not be just the same 'good old
journalism' that we know at present. We have seen that new media technologies
and trends in civil society force us to rethink journalism as a traditional top-down
profession - a profession that used to control the 'megaphone', to put it in the
words of Katherine Fulton in a Columbia Journalism Review special of 1996. The
journalist of tomorrow is a professional who serves as a node in a complex
environment between technology and society, between news and analysis,
between annotation and selection, between orientation and investigation. This
complex, changing environment cannot be kept outside of journalism anymore -
the journalist does not work in ‘splendid isolation’ anymore – particularly because
of the sheer abundance of information and the fact that the publics are perfectly
capable to access news and information for themselves, as well as the fact that
institutional players (profit, governmental, non-profit, activist) are increasingly
geared towards addressing their constituencies directly instead of using the
newsmedia as a go-between.
The shifting balance of power between journalism and its publics, and the rise of a
more self-conscious and better educated audience (both as producers and
consumers of content) do not, as often suggested by technological optimists, only
decrease the need for mediation by media professionals. As a matter of fact
disintermediation becomes, as indicated already, a realistic option made possible
by the combination of network technology and active consumership, but an
increasing need for orientation of citizens that are faced with a growing information
capacity and selection problems in an information driven society is the other side
of the same coin. Citizens will become more direct and active information seekers
on subjects they are already familiar with, while they will continue to favour
assistance in fields they are less familiar with (see also Stetson’s concept of the
‘monitorial’ versus the ‘informed’ citizenry; in: Schudson, 1999). More in general
the new opportunities will, as always, favour the privileged, while people on the
other side of the 'digital divide' will stay to rely on public service orientated
mediators. When in a converging and competitive context journalistic mediation
becomes an option instead of a necessity the profession will have to position itself
much better then it does at present by proving its added values, and it has to show
much more proactive responsiveness (instead of paper-reality responsibility)
towards its clients.
What network journalism actually is or can be is largely determined by the
convergence of core competencies of both old and new media professionals and
should therefore be seen more or less disconnected from a single medium format,
type, genre or modality (see also: Altheide and Snow, 1991). New journalism is not
only online journalism for example; technology and technological skills are not the
buzzwords that solely define the tools of the network trade. Journalism, as it can
be seen traditionally or classically, is all about giving a critical account of daily
events, of gathering, selecting, editing and disseminating public information - of
serving as a resource for participation in the politics and culture of (a democratic)
society. This general notion of journalism can be applied to all media. If one
accepts the structural changes and developments in journalism and society as
outlined above, one can look at the profession with the eye set on defining the
competencies of new or ‘network’ journalists. Should these professionals be part-
time public opinion pollsters? Should they all know their way around HTML-coding,
image or font editing? Should they become travel guides to the Word of
Information instead of critical watchdogs of the status quo? The answer to all of
these questions is no.
The core competencies of journalists are not changing due to the developments in
society, just like the core competencies of doctors are not changing because of the
arrival of new medical technology. But when the tools a surgeon can work with and
the sheer amount of information on all the specific diseases multiply and develop
at increasing rates the requirements of the job have to develop as well.
Network journalism is first and foremost journalism for any medium genre, type or
format. The same story can be published in manifold ways and the journalist
should be able to consider the implications of each way before telling the story.
This does not mean that the journalist should be a technological freak, knowing
her or his way around the complicated technology of today’s newsroom. For
example, those online news sites that are doing well and receive international
acclaim - the BBC online comes to mind - are so successful because their
journalists do not have to worry about media format translation; the technological
team is integrated into the newsroom and they have developed their own ‘content
production system’.
Secondly, network journalism needs to be orientated towards a specific audience
instead of a created (and therefore faceless) one. This does not imply that any
individual journalist should conduct reader research all of the time, but it does
mean that a journalist should be able to consider an audience and thus know an
audience before telling this audience the news story. This may seem as obvious,
but research shows this kind of conscious and interactive audience orientation is
virtually non-existent in especially national media (as opposed to many local
media; see Schultz, 1999; Pavlik, 1999; Kenney, Gorelik and Mwangi, 2000).
Thirdly, network journalism is the combination of critical and orientational
storytelling, triggered by a demand from (members of) the public as well as a
demand from the profession itself. Although we need professionals who
investigate and keep the critical finger on the pulse of for instance government,
culture and economy, the need for orientation, guidance and moderation of
information and public debate becomes more apparent every day. Especially in
many Western countries with social cohesion issues like multiculturalism and
media education high on the agenda like the United States, Australia and The
Netherlands, the functional role of journalists in crossing and consciously fighting a
‘digital divide’ is emphasised. One cannot stress enough that in contemporary
Western society where information is becoming the prime form of economic
capital, journalists are desperately needed to help us filter out what we have to
know – and when we want (and have) to know it.
5 Epilogue
All these arguments make necessary a rethinking of what journalism at the start of
the new millennium is - and what it is definitely not. Besides a new definition in
terms of 'network journalism’, we also have to reflect on the social and cultural
relevance and societal position and responsibilities of media professionals. The
importance of a free and fair press are generally recognised as cornerstones of
contemporary democracies, and as a necessary element for political democracy
and social cohesion. In this respect characteristics such as an increased
audience-orientation, customisation of content and interactivity can revitalise old
democratic ideals of participatory communication, public and civic journalism, a
voice for the voiceless and so on (see Bardoel and Frissen 1999). For the same
token these characteristics can also be used in a process of continuing
commercialisation, that puts negative pressures on the profession (Van
Dusseldorp, Scullion and Bierhoff, 1999). In our view it is not fruitful though to
construct an absolute opposition between the 'old' newspaper journalism, as the
exclusive platform for political debate within the framework of the nation-state,
versus the 'new' Internet journalism, as the main vehicle of (post) modern service-
driven journalism in the context of a globalising market economy. Both old and
new media provide platforms for political, cultural as well as commercial
communication. Therefore the new technologies offer new challenges for
democratic communication as well as new threats, but who emphasises the latter
exclusively might well end up defending the privileges of an established profession
instead of the importance of a democratic communication system.
If journalism is in a state of crisis, as is stated frequently in recent years, this is in
our view not the consequence of new communications technology or of the
growing PR-complex in our society. It is while journalists did not take enough
notice of recent fundamental changes in society – and even if they did, without a
clearly stated focus and vision of the possible roads ahead. While journalists did
not take serious the increasing emancipation of the citizen, the decreasing interest
and even decreasing importance of traditional institutional politics in our society,
and the increased interest of individuals for what we could call the project of
personal life. To put it in Giddens’ terms again: ‘emancipation politics’ is being
replaced by ‘life politics’ (Giddens, 1991). Technology is a mere vehicle through
which these socio-cultural trends finally are able to change existing communication
relations in society. As a result of these changes in society and of shifting power
relations in social communications the journalist of the future will not longer be
allowed to speak ‘ex cathedra’, as the profession used to do before. More
horizontal communications relations of network journalism will replace the vertical,
paternalistic relationship of industrial journalism. Journalism and journalists will, as
every other social institution or profession, be held accountable for their
performance and will have to be more open and responsive vis-à-vis citizens and
society. If journalism takes up this challenge, it can have a great opportunity in
keeping up old values in new media. Until now in network media ‘anything goes’,
without respecting good practices of the traditional news culture such as
separation of advertising and editorial functions and explicit reference to sources.
It is for this reason that traditional and therefore trusted news organisations attract
so many users on their Internet-sites. At the same time we have argued that the
tools of the trade - first of all in network media, but consequently also in traditional
media, - will change so dramatically that professional training has to adapt
fundamentally; to put it differently: ‘multimedia’ deserve ‘multiskilling’ (Bierhoff
1999; Deuze, 2000).
The initiative now is in the hands of the public or even the individual - for whom the
threshold to enter the public sphere has become lower then ever if one considers
the ‘old’ media situation where the initiative in terms of access and distribution was
almost exclusively in the hands of the professional communicators. It is time for
reflection on the consequences of convergence - not just in terms of technology,
but also in terms of the competencies of the ‘old’ and the ‘new’ media
professionals.
References
Altheide, D.A., Snow, R.P. (1991). Media worlds in the postjournalism era. New York: Aldine
de Gruyter.
Bardoel, J. (1996). Beyond Journalism. A Profession between Information Society and Civil
Society. European Journal of Communication 11 (3): 283-302.
Bardoel, J. (1997). Journalistiek in de informatiesamenleving [Journalism in the Information
Society]. Amsterdam: Uitgever Otto Cramwinckel.
Bardoel, J. (1998). Converging Communications Policies. Developing a new policy
framework. Paper presented at IAMCR-Conference 26-30 July 1998, Glasgow, Scotland.
Bardoel, J., Frissen, V. (1999). Policing Participation. New Forms of Participation and
Citizenship and their Implications for a Social Communications Policy. Communications &
Strategies, 34 (2nd quarter) 1999.
Bierhoff, J. (1999). Journalism training in Europe: trends and perspectives. Paper presented
to the 'Media Minority's Message' Conference at the Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona in
Spain of 11-13 June.
Black, J. (ed.) (1997). Mixed news: the public/civic/communitarian journalism debate. New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dahlgren, P. (1996). Media logic in cyberspace: repositioning journalism and its publics.
Javnost/The Public 3: 59-72.
Deuze, M. (1998). The WebCommunicators: issues in research into online journalism and
journalists [online]. First Monday 3 (12). Available:
http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue3_12/deuze/index.html [May 31].
Deuze, M. (1999). Journalism and the Web: an analysis of skills and standards in an online
environment. Gazette 61 (5): 373-390.
Deuze, M. (2000). Journalistiek in een digitale omgeving: de medialogica van de
Nederlandse Internetjournalist [Journalism in a digital context: the media logic of Dutch
online journalists]. Tijdschrift voor Communicatiewetenschap 28 (4), pp.349-366.
Deuze, M. (2001a). Understanding the Impact of the Internet: On New Media
Professionalism, Mindsets and Buzzwords [online]. EJournalist 1 (1). Available:
http://www.ejournalism.au.com/ejournalist/deuze.pdf.
Deuze, M. (2001b). Educating new journalists: challenges to the curriculum. Journalism
Educator 56 (2), pp.4-17.
Dusseldorp, M. van, Scullion, R., Bierhoff, J. (1999). The future of the printed press:
challenges in a digital world. European Journalism Centre Publication, 2nd edition [online].
Available: http://www.ejc.nl/hp/fpp/contents.html [1999, Nov.10].
Fulton, K. (1996). A tour of our uncertain future. Columbia Journalism Review [online].
Available: http://www.cjr.org/html/96-03-04-tour.html [1997, Dec.10].
Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and Self- Identity. Self and Society in the Late Modern Age.
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Guay, T. (1995). Web publishing paradigms [online]. Information Technology Project Group
paper. Available: http://hoshi.cic.sfu.ca/~guay/Paradigm/Paradigm.html [2000, Dec.5].
Heinonen, A. (1999). Journalism in the Age of the Net. Tampere: Acta Universitatis
Tamperensis.
Jankowski, N.W., Van Selm, M. (2000). Traditional news media online: an examination of
added values. Communications 25 (1): 85-101.
Jenkins, H. (2001). Digital Renaissance: convergence? I diverge [online]. Technology
Review, June. Available: http://www.techreview.com/magazine/jun01/jenkins.asp [2001,
Jun.15].
Kenney, K., Gorelik, A., Mwangi, S. (2000). Interactive features of online newspapers
[online]. First Monday 5 (1). Available:
http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue5_1/kenney/index.html [2000, Dec.6].
Medsger, B. (1998). Educating for thinking: journalism educators’most important challenge.
Keynote speech at the convention of Scandinavian journalism educators in Aarhus,
Denmark.
Newhagen, J.E., Rafaeli, S. (1996). Why communication researchers should study the
Internet: a dialogue. Political Communication 46 (1): 4-13.
Pavlik, J. (1997, August). The future of on-line journalism: bonanza or black hole? Columbia
Journalism Review: 30-36.
Pavlik, J. (1999). New media and news: implications for the future of journalism. New Media
& Society 1:1, pp.54-59.
Quinn, S. (1998). Newsgathering and the Internet. In: Breen, M. (red.). Journalism: theory
and practice. Paddington: Macleay Press: 239-255.
Rich, C. (1997). Newswriting for the Web [online]. Poynter Institute of Media Studies report.
Available: http://www.ukans.edu/~cjrich/poynter/poynterhome.htm (1998, July 3).
Ross, S., Middleberg, D. (2000). Media in Cyberspace study. [online]. Mediasource Study
(I/V). Available: http://www.mediasource.com/ [2000, Nov. 17].
Scholl, A. (1996). Sampling journalists. Communications 21 (3), 331-343.
Schudson, M. (1999). Good citizens and bad history: today's political ideals in historical
perspective [online]. Paper presented at conference on "The Transformation of Civic Life,"
Nashville and Murfreesboro, Tennessee, November l2-l3. Available:
http://communication.ucsd.edu/people/f_schudson_nashville.html [2001, Jun.16].
Schultz, T. (1999). Interactive options in online journalism: a content analysis of 100 U.S.
newspapers [online]. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 5 (1). Available:
http://jcmc.huji.ac.il/vol5/issue1/schultz.html [10 feb. 2000].
Singer, J. (1998). Online Journalists: Foundations for Research Into Their Changing Roles.
The Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 4 (1) [online]. Available:
http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol4/issue1/singer.html [1999, Oct.20].
Sparks, C., Splichal, S. 91989). Journalistic education and professional socialization. Gazette
43 (1): 31-52.
Sparks, C. (1991). Goodbye, Hildy Johnson: the vanishing ‘serious press’. In: Dahlgren, P.
Sparks, C. (eds.), Communication and citizenship: journalism and the public sphere in the
new media age, 58-74. London: Routledge.
Weaver, D. (ed.) (1998). The global journalist: news people around the world. New Jersey:
Hampton Press.
Weischenberg, S., Scholl, A. (1998). Journalismus in der Gesellschaft: Theorie,
Methodologie und Empirie. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.