LIVRO. Network Journalism

Network Journalism
Routledge Research in Journalism
1. Journalists, Sources, and

Credibility
New Perspectives
Bob Franklin and Matt Carlson
2. Journalism Education, Training

and Employment
Bob Franklin and Donica Mensing
3. Network Journalism
Journalistic Practice in Interactive
Spheres
Ansgard Heinrich
Network Journalism
Journalistic Practice in Interactive Spheres
Ansgard Heinrich
New York London

First published 2011
by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
Simultaneously published in the UK

by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2011.

To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s
collection of thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk.
© 2011 Taylor & Francis
The right of Ansgard Heinrich to be identified as author of this work has been asserted
by her in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act
1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised
in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereaf-
ter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or
retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trade-

marks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Heinrich, Ansgard.
Network journalism : journalistic practice in interactive spheres / Ansgard Heinrich.
p. cm. — (Routledge research in journalism)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
1. Journalism—History—21st centuy. 2. Journalism—Technological innova-
tions. 3. Online journalism. 4. Citizen journalism. 5. Digital media. I. Title.
PN4815.2.H45 2010
070.9'09051—dc22
2010035083
ISBN 0-203-83045-8 Master e-book ISBN
ISBN13: 978-0-415-88270-5 (hbk)

ISBN13: 978-0-203-83045-1 (ebk)
Contents
Preface and Acknowledgments vii
Introduction to Network Journalism 1
PART I
Network Journalism: Theories and Concepts
1 The Network Age and its Footprints on Journalism 13
2 News Agencies and Telegraph Technology: The Evolution of

Global News Exchange Networks 36
3 Network Journalism: Between Decentralization and Non-linear

News Flows 51
4 Information Nodes in the Network Journalism Sphere 68
PART II
Network Journalism: Practitioner Perspectives
5 Studying Network Journalism 87
6 The Advent of Digitalization in Newsrooms 108
7 The Shared Information Sphere: User-generated Content

Providers, Citizen Journalists, Media Activists 124
8 The Shared Information Sphere: Blogs and their Impact on

Journalism 147
vi Contents
9 The Active User in the Network Journalism Sphere 169
10 Transnational News Flows in the Network Journalism Sphere 183
11 Reconceptualizing Journalistic Outlets as Information Nodes 207
12 Conclusion 228
Notes 233
Bibliography 245
Index 265
Preface and Acknowledgments
This book is the product of a journey through the sphere of journalistic

practice and current journalism research. What started as a PhD project in
2005 became a true passion and brought intriguing insights into a profes-
sion that is undergoing profound change. It is a profession greatly affected
by social, political and technological developments. The emerging pres-
sures as well as the opportunities resulting from this stand in the focus of
this work, which aims to contribute to a better understanding of current
dynamics in journalistic practice.
A new kind of journalism is emerging, characterized by an increasingly
global flow of news. With a growing number of news distributors entering
the news production chain, information exchange is turning into an inter-
active conversation. A dense web of information deliverers is spanning the
globe, exhilarated by digital communication technologies. It is an emerg-
ing ‘network’ sphere of journalistic practice in which numerous partak-
ers gather, produce and disseminate news. Contributors of content are not
only professional news organizations. Bloggers, citizen journalists or media
activists feed information into this sphere and formerly silent audiences are
becoming active participants in the process. These alternative news deliver-
ers are individual information nodes and part of a dense information net
spanning the globe. The interactive connections among the many nodes
occupying today’s sphere of information exchange constitute what I call
network journalism.
It is at the intersections where these nodes meet, that this book identi-
fies the challenges as well as the opportunities for professional news orga-
nizations. Journalistic outlets have to decide how they want to position
themselves within this dense information net. As the power of the new
network structures is changing the face of journalistic practice, news orga-
nizations have to decide which niche to occupy in the sphere of network
journalism, what role to fulfi ll and how much collaboration with alter-
native news deliverers to allow. How to theoretically frame this emerg-
ing sphere of network journalism is one issue that this book addresses.
Drawing on current theoretical debates in journalism studies and grounded
in empirical research, this work highlights the changes and analyzes the
viii Preface and Acknowledgments
interplay between journalistic practice and processes of globalization and
digitalization. It draws upon fi rst examples taken from journalistic prac-
tice that demonstrate how news organizations cope with the challenges of
this evolving sphere of information exchange and how the opportunities on
offer are being taken for the better of journalism.
The power of the global network is also the engine that drove this book.
A freelance journalist for local radio in Germany, I went from practice into
theory, from my home country to New Zealand, and I became what one
might call a ‘netizen’. Relocated into a global sphere of academic exchange,
I was intrigued by the possibilities of digital communication and the per-
spectives that opened up with a click of a mouse. Many research trips con-
tributed to my very own experience of global exchange. While based in
Hungary and Australia, I traveled to Germany, the UK and the US to speak
to media practitioners and researchers who shared their knowledge (and
contacts) with me and inspired the empirical part of this book. I fi nished
my thesis, living and working in Melbourne. As I write this I am back in
Europe, now working at the Rijksuniversiteit Groningen in the Netherlands.
Along these various stages of my young career, I met many great people
whose thoughts and comments inspired this book —scholars, journalists
and friends of whom I can only name a few here.
First and foremost I want to thank the media practitioners who opened
their doors at the BBC, the Guardian Media Group, ZEIT ONLINE,
MediaChannel, AlterNet, Democracy Now!, the New York City Indepen-
dent Media Center, Ourmedia, Current TV, the Project for Excellence in
Journalism and the International Center for Journalists. Their interviews
are the heart of this book and I am grateful for their contributions. I want
to thank Ingrid Volkmer for her outstanding supervision throughout my
PhD. A passionate academic and inspirational mind, she introduced me to
the field of journalism studies and taught me to become a scholar. A thank
you also goes to my publisher Routledge and especially to my editor Erica
Wetter for her trust in and patience with a young author like me. I thank
the University of Otago and the Department of Media, Film, and Com-
munication for their support throughout my PhD and for awarding me
the ‘Fanny Evans Postgraduate Scholarship for Women’. The Division of
Humanities at the University of Otago and Education New Zealand fi nan-
cially supported my research travels and I owe thanks to the School of Cul-
ture and Communication at the University of Melbourne and to the Center
for Media and Communication Studies at the Central European University
Budapest, who both welcomed me as research fellow.
A very warm thank you goes to friends and colleagues who assisted
me throughout the various stages of my PhD and throughout the work on
this book. Representative for them I want to name Florian Deffner, Tanja
Meyerhofer, Kim Daufratshofer and Mirle Heinzen, who offered fabulous
support in the Southern Hemisphere. In Germany, I thank my friends Alex-
andra Kappel, Maren Puhlmann and Anke Haverkamp, who listened to
Preface and Acknowledgments ix
academic talk numerous times without complaining and kept me focused.
Iris Mojen and Jana Jakobs had patience with an impatient me (and my
unfi nished manuscript) and gave me shelter. A very special thank you goes
to Brian McNair, who encouraged me to publish my work and offered tre-
mendous support throughout the completion phase of this book. His com-
ments helped improve the manuscript by miles and his moral support kept
me going.
Probably the most important lesson I have learned so far in life is that
an open mind is the biggest asset you can throw into your work and I want
to dedicate this book to my parents Christa and Günther Heinrich, who
always encourage me to travel the world with eyes and ears wide open.
Introduction to Network Journalism
Journalism is dynamic, not static. It is constantly changing and evolv-

ing to some degree.
(Executive Editor, MediaChannel.org)1
Neda Agha-Soltan died violently during the Iran election protests in June
2009. The amateur video footage of her bleeding to death in the streets
of Tehran was broadcast across all major news outlets. Recorded with a
mobile phone by a man who remains anonymous, the video made its way
onto the web after another anonymous source emailed it to contacts out-
side of the country attached to the message ‘please let the world know’. 2
The world did learn about Neda—and along with it about the opposition
movement in Iran. An anonymous native from Iran currently living in the
Netherlands was one of the receivers of this email and he was reportedly
the fi rst person to share the video online. From there, the images of the
dying Neda were linked and referenced via an uncountable number of blogs
and on Twitter, passed on and exchanged through social network sites and
packaged in newsrooms worldwide. Neda’s face became an icon of the
reformist opposition in Iran, her violent death the symbol for repression
of free speech. It was the fi rst time that news footage authored by a person
remaining anonymous received the George Polk Award in Journalism.
The case of Neda is only one of many examples of the phenomenon
which this book explores: a radical change in patterns of information dis-
semination and newsgathering in a restructured, network system of jour-
nalistic production.
When bombs exploded in the London Underground in 2005, so-called
user-generated content providers delivered the only visual materials and
fi rst-hand accounts from the scene of the bombings to various major news
organizations across the globe. Bloggers gained fame during the 2003 Iraq
War, continuously delivering personal accounts of the conflict situation on
the ground. Along with embedded journalists corresponding from the war
fields via satellite phones, independent journalists such as Christopher All-
britton traveled into Iraq, equipped with only a backpack full of techno-
logical gear and funded by readers of his website.
Putting aside breaking news stories and the reporting about so-called
‘hot spots’ that are of political and economic interest to countries in the
Western world, the number of projects providing news from regions mainly
uncovered by traditional news organizations is on the rise as well. Take
2 Network Journalism
the virtual community Global Voices Online that aggregates reports and
provides translations of information material from bloggers and citizen
journalists as an example. Founded in 2005, the website run by a nonprofit
foundation provides information from regions often ignored and—as I write
this—has developed a network of around 200 contributors worldwide. The
Voices of Africa Media Foundation, founded in 2006 and headquartered
in the Netherlands, offers a training program to support young Africans to
pursue media careers. They equip their aspiring journalists with a mobile
phone that has camera and editing functions (and, depending on the region,
mobile broadband connections to ensure the transmission of the material)
and offer training on how to produce video reports on local stories from
African communities. The results of the program can be viewed online.
These examples illustrate that the way in which news and information is
gathered, produced and disseminated is being altered. Since the commercial
exploitation of satellite technology, news travels distances in no time from
Iraq to the US or elsewhere; in addition, interactive technologies enable the
delivery of information generated by ordinary people who are not necessar-
ily journalists. This increasing number of producers and disseminators of
news as well as the instantaneity of global news flows indicate that journal-
istic practice is changing. As I will argue in this book, this transformation
is driven by two processes: globalization and technological advances in the
form of digitalization.
‘We are living in the middle of a remarkable increase in our ability to
share, to cooperate with one another’, writes Shirky (2008: 20 et seq.).
Forming groups has gotten a lot easier thanks to the growing numbers of
social media tools in today’s digitalized environment. We are surrounded
by social networking sites such as Facebook and have mobile devices such
as smartphones which bring us the news when we want it and where we
want it. Digital technologies enable a new level of (global) interaction with
news content and the ‘shape of media has shifted away from mostly pas-
sive, mass reception to more interactive, individualised modes of active
engagement’ (Bruns, 2006: 282). This shift has a striking effect on the
production of journalism. The ability to communicate across nation-state
borders in virtually no time has impacted journalism in every (digitally
connected) corner of the world and expanded the reach of journalistic
production and dissemination. It is this ‘new ease of assembly’ (Shirky:
48) facilitated by lower costs for technological equipment that has sup-
ported bloggers, Twitterers or media activists to push content online into
a global arena of information exchange. News is now not fi xed to a place,
but rather floating through space with satellite dishes and tools such as the
Internet spreading information loosened from the constraints of physical
space as well as from clock time. Instead, information occurs within what
Hassan calls ‘Network Time’ (2007: 49). News takes place in a ‘digital
space’ which creates new relevance factors: ‘speed, connectivity, and flex-
ibility’ (Ibid.: 49).
In the midst of this ‘cultural chaos,’ to adapt what McNair (2006) sug-
gests as the sociological fundament of societies today, journalistic organi-
zations are being challenged to respond. How do they adapt to this new
globalized sphere characterized by a transformed time and space regiment?
How do news organizations position themselves within this sphere? And
last but not least: do we have models that help us defi ne the shape of this
evolution? These are the questions to be addressed in this book.
Within academic discourse, we are just at the beginning of conceptualiz-
ing journalism in relation to a sphere of communication that is profoundly
enlarged through the uses of digital technology (see Volkmer and Hein-
rich, 2008). These innovations not only alter journalistic practice as such,
but challenge journalism to incorporate cross-platform networks in various
stages of the process of news production. A multi-platform structure of
journalism is evolving in which boundaries between the traditional media
outlets of print, radio and television are blurring. Print, audio and video are
increasingly merging online as the lines between formerly distinct media
platforms are becoming indistinct. Network technologies have triggered
processes of convergence impacting the management of cross-platform
news flow processes in day-to-day news production. Journalistic outlets
in Western societies are affected by these developments and acquire new
notions of journalistic practice as well as a reconfigured perception of our
journalistic cultures.
In scholarly research we witness an explosion in the amount of research
material that is concerned with these fundamental changes ranging from
studies on alternative journalism (e.g. Atton, 2005; Atton and Hamilton,
2008) and citizen journalism (e.g. Reich, 2008; Kelly, 2009) to studies
about the adaptation of user-generated content in traditional newsrooms
(e.g. Hampel, 2008; Paulussen and Ugille, 2008; Wardle and Williams,
2008), the relationship between bloggers and journalists (e.g. Reese et al.,
2007; Matheson, 2004; Wall, 2003), the evolution of multimedia news-
rooms (e.g. Erdal, 2009; Huang et al., 2006; Avilés and Carvajal, 2008)
or occupational profiles of journalists in the digital age (e.g. Deuze, 2008;
Schmitz Weiss and Higgins Joyce, 2009), to name just a few. We also fi nd
literature particularly concerned with the effects of these developments on
political confl icts and crises that evokes discussions of media diplomacy
and about the influence of news media on foreign policy decisions (e.g.
Cottle, 2009; Gilboa, 2002; Gowing, 1994; Robinson, 2003). The impacts
of increasing digitalization as well as globalization furthermore raise the
question of the formation of horizontal as well as vertical integrated media
conglomerates, perpetuating a new ‘media imperialism’ (see for example
McChesney, 1998; Thussu, 1998).
Yet, we are still searching for a model that not only grasps specific trends
within the evolving sphere of information exchange, but also provides an
overall framework that melds all of these developments—a model that
unites the trends under one umbrella and encourages an understanding
that these various angles in the evolution of journalistic work are altogether
part of the same story. It is the story of a transformation of the journalistic
sphere as a whole. This book might be a start in developing such a concep-
tual model.
As I will argue in the chapters to come, the key categories that character-
ize this evolving sphere of journalism are the decentralization of news pro-
duction and dissemination processes of news and the non-linearity of news
flows in an increasingly global news environment. And these characteristics
of decentralization and non-linearity have far-reaching consequences for
every aspect or topic discussed in any of the works mentioned above.
This book seeks to develop an understanding that entire cultures of jour-
nalism are transforming. New forms of connectivity are taking shape at
the global level, enabled by the use of digital technology tools. These new
forms of connectivity create a different kind of news sphere. We are mov-
ing away from the twentieth-century model of a centralized, linear media
system. The monopoly of information delivery no longer lies with journal-
ists working for major corporate or public service outlets. Digital commu-
nication tools facilitate a greater number of information deliverers, ranging
from the journalist at the New York Times or Al Jazeera to the independent
journalists (not attached to leading media conglomerates) and to what Ben-
kler calls ‘nonmarket actors’ (2006: 220), including the blogger in Iraq or
the citizen journalist producing for OhmyNews in Korea. They all share
the same global information space. In many cases, these new news deliver-
ers are now feeding their news pieces into established corporate or public
service outlets and influencing or mediating the agenda.
Think of Neda once more. Without the far-reaching distribution of the
pictures of her death, a worldwide support for the Iranian protest move-
ment and the incredible speed with which this support was gathered would
have not occurred. In cases like this, traditional news outlets rely on these
unofficial sources to provide material—no foreign correspondent was on
the spot where Neda was killed.
With millions of digital cameras and cell phones equipped with video
devices in circulation, newsrooms have discovered their audience as infor-
mation source. The number of news pieces featuring user-generated content
material increasingly appears on traditional media platforms, which in the
case of Neda’s death served the key frame of an event for a worldwide audi-
ence. Other examples here are the uses outlets made of the visual material
available on the global news market and framing the perceptions of mil-
lions of media users around the world after the 2004 Boxing Day tsunami
or during and after the Mumbai attacks in 2008, when fi rst-hand infor-
mation and links spread via Twitter with accelerating speed. The former
receivers are becoming deliverers of information. Journalists increasingly
turn toward their audience to get footage.
These examples illustrate that not only is the number of user-generated
content pieces on the rise, the whole infrastructure of journalistic work is
under reconstruction, with an increasing number of news providers becom-
ing a constant in the journalistic space. News is traveling into journalistic
outlets via non-linear information strings and does not necessarily take the
traditional paths of being delivered by an official source, a news agency or
a reporter as former models of gatekeeping and agenda-setting have sug-
gested with reference to the mass media system of the twentieth century
(McCombs, 2005; Bennett, 2004).
For journalists working for corporate or public service news organiza-
tions, this raises questions of how to deal with these new news deliverers
that include user-generated content as well as outlets created by independent
journalists, citizen journalists or bloggers who all mainly use the Internet
as a distribution tool for their version of the news. Gates are essentially
extended, yet which of these new news sources should be counted as a reli-
able source for one’s own news production? Should journalists contest these
emerging contenders or rather seek paths of collaboration? Who could be
part of one’s reporting chain, and who should be not? How can a journalis-
tic outlet deal with the masses of information floating through broadband
channels? How can one filter useful information out of the billions of data
bits crisscrossing the globe with the speed of light? And last but not least:
How do news organizations adapt to changing needs of audiences that
increasingly do not want to be restrained by the timeline of a broadcaster
but are rather ‘moving toward information on demand, to media platforms
and outlets that can tell them what they want to know when they want to
know it’ (Project for Excellence in Journalism, 2008a: Online)?
This book will present a range of examples taken from journalis-
tic practice as well as give voice to a diverse group of early adopters and
media analysts from the US, the UK and Germany who have begun to
rethink journalistic work and have started to develop new ways of gather-
ing, producing and distributing news. They try to fi nd ways to approach
these changes outlined above and they view the developments mainly as an
opportunity—a challenging one, but one that can serve journalistic pro-
duction well if taken serious.
Notwithstanding the suggestions of the many voices who argue in favor
of changing journalistic practice, among scholars as well as among jour-
nalists, the obvious shifts in the production of news toward this emerging
decentralized news sphere characterized by non-linear news flows are still
often viewed critically as a threat, accompanied by a fear of somewhat
‘declining standards’ in journalism (see for example Carr, 2005; Keen,
2007; Sunstein, 2009; for an overview of critiques see Benkler, 2006: 233–
237). Some critics, for example, attest a decline in the quality of reporting
and view the role of journalists as the informants of a public sphere as an
endangered one. For Sunstein (2009), ‘information overload’ accelerated by
the rise of sheer endless communication options and the increased number
of actors deploying information leads to a confusing mash of disseminators.
The individualization of distribution as well as consumption of news might
be damaging for democracy. He fears that in a news environment where
consumers can personalize what they read, view or hear they will fi lter the
news according to their personal likes, eventually avoid viewpoints they
might disagree with and instead ‘sort themselves into enclaves in which
their own views and commitments are constantly being reaffi rmed’ (Sun-
stein, 2009: xii). Consumers might not stumble across material that could
contest whatever they have chosen to favor—the result being a fragmented
individualization that eventually erases the ‘social glue’ of ‘common expe-
rience’ (Ibid.: 6) and causes the disappearance of a critical public sphere.
Arguing this line, Keen (2007) proposes a cultural critique of journalism.
According to him, the use of digital technologies indicates a decline in valu-
able knowledge dissemination and an erosion of quality journalistic work
for the worse of society. Keen views the Internet as a ‘killer’ of culture:3
Today’s technology hooks all those monkeys up with all those typewrit-
ers. Except in our Web 2.0 world, the typewriters aren’t quite typewrit-
ers, but rather networked personal computers, and the monkeys aren’t
quite monkeys, but rather Internet users. And instead of creating mas-
terpieces, these millions and millions of exuberant monkeys—many
with no more talent in the creative arts than our primate cousins—are
creating an endless digital forest of mediocrity. For today’s amateur
monkeys can use their networked computers to publish everything
from uninformed political commentary, to unseemly home videos, to
embarrassingly amateurish music, to unreadable poems, reviews, es-
says, and novels. (Keen, 2007: 2 et seq.)
And even though at the end of his book Keen does withdraw to a (small)
extent from his position, mentioning that the Internet might offer some qual-
ity journalism buried underneath piles of useless content, his polemic bluntly
identifies the Internet as a threat to culture and to quality journalism.
I want to argue against this position in the following chapters.
There is no doubt that severe changes within the sphere of news produc-
tion and dissemination are taking place which put pressures on the jour-
nalistic profession, but I take this phenomenon as a starting point for a
discussion about the redesign of journalistic production and dissemination
in a way that suits what we have come to call the information age—a ter-
minology which already suggests that ‘we are possibly at the beginning of
an era of transition from societies organised around industrial development
to societies organised around information’ (Campbell, 2004: 2). Western
societies have moved into what Bell as early as 1973 described as a ‘post-
industrial society’ in which information and information-related industries
take center stage. It is a move conveyed by technological advancements
(Thussu, 2000: 73)—and journalism as a profession dealing with infor-
mation has a vital role to play in societies in which information becomes
the essential ingredient. Journalists are mediators of messages and thus
play an important part within their cultural environment. Yet, at the same
moment, they are also affected by the structures that surround them:
Forms of media, media practices and media institutions [ . . . ] play a

significant role in cultural production. It is in and through these that
ideas are transmitted, traditions passed on, ideologies disseminated,
hegemonies consolidated, and where the symbols, customs, norms and
values that go to make up ‘the cultural’ are created, contested and ma-
nipulated. (Hassan, 2004: 3 emphasis in original)
Journalism is a commodity produced within society and is as such influ-

enced by it. Anyone involved with journalism—be it as journalist, as scholar
or as the manager of a journalistic outlet—has to be aware of this bond.
Social structures shape journalistic production, dissemination as well as its
reception (or the interaction with its content). I am writing in favor of an
understanding of journalism that is directed by sociological premises. A
sociology of journalism is
interested in the social determinants of journalistic output—those fea-

tures of social life and organisation which shape, influence and con-
strain its form and content. The sociologist of journalism assumes that
his or her object of study both acts on, and is acted on by, the surround-
ing social environment. The journalistic text is viewed as the product of
a wide variety of cultural, technological, political and economic forces,
specific to a particular society at a particular time. Understanding the
content, meaning, role and impact of journalism therefore requires de-
scription and analysis of the broader social context within which it is
produced and of the factors of production which determine that con-
text. (McNair, 1998: 3 emphasis in original)
Consequently, analyzing journalistic models of news production has to

start with a close examination of the societal modes together with the tech-
nological conditions under which it is produced.
It is in this sense that I view digital technology as an indicator and
as such as part of a larger, more complex and fundamental structural
evolution that is taking place and that affects all aspects of journalism. It
is an aspect so often overlooked in hastily written critiques of the Inter-
net as a ‘killer’ of culture and quality journalism. It is the proliferation
of a fundamentally new global news culture supported by processes of
globalization and enabled by digital technologies. The critics of these
practices fail to take into account the bigger picture of what Castells
famously coined the ‘network society’ (1996). News is produced within
reconfigured settings, with news structured around and carried across
new routes and transmitted via different strings of information and with
a new connectivity speed.
Journalism then is moving away from traditional place-based modes of
production and dissemination. In my view, the ways digital technologies
are adapted in today’s cultures is the outcome of profound changes taking
place in our cultures and societies, with transnational connectivity struc-
tures developing in a globalized world. Based on the works of globalization
theorists such as Appadurai (1996), Beck (2000) or Robertson (1992) to
name just a few here, I will argue that this development influences jour-
nalistic practice and opens up a new globalized geography of journalism.
This new geography asks for a reconfiguration of journalism according to
the new marks set by its global environment. It changes the face of journal-
ism and puts pressure on traditional journalistic practices (Volkmer and
Heinrich, 2008).
The paradigmatic shift toward a development of a global news culture
then urges the central question news organizations have to address: How
can journalistic outlets reorganize themselves within this new global
news culture?
This book aims to identify the consequences these (globally) occurring
changes have for journalistic work. I propose that the evolution of digital
technologies is not a threat to the journalistic profession while more con-
tenders are occupying the sphere of information exchange but that this is
an inevitably useful opportunity—not only with respect to reconfigured
production and dissemination modes of journalism. The shape of digital
technology and the ways it supports journalists to connect with sources and
audiences can be seen as a template for a reconfigured journalistic model:
Digital technology allows journalists to connect with their environment in
new ways and offers production means that create a fundamentally differ-
ent structure of journalism. In the following pages I reveal these underlying
structures of journalistic production and the features a reorganized news-
room carries. In essence, I develop a framework in which to understand
journalistic organization today, with innovative work structures based on
digital technologies changing the character and in effect replacing top-
down journalism with a model that is far more complicated and resembles
connections that can better be grasped in the term net.
This said, I anticipate that my work contributes to a better
understanding of how journalism functions in the digital environment
of the information age. Yet, I do not only hope to further this discussion,
but also to strengthen the position of the multitude of new voices
contributing at times invaluable material to our sphere of information.
These new voices in the global journalistic arena—from the blogger to
the Twitterer to the media activist—deserve to be heard and they have
to be heard much more often by traditional news organizations, as their
contribution to the journalistic field can be tremendously fruitful. This
study might help to link the spaces of information already in existence
into one global news culture and to conceptualize a sphere within which
they all could come together and be connected.
It is an approach to defi ne a sphere of journalism in which professional
journalistic outlets are assigned the role of connectors—or nodes—in our
information society. A new geography of journalism is taking shape that
resembles the reformulation of journalistic outlets as such nodes within a
dense net of information exchange. I locate all these various contributors
who have become part of this dense net in the same sphere—be it the local
or national newspaper or TV station, the blogger contributing to Global
Voices Online, the anonymous contributor from Iran, the online radio sta-
tion, the mobile journalist in Africa, you name it.
In a network society, they all roam in the same sphere of information
where the question becomes which connections will be made in this dense
net of many nodes—a net that I defi ne as the fundamental structure of our
new information space and as the sphere of network journalism.
CHAPTER OVERVIEW
Shedding light on recent developments in journalistic theory and practice,

the following chapters address the implications of an emerging sphere of
network journalism from various angles, considering fi rst and foremost the
consequences of this fundamental transformation for the work of journal-
ists in the primary decades of the twenty-fi rst century. The book is divided
into two main sections: a part containing theoretical reflections and culmi-
nating in the development of the network journalism paradigm, and a part
based on a qualitative study and enriched with a range of examples where
the practice of network journalism is further illustrated and discussed.
Part I presents a critical analysis of background literature in the field of
journalism and media and communication studies, discussing journalistic
practice within frameworks of globalization and advanced technologies. I
locate journalism within these contexts and identify the complex interaction
patterns between technological advancements and the work of journalists.
Chapter 1 will draw connections between journalistic cultures and global-
ization processes. Here I am particularly concerned with the question of
how the paradigm of the ‘network society’ (Castells, 1996) translates into
journalism studies. I also address how technological innovations facilitate
a global flow of news and how this in turn affects journalistic production
and dissemination modes. Chapter 2 builds upon a historical case study:
the evolution of the telegraph and its effect on the creation of news agencies
in the nineteenth century. This case study exemplifies how a technological
invention of the past contributed to shaping production modes as well as
the structural organization of journalistic outlets. Chapters 3 and 4 will
focus on the development of a paradigm for a news culture of the informa-
tion age and I will introduce the idea of network journalism. This paradigm
is based on the objective of the ‘network’ as the central production as well
as organization model for news organizations. It helps to conceptualize
journalistic practices affected by global news flows and explains how pro-
duction and dissemination modes are evolving in a sphere comprised of
interconnected information nodes.
The following chapters make up the second part of the book, where I
analyze fi rst moves journalistic organizations have undertaken in order to
reposition themselves within this network journalism culture. The basis of
this analysis is a range of interviews conducted with media practitioners in
the UK, the US and Germany. My sample includes experts working for BBC
News, the Guardian Media Group, ZEIT ONLINE, MediaChannel.org,
AlterNet.org, Democracy Now!, the New York City Independent Media
Center (IMC), Ourmedia.org, Current TV, the Project for Excellence in
Journalism (PEJ) and the International Center for Journalists (ICFJ). Com-
bined with cases taken from observations of current developments in news
practice, the analysis of this unique interview sample focuses on emerging
structural changes in newsrooms and includes a discussion of practicing
news journalism in converged multimedia newsrooms. I particularly con-
centrate on aspects such as the adaptation of user-generated content in jour-
nalistic practice, on the fi rst examples of systematic collaboration between
traditional newsrooms and alternative news providers and on the transfor-
mation of foreign reporting in an increasingly globalized news sphere.
Based on this analysis and the presented range of material from jour-
nalistic practice I demonstrate that a new social geography of journalism
is taking shape in which news outlets become nodes in a dense network of
information gatherers, producers and disseminators.
Part I
Network Journalism
Theories and Concepts
1 The Network Age and its
Footprints on Journalism
The spread of the Internet and digital communication technologies in

the twenty-fi rst century will see information confi rmed as the most
important global resource, and journalism as the dominant mode of
cultural expression in advanced capitalist societies.
(McNair, 1998: 10)
We are entering a new phase of connectivity. Information exchange now

is increasingly being structured around digital communication tools. This
change in interaction patterns has severe implications for our societies. Yet
how exactly are societies changing and what does this mean for journalistic
practice? This chapter will address these questions.
Journalism is widely understood as a vital part of democratic society,
constructed on the basis of historical, technological, political and economic
factors in its surrounding environment. As McNair explains, ‘journalistic
news is a product of the interaction of all the environmental factors within
which it is formed’ (McNair, 2006: 48; see also Briggs and Burke, 2005).
Journalists then are actors within society, who take the role of informing
citizens; they act within and upon society. It follows that if the environment
in which journalism exists is transforming, the journalistic profession as
well as the modes of information production transform as well.1
One scholar who is strongly concerned with the interplay between digi-
tal technologies and the development of societies is Manuel Castells. He
introduced us to the paradigm of the ‘network society’ (1996), where he
explains how social structures today change through the use of digital tech-
nologies and where the Internet becomes ‘the technological basis for the
organizational form of the Information Age’ (2002b: 1). His model applies
to journalism as well. For journalistic practice—just as Castells’ paradigm
highlights—the ‘network’ becomes the central pattern of connective inter-
actions. Journalism is staged by the emergence of a ‘network society’ orga-
nized around ‘information technology-powered networks’ (Castells and
Ince, 2003: 23), bringing with it a restructuring of journalism.
Castells’ concept is strongly associated with the process we have come
to call globalization. According to Tomlinson, ‘globalization refers to the
rapidly developing and ever-densening network of interconnections and
interdependences that characterize modern social life’ (Tomlinson, 1999:
2). Journalism as a social entity does not stay untouched when globalizing
trends of whatever kind influence social, economic or political environments.
Processes of globalization push (the practice of) journalism into global set-
tings—acting within and being affected by globally connected networks.
Much has been written about globalization. Debates circle around eco-
nomic developments and discuss the shape of (global) fi nance and trade
systems. However, as Giddens points out, the issue of globalization is not
only to be viewed in economic terms: ‘Globalisation is political, technologi-
cal and cultural, as well as economic. It has been influenced above all by
developments in systems of communication, dating back only to the late
1960s’ (1999: 10). 2
This is not the place to deliver a complete overview of globalization
debates. Other scholars have comprehensively outlined the many facets and
differing presumptions of globalization (for overviews see for example Beck,
2000; Sinclair, 2004; Straubhaar, 2007; Thussu, 2000). I will instead point
at some ideas here that are useful in order to contextualize journalism within
processes of globalization. These are key resources, which assist to better
comprehend the shape of societies within which journalists interact.3
1.1. THE DYNAMICS OF GLOBALIZATION PROCESSES
We live in a world of transformations, affecting almost every aspect

of what we do. For better or worse, we are being propelled into a
global order that no one fully understands, but which is making its
effects felt upon all of us.
(Giddens, 1999: 6 et seq.)
Globalization can be seen as a driving force that triggers changes in social,

economical and political environments, or as Straubhaar has formulated
it: ‘Globalization is the worldwide spread, over both time and space, of a
number of new ideas, institutions, culturally defi ned ways of doing things,
and technologies’ (2007: 81). With all these aspects at play, the sphere of
journalism is not left untouched.
The proliferation of digital technologies permits a global exchange of
information. Featherstone notes that globalization includes processes that
‘transcend the state-society unit and can therefore be held to occur on a
trans-national or trans-societal level’ (1990: 1, emphasis added). Global-
ization processes thus comprise consequences for connectivity structures
and are inevitably bound together with technological advancements: with-
out technological tools, delivering information via distance and through
space would not be possible. Technologies facilitate what Tomlinson calls
‘complex connectivity’ (1999: 1 et seq.); they allow interaction across bor-
ders and lay the fundament for globalization processes. As Thussu argues,
‘information and communication technologies have made global intercon-
nectivity a reality’ (2000: 76). Communication technologies facilitate glo-
balization processes ‘because of the way they overcome space and time,
The Network Age and its Footprints on Journalism 15
which thus allows individuals to free themselves from physical constraints
and also to see themselves in, and adapt to, a global context, regardless of
where they are’ (Sinclair, 2004: 67). Or as Robertson (1992: 8) claims, the
world is being ‘compressed’ now, as technology connects places and brings
them virtually closer together. The media play a vital role here as they ren-
der it possible to execute control over this compressed, globalized space:
The media are central to this control, not only for their technological
transcendence of space and time as such but also for the interconnect-
edness inherent in communications, especially in their capacity to give
individuals access to global networks. (Sinclair, 2004: 67)
Digital technologies thus enable us to cross time and space distanciations

and lead us to a situation anthropologist Hannerz describes with the sen-
tence: ‘Distances, and boundaries, are not what they used to be’ (1996: 3).
This effect of technology on the way societies act and interact as well
as its effects on journalistic production should not be interpreted in terms
of what has become known as ‘technological determinism’. According to
the purveyors of technological determinism (see for example Ellul, 1964;
Negroponte, 1995, or Meyrowitz, 1985), technology is an independent
power, which holds the capacity to administrate control over processes of
communication. However, this view misleadingly creates the impression
that technology rules over humans, when human beings are not only the
users, but also the inventors of a technology.4 Technological determinism
develops a notion of ‘privileging the printing press and successive technical
innovations as the penultimate marker and engine of media modernization
and democratization’ (Hamilton, 2003: 296). But to argue with Castells:
‘The fundamental lesson is that technology per se does not do good or bad
to societies’ (Castells and Ince, 2003: 59). No matter how strong the impact
of technology on human lives might be, the most active part in the interplay
between technology and people is still the humans behind the machines
and not the machines in themselves: ‘Because technologies are used when a
use is found for them, not earlier’ (Ibid.: 30; see also Castells, 2000c: 5).
With regard to journalism, this means that technologies are tools
journalists use in order to communicate their information. As Schudson
stresses, ‘technological advances in printing and related industries and the
development of railroad transportation and later telegraphic communica-
tions were the necessary preconditions for a cheap, mass-circulation, news-
hungry, and independent press’ (1978: 31). Technologies are instruments in
the hands of humans and can affect work procedures, but do not determine
them. For Braman, ‘although it is true that technologies have structural
effects on society as well as on individual cognition, it is also true that it
is society that determines just how technologies will be used’ (2004: 139).5
Therefore, specific necessities can trigger the willingness of researchers or
engineers to turn experiments into inventions (Nye, 1997).
The history of media technologies serves us with many examples relat-
ing to the hows and whens of the introduction and usage of various tech-
nologies.6 They underline that technology alone is not capable of creating
change, let alone creating a revolution. To agree with Winston, who chal-
lenges what he judges a ‘myth’ of a present-day ‘Information Revolution’
(1998): the impact of technological changes has to be viewed as the out-
come of a history of developments in the social and cultural as well as
economical or political environments.
Journalism is embedded within the larger framework of social, cul-
tural, economic and political factors (see also Schudson, 1978; 2003).
The evolution of journalism and the adaptation of new technologies thus
has to be viewed as a constant flow in which the working procedures of
journalists are developed and reshaped. Journalism is an integral part
of society, and therefore it must be understood ‘as a form of cultural
production’ (Williams, 2006: 339). Journalism is embedded in a social
context and this context influences journalistic processes of gathering,
processing and presenting the news. As Nerone (1987) argues, the history
of the press is also a history of social or political processes in which needs
and requirements of a period are answered.7 Journalism practice thus is
enclosed in and influenced by cultural, social or economical as well as
technological developments.8 Accordingly, transformations in journalism
have to be analyzed and contextualized in relation to these developments
(see also Hardt, 1990: 351).
One of the fi rst scholars to analyze how technologies and their world-
wide distribution impact societies was Marshall McLuhan (1962, 1964).
He coined the term ‘global village’, and attributed this development to
media technologies, which were in his view capable of ‘shrinking’ the world
by overcoming distances. The emergence of satellite technology inspired
him to think of a world connectedness and lead to the ‘vision of a thus far
unknown inclusion of entire cultures and societies into a ‘global village’,
just by being exposed to the same sights and sounds which, as a conse-
quence, transformed, i.e. homogenized, cultural habits’ (Volkmer, 2003:
11). McLuhan inspired much of the discussion about a globalized world
and drew attention to the role of communication technologies by stressing
that media technologies affected first and foremost societies and not so
much the content of media.
What McLuhan also provoked, though, was a way of thinking about
the world as a place where global homogenization processes are at play
and in which particular (respectively Western) ideas and practices spread
across the globe that erase local colorings. Notions of a globalized soci-
ety emerged, dominated by Western cultural imperialism and paraphrased
with keywords such as ‘Westernization’, ‘Americanization’ (see Giddens,
1999: 15 et seq.) or ‘McDonaldization’ (Ritzer, 1996). Such worldviews
propose a convergence of a global culture (e.g. Robins, 1991; for a critique
see Beck, 2000: 42 et seq.), in which journalistic organizations become
disseminators and proliferators of a ‘cultural imperialism’ (see for example
Herman and McChesney, 1997).9
Appadurai on the other hand points out that ‘globalization is not the
story of cultural homogenization’ (1996: 11). Similarly, Beck proposes a
‘world society’ in which difference and multiplicity are the overarching
principles as opposed to unity (2000: 10). Transnational actors enter the
scene, influencing society on a global as well as on a local level. Robertson
(1992, 1995) has probably set the scene best in this respect by introducing
us to what he calls the ‘glocalizing’ aspect of globalization. Here, global-
ization is not equated with homogenization, but resembles a much more
complex idea of heterogenic movements in a globalized world in which
communication technologies enable as well as foster multi-directional
information flows as opposed to one-way flows of information. Robertson
coined the term ‘glocalization’ to describe a cultural pattern, and empha-
sizes that this process of glocalization leads to an increased transnational
interdependence. In essence the world has become part of everyday life:
whatever happens on the local level has to be seen as an aspect of, and
contextualized within, a global setting. The ‘local’ and the ‘global’ merge
and as Beck underlines:
From now on nothing which happens on our planet is only a limited local
event; all inventions, victories and catastrophes affect the whole world,
and we must reorient and reorganize our lives and actions, our organiza-
tions and institutions, along a ‘local-global’ axis. (Beck, 2000: 11)
Cultures thus are becoming increasingly ‘glocal’—influenced by what hap-

pens locally as well as globally. The ‘local’ and the ‘global’ are intercon-
nected—one does not come without the other.10 The ‘local’ hence is not
vanishing, yet to quote Hannerz:
We are just giving up the idea that the local is autonomous, that it has
an integrity of its own. It would have its significance, rather, as the
arena in which a variety of influences come together, acted out perhaps
in a unique combination, under those special conditions. (Hannerz,
1996: 27)
Within this setting, culture has to be seen as an entity that is not only
influenced by domestic processes, but also by transcending and therefore
trans-societal or trans-national movements. At the heart of this perspec-
tive lies an idea of a flow of economic as well as cultural processes that
crisscross around the globe, ‘gain some autonomy on a global level’ (Feath-
erstone, 1990: 1) and thereby develop a system of their own going as far
as to the formation of ‘transnational cultures, which can be understood as
genuine ‘third cultures’ which are orientated beyond national boundaries’
(Ibid.: 6). Cultural flows hence produce transnational cultural exchange.
Communication creates a global flow of information exchanged and traded
across nation-state borders, cultural borders and continents.
Appadurai has conceptualized such flows in an increasingly deterritori-
alized global environment. Defi ned as ‘scapes’, he identifies the accumula-
tion of new flows on the basis of a complex ‘new global cultural economy’
(1990: 296). Characteristic of this global cultural economy is a flow across
the globe and Appadurai has categorized five dimensions of such global
cultural flows: the flow of people (ethnoscapes), the flow of images (medi-
ascapes), the flow of technology (technoscapes), the flow of money (fi nance-
scapes) and the flow of ideas or ideologies (ideoscapes) (1990: 296–299).
Especially important in the context of this study is Appadurai’s defi nition
of ‘mediascapes’:
‘Mediascapes’ refer both to the distribution of the electronic capabili-

ties to produce and disseminate information (newspapers, magazines,
television stations, fi lm production studios, etc.) which are now avail-
able to a growing number of private and public interests throughout
the world; and to the images of the world created by these media. (Ap-
padurai, 1990: 298 et seq.)
Add satellite television, Internet and mobile phones to the list and the
‘global flow’ character of mediascapes becomes even more evident. Appa-
durai’s scapes indicate that societies are ‘on the move’, creating ‘symbolic’
worlds, for example, through the creation of global cultural industries,
and with media ‘mediating’ these ideas and visions from near and afar
(see Appadurai, 1996, as well as Lash and Urry, 1994). These new ‘flow
dynamics’ urge new forms of connectivity. With societies (i.e. humans)
and their cultures ‘on the move’, the media and its journalists are ‘on the
move’, too. ‘Being on the move’ opens up a new space of communication:
with people, technology, money, media and ideas in motion, the ways in
which humans connect change. With regard to the journalistic sphere,
this means that (1) the ways in which users access the news and (2) the
ways in which journalists operate within this ‘third culture’ are in a state
of motion, too.
In effect, with globalization we have not only witnessed a reconfigured
flow of information, but also the advent of a new media infrastructure
that is increasingly autonomous from nation-state contexts and enables a
‘transcontinental and transregional flow of political information’ (Volkmer,
2003: 11). Globally distributed news channels such as CNN, Al Jazeera and
BBC World embody these new flow structures. They operate differently
to nation-based and nation-focused news outlets and ‘with a new dimen-
sion of ‘internationalization’ of news, where news is not merely distributed
‘transborder’ but, additionally, transmitted simultaneously in various parts
of the world’ (Ibid.: 10). Speaking with Appadurai and his idea of disjunc-
tive flows or scapes, such flows are the outcome of a new global cultural
economy and these global flows ‘are chaotic, varying in speed and intensity,
overlapping, attracting or repelling one another’ (Bell, 2007: 70).
As the various scapes affected by these global flows show, globaliza-
tion has to be seen as a ‘complex set of processes’ (Giddens, 1999: 12).
The information age fi nds journalists at the very heart of these transfor-
mations, because after all, information is their business. Their task is to
inform about the world and to deliver this information to their audience.
Part of their job then is to transmit information and analysis on global-
ization issues, explaining the transformations and making sense of them
as well as transmitting them according to the new flows of economy and
culture around the globe. This includes informing about them as well as
moving with them. By doing so, their relationship with societal changes
and global changes is twofold. Firstly, their job is part of this transforma-
tion as they act within the determinants of globalization and transforma-
tion. Secondly, they not only have to react according to transformations as
a matter of adapting their profession, but also as educators and informers
on it. Adopting McNair here, journalism has
become more global, not just in the sense of bringing events in the
wider world ‘home’ to individual members of the audience [as a nation-
ally positioned outlet would do], but also in making the audience itself
more international and ‘global’ in nature [as channels such as BBC
World or CNN do]. (McNair, 1998: 131)
Journalists then are the mediators of globalization, while also being

affected by it—globalization hits the profession at its very heart. The char-
acteristics of globalization described above—the ‘compression’ of the world
and the collapse of ‘traditional’ borders, the transcendence of space, the
‘heterogenization’ and ‘glocalization’ of issues and the new connectivity of
flows—all together add to a transformation process that leaves its footprint
on journalistic cultures.
1.2. JOURNALISTIC CULTURES AND GLOBALIZATION
To speak of a journalism ‘culture’ affected by such globalization processes

in this context is to understand ‘culture’ as defi ned by Hanitzsch:
One can generally speak of culture as a set of ideas (values, attitudes,

and beliefs), practices (of cultural production), and artifacts (cultural
products, texts). Journalism culture becomes manifest in the way jour-
nalists think and act; it can be defi ned as a particular set of ideas and
practices by which journalists, consciously and unconsciously, legiti-
mate their role in society and render their work meaningful for them-
selves and others. (Hanitzsch, 2007: 369 emphasis in original)
However, this defi nition should not be mistaken as a statement in favor of
the existence of one ‘universal’ journalism culture. Notions of a journalism
‘culture’ or journalism ‘cultures’ are a contested terrain within scholarly
research and as Hanitzsch attests, pointing at the ‘lack of consensus on the
concept of culture and the way it should be applied to research’ (2007: 368),
we have to be careful not to presume that there is an ‘all-encompassing
consensus among journalists toward a common understanding and cultural
identity of journalism’ (Ibid.: 368).11 What is more, one has to acknowl-
edge the intrinsic pluralism of culture(s) itself, as, for example, national
journalistic cultures may differ from one another (Weaver, 1998).12 Hallin
and Mancini (2004), for example, talk about different ‘media systems’ in
Europe and one can take this as a synonym for ‘journalistic cultures’ (Örne-
bring, 2009: 6), with European journalists often having a ‘local culture’ in
mind when they produce content. Based on such fi ndings Örnebring attests
that ‘national fi lters’ might be in place and attests a ‘lack of a common
journalistic culture in Europe’ (Ibid.: 10). In consequence: ‘To speak of any
journalism culture only makes sense if we assume that there exist other (not
necessarily journalistic) cultures to which the former could be compared’
(Hanitzsch, 2007: 370).
While acknowledging the existence of more than one journalism culture,
one can fi nd common denominators that allow us to group journalists as
bearers of specific journalism cultures. Weaver (1998: 456), for example,
found quite a number of similar characteristics shared by journalists, after
comparing attitudes and journalistic practices of journalists in 21 countries
worldwide.13 Based on such fi ndings, Deuze suggests that
journalists in elective democracies share similar characteristics and

speak of similar values in the context of their daily work, but apply
these in a variety of ways to give meaning to what they do. Journalists
in all media types, genres and formats carry the ideology of journalism.
(Deuze, 2005: 445)
Accordingly, Deuze identifies a universal denominator for journalists in an

articulation of a ‘shared occupational ideology among newsworkers’ (2005:
446). This shared ideology is based upon common agreements among jour-
nalists on certain values, such as providing a service to the public, being
objective, impartial and fair, being autonomous, having a sense of imme-
diacy and a sense of ethics (Ibid.: 447 et seq.). These shared occupational
ideologies can be seen as the ‘social cement of the professional group of
journalists’ (Ibid.: 455).
With news production increasingly affected by processes of globaliza-
tion, such professional ideologies are being challenged. With the emergence
of global competitions among transnationally operating media organiza-
tions, journalistic outlets fi nd themselves catapulted into global contexts.
Furthermore, they increasingly have to deal with transnational information
flows that reach right into the newsroom and onto the editorial desk. The
gathering, production, and dissemination of news takes place within a
transformed, expanded environment. ‘Global’ in this sense means that
news organizations are trying to operate within a global infrastructure and
a global setting. This global infrastructure is characterized by non-linear
and decentralized—or borderless—information flows. Not only transna-
tionally or globally operating news outlets have been catapulted into this
global space. National and local broadcast as well as print outlets have
been so, too, with virtually every media organization having its counter-
part present online. Through this shift into the online space, even the tini-
est local platform turns global to a degree: This occurs, for example, when
a local radio station allows a global audience of listeners to tune in via the
Internet.14
The impact of globalization processes reaches even further with regard
to the structural organization of the nation-state as well as with regard to
the journalistic sphere, as the concept of borders set by nation-states comes
under siege. On a political level ‘the operation of states in an ever more
complex international system both limits their autonomy (in some spheres
radically) and impinges increasingly upon their sovereignty’ (Held, 1995:
135). As Beck points out:
The national state is a territorial state: that is, its power is grounded
upon attachment to a particular place (upon control over member-
ship, current legislation, border defense, and so on). The world society
which, in the wake of globalization, has taken shape in many (not only
economic) dimensions is undermining the importance of the national
state, because a multiplicity of social circles, communication networks,
market relations and lifestyles, none of them specific to any particular
locality, now cut across the boundaries of the national state. (Beck,
2000: 4)
Journalism in this environment cannot be defi ned within national contexts,

but rather within global settings. This transnational connectivity is par-
ticularly crucial for our understanding of foreign reporting. A distinction
between ‘foreign’ and ‘domestic’ is grounded in traditional configurations
of the world, as being divided into nation-states with news outlets placed
within these borders. Such distinctions are about to collapse in an age of
increasing connectivity and a fundamentally changed global structure of
communication. Contextualization of news and events follow, as Stanton
puts it, a ‘sushi train’ (2007: 3), with only a few stories being reported
on in Western media outlets and contextualized solely within ‘an unac-
ceptable frame’ of what he refers to as ‘localization’ (Ibid.: 1). Yet, with
decentralization of news production and non-linear news flows gaining
influence on news agendas, news production and dissemination processes
are being restructured within global paradigms. Satellite signals and the
ever-proliferating Internet have enabled transnational forms of communi-
cation and an exchange of news material that calls traditional concepts of
‘domestic’ and ‘foreign’ into question, triggering new modes of operations
in the newsrooms and opening up spaces for new cooperation models. Jour-
nalism is no longer positioned ‘conceptually in the center of one society’
but integrated into the communication culture of a world ‘network’ society
(Volkmer and Heinrich, 2008: 51).
This paradigmatic shift has crucial consequences for journalism. The
repositioning of journalistic organizations within this global ‘network’
requires adaptive moves that would reorient journalism within a new
geography.
The challenges of globalization processes for journalistic organizations
then are threefold:
1. The emergence of a global news sphere contributes to a bigger number

of competitors;
2. New space and time constraints pose pressure on journalists; and
3. Larger amounts of information overflowing (national) borders need
to be filtered and contextualized within a larger setting.
Thus, in an era of globalization, national determining factors and the sov-

ereignty of nationally operating news outlets are challenged. As the world
leans toward a glocalized ‘world society’ (Beck, 2000), journalistic cultures
follow suit and face the challenges of repositioning themselves within this
glocalized sphere. In a world of global flows:
The notion of closed spaces has become illusory. No country or group

can shut itself off from others. Various economic, cultural and politi-
cal forms therefore collide with one another, and things that used to
be taken for granted (including in the Western model) will have to be
justified anew. ‘World society’, then, denotes the totality of social rela-
tionships which are not integrated into or determined (or determinable)
by national-state politics. (Beck, 2000: 10 emphasis in original)
Yet, what happens to journalism when it is contextualized within these trans-

national settings rather than based within nationally operating media systems?
How is journalistic production and dissemination affected? Where do journal-
ists position themselves when confronted with global flows of information?
This is the point where Castells’ network paradigm assists in better
understanding how journalistic work can fit in with this new ‘global order’
(Giddens, 1999: 6 et seq.). Castells’ work explains how sociability is shaped
by technology. He describes how social structures of ‘connected’ countries
are moving toward a globally networked society that is supported by the
necessary technology that enables those with access to them to overcome
the borders of place and time. The ‘network society’ then is a new societal
organizational form. It is built around a new communication structure and
upon new patterns of communication flows. Here, information does not
necessarily follow a one-to-one path, but the logic of a multi-directional
roster of communication that holds the option of including more than two
interaction partners. The Internet in this respect operates as the decisive
instrument. It is ‘a communication tool that allows, for the fi rst time, the
communication of many to many, in chosen time, on a global scale’ (Cas-
tells, 2002b: 2).
1.3. DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES AND THE PARADIGM SHIFT:

THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE NETWORK SOCIETY
The emergence of a new electronic communication system characterized

by its global reach, its integration of all communication media, and its
potential interactivity is changing and will change forever our culture.
(Castells, 2000c: 357)
Castells’ network paradigm explains the shape of today’s developed societ-

ies and their interaction patterns. He aims to identify the key determining
factors that create social change and focuses on the structural aspects that
play a role in the creation of what he has termed the social structure of our
times: the ‘network society’. This social structure takes form on the basis
of, and is powered by, digital information technologies (such as the Inter-
net). The paradigm of the ‘network society’ makes for a new organization
model of society in which our ability to connect beyond time and space
constraints takes center stage.
One of the most important aspects Castells adds to the discussion of
the proliferation of ‘global flows’ with regard to the study of journalistic
work is his outline of the importance of digital technologies and their
role in organizing such flows. He explains that without these tools, global
connectivity would simply be impossible. Castells eventually makes clear
that digitalization is the very foundation of our evolving social struc-
ture as it supports new ways of connectivity.15 He thus attempts to ‘make
sense of this new world’ restructured by digital tools in use and coined as
‘cyberspace’ in William Gibson’s novel Neuromancer as early as 1984: 16
Cyberspace. A consensual hallucination experienced daily by bil-

lions of legitimate operators. [ . . . ] A graphic representation of data
abstracted from the banks of every computer in the human system.
Unthinkable complexity. Lines of light ranged in the nonspace of the
mind, clusters and constellations of data. Like city lights, receding . . .
(Gibson, 1995: 67)
Gibson draws a picture of ‘unthinkable complexity’ within cyberspace that
corresponds with Castells’ description of social structures developing in the
information age. For Castells:
Cyberspace is not a place. It is a corridor between places. You live in

your place, and then you circulate in cyberspace, meeting people who
live in other places. However, you can also use cyberspace to be in your
mental universe. [ . . . ] So, cyberspace is a hyperspace, a space of the
mind, that you practice every day, meeting people and thoughts from
other places and from other times. (Castells and Ince, 2003: 28)
What Gibson described in 1984 was a structure of the world based upon
new networks of connectivity and characterized by a flood of data run-
ning around the globe without necessarily following specific directions or
strings of information flows. It is a networked world whose changing shape
ineluctably has consequences and effects for the work of journalists and the
ways they communicate as well as the ways they gather, produce and dis-
tribute information. What Castells adds to this notion of cyberspace is that
the virtual reality Gibson might have had in mind now is merging with the
‘real’ reality of our lives.17 The evolving network patterns of the informa-
tion age are what Castells conceptualizes as the emergence of a new social
structure—the ‘network society’:
A new world is taking shape in this end of millennium. It originated in

historical coincidence, around the late 1960s and mid-1970s, of three
independent processes: the information technology revolution; the
economic crisis of both capitalism and statism, and their subsequent
restructuring; and the blooming of cultural social movements, such as
libertarianism, human rights, feminism, and environmentalism. The
interaction between these processes, and the reactions they triggered,
brought into being a new dominant social structure, the network so-
ciety; a new economy, the informational / global economy; and a new
culture, the culture of real virtuality. (Castells 2000b: 336, emphasis
in original)
With his idea of society taking on the shape of a ‘network’, Castells sets
up the network paradigm as the basis for the information age. Accord-
ing to this, ‘dominant functions and processes in the information age are
increasingly organized around networks’ (Castells, 2000c: 500). The net-
work structure then suits ‘the increasing complexity of interaction’ and is
capable of following ‘unpredictable patterns of development arising from
the creative power of such interaction’ (Ibid.: 70). It is a flexible structure
allowing multi-directional and non-linear (information) flows and decen-
tralized interaction patterns with multiple points of connections within this
network.18
The network thus is an organizational structure that corresponds ideally
with a technological tool such as the Internet. As ‘networks are horizontal,
non-hierarchical, fluid and mobile, and their unit of work is the project’
(Bell, 2007: 63), the sphere of the Internet is structured along these lines.
Information crisscrosses through the spheres of the web, with a seemingly
endless amount of information flowing through it as data bits.
This new connectivity model as presented by Castells holds many impli-
cations for the study of journalism and for an assessment of evolving global
news flows. However, it should not go unnoted here that, although widely
acknowledged, Castells’ argument has its critics and the network paradigm
has been contested. Especially the critical engagements of Webster (2002,
2004) and Garnham (2004) do stand out. Both highlight the importance
of Castells for scholarly research and Garnham, for example, refers to the
work as the ‘most sophisticated’ version of a theory of the information soci-
ety (2004: 167). However, both Webster and Garnham also systematically
challenge Castells’ work. Garnham, for example, is critical of Castells’ cen-
tral idea of networks as being clustered around information technologies
and questions the argument ‘that it is the growth in the speed, reach and
functionality of communication networks that is driving economic and
social development’ (2004: 172). Contrary to this, he points out that net-
works have always been in existence and Castells’ ‘claim of novelty, and thus
of revolutionary change, is made for what in fact are long-term structures
and processes’ (Ibid.: 182). Thus in Garnham’s view, Castells’ overemphasis
on the evolution of networks as drivers of social change ‘exaggerate[s] the
novelty of networks as forms of social and economic organization within
which power is exercised, and thus at the same time exaggerate[s] both the
extent and the novelty of the impact of ICTs’ (Ibid.: 173). 19
In line with this, quite a few scholars are concerned with an interpreta-
tion of social realities today who take completely different directions and
who do provide somewhat ‘alternative’ views to Castells’. Herbert Schiller
(1998) and Dan Schiller (1999), for example, offer another interpretation of
the interplay between technological developments and the shape of social
structures. They are far more pessimistic about the future of societies and
concentrate on the impact of the economy on production modes. Herbert
Schiller (1984, 1998) argues that the spread of information networks rather
works in favor of capitalism and of transnational corporations, and that
these networks support a strengthening of transnational corporations glob-
ally. Capitalism here is viewed as the triumphant ideology dictating over
social realities (see Webster’s analysis of Herbert Schiller, 2002: 124–161).
Similarly, Dan Schiller (1999) centers his attention on market forces and
identifies them as the major drivers of social change and respectively as the
constituents of today’s societies. 20 Webster summarizes their argument and
points out that information networks ‘have frequently been designed and
put in place in the interests of these major corporate clients’ (2002: 103).
Accordingly, Dan Schiller is skeptic about the potential of cyberspace and
warns that market-driven forces as well as other social forces are as present
on the Internet as anywhere else. He argues:
Knowledge carried through the Internet is no less shaped by social

forces than it is elsewhere. Far from delivering us into a high-tech
Eden, in fact, cyberspace itself is being rapidly colonized by the famil-
iar workings of the market system. Across their breadth and depth,
computer networks link with existing capitalism to massively broaden
the effective reach of the marketplace. Indeed, the Internet comprises
nothing less than the central production and control apparatus of an
increasingly supranational market system. (Schiller, 1999: xiv)
According to Dan Schiller, today’s capitalist structures thus are stronger

than technological forces and do rule online as well as offline: ‘Networks
are directly generalizing the social and cultural range of the capitalist econ-
omy as never before. That is why I refer to this new epoch as one of digital
capitalism’ (1999: xiv emphasis in original). The Internet then follows mar-
ket logics. Social inequalities here are rather exacerbated, as market-driven
policies not only influence but rather govern the central communication
tools of today: telecommunications systems.
On the contrary, Castells’ argument for a restructurization of society on
the basis of the development of digital networks implicates that transna-
tional corporations, for example, are profoundly threatened by the changes
in interaction patterns and are challenged to adapt to new communication
dynamics and practices (Webster, 2002: 103). According to Castells, ‘the
logic of the network is more powerful than the powers in the network’
(1996: 193), thus flattening power structures and favoring corporations as
well as organizations who do implement network structures.
This view does significantly collide with interpretations of social reality as
presented by Dan Schiller, who views globalization developments and tech-
nological advancements as market driven, arguing that transnational corpo-
rations are being empowered (1999: xiv; 37–89). The corporate-led market
system is being strengthened (globally) by digital networks and according to
this idea then, ‘digital capitalism’ concurrently aggravates already existing
inequalities and enforces domination patterns (Ibid.: 209). Arguing with Dan
Schiller and others, one thus could accuse Castells of underestimating the
power of a capitalist-run system and especially the capitalist class system in
which an elitist ruling class and class inequalities proliferate difference. 21
This argument stands in line with Garnham’s accusation of technological
determinism. According to this, Castells neglects that ‘it is not the techni-
cal but the social relations of production that are determinant’ (Garnham,
2004: 174). Or as Webster argues, Castells
must face the charge, irrespective of his somewhat different termi-

nology, that he regards change as developing though [sic] a series of
hierarchically tiered stages of the sort familiar to all readers of post-
industrial theory [ . . . ]. It follows, as it must, that he argues that a
certain technological foundation is the prerequisite and determinant of
all social and political life. (Webster, 2002: 120)
Taken together, the arguments that have been raised against Castells thus
far range from the accusation of putting too much stress on the revolu-
tionary character of information technologies to his overemphasis on the
centrality of the ‘network’ for social change and social structures to the
accusation of technological determinism. Yet, to argue with Webster, who
is one of Castells’ biggest critics but also one of his admirers: So far, the
‘network society’ is the ‘single most persuasive analysis of the world today’
(2002: 265). And even if it is contested, it inherits an inner logic that is in
my view intriguingly convincing and comes as an extremely useful analysis
tool in the assessment and interpretation of transformations gaining shape
in the information age.
Therefore, I argue that Castells’ model of connectivity accentuated in
the network paradigm can be translated into the study of journalism. In
effect, the amount of information in circulation creates a notion of a ‘cha-
otic’ news journalism environment at the beginning of the twenty-fi rst cen-
tury to speak in the terminology of McNair (2005, 2006). Drawing upon
chaos theory, he offers a model of communication that outlines ‘cultural
chaos’ as the underlying structure of the twenty-fi rst century information
environment. Communication systems now are ‘fundamentally non-linear,
and thus highly contingent. Like the strange attractors of chaos science,
they exhibit structure, but of an irregular kind’ (McNair, 2006: xiv). What
is more, it is not only the growing quantity of information in circulation
that characterizes the information age, but also the new speed of delivery
fostered by digital communication tools. In relation to this, Giddens talks
about a ‘runaway world’ (1999); a world that seems out of control. It is
what McNair describes as ‘an era of cultural chaos, [in which] people have
access to more information than ever before’ (2006: 199 emphasis added).
Within this sphere characterized by uncertainties and constant infor-
mation flows, journalistic organizations are less controllable by power-
ful (political or economical) elites. McNair’s ‘chaos paradigm’ opposes a
‘control’ or ‘dominance’ paradigm that carries the underlying notion that
journalists are controlled by and act as ‘agents’ of political elites and insti-
tutions, which ideologically dominate news production and producers. 22
He explains:
In the context of globalised news culture, to talk about chaos is to

argue that the journalistic environment, far from being an instrument
or apparatus of social control by a dominant elite, has become more
and more like the weather and the oceans in the age of global warm-
ing—turbulent, unpredictable, extreme. Like storm fronts, journalistic
information flows around the world in globally connected streams of
real-time data, forming stories which become news and then descend
through the networked nodes of the world wide web to impact on na-
tional public spheres. Some stories, like some storms, blow themselves
out harmlessly. Others, such as the Abu Ghraib prisoner-abuse scandal
of 2004, ‘get legs’ and build to catastrophic political crises, despite the
efforts of public relations and spin professionals to reassert elite con-
trol. (McNair, 2006: xviii)
Communication flows then have fundamentally changed. They produce

‘unpredictable and largely uncontrollable outcomes’ (McNair, 2005: 156),
with national and global spheres increasingly being connected. What marks
this quintessential change is the unpredictability of (journalistic) commu-
nication. These new dynamics of communication processes are manifest in
many ways: new personnel enter the production chain and a more diverse
palette of communicators adds information to the news agenda of media
outlets, which shapes content output. Journalism now is practiced
within a dramatically altered information and communication envi-

ronment—a multichannel, multimedia environment of unprecedented
complexity and connectedness, as different from the Cold War era of
the late twentieth century as that period in turn was from the coffee
house culture in early modern Europe. (McNair, 2006: 105)
Accordingly, theoretical frameworks designed in the late twentieth-century

Cold War era such as The Four Theories of the Press developed by Siebert
et al. (1956) fall short of paying tribute to this ‘chaos’ of a global news
culture, as they cluster (Western) journalism cultures into separate entities
based on the notion that nation-states confi ne their own press systems.
These frameworks do not help to reconceptualize journalistic culture with
regard to the impact of changes and challenges proliferated by processes
of globalization and the emergence of digital technology. What is more,
professional identities of journalists are also being challenged, as journal-
ists have to reorient themselves within a restructured global landscape. To
quote Deuze,
the global picture of journalism is constantly and perhaps exponentially

changing to such an extent that one has to analyze and discuss the main
attributes of such (potential) changes in order to successfully study, de-
scribe and explain contemporary journalism. (Deuze, 2005: 450)
With a change in the ‘picture of journalism’, then, a revision of occupa-

tional ideologies and in accordance with this a revision of current journal-
istic practice is necessary. Reconfigured analytical frameworks are needed
in order to describe an evolving global news culture. 23
Castells’ paradigm of the ‘network society’, with the ‘network’ as the
key format of interaction patterns, can assist in this regard. The structure
of the network is in effect just as ‘chaotic’, with non-linear and decentral-
ized communication flows in action. Characterized by altered communica-
tion flows, the paths on which information travels are not as predictable.
A network structure holds by far more options for connection (as well as
disconnection), leading to more complex interaction patterns than in an
unnetworked world. The idea of ‘cultural chaos’ thus corresponds with
Castells’ model of the ‘network society’. Here, communication does not
flow in a linear fashion, following consistent timelines and direction, but
crisscrosses through time and space. Information is floating through space
in a ‘many-to-many manner’. This is what Castells describes as the ‘space
of flows’ (see, for example, Castells, 1996: 407–459). It is a space in which
communication floats over territorial borders and connects places, making
them independent of their direct surrounding environments and shifting
them into space. The ‘space of flows’, fi nding its realization in the net-
worked activities of the Internet, is the model that describes ‘the formation
of trans-territorial complexes of activities, such as fi nancial spaces or media
production spaces or high-technology world chains of production, made
of specific places that were connected with other places throughout the
planet’ (Castells and Ince, 2003: 25). Within this sphere, there is no such
thing as fi xed ways of communication or limits to the number of commu-
nicators taking part. There are also no restrictions on the ways in which
communication flows—apart from the restrictions relating to the accessi-
bility of technology. It is as simple as that: no access to technology means
no access to the network. 24
Linear structures of communication are thus being replaced in the ‘space
of flows’ by flexible communication strings, characterized by their non-
linearity within a decentralized global news culture. Geographically speak-
ing, communication has moved out of place and into space—a space that
has been made accessible via digital technologies.
1.4. WHAT THE NETWORK PARADIGM HOLDS

FOR THE SPHERE OF JOURNALISM
Within societies characterized by network patterns, journalistic cultures

are being shifted onto a newly defi ned map with altered coordinates: A
reconfigured geography is taking shape as a result of the new flow and
speed of news around the globe. Whereas a geographical map on paper
provides coordinates of distances between certain places on earth, digital
technology enables information to cross this distance in virtually no time.
An Internet-based video-conference tool such as Skype, for example, moves
communication into space and renders the ‘real’ distance between places
as outlined on a paper map practically obsolete. It is with respect to such
changes that the paradigm of the network can assist to sketch the journal-
ism sphere anew—with all its uncertainties, such as the new tempo of news
flow crossing national borders instantaneously and with its global shape.
Digital technologies have increased the speed of information and shortened
the distance to remote places on the map, laying the foundations for new
connection options in journalistic space. New connectivity strings are laid
out that tie places together across (physical) distance. These ties resemble
the new forms of connectivity in a network age, with the Internet being the
prime example of connection flows across the globe:
The Internet, thus viewed as a metaphor for a new global communica-

tion infrastructure ‘decentralizes’ the advanced globalization process
and creates, again following Castells’ argumentation, a new social,
cultural and political infrastructure, which cannot be taken seriously
enough. (Volkmer, 2003: 13)
Adding to the shifts in notions of space flows is the new speed charac-
teristic of the information age, which has led to the idea of a ‘shrinking
world’. Hassan and Purser explain: ‘The meter of clock time that drove
the industrial revolution is now being compressed and accelerated by the
infi nitely more rapid time-loaded functions of high-speed computerization’
(2007: 11). Castells identifies this phenomenon as ‘timeless time’ (2000c:
460–499), and Hassan describes it as ‘network time’ in which ‘the num-
berless asynchronous spaces of the network society, created and inhabited
by people and ICTs in interaction, undermine and displace the time of the
clock’ (2007: 51 emphasis in original). Within these new parameters of
time and space, notions of ‘desequencing’ are at play:
As a result of living in a multimedia age with limitless access to streams

of live and archived material, as well as ever more wondrous ways to
predict or imagine the future, we are exposed to a montage of instants
wrenched from temporal context: past, present and future are disas-
sembled and reassembled for us and by us. (Bell, 2007: 75)
Thus, a dense net of information is spanning the globe in a rather ‘chaotic’

exchange of information as opposed to a linear flow of information. The
information ‘goes with the flow’, so to speak. Yet, this new structure (of
society and accordingly of journalism) is far away from lacking links placed
within these networks. As Castells notes:
The fact that a structure is flexible and decentralized in its working

does not imply that there are no nodes. On the contrary, a network is
based on nodes and their interconnections. The key issue is that these
nodes may reconfigure themselves according to new tasks and goals,
and that they may grow or diminish in importance depending on the
knowledge and information that they win or lose. (Castells and Ince,
2003: 24)
What organizes ‘chaos’ within this space of flows then are the nodes that
draw together information from various points.25 These nodes bundle
information. Communication flows overlap and each node is connected to
various others. A network is thus characterized by the interconnectedness
of its nodes:
A node is the point at which a curve intersects itself. What a node

is, concretely speaking, depends on the kind of concrete networks of
which we speak. They are stock exchange markets, and their ancil-
lary advanced service centers, in the network of global financial flows.
They are national councils of ministers and European Commissioners
in the political network that governs the European Union. They are
coca fields and poppy fields, clandestine laboratories, secret landing
strips, street gangs, and money-laundering fi nancial institutions in the
network of drug traffic that penetrates economies, societies, and states
throughout the world. They are television systems, entertainment stu-
dios, computer graphics milieux, news teams, and mobile devices gen-
erating, transmitting, and receiving signals in the global network of the
new media at the roots of cultural expression and public opinion in the
Information Age. (Castells, 2000c: 501)
In the context of journalistic gathering, production and dissemination, I

speak of the ‘concrete network’ of an evolving (global) journalism sphere.
Journalistic organizations represent nodes situated within global informa-
tion flows or, to put it another way, journalistic outlets are repositioned as
nodes according to the new geography of space. The structural pattern of
the network assigns the place of an information node to journalistic organi-
zations today. Journalists gather, produce and disseminate information out
of information flows within a global news sphere. Journalistic nodes thus
stand for connection points in space that gather, modify and disperse infor-
mation material. The ‘space of flows’ in this context is the space in which
journalistic nodes are located and able to connect to other nodes acting as
information providers for journalistic organizations—be it politicians or
public relations organizations, NGOs or other journalistic outlets.
However, this repositioning of journalistic outlets within a network
space is not an easy step to take. The network structure enabled by tech-
nologies such as the Internet also enables a larger number of news distribu-
tors than before to form information nodes and to contribute information.
Information nodes within this web can be bloggers, citizen journalists, and
creators of user-generated content, as well as journalists operating inde-
pendently from traditional journalistic organizations. The question is: Are
the ways in which traditional journalistic outlets are currently organized in
tune with the changes taking place in the sphere of information exchange?
Are journalistic outlets prepared for these new information flows, and are
they prepared to act as an information node in a network sphere? This is
one of the crucial issues this book addresses and the implications of struc-
tural change for journalistic organizations will be discussed in detail in
Chapters 3 and 4.
At this point, though, I want to concentrate on the pressures journalis-
tic organizations face in the wake of globalization processes and the evo-
lution of the structural order of the network. The changing patterns of
interaction within an evolving global news sphere are characterized by the
non-linearity of information flows and the decentralization of (journalis-
tic) organizations within a network sphere of information nodes. This pro-
found transformation goes against a notion that understands the operation
of journalistic outlets as ‘closed’ systems.
1.5. JOURNALISTIC ORGANIZATIONS AND THE

PRESSURES OF GLOBAL INFORMATION FLOWS
‘Systems’, according to Luhmann (1995, 2000), are the outcome of the func-
tional differentiation of modern society, with each system fulfi lling certain
functions (systems include, for instance, politics, law, economy, religion,
etc.). Social order is formed through the development of social systems that
set boundaries against their environments:
Modern society organizes itself by delegating different functions to

specialized societal systems in order to cope with societal problems
which could not be solved from other systems, or before the system
has emerged. We call this phenomenon the functional differentiation
of society. (Görke and Scholl, 2006: 647)
One of these systems named by Luhmann is the ‘mass media’, which carries
the responsibility of providing information and knowledge to the members
of society. 26 This is the system that looks upon and informs society about
its other constituent systems: ‘Whatever we know about our society, or
indeed about the world in which we live, we know through the mass media’
(Luhmann, 2000: 1). Journalistic outlets, as part of the mass media system,
function in society as mediators who distribute knowledge and construct
reality. 27 They create meaning and furthermore they decide and distin-
guish, on the basis of their system-specific code, what has to be counted as
information and what can be considered as non-information (Ibid.: 17). In
Luhmann’s view, this ‘mass media system’ is a closed operation. Dissemina-
tion technologies are in the hands of the ‘mass media’ alone, disenabling
the environment’s capacity to infiltrate or influence the information diffu-
sion of the mass media system:
The crucial point at any rate is that no interaction among those co-
present can take place between sender and receivers. Interaction is
ruled out by the interposition of technology, and this has far-reaching
consequences which define for us the concept of mass media. (Ibid.: 2
emphasis in original)
Luhmann is very clear that a system is only stable once it has set an ‘oper-
ationally produced boundary’ between the system and the environment
(Ibid.: 10).28 Therefore, even though a system may need stimuli from the
outside, the operations within the systems are configured internally (Görke
and Scholl, 2006: 648; Edgar and Sedgwick, 2002: 400 et seq.).
However, in a network age, the task of defi ning clear boundaries has
become problematic on various levels. The ‘sub-system’ journalism as part
of the mass media system faces new conditions of operation. Closed sys-
tems, in the sense Luhmann understands them, no longer exist within the
logic of ‘cultural chaos’ and the space of information in a ‘network soci-
ety’. Viewing media as a closed system operating without major impact
from the environment in an increasingly ‘chaotic’ information space con-
sequently does not hold up to the realities of societies in the information
age. A closed mass media forbids interaction and necessitates a top-down
communication order (with the journalist being the news disseminator and
the audience being the silent receiver of information). This does not corre-
spond with (global) information flows in a network society. A journalistic
organization cannot operate isolated from such flows. These flows now
transgress (nation-state) borders and reach right onto the editorial desk
of a news outlet. They demand interaction. Take the case of a user who
comments on a topic within the interactive spaces offered on the website
of a journalistic outlet. What do you make of alternative information dis-
seminators, such as bloggers, entering the scene? These new players are not
part of a so-called mass-media system. They instead function on the same
grounds, producing and disseminating information as well as commentary
and opinion. How can a journalistic system be ‘closed’ when the struc-
tural pattern of the network and its revised ‘news geography’ demands the
options of multi-directional information strings connecting the node of the
journalistic organization with various other nodes in the network sphere?
In short: the traditional system of journalism is under heavy pressure
through new modes of connectivity, with increasing levels of interaction
and more actors taking part in the processes of information dissemination.
These new flows are proliferated by digital technologies, which Luhmann
did not have in mind at the time of developing his theory. Digital technolo-
gies enable new modes of connectivity and a high level of interactivity and
impose pressures on operationally closed systems. In a world characterized
by the blurring of boundaries related to neither time nor place constraints,
a closed system does not function well, if at all. Instead, journalistic outlets
are challenged to adapt to network structures.
This is not to say that systems as such no longer exist in a network society.
The question that arises is: Does the exclusion model referred to by Luhmann
hold up to the new pace, the new space and the dissolution of boundaries in the
information age? The new geography in effect leads to the reconceptualization
of the system, and must include a redefinition of the functions journalists may
fulfill within society. With the dissolution of boundaries and with information
dissemination taking place within an evolving global news sphere, journalists
are urged to redefine how they operate. With digital technologies impacting
the shape of societies and their connection modes, the forms and formats
of journalism are reformulated as well. Journalism remains a system and it
remains the system with the main responsibility of distributing information.
Yet, it operates within a different societal environment—the network society.
What is needed is the reconfiguration of journalism structured as what I want
to call network journalism—a journalism characterized by new modes of
connectivity, with strings of information floating through an interactive space
in which journalistic outlets act as central information nodes. This structure
of network journalism will be presented in detail in Chapter 3.
1.6. DEFINING THE TRANSFORMATIVE SPHERES

OF JOURNALISM IN THE INFORMATION AGE
The development of a global news sphere within the parameters of global-

ization and the spread of the network affects all journalistic organizations.
The transformation of journalism impacts print, broadcast and online news
outlets alike and does not make distinctions between locally, nationally or
transnationally distributing news organizations. It alters the whole sphere
of journalism and with it each and every single producer of journalistic
content, no matter what outlet he or she is working for—from the tiniest
local radio station all the way through to global players such as CNN or
Al Jazeera. Journalistic organizations operate within a new global network
structure and are challenged by the effects this fundamental transforma-
tion has on their work. The evolving global news sphere is characterized
by new modes of connectivity and each and every single journalistic outlet
represents a node in this altered global information system.
Accordingly, the following three aspects demarcate the three defi ning
transformative spheres of journalism in the information age:
1. The network becomes the model of journalistic interaction. The net-

work pattern is the basic structure of the revised geography of news
flows, allowing information flows in multiple directions.
2. Within this network structure, information strings (i.e. strands that
connect various information pools and carry information in multi-
ple directions) evolve and connectivity flows travel along non-linear
paths, conveying a remapped geography of news flows.
3. Journalistic outlets transform into key information nodes within the
network of the global news sphere. These nodes need to be reorga-
nized around the new news flows of the information age.
In the following chapters I will develop the paradigm of network jour-

nalism. To illustrate the transformations caused by globalization processes
and the introduction of new technologies, I will first proceed with a brief
historical case study in which I examine the evolution of connectivity in
newsrooms. An analysis of the introduction of telegraph technology to
newsrooms will demonstrate how news once traveled in a journalism sphere
defi ned by relative stability and controllability. It was a centralized news
sphere, dominated by linear news flows. The case of the telegraph will also
demonstrate that technologies as tools of newsgathering, production and
dissemination have always been crucial to the work of journalists. Informa-
tion needs paths to travel along, and these paths are dependent on techno-
logical devices. In the case of the telegraph, it took about half a century for
newsrooms to adopt and adapt to the new modes of connectivity.
2 News Agencies and
Telegraph Technology
The Evolution of Global News
Exchange Networks
The most important fact about the telegraph is at once the most obvi-
ous and innocent: It permitted for the fi rst time the effective sepa-
ration of communication from transportation. [ . . . ] The telegraph
[ . . . ] allowed symbols to move independently of and faster than
transportation. To put it in a slightly different way, the telegraph
freed communication from the constraints of geography.
(Carey, 1989: 203 et seq.)
A look into history is a good starting point to analyze what it is that is

so significantly changing our societal interaction patterns as well as the
way the public informs itself or—for that matter—the way in which news
organizations inform their publics. The nineteenth century holds a great
example of how the introduction of a new technology played a significant
role in determining exchange patterns of news. It was the century of tele-
graph technology in which for the fi rst time in history news organizations
were formed that strategically built networks of global connection: It was
the century in which news agencies evolved.1 This chapter highlights the
changes telegraph technology brought about for the exchange of news,
especially in light of the developments we are facing today, putting these
latest developments into historical perspective yet also pinpointing the very
difference digital technology tools bring to today’s gathering, production
and distribution processes.
In many ways, news agencies can be viewed as precursors of the exist-
ing twenty-fi rst-century journalistic networks. Their development was in
large part due to the fact that businessmen such as the famous Julius Reuter
in Europe understood adapting a new technology to the practice of news
exchange. Telegraph technology significantly sped up the process of deliver-
ing information across distances. With its introduction, long-distance con-
nections were made available and international information strings evolved.
This decisive shift in processes of information distribution demarcates the
‘starting point for the information society [ . . . ] shrinking the geographi-
cal gaps between communities, nations, and continents’ (Campbell, 2004:
4). And the development of telegraph technology is the fi rst example of a
News Agencies and Telegraph Technology 37
global communication network that enabled instantaneous communication
over distance. The use of telegraph technology by news agencies changed
the modes of connectivity among geographically dispersed news organiza-
tions. News could travel in virtually no time, creating what Standage dubs
the ‘Victorian Internet’, trussing up distant places across a ‘worldwide web
of wires’ (1998: 135):
Modern Internet users are in many ways the heirs of the telegraphic tra-
dition, which means that today we are in a unique position to under-
stand the telegraph, and the telegraph, in turn, can give us a fascinating
perspective on the challenges, opportunities, and pitfalls of the Internet.
(Standage, 1998: 2)
Telegraph technology combined with innovations such as steam-powered

engines, railroads and steamships laid the foundation for the evolution of
international news networks. News agencies created production networks
around the telegraph and formed the first highly organized outlets for jour-
nalistic news production and distribution systems operating nationally as
well as internationally. They were arranged along the telegraph lines and
relied on a network of reporters and stringers who delivered news to central
agency offices.2 News agencies in the nineteenth century operated mainly on
the basis of a centralized organizational structure. They focused on the needs
of the specific nation where their headquarters were located and journalistic
production was dependent on the telegraph. Which places to get news from
stood in direct relation to the infrastructures of the individual information
network of an agency and could only reach as far as the telegraph wires. The
telegraph thus only allowed for a linear flow of information from the central
offices of an agency to its subscribers, as the technology could only tie one
point to another (as opposed to the ‘many-to-many’ connections the Internet
allows). What is more, telegraph technology was expensive and only a hand-
ful of organizations could utilize it for their purposes and thus develop a
monopoly of international news exchange (Boyd-Barrett, 1980; Blondheim,
1994; Carey, 1989; Read, 1999; Thussu, 2000).
2.1. ROOTS OF JOURNALISTIC PRACTICE:

THE EVOLUTION OF NEWS EXCHANGE
The longing for ‘what’s news’ (Raymond, 1996: 1 et seq.) is as old as

humankind, as many scholars concerned with the history of news and jour-
nalism have pointed out. The works of Innis (1950, 1951) and Stephens
(2007) show that the demand for news can be traced back to ancient times,
and so can the diverse technological methods supporting various forms of
news deliveries. 3 Raymond has summarized this vividly in his work on the
history of the newsbook:
The desire for news, with its concomitant dangers, has probably been an
aspect of most societies through history. News is a constituent of com-
munication, and communication binds together societies and cultures. It
is a basic fact of sensuous human activity. (Raymond, 1996: 2)
Thussu (2000: 12) explains that ‘informal networks of travelers and trad-
ers’ have passed on news across distance long before technologies enabled
the detachment of news from the physical presence of a human acting as the
bearer of a message. What differed over the centuries, though, have been the
ways in which to disseminate news. With the invention of the printing press
in the fifteenth century, for instance, the written word increasingly gained
influence.4 For the fi rst time in history it was possible to generate copies
in large numbers. This reproduction technique ‘prepared the ground for
the mass production of books, magazines, and newspapers’ (Füssel, 2001:
3). The advent of the printing press also created the fundament for more
organized models of news distribution. However, infrastructures such as
regular postal services were not in place just then and prevented continuous
news dissemination over distance.
The expansion of international trade, though, increased the demand for
news (Thussu, 2000: 21; Stephens, 2007: 64 et seq.). News was a commod-
ity that gained importance for businesses and organizations emerged that
were dedicated to gathering and distributing information, especially in cen-
ters of international trade such as London, Amsterdam or Paris. Precursors
of today’s correspondents operated as early as the sixteenth century:
‘Walking newsmen’ appeared in public places in the greater cities

where people expected to hear news in exchange for a coin, similar to
the gazetta on the Rialto Bridge. In Paris during the sixteenth century
there existed about 15,000 nouvellistes or walking newsmen, some of
them in the Tuielleries; in other cities they worked near markets or in
the harbour. Gathering points for newsmongers in London were be-
hind St Pauls; during the fi rst half of the seventeenth century news
writers used to meet near Westminster. (Høyer, 2003: 452)
Around the same time, the court in London hired private news writers
(Høyer, 2003: 452; Raymond, 1996: 5). In the last quarter of the six-
teenth century, occasional news pamphlets were distributed in London and
around 1600 periodical publishing started, with the appearance of the fi rst
coranto in Amsterdam in 1620 and the fi rst newsbook, a weekly periodical
containing domestic news, in November 1641 in London (Raymond, 1996:
5 et seq.). 5 London also quickly evolved into the newspaper ‘capital’ of the
world and remained so until the middle of the nineteenth century, due to
the large population and a comparatively high level of literacy as well as of
press freedom (Høyer, 2003: 451). Assisted by advances in transportation
and mail services, ‘the post office became the hub of a network for news
exchange, a centre for news and rumour as well as for written newsletters
distributed to a circle of subscribers’ (Ibid.: 452). At the beginning of the
eighteenth century, though, these loose news exchange networks were still
far away from being organized. In the preliminary newsrooms of evolving
newspaper and journal outlets, job demarcations for staff were not yet in
place. As Smith claims, editors were mere processors of material and the
printers were in charge of the outlet. Writers and correspondents delivered
stories on an irregular basis, but:
There existed as yet no professional or occupational group whose

task it was to provide an unblemished version of events. There were
no techniques as yet developed within the business of writing by
which any form of ‘reportage’ was manufactured within the jour-
nalistic enterprise. Accounts of events were taken from foreign jour-
nals, from private newsletters, hospitals, prisons, markets, courts and
great houses. Most material which reached the medium of periodi-
cal printed papers was placed there by its source, or direct from its
source. (Smith, 1978: 158)
In the long run, though, the creation of publications such as newsbooks

encouraged the structural separation of tasks in the newsroom. The work
was split between editors, printers and publishers (Raymond, 1996: 21 et
seq.; see also Høyer, 2003: 453). Over the next centuries, newsroom orga-
nization was to become clearly structured so that news could be delivered
faster, across longer distances and in less time as the
regularity of publication demanded a reliable supply of news through

various networks and infrastructures: of readily available writers when
needed, of compositors and pressmen, and of a regular functioning
postal service or other form of distribution. These different functions
of publishing eventually became staffed by a host of crafts and oc-
cupations within hierarchies of responsibilities for the daily routines.
(Høyer, 2003: 453)
By the mid eighteenth century newsrooms had evolved into businesses sell-
ing news as a product. In the second half of the eighteenth century, report-
ers became increasingly specialized, the title of ‘journalist’ was introduced
and journalism emerged as a profession (Høyer, 2003: 455). Despite these
trends, though, news still traveled fairly slowly from one place to another,
even though attempts were made to speed up the process of information
dissemination over distance. To illustrate, at the beginning of the nine-
teenth century, newspapers in the United States awaiting news to report
from overseas ‘had increasingly tried to be up-to-date, especially in report-
ing the arrival of ships and in printing the news they brought with them.
The New York papers began to send out small boats to incoming ships to
gather up news’ (Schudson, 1978: 26). Before the advent of electric com-
munication tools, though, newsgathering and distribution processes across
distance were still infrequent.
With the introduction of the telegraph, the notion of ‘distance’ began to
change. News could now travel across the wires instantaneously, leading
to the creation of a new ‘sense of place’ which eventually drew journalism
into a ‘global space’, as Rantanen argues: ‘Electronic news in the 19th cen-
tury started to build the bridge between here and there by bringing places
where events occurred to readers of news’ (2003: 438). For the first time in
history, ‘the transmission of information and messages was separated from
the physical act of delivery’ (Chapman, 2005: 59) and connectivity struc-
tures started to evolve, which enabled a flow of news beyond local places.
Equally important to note is the accelerated speed of transmitting informa-
tion fostered by the telegraph. Nye points out that:
Before the telegraph, information traveled no faster than a horse or a

sailing ship; afterwards it moved at the speed of light. Since 1838, the
speed of transmission has improved relatively little, but the distances
involved and the quantity and quality of what can be sent have never
stopped increasing. (Nye, 1997: 1073)
The acceleration of speed as well as the emergence of time and place distan-
ciation thus can be considered as the main characteristics of the telegraph,
which would make it not only the most advanced technology of its time in
the nineteenth century, but furthermore it would proliferate the creation
of international networks. The introduction of telegraph technology to the
world thus has to be interpreted as a ‘paradigmatic breakthrough to a new
level of speed and reach’ (Straubhaar, 2007: 115).6
2.2. THE FOUNDATION OF TELEGRAPHIC NEWS
Like canals, railways and ocean highways, the telegraph linked national
and international markets, including stock exchanges and commod-
ity markets (cotton, corn and fish, for example). It also speeded up
the transmission of information, public and private, local, regional,
national and imperial, and this in the long run stood out as its most
significant outcome. Distance was conquered as information relating
to government, business, family affairs, the weather, and natural and
manmade disasters was transmitted, much of it in the form of news.
(Briggs and Burke, 2005: 110)
Telegraph became available for public use in the United States in 1844
(Blondheim, 1994: 3). Samuel F.B. Morse’s invention soon grew to be what
Smethers describes as
a vital communication link for commerce and industry and a major
force in shaping the nation’s burgeoning mass media system. Most no-
tably, telegraphy would be a preferred form of communication for over
a century. (Smethers, 1998: 634)7
Furthered by the industrial revolution, the advent of the telegraph as well

as other inventions such as the arrival of the steam printing press, which
allowed for the printing of a larger amount of newspapers in less time,
transformed the news sphere of the nineteenth century. More newspapers
were founded and an increasing amount of (international) news became
available (Briggs and Burke, 2005: 89 et seq.).8 The improvement of trans-
port was another factor that played an important role in carrying news over
distance in Western societies:
The development of railroads and canals in the early nineteenth cen-

tury made it possible for the best equipment in manufacturing to reach
a wider market. In 1810 the two-hundred-odd American papermills
furnished newsprint only to nearby localities, but, during the 1830s,
railroad transportation began to carry the best products of the best
machinery to more distant places. In 1830 the United States had only
twenty-three miles of railroad. In 1840 it had three thousand and would
have thirty thousand by the Civil War. (Schudson, 1978: 33)9
While the means of transport improved, rising population numbers and

their greater mobility as well as the growth of commercial markets in
urban centers fuelled an increase in the demand for news (Blondheim,
1994: 16; Høyer, 2003: 461). Literacy grew as well as the interest of a
wider part of the population in politics (Schudson, 1978: 35 et seq.). The
ideas of ‘time’ and ‘space’ were redefi ned, as news distribution sped up
and public desire for timely news increased. In consequence, the audience
of newspapers as well as the competition between them grew. Blondheim
points out accordingly:
The great increases in circulation must have reflected to some extent

the attractiveness of timely news for the reading public. Circulation
figures of New York dailies demonstrated an additional marked ex-
pansion in the late 1840’s, when the telegraph was applied to the rapid
transmission of news. The timeliness of reported news was closely re-
lated to the increase in public interest. Through the accelerated pace
of news gathering and transmission, newspaper intelligence was being
transformed; from a history of tidings of the past it was becoming a
chronicle of the present. (Blondheim, 1994: 26)
Simultaneously and furthered by industrialization processes, informa-

tion on economic developments became vital for businesses, which needed
information on stocks, currencies and the like (Thussu, 2000: 20). With
‘global commerce acting as the main spur’ and demanding to receive infor-
mation as fast as possible, businesses invested in the expansion of the tele-
graph network and funded, among other things, the laying of submarine
ocean cables (Briggs and Burke, 2005: 110). Accordingly, the telegraph
spread to the business centers of the world, following major transport
routes (e.g. the railway) and connecting major cities, which were the hubs of
industrialization. By the 1870s, ‘telegraph lines were operating within most
countries in Asia and an international communication network, dominated
by Britain, was beginning to emerge’ (Thussu, 2000: 16). International
connections between places where the telegraph was in use were made and
permitted a constant flow of news.
For journalism at that time, the telegraph offered the opportunity to
establish stable information connections and the ground was laid for busi-
nesses operating on a national or even international scale. News could be
passed on without the ‘obstacles’ of distance (Innis, 1951; Carey, 1989).
This allowed for reconfigured journalistic work structures. As Blondheim
points out, ‘news gathering by telegraph differed dramatically in its orga-
nizational implications from the editorial exchange’, and was transformed
‘into a dynamic process, requiring active control of a complex, interactive,
and potentially continuous operation’ (1994: 56).
News agencies were the fi rst organizations to create a journalistic busi-
ness model around telegraph technology: the commercial exchange of for-
eign as well as domestic news across distance. And: ‘It was no accident that
the London-based news agency which became known as “Reuters” was
started in 1851, and not at any earlier period’ (Read, 1999: 1). News agen-
cies developed professional distribution and production modes through
establishing an international network of connected bureaus and spanned
parts of the globe with a constant flow of news running through the tele-
graph wires.
2.3. NEWS AGENCIES IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY:

CREATING INTERNATIONAL NEWS NETWORKS
Up through today, news agency operations are based on a complex

bureau system. Journalists and stringers at local bureaus gather, pro-
duce and disseminate news. With the dispersion of bureaus nationally
and/or internationally, agencies systematically braid areas with a web of
reporters and correspondents and editorial control is often centralized
in each agency’s headquarters. This bureau system and the centralized
editorial control are the two main characteristics of news agencies in
the last decades of the twentieth century (Boyd-Barrett, 1980). I would
argue that they also apply to the fi rst news agencies that were formed in
the nineteenth century.
Back then, the emergence of news agencies contributed to the profes-
sionalization of the journalistic occupation. First models of professional
journalism were already in place, with newspaper reporters being assigned
to stories.10 However, the organizational structures of agencies commanded
a further specification of job profi les to arrange for national as well as
international news exchange in the most effective way possible. In order
to do so, explicit tasks had to be allocated to staff. What is more, as news
agencies delivered stories to a number of clients, they also had to develop a
concept of ‘nonpartisan, strictly factual news’ in order to not collide with
the ideals of their subscribers, whereas on the contrary, newspapers in the
nineteenth century were known for representing partisan views (Schudson,
1978: 4). Agencies
aimed to satisfy the news appetite of as many daily retail media as

possible, regardless of political persuasion, so they promoted the idea
of ‘impartiality’ as a valued journalistic objective. [ . . . ] Because they
supplied the same news to clients whose individual circumstances var-
ied they constructed a product that was at once standardized and yet
flexible: the ‘inverted pyramid’ became the basic principle of all news
reporting. (Boyd-Barrett, 1980: 19)
With the creation of a sophisticated news machinery system and a profes-

sionalization of staff, news agencies aspired to a systematic management of
gathering, producing and distributing news. Telegraph technology became
the backbone of an economically successful business model.
To illustrate how strong the ties between the spread of a new technology
and the evolution of a complex agency network are, two news agencies will
serve here as examples of such economically successful business models in the
nineteenth century. The foundation of Reuters and Associated Press (AP) both
coincided with the spread of the telegraphic network and the way both agen-
cies were organized are examples of the formation of journalistic networks. In
the first years of AP’s existence for instance, the technology of the telegraph
was used to create a national news network, whereas Reuters specialized in
international news production and distribution. The birth of the two agencies
shows how the technological tool of the telegraph played a significant role in
shaping journalistic networks in order to gather and disseminate news.
The Foundation of the Associated Press

The fi rst major American news wire service started as an association of
leading New York newspaper editors and was created formally in 1848. Its
inception ‘became the most significant institutional response of the Ameri-
can press to the novel communication technology’ (Blondheim, 1994: 47).11
Before the emergence of the telegraph, news on the continent was transmit-
ted by mail and thus
to a large extent, it was the speed of the mail that regulated the pace of
American news flow. Such speed, in turn, depended on the rapidity of
post office handling at both ends, on the swiftness of the post office’s
mode of transportation, and on its frequency. The time consumed by the
journey, and the wait for the next departure of the delivering transport,
determined the interval between the occurrence of events and their be-
ing read about by newspaper subscribers. (Blondheim, 1994: 15)
Rapid circulation of news was not possible. With the advent of the tele-
graph, though, crossing distance became significantly less of a problem
to overcome. The new technology was capable of delivering information
instantaneously, be it economically related news, updates on current events
and affairs in politics or score results and news events in sports from other
areas of the country or the world (Schudson, 1978: 4).
Shortly after the introduction of the telegraph it became apparent to
newspaper businesses in New York that having a reporter in Washington
was necessary to get the latest news from the capital. Yet, only one telegraph
line was in place and shared by several reporters from various newspapers.
In order to allow for a more efficient use of the cable, correspondents were
assigned who would deliver news accounts to a number of papers. The
name ‘telegraphic reporting’ was applied to this new vocation and: ‘The
economic rationale of this new branch of business was simple. Reporters
could satisfy numerous paying customers by one report, at the price of one
transmission’ (Blondheim, 1994: 44). First reporter networks were formed,
which ultimately led to the creation of the Associated Press, after editors at
various outlets came to realize that their customers’ desire for news from
afar was growing. As Nye elucidates:
To a considerable extent these developments were consumer driven.

The Associated Press grew out of the public’s intense desire, in 1846, to
have news of the Mexican War. Newspapers found that it paid to make
extraordinary efforts, and five New York papers soon decided that it
paid even better to pool resources. (Nye, 1997: 1074 et seq.)
Correspondents were placed along telegraphic lines, connecting cities such

as Washington, Baltimore and Boston. This information network soon was
to be expanded, connecting at last all major cities across the country. Paral-
lel to the extension of the telegraph network, the reporter and correspon-
dent network was expanded, connecting cities from east to west and north
to south, with New York becoming the central hub in the news gathering
and distribution network of the AP: ‘The New York Press, for the fi rst
time, was employing a technological system and interacting through it with
an extended field’ (Blondheim, 1994: 55). Telegraph technology then sup-
ported new ways of distribution. Newspaper editors saw the potential of
creating networks built upon the new technology. These networks carried
the promise of improving the information and story gathering machinery.
The telegraph became the link between newspapers and the Associated
Press, as well as for other news agencies, which were to be established in the
following years, such as United Press and the International News Service
(see Smethers, 1998: 635).
Within just a few decades, the AP established itself as the major distribu-
tor of telegraphic news to the American Press. Financially strong, it was not
only capable of using the new technology as a newsgathering and distribution
tool, but also superseding rivals. The AP managed to win the struggle over
control of the access to telegraph lines and gained a market leader position by
getting newspapers across the country to subscribe to its dispatches.
The Foundation of Reuters

Meanwhile on the other side of the Atlantic, a news agency distributed news
across countries from the very start. Founded in 1849 and following the
model of the French agency Havas that had already entered the stage as early
as 1832, Julius Reuter entrepreneured with his agency.12 He started small in
Paris, followed by the creation of a first news hub in Aachen in 1850. Shortly
after in 1851, Reuters moved to London. The British Empire was the world’s
leading economic power at that time and accordingly there was a necessity
for commercial information from around the world. Furthermore, London
was not only ‘the geopolitical and financial metropolis of the world’, but the
city was also ‘the focal point in Europe where the international cable com-
panies were based, and where the flow of telegraphic traffic arrived’ (Palmer,
2003: 483). As former sub-editor of Havas in Paris, Reuter was familiar with
agency practices and could draw upon his experience:
Reuter had opened in London, but Paris had shown him the way. From
1832 Charles Havas had developed a lithographic news service in the
French capital. At fi rst, this had simply collected and translated items
from the foreign press; but within a few years Havas was employing
his own correspondents to report news directly. In 1835 ‘Bureau Ha-
vas’ became ‘Agence Havas’; and by the end of the decade Havas was
offering a range of targeted news services—for French Government
Ministers, for departmental prefects, for bankers, and for newspapers.
Eventually, he began to sell news to subscribers in other countries. Ha-
vas, in short, was the innovator who fi rst organized the wide collection
and sale of news as a marketable commodity. (Read, 1999: 6)
Systematic gathering and distribution of news was also the aim of Reuter and
he used telegraph technology as well as carrier pigeons. During the 1840s,
the telegraph had just started to spread over Western Europe, but not all
major cities were directly connected. Pigeons filled the hole in the telegraph
net, for instance between Brussels and Aachen. Since April 1851, Brussels
was connected to Paris and in order to get French news across the border into
Germany, the birds were sent off to deliver the dispatches with the latest news
from Brussels. The pigeons bridged the gap of 76 miles to Aachen and took
only two hours to deliver French news to Aachen—a quarter of the time it
would have taken to deliver the information by train (Read, 1999: 11).13
Reuters’ creativity in crossing distances, combined with an intrinsic
understanding of technologies and his instinct for business (he set up con-
tracts on exclusively delivering business news), quickly gained him and his
agency fame in London as well as in Western Europe. The agency built a
reputation as an independent and impartial supplier of news for its journal-
istic colleagues around the world. Using telegraph technology, the agency’s
business goal was to become the dominant supplier of overseas telegraph
news to the press. Based on its fi nancial strength, Reuters was able to buy
up cable rights and spread the cost of telegraph cable space among many
newspaper subscribers (Putnis, 2006: 2).
In succession, Reuters emerged as the central link between London and the
continent and also established itself as news deliverer for the English dailies
by providing them with continental news bulletins (Read, 1999: 20). Addi-
tionally, the network of Reuters was increasingly enhanced internationally
along the stretches of the British Empire, connecting places in Asia, Africa
and Australasia back to the center of the Empire in London. The British
domination of the world cable network helped in that respect as it provided
the technological basis upon which Reuters—an institution with strong ties
to the Empire—built its dominance in international newsgathering:
By 1880 nine cable routes were crossing the Atlantic, and by the 1890s
the world was substantially united via overland telegraphs and under-
sea cables, although the Pacific Ocean was not crossed until the new
century. About 60 percent of all cables were British-owned, and before
1914 an ‘all-red route’ round the globe, based entirely upon British ter-
ritory, had been deliberately created for purposes of imperial defence.
(Read, 1999: 59; see also Thussu, 2000: 18 et seq.)
The ownership of the foremost technological equipment at that time thus

empowered the nation of the British Empire and along with it the power
of the Britain-based news agency Reuters. Reuters at times even saw itself
as the ‘agency of the British Empire’, delivering news between the center
of imperial power in Britain and its colonies at the periphery (Chapman,
2005: 67; Read, 1999: 1).
2.4. AGENCIES AS MONOPOLIES OF NEWS EXCHANGE
Over the decades to come and with the purpose of gathering news from
as many places as possible, AP and Reuters—and along with them a few
other agencies—developed a complex (international) bureau system. Jour-
nalists and stringers would locally collect and produce news pieces and
then distribute them over the telegraph. News agencies also started to col-
laborate with each other and divided the world into ‘responsibility’ zones.
As the world was being organized into agency districts, Reuters and AP, for
example, agreed on the exchange of dispatches across the Atlantic (Read,
1999: 38). Similar contracts emerged within Europe, resulting in the for-
mation of a ring of news deliverers. In 1870, a cartel agreement was signed
that would be ‘the basis of the international news agency order until the
1930s’ (Ibid.: 57; see also Palmer, 2003). Agencies of this ring cartel were
Reuters (territory of the British Empire and the Far East), Wolff (Germany,
Central Europe, Scandinavia and Eastern Europe) and Havas (Western
Europe and the Mediterranean). The formation of these collaborative net-
works added to the success of agencies. They eventually became the major
deliverers of national as well as international news for news organizations,
capable of exercising control over the news market and forming an ‘oli-
gopolistic and hierarchical structure’ of the news sphere (Boyd-Barrett and
Rantanen, 1998: 26).
The exploitation of the telegraph lines was crucial to this development.
The telegraph was the basis on which nationally or internationally oper-
ating news empires were built, ‘concentrate[ing] power in the hands of a
few dominant companies’ (Chapman, 2005: 65). A news deliverer elite was
established, formed by very few news agencies—or conglomerates—who
controlled the national as well as international news flow. News agencies
thus created a ‘monopoly of knowledge’ based on their power over the tele-
graph lines (Blondheim, 1994).
Such ‘monopolies of knowledge’ are according to Innis (1951: 190) made
possible through the existence of technology that can be exploited in favor
of a powerful group of people. As Thussu points out, there is a correla-
tion between inhabiting communication instruments and being in charge
of power: ‘Communications networks and technologies were key to the
mechanics of distributed government, military campaigns and trade’ (2000:
11). This exertion of power over the telegraph was a result of two factors:
the linear character of the telegraph as well as the fi nancial strength of news
agencies. The telegraph was a communication tool enabling communica-
tion from point to point. It could only operate sequentially with messages
sent one at a time. Furthermore, the ‘channel-like’ nature of telegraphic
communication supported the creation of monopolies over the wires:
Turnpikes and canals also restricted communications to a channel, but

unlike them, and very much like the railroad, the telegraph was a single
unit that was both the road and the vehicle. Control of telegraph lines
implied control of the message traffic flowing through them. When in-
formation was moved along canals and roads, numerous vehicles could
compete over a variety of channels; but there was only a single conduit
for instantaneous communications, and it could easily be monopolized.
(Blondheim, 1994: 4)
Also, as telegraph technology was expensive, only fi nancially strong orga-

nizations such as news agencies could afford to use it. Reuters had the
fi nancial means to build telegraph lines, for example, in Ireland (see Read,
1999: 40). In the United States, the AP was the biggest customer of the
telegraph by the 1870s, with ten percent of Western Union’s revenues. By
the 1880s, more than 80 percent of the copy contained in Western Ameri-
can newspapers consisted of AP dispatches. In 1875, AP even started to set
up its own network of leased wires connecting member newspapers (Coe,
1993: 123). Thus, AP was able to create a monopoly in the national distri-
bution of news.
The ability to control telegraph lines therefore has to be identified as a
key element of gaining influence within the news sphere of the nineteenth
century. Telegraph technology was a tool that became a power instrument
making news agencies the dominant players in national and international
news markets. These agency services furthermore introduced a profes-
sional organizational network structure to the gathering and distribution
of journalistic products that had not been in existence before: The dissemi-
nation of journalistic content took place on a global scale, with news being
produced in various corners of the world and delivered by correspondents
and stringers arranged in bureau networks. The headquarters of the agen-
cies located in the (national) centers of each agency were the central hubs
within this network of bureaus.
The formation of news agencies in Western journalistic systems facili-
tated the creation of a monopolized news industry for the century to come
in which subscribers became dependent on the news dispatches distrib-
uted by agencies. As Putnis elaborates with regard to the European news
market:
A global system of news distribution [was created] in which the major

international news agencies—Reuters of Britain, Havas of France and
Wolff of Germany—would have a dominant role and national presses
would be relegated to being mere retailers of international news within
a wholesale/retail distribution system. (Putnis, 2006: 1 et seq.)14
Those agencies set the agenda for their clients and reduced the journalis-
tic tasks especially at provincial newspapers to ‘cut-and-paste’ jobs, with
stories being composed from agency material (Palmer, 2003: 482). They
‘inevitably became pre-selectors and pre-processors of news’ (Chapman,
2005: 66) and newspapers as well as (smaller) national or regional agencies
grew to be heavily dependent on news agencies. Especially the ‘big’ players
in the field of news agencies named above, which later came to be known
as the ‘Big Four’, were able to exercise central monopoly power over the
distribution of international news, creating a ‘media dependence on the
world agencies’ (Boyd-Barrett, 1980: 15).15
Agencies functioned as central agenda setters and gatekeepers within the
(national) journalism sphere of the nineteenth century. Services such as AP
produced one report on a news story for the entire country, defining what
was going to be news in the fi rst place: ‘They held the yardstick that mea-
sured news value and news defi nition of politically relevant information,
and they sifted through it and edited it before supplying it to the country’
(Blondheim, 1994: 174). Reuters, for example, was the ‘unofficial voice of
the Empire, giving prominence to British views’ (Thussu, 2000: 22). News
selection as well as framing were processes with few people deciding on
what was ‘news’ and how it was going to be presented. Telegraph technol-
ogy enabled agency editors to act as gatekeepers. As Blondheim explains
for the case of the AP:
The function of the AP in the news industry may be linked to that of

a giant funnel. From the vast network of wires of the nation’s (SIC)
telegraph monopoly it gathered information from all over the country
in its headquarters. There, the news was consolidated to a single re-
port and, again through WU’s vast facilities, distributed throughout
the country. Not all information that reached those headquarters went
out, and what did was necessarily transformed in the process. (Blond-
heim, 1994: 174)
News agencies established an organized system of news production and

dissemination. Building upon far-reaching national as well as international
networks, their operational structures established monopolized systems
of newsgathering, production and distribution and transformed the news
sphere of the nineteenth century. The connections between agencies, their
correspondents as well as their subscribers were characterized by linear infor-
mation flows, with headquarters and editorial offices as centralized hubs in
which stories delivered by correspondents were gathered, revised and then
distributed to subscribers around the world. The ability of agencies to control
the telegraph lines was a key element in gaining worldwide influence in (and
power over) the sphere of journalism in the nineteenth century and, in suc-
cession of this, for a century to come. Telegraph technology was the tool that
became the power instrument of news agencies to position themselves as the
dominant players in national as well as international news markets.
2.5. FROM CONTROLLED NEWS FLOWS

TO NON-LINEAR NEWS NETWORKS
The introduction of telegraph technology to nineteenth century newsrooms

had a severe impact on the working procedures of news producers and
disseminators. As the above analysis has shown, the telegraph constituted
the ‘fi rst global information structure’ (Braman, 2004: 134). It enabled
instantaneous connectivity across distance and thereby the formation of
an international network of news distribution (i.e., through news agencies)
as well as an international network of customers (i.e., subscribing news
outlets). Technology laid the foundation for the emergence of an interna-
tional network of news exchange and inevitably influenced the (net)work
of journalistic organizations. The technology of the telegraph assisted in
and thus modified the gathering, production and dissemination of news. In
Braman’s words, ‘the use of that infrastructure was limited because there
were relatively few points of access, technical expertise was required, the
length of messages was limited, only text messages could be sent, and it
was expensive’ (2004: 134). News agencies operated along the wires of
the telegraph, transforming the news sphere of the nineteenth century and
laying the fundament for a highly organized, centralized news exchange
infrastructure that would remain more or less stable until the late twentieth
century. Journalistic networks displayed controlled flows of information,
with agencies monopolizing production and distribution processes. Inter-
national connected news flows evolved, with the power to control them in
the hands of a few news organizations such as Reuters or AP. The sphere
of journalism had the character of a closed system, with a limited number
of active producers and disseminators taking part in the news exchange
process. The sphere of news exchange was centralized, dominated by linear
news flows.
I will argue in the following chapters that the character of the news agen-
cies’ operational modes that used to dominate the sphere of information
exchange is decisively different from that of the evolving information nodes
located within a complex (digitally) connected global journalistic network
of the twenty-fi rst century. Expanded through digitalization, today’s jour-
nalistic sphere displays significantly different characteristics. The evolving
global news sphere of the information age exceeds communication systems
based on technological devices of point-to-point communication. Informa-
tion now travels instantaneously via digital paths and multiple places in
various parts of the globe can simultaneously be connected. Digitally cre-
ated communication networks are much denser, with an indefi nable number
of information strings crisscrossing and overlapping within virtual space.
Whereas the example of news agencies and their relation to the introduc-
tion of telegraph technology displays the development of monopolistic cen-
ters dictating the (global) flow of news, digitally created networks display a
significantly different character. They are decentralized networks, charac-
terized by a non-linearity of information flows. This transformational shift
quintessentially redefi nes the shape of our evolving global news sphere.
Between Decentralization
and Non-linear News Flows
Now, the real change is where the information comes from. Informa-
tion in the current Internet age comes from people, people produc-
ing their information and exchanging it over the net. This is the true
revolution. We do not have too much information (as we do not have
too many books in a library, just more options to fi nd the one we
really want). It is the endless collective capacity of society to produce
its own information, to distribute it, to recombine it, to use it for its
specific goals, that transforms social practice, through the transfor-
mation of the range of possibilities for the human mind.
(Castells and Ince, 2003: 139)
The relative stability and centralized control of linear news flows, which
characterized information exchange among journalistic outlets in the
nineteenth century, remained a feature of news media until recently. Side
by side with news agencies controlling news flows, corporate and pub-
lic service news outlets were the leading (and often sole) distributors of
information nationally and internationally. A ‘one-way, hub-and-spoke
structure, with unidirectional links to its ends, running from center to
the periphery’ (Benkler, 2006: 179) would dominate journalistic informa-
tion exchange throughout the twentieth century. A very small number of
outlets controlled this sphere such as national public service outlets in
many European countries or corporate stations in the US, securing jour-
nalism production as ‘broadcasting to the masses’ (Chaffee and Metzger,
2001: 369). Journalists operated within a closed system, characterized in
terms of a fairly simple structured sender-receiver model or a top-down
organization of journalistic work (Bardoel and Deuze, 2001: 98; see also
Beckett and Mansell, 2008: 93). This allowed only a relatively small num-
ber of actors such as politicians or public relations organizations to influ-
ence journalistic news agendas, for example, during humanitarian crises
(Robinson, 2002).
Today’s journalistic sphere is organized in a significantly different way.
Take some examples that demonstrate how the system of information
exchange has opened up: The first images of the Virginia Tech Shooting
in April 2007 aired via national or international news programs were pro-
duced on a cell phone and shot by a graduate student. The story of Brit-
ish Prince Harry being assigned with a military unit in Afghanistan broke
on the news aggregation website Drudge Report in February 2008. In the
same month the protests in Tibet reached a climax. While Western jour-
nalists of corporate and public service outlets had been expelled from the
site and cut off from direct access, Tibetan dissidents, tourists and blog-
gers stood in, driving international news coverage. The Mumbai terror
attacks of November 2008 were covered all across the World Wide Web.
One could fi nd breaking news on Twitter streams, follow bloggers from
Mumbai who delivered accounts and comments on the situation in the city,
or access multimedia coverage (including coverage of the aftermath in the
months to come) on sites such as NowPublic.com, an open-platform news
magazine where anyone can upload stories, photos, videos or tweets and
that according to their homepage counts five million readers visiting the
site each month.1 And whenever a story breaks, one can almost immedi-
ately fi nd a current events page set up on Wikipedia that includes links to
updates on the unfolding story, as was the case during the Mumbai attacks
of 2008, the Iranian protests in 2009 or when the devastating earthquake
hit Haiti in January 2010.
News coverage in each of these cases has been significantly influenced
by a greater degree of global connectivity, and professional journalists have
been affected by the input of alternative news deliverers. Gillmor refers
to them as ‘non-standard news sources’ (2006: xx). Benkler uses the term
‘nonmarket actors’ (Benkler, 2006: 220) and Bruns identifies a ‘paradigm
shift’ away from ‘industrial-style content’: ‘the collaborative, iterative, and
user-led production of content by participants in a hybrid user-producer, or
produser role’ (2006: 275 emphasis in original). Yet, what are these new
voices adding to the news sphere, how are they impacting news production
chains and how are traditional gatekeeping modes being challenged? We
do not have a conceptual approach that would help to understand the role
of these new news deliverers, and how they fit in with traditional models
of gathering, production and distribution as the object of research—in this
case the journalism sphere—is ‘in a state of hyper-growth and permanent
transformation’ (Lovink, 2008: xxiii).
With such transformational shifts in information exchange, methods of
information gathering, production and dissemination of global news have to
be scrutinized, customized and re-organized. Organizational structures in
today’s print, broadcast and online media need to be reassessed accordingly
(not least through developing a ‘new sense’ of connectivity). Journalistic
outlets are information nodes within this evolving global news ‘network’
sphere—and if they acknowledge the wide range of other nodes available
within a dense net of news exchange, they can serve as central contact
points tying together multi-directional information strings, including jour-
nalists at other journalistic outlets and news agencies as well as user-gen-
erated content providers, freelance stringers and the like. A paradigmatic
shift toward a global network journalism structure is taking shape and
here I will outline its specifics and identify its key parameters.
Between Decentralization and Non-linear News Flows 53
3.1. CHANGING NOTIONS OF SPEED AND
CONNECTIVITY IN THE NEWSROOM
The increased speed of news flows and new connectivity levels demar-
cate this evolving global news sphere from a closed journalism sphere.
Accelerated by the introduction of digital technologies as many scholars
have recently pointed out (see for example McNair, 2006; Pavlik, 2000;
Straubhaar, 2007; van Dijk, 2004; Volkmer, 2007), the capacities of digi-
tal media support instantaneous transmission of information as well as
allow a greater number of information deliverers to contribute to (global)
news exchange. What Boyd-Barrett described as the pressure of a ‘continu-
ous deadline’ (1980: 74 et seq.) affecting the work of agency journalists in
international bureaus has become a general feature of all news organiza-
tions. ‘Stories break at the speed of light, circling the globe instantly via
the Internet’ (Pavlik, 2000: 231). Journalists feel the pressure of keeping up
with the pace of news delivery, which at times leads to a neglect of in-depth
coverage or fact-checking (Thussu, 2000: 244; Seib, 2002: 3). Within the
online digital space, deadlines are nonexistent. What is more, as journalis-
tic outlets now mostly have their online counterparts, the pressure formerly
affecting mainly agencies now applies to all journalistic organizations. Seib
points out that because the
delivery of the news product has become constant rather than periodic,
the newsroom’s rhythm has changed, as have its procedures. Consider
the routines of the newspaper newsroom and how it has been altered:
from a measured pace of gathering, analyzing, verifying, expanding,
verifying some more, and refi ning a daily product; to instead delivering
whatever is available at a minute-by-minute pace. (Seib, 2004: 12)
This new work routine is furthermore reconfigured by the sheer volume of

information in circulation. Chaffee and Metzger explain:
More than any other technologies for mass communication, contem-

porary media allow for a greater quantity of information transmission
and retrieval, place more control over both content creation and selec-
tion in the hands of their users, and do so with less cost to the average
consumer. The Internet serves as the best example and, through digital
convergence, will form the backbone of most future mediated commu-
nication. The Internet was designed to be decentralized, meaning that
control is distributed to all users who have relatively equal opportunity
to contribute content. The increased bandwidth of the Internet further
enhances users’ ability to become content producers and to produce ma-
terial that is fairly sophisticated at low cost. In addition, many of the new
technologies are more portable and, therefore, more convenient to use
compared with older mass media. (Chaffee and Metzger, 2001: 369)
News flows used to be more or less fi xed, being gathered, produced and dis-
seminated almost solely by journalists working for corporate or public ser-
vice outlets and news agencies. Information traveled along a one-to-many
path and was ‘pushed’ toward audiences (Schoenbach et al, 2005: 248),
allowing the consumer no form of interaction with content. The Internet, in
contrast, supports selective ‘pulling’ of content as users can actively search
for desired information (Ibid.). The Internet is a ‘push-pull medium’ (Volk-
mer, 2003: 12), allowing not only journalists but every Internet user to
‘push’ information into the virtual sphere as well as to selectively ‘pull’
information from an almost uncountable variety of sources accessible
online. Furthermore, users now increasingly follow links provided on sto-
ries. Instead of following a storyline, for example, on frequently updated
television newscasts throughout any given day, it is possible to break with
this linear model of receiving information. Users can browse through the
web, hear an update on radio, read a comment in a newspaper the follow-
ing day and of course follow links on a story that can possibly lead them
all across the web from one source to another comment or another update
in a non-linear fashion.
What is more, digital technologies have assigned power to the masses.
As Shirky asserts: ‘When we change the way we communicate, we change
society’ (2008: 17). A ‘new ecosystem’ (Ibid: 60) of social interaction based
on the use of digital technologies is emerging. Through a rapid decline in
the costs of digital technology, ‘we now have communications tools that are
flexible enough to match our social capabilities’ (Ibid.: 20). Gathering and
processing of information, forming communities and pooling knowledge
from diverse backgrounds has gotten a lot easier, as the success of Wiki-
pedia and social networks such as Facebook with 500 million active users
worldwide at the time of writing this book prove.2 Tapscott and Williams
(2008) attest a fundamental shift in societal (and economic) organization
characterized by collaborative production modes and based on a new eco-
nomic logic. About the benefits these new possibilities and potentials are
bringing about and how they signal new structures and modus operandi for
corporations, the authors write:
The new promise of collaboration is that with peer production we will

harness human skill, ingenuity, and intelligence more efficiently and ef-
fectively than anything we have witnessed previously. Sounds like a tall
order. But the collective knowledge, capability, and resources embod-
ied within broad horizontal networks of participants can be mobilized
to accomplish much more than one fi rm acting alone. (Tapscott and
Williams 2008: 18)
What Lévy (1997) termed ‘collective intelligence’ is the heart of this emerg-
ing level of ‘peer production’. This idea builds on the premise of proactive
group interaction and that a big enough and diverse enough group can
come up with great ideas and decisions that are best for the masses—it is
what Surowiecki (2005) terms the ‘wisdom of crowds’.
Taken together, the possibilities for mass collaboration and the ‘push-
pull’ characteristic of the Internet challenge journalistic practice in an
online digital space. The impact on the sphere of news gathering, produc-
tion and distribution is incredibly profound and the effect on the work of
journalists can be attested on three levels:
1. The number of news disseminators increases and is not limited to

journalistic outlets. A greater number of actors can take part in the
gathering, production and dissemination of information, producing
four categories of ‘online actors’ as McNair defines: the ‘professional-
institutional actors’ (professional journalistic organizations), ‘profes-
sional-individual actors’ (journalists operating individually without
attachment to news organizations), ‘non-professional-institutional
actors’ (such as government agencies, NGOs, political parties or ter-
rorist organizations disseminating information online) and ‘non-pro-
fessional-individual actors’ such as bloggers (2006: 119). 3
2. The plurality of information online offers more sources than ever for
journalistic outlets and ‘reporters can now effectively use online tools
to gather news and information, check facts and even fi nd sources off
the Web’ (Pavlik, 2000: 230).
3. The online environment allows for instantaneous feedback and active
participation of users, eroding the structure of a one-to-many infor-
mation flow and supporting a form of horizontal networking, ‘offer-
ing instead one-to-one and many-to-many at once’ (Bell, 2007: 78;
see also Castells, 2000c: 341).
The challenge for journalistic outlets lies in the question of how they adapt
to each one of these impacts. The transformation of a global news sphere
with more actors taking part in the news production process and more
information in circulation as well as the options of instantaneous feedback
and active participation of users demands a repositioning of news organiza-
tions. A structural transformation of journalistic outlets needs to take place
to appropriately equip journalists to navigate through this (global) infor-
mation sphere. This structural transformation (Volkmer, 2003: 12) has to
form on grounds of a reassessment of the journalism sphere in which news
organizations operate. Within an emerging global news sphere, informa-
tion flows are multi-directional. A network character of communication is
taking shape based on a network structure of journalism in which decen-
tralization and non-linearity are the key parameters defi ning news flows at
the beginning of the twenty-fi rst century. The basis of this evolving jour-
nalistic practice is the structural pattern of network journalism. A complex
collaborative network of national and transnational information gatherers,
producers and disseminators is developing that allows the integration of
a great variety of voices. The paradigm of network journalism can be a
starting point to explain our emerging global news sphere. Along with the
reshaping of our social structures in an increasingly globalized world, pro-
fessional journalism is undergoing profound changes in styles, formats and
ways of reporting.
Journalistic organizations then are urged to adopt network dynamics
and accordingly need to identify corporate models to work within the global
network journalism sphere characterized by a new transnational space in
which information is exchanged. As Hassan and Thomas note: ‘Networks
are open structures, able to expand without limits, integrating new nodes
as long as they are able to communicate with the network’ (2006a: xxiii).
This openness of network structures allows for a greater level of connectiv-
ity and thus significantly transforms news gathering, production and dis-
semination procedures. Failing to understand these significant structural
changes might ultimately lead to failure in repositioning within this rede-
signed sphere of journalism.
3.2. THE USE OF THE TERM ‘NETWORK JOURNALISM’

IN CURRENT RESEARCH AND PRACTICE
The term ‘network journalism’ is of course not new. It has been used at
times by scholars and journalists over the past few years, so far infre-
quently, within different contexts and embodying various connotations (for
example, Bardoel and Deuze, 2001; Beckett, 2008; Beckett and Mansell,
2008; Jarvis, 2006: Online; Wardle and Williams, 2008). A set defi nition
of ‘network journalism’—and its variation ‘networked journalism’—how-
ever, does not exist. With the implications of digital technology for jour-
nalism being almost erosive and scholars as well as journalists trying to
make sense of the changes occurring with such rapidity, the term ‘network’
has been applied in various contexts in the (scholarly study of) journalism.
Especially in North America, ‘network journalism’ has furthermore often
been used as a substitute for ‘television’ or ‘broadcast journalism.’ Closer
to my understanding of ‘network journalism’, however, are various other
defi nition suggestions. Let me sketch some of these meanings that seem to
stand out at this point.
Especially within the blogosphere, the term ‘network journalism’ has at
times been utilized as a synonym for ‘citizen journalism’ or ‘participatory
journalism’ (for a list of synonyms, see Cohn, 2007: Online), and refers to
the active role of citizens who are not working professionally as journalists
and report news on various web portals from private blogs to citizen jour-
nalism sites such as OhmyNews and Global Voices Online. ‘Citizen jour-
nalism’ here is defi ned as having the potential to transform news reporting
and production ‘from journalism as a lecture to journalism as a conversa-
tion or seminar’ (Gillmor, 2006: xxiv; also see Lasica, 1996), with a greater
variety of voices taking the opportunity to be heard on a global scale. Cohn
tries to establish ‘citizen journalism’ as an ‘umbrella term’ and defines ‘citi-
zen journalism as follows: ‘citizen journalism is when a person who does
not make their living as a journalist engages in an act of journalism’ (Cohn,
2007: Online). ‘Network journalism’ can be classified according to Cohn as
one type of citizen journalism and refers to a certain model of information
exchange between journalists and their audiences:
‘Network journalism’ is when groups of people come together through

the Internet to work on a single story. Like stand-alone journalism it
is a conscious decision, but the work is not done by a lone reporter.
Instead, it requires a group of people. Network journalism rests its fate
on two principles: First the ‘wisdom of the crowd,’ the notion that a
large network of people will have a collective intelligence that is greater
than any single reporter. The second is ‘crowdsourcing’ [ . . . ], in this
case crowdsourcing is the idea that a group of people will be able to
tackle a large investigation in a more efficient manner than a single
reporter. (Cohn, 2007: Online)
On the contrary, Jarvis applies the term ‘networked journalism’ and uses it
as a replacement for ‘citizen journalism’ (Jarvis, 2006: Online). He suggests
that ‘networked journalism’ describes a partnership between the public and
journalists that lays the grounds for a conversation between journalists and
their publics. The journalist here becomes the moderator of an open news
production process. According to Jarvis, ‘networked journalism’ describes
collaborative models between citizens and professional journalists, who
would network together to gather topics, gather information, produce news
stories, reflect upon the journalistic product and if necessary correct and
revise it once it is published.
‘Networked journalism’ takes into account the collaborative nature of

journalism now: professionals and amateurs working together to get
the real story, linking to each other across brands and old boundaries
to share facts, questions, answers, ideas, perspectives. It recognizes the
complex relationships that will make news. And it focuses on the pro-
cess more than the product. (Jarvis, 2006: Online)4
Wardle and Williams (2008) use Jarvis’s defi nition as backbone in their
analysis of the BBC and how the public broadcaster makes use of content
gathered and shared by its users:
Networked journalism can empower the audience in direct ways. Using

a grassroots, public journalism-influenced, model which emphasizes
local meetings and community reporters, it can reconnect mainstream
media with the local communities. Or [ . . . ] by connecting with expert
communities within the blogosphere, it can empower audience mem-
bers with particular specialist knowledge or experiences to become di-
rectly involved in the research and production of a news story or item.
(Wardle and Williams, 2008: 18)
Beckett and Mansell agree with Jarvis, defi ning ‘networked journalism’ as
a ‘kind of journalism [which] continues to involve the journalist as a profes-
sional who is becoming more a facilitator of on- and offl ine news production
for media institutions’ (2008: 92). In his book SuperMedia, Beckett furthers
this defi nition and outlines the opportunities of ‘networked journalism’ for
collaborative gathering and production models: ‘Networked Journalism is
a hybrid of Citizen Journalism and Mainstream “professional” journalism’
(Beckett, 2008: 86). For him, the social role of journalistic outlets is based
on the premise of dialogue, and journalists are facing major changes in the
way they go about their work with new tools at hand:
It [networked journalism] is a recognition that mainstream professional

journalists must share the very process of production. Networked Jour-
nalism includes citizen journalism, interactivity, open sourcing, wikis,
blogging, and social networking, not as add-ons, but as an essential part
of news production and distribution itself. (Beckett, 2008: 4 et seq.)
What these defi nitions listed above have in common is that the central
characteristic of ‘network(ed) journalism’ is the interplay between civic
participation and journalistic action. All these authors refer to journalistic
production methods by outlining the potential of network building. How-
ever, they utilize the term in a fairly broad way, and do not apply it to
design a conceptual model of professional journalism and its organization
as such. Their focus is strongly tied to observations of how citizens can
make an impact on journalistic production relying ‘on a growing array of
new media platforms’ (Beckett and Mansell, 2008: 93).
Rather than concentrating on exchange modes between professional
journalists and citizen journalists, Karp draws attention to the general abil-
ity to link information online—to sources, to journalistic content produced
by citizen journalists, to content produced by a variety of professional jour-
nalistic outlets, you name it. He views the option of ‘linking’ as the pri-
mary new characteristic of today’s journalistic work and it is within this
context that he coins the term ‘networked link journalism’. ‘The standard
journalistic technique for providing context and support for assertions is
to quote sources, but on the web, the “link journalism approach” is to link
to other actual reporting’ (Karp, 2008a: Online). In addition: ‘Link jour-
nalism is linking to other reporting on the web to enhance, complement,
source, or add more context to a journalist’s original reporting’ (Karp,
2008a: Online). By adding the term ‘networked’ to his model, Karp wants
to underline the ability of the web to do more than merely link to sources.
In his view, these links tie the whole sphere of journalism and its informa-
tion outputs together:
Networked link journalism is combining all the links created by jour-

nalists practicing link journalism to determine that most important,
interesting, and newsworthy content that journalists are linking to. In
the simplest form of networked link journalism, one link = one vote.
The stories with the most votes rise to the top. This is the newspaper
of the future—or rather the newspaper of today. This is how Google
works, and how Digg works, by combining the power of many links.
What’s on a Google search results page? Or Digg’s homepage? A bunch
of links. But not just any links—the ‘best’ links. Why do some [sic]
many people go to Google and Digg to click on those links? Why do
they drive so much traffic on the web? Because those links are deter-
mined by networks, not individuals—and networks are the most pow-
erful force on the web. (Karp, 2008b: Online)
The term ‘networked link journalism’ as defi ned by Karp (2008a, 2008b)
thus refers to ways of content distribution on the web and how journal-
ists can best navigate through information flows in order to provide users
with the best possible overview on important news information. Based on
his idea of sharing and exchanging information through links, Karp has
founded the project Publish2 together with his colleague Robert Young.
On the Publish2 website, news organizations and journalists can share,
collaborate and curate their work among each other and with readers. The
platform thus serves as a pool of online news sources chosen by journal-
ists. It is the perfect example of what Karp has in mind when using the
phrase ‘networked link journalism’: He suggests that instead of monopo-
lized distribution models, journalism should turn to collective distribution
platforms and share information, knowledge and stories: ‘Remember the
rule of networks on the web—the bigger the network, the more powerful it
is’ (Karp, 2008b: Online).
On the contrary, Bardoel and Deuze have applied the term ‘network
journalism’ (without the suffi x ed!) in the context of ‘online journalism’
or—as they repeatedly name it—‘journalism on the Net’, referring to impli-
cations of digital technologies and their uses for the roles of journalists
in the information age (Bardoel and Deuze, 2001; Bardoel, 2002). Here,
‘network journalism’ describes a form of journalism, news production and
distribution developing ‘online’ and next to the traditional forms of print,
radio and television journalism. This ‘online’ journalism according to the
authors also carries implications for journalism in general. ‘Journalism
on the Net’ threatens old media and existing business models (Bardoel,
2002: 504 et seq.) and in accordance with this, new technological tools
as well as changed audience expectations necessitate ‘a redefinition of the
core competencies of journalism’ (Bardoel and Deuze, 2001: 92). Bardoel
and Deuze aim to characterize the work environment of the ‘converged’
journalist of the future and ‘network journalism’ here describes ‘a jour-
nalism for any medium, genre, type, or format’ (Ibid.: 99). They view the
emergence of online journalism as the core example—if not the form as
such—of ‘network journalism’ as it in effect converges competencies of old
and new media professionals (Ibid.: 99). ‘Online journalism’ according to
the authors is marked by three key characteristics, namely (1) interactiv-
ity ‘relinquish[ing] increasing levels of control to the user, instead of the
producer, of content’ (Bardoel, 2002: 504), (2) hypertextuality as a specific
nature of journalism online offering the user to access in-depth reporting
or further reference material and (3) multimediality describing ‘the conver-
gence of traditional media formats—(moving) image, text, sound—in one
story online’ (Ibid.: 505). Bardoel also adds a fourth characteristic: asyn-
chronicity. This refers to the options for consumption, as online material is
available on demand. Accessing news hence becomes ‘a matter of individ-
ual choice and not mere producer-driven media logic’ (Ibid: 505), whereas
on radio or TV news content is scheduled at an appointed time. These key
characteristics are, according to Bardoel and Deuze, not only carried by
the ‘journalism on the Net’, but are impacting all forms of journalism. It is
within this context that Bardoel and Deuze defi ne ‘network journalism’:
We propose a turn towards what we call ‘network journalism’; the con-

vergence of core competencies and functions of journalists, the blending
media modalities in a fully wired and digital (working) environment,
and an exploration of enhanced civic potentialities of journalism. This
new, ‘network’ journalism can be seen as a potent factor in empow-
ering citizens, overcoming digital divides, and establishing a critical
rather than utopian foothold in the near-future media sphere. (Bardoel
and Deuze, 2001: 92)
This ‘reality’ of ‘network journalism’ reveals, however, changing interde-

pendencies between journalists and society. Bardoel and Deuze argue that
the journalistic role has been transformed into that of a mediator of infor-
mation. They are especially interested in professional identities of journal-
ists—with the journalist giving orientation to citizens, filtering information
and guiding users through information overload:
The journalist of tomorrow is a professional who serves as a nodal

point in a complex environment between technology and society, be-
tween news and analysis, between annotation and selection, between
orientation and investigation. (Bardoel and Deuze, 2001: 98)
Bardoel and Deuze mainly focus on competencies of professional jour-

nalists, though, on their individual roles and the implications of a chang-
ing environment. ‘Network journalism’ for them describes one form of
journalism. I absolutely agree with their analysis of a converging media
space. However, the implications I connect with the term ‘network journal-
ism’ reach far beyond journalistic roles and rather build on Deuze’s and
Bardoel’s idea that ‘network journalism’ holds implications for the whole
sphere of journalism.
3.3. THE PARADIGM OF NETWORK JOURNALISM
Network journalism as I defi ne it describes a completely revised organi-

zational form of the entire media system as such—including all platforms
from print, via radio through to television as well as online journalism. The
sphere of network journalism is ‘organized in a radically more decentral-
ized pattern than was true of this sector in the twentieth century’ to use the
words of Benkler (2006: 3) and characterized by non-linear information
flows. Network journalism then is not a term that relates specifically to
roles of journalists or that should be used solely to describe changing rela-
tionships between users and journalists, or a term that defi nes the evolv-
ing partnerships between citizen journalists and professional journalists as
Jarvis and others understand it (Jarvis, 2006: Online; Cohn, 2007: Online).
Network journalism rather stands for a model of changing connectivity
modes and interaction patterns in today’s global journalism sphere. Instead
of using the phrase as a synonym for citizen journalism or as a concept that
mainly focuses on roles of journalists or on one specific form of journalism,
I understand network journalism as a structural concept, referring to the
whole of the global journalism sphere in which roles of journalists de facto
change, but even more importantly a new organizational framework is tak-
ing shape in which journalistic outlets operate. Network journalism on the
level of organizational structures refers to changes that create a completely
revised journalistic sphere. Network journalism is the underlying structural
concept that refers to the structural organization and the connections not
just within one form of journalism (e.g., print or online), but to the emerg-
ing connection modes within the whole sphere of journalistic work as such.
Digital technology enhances the options of news gathering, changes pro-
duction modes and impacts news dissemination not only for online media,
but for every single journalistic platform that operates within the network
society. Within this network society, new connection modes and informa-
tion flows then influence the structural organization of journalistic outlets
just as well as the day-to-day work of gathering, producing and disseminat-
ing news within a global network sphere.
Network journalism then can be understood as the paradigm for a
dynamic structure of the global news sphere that has superseded the tradi-
tional media system. Thus, all the characteristics listed by scholars and jour-
nalists mentioned above belong in the context of network journalism. The
characteristic features of ‘network(ed) journalism’ mentioned by Bardoel
and Deuze, Karp, Jarvis, Cohn, Wardle and Williams and Beckett and
Mansell all are absolutely appropriate. Network structures are character-
ized by an increasing level of interactivity, hypertextuality, multimediality
and asynchronity as mentioned by Deuze and Bardoel. Network structures
do support collaborative exchange between journalists and the public as
Cohn, Jarvis and Beckett point out. Network structures do severely affect
and alter content distribution as Karp argues. The role of journalists is
being redefi ned and they become mediators of information who, as high-
lighted by Bardoel and Deuze, function as a nodal point within a complex
information sphere.
But all these characteristics need to be drawn together, as they altogether
characterize not just one transformative aspect of journalism, but are ele-
ments of a completely revised structural pattern evolving in a global jour-
nalism sphere. Using network journalism to describe just one part of this
severe structural change of our entire journalism sphere is insufficient.
My argument is that the societal changes brought about by the ‘network
society’ impact organizational structures and support the development of
a whole new ‘global network journalism culture’. The network journalism
concept expresses the paradigmatic shift in a journalism sphere that is ‘going
global’, delineating former temporal and spatial distances as described in
Chapter 1. The structure of the global journalism sphere is supported by
digitalization as the digital tools support network building. Its evolution
is inseparable from its cultural, political and economic base: the network
society as described by Castells, supported by globalization processes and
proliferated by digitalization. Network journalism thus explains as a basic
principle the structure of journalistic systems in the digital age, implying
that journalistic work as well as the structural organization of journalistic
outlets is being fundamentally altered.
Within this network journalism sphere, new ways of information
flows and new forms of connectivity emerge. This sphere is characterized
by a complicated or—even though it might sound like a paradox at fi rst
glance—a ‘chaotic’ organization of information strings running to and
from journalistic outlets and thus offering journalists the opportunity to
draw upon innumerable sources. The news sphere has undergone a shift
from a fairly organized, linear news flow structure to ‘chaotic’ information
flows produced and disseminated globally by an uncountable number of
information transmitters. The ‘quantity of (political) communication, the
speed of its flow, and the extent of its reach as it flows down a billion path-
ways to TV monitors and computer screens all over the networked world’
is increased (McNair, 2006: 133). The more or less static flows of a highly
controlled, closed system of journalism are being replaced by dynamic
exchange modes.
A network according to the Collins Australian Dictionary is ‘an inter-
connected group or system’ (2003: 1094). The Oxford English Diction-
ary characterizes a network as a ‘work in which threads, wires, or similar
materials, are arranged in the fashion of a net’ (1989: 345). Watts refers to
our times as ‘the connected age’ and explains that a network is ‘an inte-
gral part of a continuously evolving and self-constituting system’ (2003) in
which slight changes in one part of the network affect the rest of the net-
work as well. Such networks carry two significant characteristics:
First, real networks represent populations of individual components

that are actually doing something—generating power, sending data, or
even making decisions. Although the structure of the relationships be-
tween a network’s components is interesting, it is important principally
because it affects either their individual behavior or the behavior of
the system as a whole. Second, networks are dynamic objects not just
because things happen in networked systems, but because the networks
themselves are evolving and changing in time, driven by the activities
or decisions of those very components. In the connected age, therefore,
what happens and how it happens depend on the network. (Watts,
2003: 28 emphasis in original)
Networks thus constantly evolve and reshape. They are dynamic and
because of the interconnectedness of all nodes in a network, what happens
to one node will inevitably affect the other nodes to some degree.
The journalistic system constitutes such a network system, which is
characterized by a dense net of connection nodes that are linked with each
other in multiple directions and in which the forces hitting just one single
node can be felt in the other nodes as well. The journalistic sphere viewed
as a network is thus made up of a complex system of information strings
organized in a ‘chaotic’ way. And as networks are aligned in a multi-direc-
tional fashion, they carry the characteristics of functioning in a non-linear
matter. This goes against the notion of a strict one-way flow of information
coming from a standard news source to the journalist who processes the
information and passes it on to the (silent) audience. Instead, the connec-
tion points within a network journalism sphere are organized in a decen-
tralized fashion and more abundant, with information flowing into news
outlets via a multiple number of strings, being processed and then either
pushed toward or pulled out by the active user. This network characteristic
not only applies to journalistic outlets operating on online platforms, but
impacts the work of any journalistic outlet and any journalism form as they
all operate within the distinctively new global network journalism sphere
and are all affected by this new level of connectivity. They are thus con-
signed to adapt to the information flows of the network age.
A network structure is also permeable and allows for information flows
in and from multiple directions, including alternative media outlets as well
as users feeding information back into a sphere of journalism that once
was almost solely occupied by traditional journalists working for corporate
or public service news outlets or agencies. The idea of the permeability of
networks also corresponds with an understanding of a network in a techni-
cal sense. The structural setup of a computer network is constructed ‘to link
(computers) together to make possible one or more of several functions, such
as the transfer of data, the sharing of processing capability or workloads,
and accessibility from many locations’ (Oxford English Dictionary, 1989:
346). Sharing and exchanging information within a structure of flows is
the key idea within the framework of the network journalism paradigm.
Journalistic outlets in this sense are not closed environments, but rather act
within a complex sphere of (global) networks connected via multiple infor-
mation strings running multi-directionally to and from information deliver-
ers and producers—and this can of course be good as well as bad. Watts
explains: ‘Networks share resources and distribute loads, and they also
spread disease and transmit failure—they are both good and bad.’ (Watts,
2003: 303) Good in the sense that a piece of valuable information can be
spread in multiple directions via digitally connected strings; bad in the sense
that a news fake can spread along the same paths just as well as a computer
virus that might infect all connected computers (if they are not properly
protected by the necessary software). Or thinking of the Iranian protest
case once more: The power of the digital information network spreading
the news of the protests was good viewed from the perspective of those who
value free exchange of information as the highest good and want to fi nd out
about what happened. At the same time, one can be sure that for the Iranian
government the power of the network was anything but good. The intercon-
nected communication infrastructure enabled information providers such as
the person who shot the video of the dying Neda during the protests or the
anonymous distributor of the content in the Netherlands to lift the curtain
and to reveal an insight into Iran and onto the political situation that the
regime wanted to see covered from the eyes of the global public.
3.4. RECONFIGURING GATEKEEPING MODES
The global network journalism sphere carries powerful implications for

news flows around the world, as traditional modes of gatekeeping seem to
shift away from corporate and public service news outlets—and this goes
for journalistic work on a local or national as well as on an international
level. As Volkmer remarks:
The traditional meanings of ‘gatekeeper’ and ‘news factors’ become

obsolete. A new translocal reference system of news selection and pre-
sentation replaces the domestic and foreign news angle with a global jux-
taposition of internal and external perspectives. (Volkmer, 2003: 313)
The connectivity flows of the information age thus foster the emergence
of a ‘translocal reference system’ that delineates former borders of news
production restricted by local and/or national borders. As traditional bor-
ders vanish within an online space, ‘deterritorialized and globalized online
zones for news and political discussion’ (Reese et al., 2007: 236) emerge.
The distinction between ‘foreign’ and ‘domestic’ news in this online space
is to a degree collapsing. Volkmer argues: ‘This conventional parallelism
[of foreign and domestic news] is challenged by the fact that transnational
channels and their particular political angle reach the same audience as
national channels’ (2003: 11). Consumers of news now have a choice of
channels and access is not limited to only one or two (national) channels
distributing newscasts. Along these lines, Thussu notes that: ‘In a multi-
channel era, a viewer can have simultaneous access to a variety of local,
regional, national, and international channels, thus being able to engage in
different levels of mediated discourses’ (2000: 200). News exchange and the
ways in which it is delivered to news consumers thus cannot merely be seen
within a national setting, but has to be seen within a system of constant
flows and in terms of a global exchange of information. This poses signifi-
cant change to traditional modes of reporting and especially challenges our
understanding of foreign corresponding—after all, the supposedly ‘foreign’
is not so far away any longer as it becomes increasingly accessible on a
variety of platforms online. News consumers from Germany, for example,
can access their daily fi x of news from abroad by watching the newscasts
on national television or read the daily newspapers. They can also choose
to view the program of the BBC or CNN via cable or they can follow cover-
age on websites of literally every news organization in the world, read the
accounts of a blogger who is based in another corner of the globe or jump
on Facebook, check through the so-called ‘news feed’ feature and see what
articles their friends link to, recommend and share.
Our traditional concept of foreign reporting is strongly tied to the idea
of the modern nation-state in Western Europe and ‘the ‘domestication’ of
‘foreign’ news in the fi rst era of ‘mass’ print media’, as Volkmer vividly
explains (2007: 65). The creation of ‘foreign journalism’ derived from a
nineteenth-century nation-state perspective, supporting the defi nition of
identity of each nation and reflecting national perspectives (Volkmer, 2004:
210: see also Volkmer and Heinrich, 2008). Media thus played a crucial role
in the process of nation-building, creating what Anderson (1983) famously
coined ‘imagined communities’. As Waisbord explains, ‘the media need to
be understood as a set of institutions involved in the creation, maintenance,
and transformation of cultural membership’ (2004: 377). With regard to
this, identity building of nations took place within the reference system of
‘We’ as a nation against ‘Them’ as other ‘foreign’ nations (Volkmer, 2005).
The idea of foreign journalism is thus deeply rooted in the notion of inter-
nationalization and sketches relationships between nations. News from the
foreign country is reported through the lens of domestic perspectives.
Within a global space, though, the boundaries of Here and There are col-
lapsing and journalism does not operate within clearly identified national
borders. An analysis of the development of foreign reporting conducted by
Volkmer (2007: 63–66) gives an overview of the changes the concept of
foreign reporting has undergone and is the basis of my analysis of the shifts
I observe. She argues that technological advancements of the past eighty
years beginning with the introduction of shortwave radio technology sup-
ported a ‘transborder flow of ‘news’’ (2007: 65) and challenged narrow
national worldviews expressed in the news. Satellite technology marked the
next step in the evolution of transnational news flows, while still support-
ing the interpretation of news stories within national settings:
It seemed that a new dimension not only of transborder but trans-

continental news flows had emerged: the coronation of Queen Eliza-
beth II, Armstrong’s fi rst steps on the Moon. These were the same
images being distributed ‘live’ not directly (and this is an important
point) to worldwide audiences but to national newsrooms, which then
constructed domestic frames for their national (and to remain in my
metaphor) ‘place-based’ audiences. Whereas Armstrong’s fi rst steps
on the moon were interpreted as an accomplishment of science in
the Western world, the same ‘live’ images were framed differently in
Arab nations. Algerian Television commented on the globally broad-
cast ‘live’ images of the moon landing, Armstrong’s fi rst steps on the
moon, in local frames. The ‘live’ coverage was associated with com-
ments of Algerian television, that Armstrong heard the voice of the
Muezzin while taking his fi rst steps on the moon, in order to ‘do-
mesticate’ this global event for local Islamic audiences and provide a
religious framework for this unique scientific achievement. (Volkmer,
2007: 65 et seq.)
With transnational operating news outlets such as CNN, foreign news

became a commercially exploitable product, ‘creating trans-national com-
munities not around national but topical contexts. [ . . . ] CNNI has been
viewed as the inaugurator of a new phase not only of transborder (or trans-
continental) but globalized news flows’ (Volkmer, 2007: 66). It is not neces-
sarily the foreign correspondent or the news agency providing stories, but
multiple networks of deliverers providing the information on news events,
which is then tied together in the newsroom. In a sense, journalistic (net)
works are freed from geographical constraints obscuring the work of jour-
nalists and complicating stories (as there are more voices and positions to
be heard). Journalism faces a ‘global complexity’ (Urry, 2003) in which
multiple story angles (as opposed to pure national perspectives on issues)
present themselves. Simple or linear explanations to stories—be it about a
war or about a different culture—within the framework of ‘we’ versus ‘the
other’ do not withstand transnational cultural flows—and neither do they
withstand transnational information flows. Cause and effect are not lin-
ear notions (see Urry, 2003). The world—and thus reporting about it—has
become far more complex (for this argument see also Featherstone and
Lash, 1999: 1–13).
This shift of news into a transnational global sphere also needs to be
identified as a shift of gatekeeping modes in a transnational reference sys-
tem. Advanced digital technology does not only support the creation of
transnational communities and thus a globalized journalism sphere, but
also impacts the control mechanisms of transnational news flows. With
cheap digital technology tools available not only to corporate and public
service journalists, the content provided by news channels does not only
consist of material gathered in traditional ways, for example, by foreign
correspondents or news agencies. Even more important: Whereas the role
of the gatekeepers of information traditionally was assigned to officials
and journalists with information ‘being selected in and out of the public
sphere constructed by the press and political actors’ (Bennett, 2004: 283),
digital technology enables anyone from the professional journalist to the
citizen journalist to publish footage and comments. This marks a shift in
the power structures of gatekeeping dynamics. After a ‘period of relatively
stable gatekeeping patterns’ (Bennett, 2004: 293) within a highly organized
and controlled closed media system and with very few players (i.e. offi-
cials and news organizations) taking part in this process, the dispersion of
fi rst satellite and then digital technologies has shaken up these traditional
top-down gatekeeping standards, ‘creating complex interactions and cor-
respondingly puzzling changes in news content and press-government rela-
tions’ (Ibid.: 284). Traditional outlets have lost the full control over the
content and over the gates and are just one voice among many in a sphere
of network journalism.
4 Information Nodes in the
Network Journalism Sphere
Instead of having some kind of control over the flow of (meaningful,

selected, fact-checked) information in the public sphere, journalists
today are just some of the many voices in public communication,
including but not limited to professionals in public relations and
marketing communications, advertisers, and citizens themselves
through weblogs, podcasts, and using all kinds of other online pub-
lishing tools.
(Deuze, 2008: 12)
In a sphere of network journalism characterized by its permeability and the

non-linearity of information flows, the control gates for the dissemination
of information are wide open. Journalists now compete with a range of
voices in the gathering, production and dissemination of news. This chap-
ter will draw upon some cases to outline how the gates are being crashed in
various corners of the world and how the dynamics of a network journal-
ism sphere are impacting the reporting of traditional newsrooms.
One example is the coverage of the protests against human rights abuses
and against Chinese occupation in Tibet. The images of the protests and
the information about police forces violently affl icting demonstrations as
well as evidence proving the abuse of human rights did not initially come
from foreign correspondents, news agencies or official sources. Images and
comments on the situation were delivered by non-standard news sources
that used dissemination platforms on the Internet such as weblogs or online
video-publishing sites like YouTube.
Other examples of the changing dynamics of journalistic practice in a
network journalism sphere can be found on a continent that often serves
as the prime example of a technologically lacking and underrepresented
spot on earth: Africa. Despite fears of a digital divide, the cases of election
coverage and the coverage of its aftermaths in Zimbabwe (Moyo, 2009)
and in Kenya (Mäkinen and Kuira, 2008) show that the changing struc-
tural organization of information dissemination based on the use of digital
technology tools impacts even this corner of the world. These cases also
indicate that in line with a significant change in the way information gates
are being opened, news agendas are increasingly being influenced through
non-traditional sources. In addition, just as traditional notions of gatekeep-
ing are under scrutiny, agenda-setting processes now increasingly follow
different rules. How the story of British Prince Harry and his deployment
Information Nodes in the Network Journalism Sphere 69
to Afghanistan broke is just one more example of these agenda-setting
powers of non-traditional sources.
All these cases provide a glimpse of how journalistic work is undergo-
ing profound changes these days and how journalistic routines practiced in
newsrooms over the past decades are under revision. Deuze explains (2007,
2008) that journalists are used to routines and standardized news sources
such as PR officials, politicians or fellow reporters and furthermore are
influenced by what he calls ‘operational closure’. It is the
internalization of the way things work and change over time within
a newsroom or at a particular outlet. Outside forces are kept at bay
primarily by the rather self-referential nature of newswork, as ex-
pressed through the tendency among journalists to privilege whatever
colleagues think of their work over criteria such as viewer ratings, hit
counts or sales figures. (Deuze, 2008: 18)
This ‘operational closure’ is increasingly harder to apply to journalistic work

in the sphere of network journalism. The cases outlined in this chapter reveal
that the structure of network journalism is carried by a dense net of informa-
tion nodes and these include not only traditional sources and professional
journalists, but also an increasing number of new news deliverers and infor-
mal sources. And whereas each node is entangled with others, impacting
the way information flows and how stories are being covered, the process
of news work increasingly follows a decentralized pattern: neither are tradi-
tional news organizations the sole providers of information any longer, nor
do they have the power to centralize and thus control information dissemina-
tion. As a consequence, the routines of journalistic work are being altered.
4.1. GATEKEEPING REVISITED
In the wake of the anniversary of the failed uprising against China in 1959,
a series of demonstrations marked March 2008 in Tibet and in other Chi-
nese provinces with Tibetan populations. Hundreds of monks were the
fi rst to take the streets in Lhasa during peaceful protests, calling for the
release of their fellow monks who had been arrested in demonstrations a
few months prior. What followed was a period of severe unrest in various
provinces, including riots as well as police abuses. Chinese authorities had
banned foreign journalism staff from the affected regions and the story of
the unrest might have never gone public worldwide without any news cov-
erage from the scene. However, the news of the events unfolding in Tibet
and elsewhere did break and the images of violent intervention of Chinese
police forces against the monks did spread across the globe. Yet the stories
of the incidents did not come from official sources, nor were journalist wit-
nesses on the spot.
The German broadcaster Deutsche Welle explained in an online article
that while mainstream reporters were expelled from Tibet and while China
was censoring websites that distributed content on the protests, the only
sources leaking information about the situation in Tibet were activists and
tourists who delivered eye-witness accounts, photos and videos on the situ-
ation, often bypassing fi rewalls and censorship.1 In another article online,
the British Guardian named major news organizations affected by the Chi-
nese censorship including BBC World and CNN. The Guardian’s source of
information on the censorship crackdown in China and Tibet was a Chi-
nese technology blogger.2 The only footage professional news organizations
did have came from so-called ‘amateurs’—and it was used in international
as well as national news programs around the globe to cover the story. The
BBC, for example, organized a major part of its Tibet coverage on its inter-
active ‘Have your Say’ pages online, providing personal perspectives on the
situation in and around Lhasa gathered from users and blogs. 3
Major news organizations reacted to this information, opened the gates
and started gathering information from these non-standard sources, as
mainstream journalists (such as foreign correspondents) were either denied
access to the protests by the Chinese government, or their access was lim-
ited to official sources and press releases often filled with propaganda.4
The information distributed by news organizations around the globe relied
heavily on alternative news sources drawn together from blogs and citi-
zen journalism sites or by approaching users traveling through or living in
the affected regions directly. Digital production and distribution technol-
ogy available to these non-standard news sources as well as to corporate
and public broadcast journalists allowed a networked connection between
journalists and sources that was previously unimaginable.
Citizen journalists as well as independent journalists and bloggers also
made extensive use of the microblogging tool Twitter, bypassing Chinese
censorship gates and delivering constantly updated information on the pro-
tests in Tibet to the outside world. Described by Carr as ‘the telegraph
system of Web 2.0’ (Carr, 2007: Online), the service allows users to send
short messages and links of no more than 140 characters. With numerous
independent journalists, activists and citizen reporters using Twitter as a
communication tool during the protests in Tibet, journalists could receive
constant updates on the current situation. Similarly, Twitter worked as a
breaking news and information tool during events in other spots of the
globe such as during the protests in Iran and during the Mumbai attacks.
With an uncountable number of tech-savvy bloggers or citizen jour-
nalists, with tools such as Twitter and with software that helps users to
bypass fi rewalls or remain anonymous while surfi ng the net, controlling
the information flow within a tight system of gates becomes an almost
impossible task. It is much easier to control a few mainstream news orga-
nizations clearly identifiable for a political apparatus such as the Chinese
government than to control independent journalists, tourists, dissidents
or activists in the possession of a mobile phone (with camera function)
or a video camera and with access to the Internet where they can publish
their material, with tools at hand to work around censored gates to sneak
information through. Even when China cut the Internet connections and
blocked sites such as YouTube in order to restrict the global information
flow about the demonstrations, the protests made headlines in an indi-
rect way, with major news organizations reporting on the information
crackdown in the regions. 5 McNair notes, ‘the attempt to control has a
tendency to become part of the story’, turning ‘the ban into a story of
global reach and resonance’ (2006: 190). The network journalism sphere
is a permeable, open space, providing breaches and gaps in the gates with
information traveling via multiple paths and eventually getting out, thus
indicating power shifts with regard to the dissemination of information
and its constant flows. ‘In the chaotic communication environment of
the twenty-fi rst century, the cultural marketplace tends to self-adjust and
work around state control apparatuses faster than those apparatuses can
adapt to a rapidly evolving environment’ (Ibid.: 192). It is the new level of
connectivity that enables the bypassing of gates that is the typical charac-
teristic of the network journalism sphere in which informational strings
crisscross the globe and eventually get picked up by major news organiza-
tions as in the case of Tibet.
Similar cases where bloggers or citizen journalists gave voice to informa-
tion suppressed by government officials or unheard of by traditional news
organizations can be found in Zimbabwe and Kenya. Within these coun-
tries gates were crashed by an army of citizen journalists and bloggers and
the impacts shook up the political situation. Moyo (2009), for example, has
researched the role of citizen journalism on the information flow during the
Zimbabwe elections in 2008. In his study he focused specifically on the use
of text messaging and blogs to exchange information during the controver-
sial delay in releasing the 2008 general election results. While information
flows were being disrupted, controlled and restricted by President Mugabe
and his government, traditional media relying on their routine work pro-
cesses barely had any information about the outcome of the elections or
were heavily influenced by spin through official sources. The information
gap was filled by alternative news deliverers who spread rumor or misin-
formation in some cases, but mainly fostered critical engagement, delivered
comments and breaking news and disseminated all sorts of information
that possibly could shed light on the state of affairs:
In a situation where information flows are restricted and the main-

stream media are unable to fulfil the citizens’ informational needs,
the ‘parallel market of information’ became the dominant source of a
mix of information and disinformation—attributes that used to be the
monopoly of professional journalists and mainstream media. (Moyo,
2009: 553)
Some traditional media outlets did tap into the information circulated via
text messaging, email and blogs. Similar to the Tibetan case where news
organizations worldwide tried to gain a picture of the situation through fol-
lowing the information provided by alternative news providers, the Zimba-
bwean media started monitoring its fellow citizens for further background
information (or in some cases for rumors).
Moyo also reflects on the problem that limited access to the Internet in
Africa does hinder the majority of the population from engaging with and
making use of digital technology tools in favor of citizen participation
(Ibid.: 555). However, two factors played an important role in regard to
alternative coverage of the situation and did lay the grounds for informa-
tion flows. Firstly, quite a number of Zimbabweans live in the Diaspora,
‘creating a situation where those who have remained at home post com-
pelling eye-witness accounts, while those who are in the Diaspora both
amplify and comment on what they read from home-based bloggers’
(Ibid.: 559). Such accounts were, for instance, gathered on the Global
Voices Online website. Secondly, the so-called ‘single-owner-multi-user’
phenomenon in West Africa (Nyamnjoh, 2004, cited in Moyo, 2009: 555)
plays a vital role. African communities still function as word-of-mouth
cultures, and while the number of Internet cafes in urban centers is on the
rise and the increasing number of mobile phones in circulation is remark-
able, users with access eventually distribute messages by ‘word of mouth’
among other citizens. So even though Internet penetration is still low,
alternative voices disseminating information in digital space do exist and
as Moyo explains: ‘This is a common pattern across the continent and
serves to illustrate that access may not necessarily be defi ned by owner-
ship’ (2009: 555).
Mäkinen and Kuira (2008) observed similar evidence for the increas-
ing impact of citizen participation on political discussion and election
coverage in Kenya. They analyzed online discussions and media cover-
age during the violent postelection crisis in 2008 and observe that social
media tools and in particular text messaging—despite the problems of the
digital divide—increasingly function as delivery tools for citizen partici-
pation and alternative news coverage. While both participating political
parties stated they had won the polls, violent clashes among the popu-
lation occurred across the country. During this crisis, media coverage
of the election as well as of the clashes was partly banned, censored by
the government or by journalists themselves. To access information, citi-
zens increasingly turned to text messaging and the Internet. Mäkinen
and Kuira note: ‘Social media tools like wikis, weblogs, Facebook, Flickr,
YouTube, Twitter, and “mashups” were increasingly used to organize and
share information about the crisis and violence, and to raise funds’ (Ibid:
329). Bypassing censorship, a range of blogs covered the situation online,
generating what Mäkinen and Kuira refer to as the ‘alternative public
sphere’ in Kenya.
The social media offered narratives by citizen reporters and digital ac-
tivists that were more diverse than the views presented in the main-
stream media and represented grassroots reactions during the crisis.
While the international media only scratched the surface of what was
happening, and the traditional media partly resigned to censorship due
to fears of repression, the social media offered swifter, more subjective,
and more detailed coverage during a fast-moving and changing situa-
tion. (Mäkinen and Kuira, 2008: 330)
Similar to Moyo’ s fi ndings, Mäkinen and Kuira also underline that expa-
triates play a vital role in this process and that even though access to digital
media is still low in Kenya, there is strong evidence that with a rise in pen-
etration rates, a growing middle-class population and growing awareness
of digital media and its tools, citizen participation via digital platforms will
play an even more profound role in the near future.
Taken together, these examples from Tibet, Zimbabwe and Kenya offer
fi rm grounds for the observation that gatekeeping modes are being revisited
in our emerging sphere of network journalism. Traditionally, newsgather-
ing and production used to follow restricted paths, usually relying on a for-
eign correspondent who would pick up information at the scene or mainly
through official channels. The correspondent decided on the newsworthi-
ness of such content and delivered the story to the news organization. In
accordance with this, Sigal analyzed in 1973 with regard to traditional
gatekeeping schemes that direct access to news material is often not given
to the journalist and the reporter mainly turns
to official channels to provide him with newsworthy material day after

day. To the extent that he leans heavily on routine channels for news,
he vests the timing of disclosure, and hence the surfacing of news sto-
ries, in those who control the channels. (Sigal, 1973: 119)
In the network journalism age, news stories bypass these traditional news
flows. Information travels along new paths and reaches news organizations
and journalists via digitally connected information strings. The interac-
tion processes between sources and journalists consequently are under-
going profound change. Digital technology marks a shift from ‘highly
managed institutional settings providing the framing’ and the ‘gatekeep-
ing practice of “officiating”’ to an increasing number of ‘unmanaged
event[s]’ (Livingston and Bennett, 2003: 363, 365) as in the case of wars,
crises, protests et cetera.6 In a journalism sphere increasingly structured
as a network of information nodes, traditional gatekeeping relations are
losing grip. Material is neither solely controlled by official sources nor by
mainstream journalistic outlets, but instead information flows through
various channels and affects what gets in front of the lens of journalistic
outlets in the network age.
Especially with regard to so-called ‘event-driven news’ as in the case of
Tibet, the impact of digital technology tools on gatekeeping dynamics becomes
obvious. Lawrence characterizes ‘event-driven news’ as being ‘cued by the
appearance of dramatic news events and the ‘story cues’ for reporters that
arise out of those events’ (2000: 9). According to Lawrence: ‘In institutionally
driven news, political institutions set the agendas of news organizations; in
contrast, as event-driven news gathers momentum, officials and institutions
often respond to the news agenda rather than set it’ (Ibid.: 9). Applying this
argument to the model of the emerging network journalism sphere, journalis-
tic organizations now increasingly pay attention to alternate voices delivering
these ‘story cues’ and connect and refer to non-mainstream deliverers of infor-
mation. The power to control is neither resting solely in the hands of officials
acting as gatekeepers nor solely in the hands of the foreign correspondent.
In my view, this development is a major opportunity for journalism. The
‘chaotic’ flow of information is far less predictable than the flow of news in
times of mass media and hierarchical, fi xed communication systems with
only a few players affecting the information flows, namely professional
sources and journalists. If the media aims to exercise the role of the fourth
estate in the information age and aims to act as an ‘institutional source of
political and cultural power which monitors and scrutinizes the actions of
the powerful in other spheres’ (McNair, 1998: 19, 20), this increase in non-
standard sources accessible for journalists around the globe can be inter-
preted as a fruitful development. With the growing quantity of information
in circulation enabled by the use of digital technologies, ‘the growing
unpredictability and irreverence of news media [and the possible contents
it can carry] provides grounds for relative optimism about the democratic,
watchdog role of the journalist in the new millennium’ (Ibid.: 18).
Without bloggers, activists, tourists and independent journalists being
digitally connected to the rest of the globe and without leaks in the cen-
sorship systems of the countries in which the protests were held (in effect
leaks in the digital systems), who knows if the information would have ever
passed Chinese censorship. Civic participation in Zimbabwe or Kenya most
likely would have been toned down to an absolute minimum—with the
public spheres in each of these countries being much less informed about
the election outcomes and with political regimes being much more power-
ful in spinning election results in their favor. These stories may never have
made headlines within their respective national communities or around the
world without the wide coverage of the protests on alternative information
sources distributed via mobile phones and the web.
4.2. AGENDA-SETTING REVISITED
Just as gatekeeping processes are under revision, the agenda-setting powers

of news organizations are altered in the sphere of network journalism. As
the examples cited above have shown, with an increase in the number of
platforms powerful enough to scoop stories, more information providers
are able to place stories on the (global) news agenda. Accordingly, tradi-
tional notions of how agenda-setting works are increasingly coming under
scrutiny.
Our current understanding of agenda-setting processes was formed with
reference to a media system in which relatively few news outlets had the
power to defi ne ‘what to think about’ for the public. Entman explains:
The distinction between ‘what to think’ and ‘what to think about’ is

misleading. Nobody, no force, can ever successfully ‘tell people what
to think.’ Short of sophisticated torture or ‘brainwashing’, no form of
communication can compel anything more than feigned obeisance. The
way to control attitudes is to provide a partial selection of information
for a person to think about, or process. The only means of influencing
what people think is precisely to control what they think about. (Ent-
man, 1989: 76 et seq.)
But just as the gatekeeping dynamics are under revision in a digitally net-
worked sphere, agenda-setting dynamics are shifting out of the hands of a
few. As a consequence, argue Chaffee and Metzger, ‘the key problem for
agenda-setting theory will change from what issues the media tell people to
think about to what issues people tell the media they want to think about’
(2001: 375 emphasis in original; also see Delwiche, 2005: Online). Profes-
sionally operated journalistic platforms are no longer the sole definers of
news.
An illustration of this is how the story about British Prince Harry in
combat in Afghanistan broke and how it was placed on the news agenda
around the globe. In the run-up to the story, the plan was to suppress the
information and British mainstream media paired up with officials aim-
ing to control the agenda. They had signed into an agreement with the
Royal family and the British military not to report on the story until the
Prince was going to return to Britain, arguing that this was to protect the
prince from becoming a target for the Taliban while on his deployment.7
Yet, the news broke in a matter of ten weeks—bypassing traditional out-
lets—via the Drudge Report, the news aggregation website that had previ-
ously gained fame when breaking the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal.8 After
the Drudge Report broke the news, traditional media could not withhold
the story any longer. It was out in the open; the formerly secure gates of a
closed mass media system had been crashed.
The Drudge Report scoop carried another implication: It sparked a dis-
cussion on the web as well as in print and broadcast news outlets, with
commentators questioning the legitimacy for journalists to suppress a news
story and pair up with official sources. The story did cast a negative light
on corporate and public service media, as Friedman comments:
Fleet Street’s fi nest are feeling proud lately for cooperating with author-
ities and keeping Prince Harry’s whereabouts in Afghanistan a secret.
They should be ashamed, instead. [ . . . ] It’s never a good idea for the
media to play ball with the rich, famous and powerful, regardless of
whether they’re royal family members, government officials, corporate
executives or celebrities. The practice establishes a potentially danger-
ous precedent. How can the public believe what we say and write if they
suspect we’re willing to suppress news? (Friedman, 2008: Online)
With the scoop on the Prince Harry story, established media received a
wake-up call regarding the suppression of agendas and the failed attempt of
controlling the gates of (free) information flow. In the global network jour-
nalism sphere, information travels via a dense net of information strings
and eventually hits a node that is strong enough to break the story and push
it into the global information arena.
Journalism companies used to control the megaphone—and therefore

had a monopoly on who got heard. New technologies such as satellites,
cable, fiber optics, and, of course, computers have destroyed that world
forever. (Fulton, 1996: Online)
In another recent incident Twitter showed its powers in breaking news and
established the frame for a story in the form of an iconic image that made
it onto the number one pages of newspapers, into television newscasts and
onto numerous websites. In January 2009 a commercial US Airways fl ight
ditched into New York City’s Hudson River. A passenger traveling on a
commuter ferry that went to the rescue of the stranded airline passengers
was one of the fi rst to break the news via Twitter and he also provided the
iconic picture of the plane in the river, showing passengers and crew stand-
ing on top of the wings and on the escape slides.9 Just as Wikipedia was
instantly updated and filled with information and links, Twitter lead the
way in the coverage of this breaking news story.
All the above-mentioned examples—from the protest coverage in Tibet,
the election coverage and the aftermaths in Zimbabwe and Kenya to the
breaking of the story on British Prince Harry and of the Hudson River Plane
crash—are just a few out of many indicating a power shift. The gates that
formerly restricted access to a small elite of politicians, PR people and media
organizations are now being challenged by changing interaction patterns and
connectivity structures. With more deliverers of information and the avail-
ability of a variety of dissemination platforms, journalists working for major
news organizations and official sources are no longer the only gatekeepers
controlling the flow of information in a decentralized information sphere:
New intermediary practices arise, 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 only that, due to new technology, the exclusive hold of jour-
nalists on the gatekeeping function to private households is reduced.
(Bardoel and Deuze, 2001: 96; see also Singer, 1998)
This is also not to say that media organizations are completely losing their
gatekeeping functions, as some journalists and academics presume (see, for
example, Lasica, 1996).10 Not all structure is ‘lost’—to paraphrase Ben-
nett (2004)—within the more complex, non-linear journalism sphere of the
digital age, but a new structure is taking shape, a network structure that
allows for more open gatekeeping mechanisms in a globalized news sphere.
Alternative sources and information deliverers become part of the news-
gathering and production chain and thus macerate traditional gatekeeping
modes.11 This should also lead news outlets to carefully consider whether
the gates they use are adequate to cope with incoming information flows
and new connection modes. Outlets that attract large audiences are still
powerful and widely consumed platforms. But a more flexible gatekeeping
dynamic within these organizations allows for expanded source opportuni-
ties and a more diverse information inflow. As Bennett indicates:
Instead of a one-way information flow shaped by varying patterns of

press-government relations, new technologies offer the potential for
multidirectional press-government-citizen gatekeeping relations. It is
possible to imagine a gatekeeping system in which each set of players
contributes meaningfully to the selection and construction of news.
Perhaps the greatest challenge for journalists and politicians today is
to learn how to use this technology to include citizens more fully in the
public sphere. (Bennett, 2004: 311)
Becoming aware of and using the multiple connection options given in the
global network journalism sphere is essential for news organizations. Devel-
oping a deep understanding of the new dynamics of newsgathering and dis-
semination will assist them to reposition themselves in this new sphere.
4.3. INFORMATION NODES IN THE DIGITAL AGE
A complex (global) network journalism sphere consists of an uncountable

number of information nodes that vary in size. Just as our social structure
is a ‘network of nodes’ (Castells, 1996; Volkmer, 2003), so is the jour-
nalistic system of our age. The nodes within this system are the informa-
tion outlets—from a news aggregation site such as the Drudge Report to
a transnational broadcast news corporation such as CNN. Within this
sphere, professional journalistic organizations carry the potential to act as
major players of information production and dissemination, as they ‘have
access to a broader network supporting processes of gathering, producing
and distributing information. In a system of connected nodes, they act as
the ‘supernode’’ (Volkmer and Heinrich, 2008: 55). Journalists working
for major journalistic organizations provide portals that attract huge user
traffic online as well as over the traditional portals of radio, print and tele-
vision. Even though studies indicate that audiences are increasingly turning
to the web for information, public service and corporate media outlets are
still in favorable positions as their brands attract attention to stories.12 News
outlets can use this position in order to survive and strive in a global news
network, but the situation demands a structural reorganization. With more
producers and disseminators being part of the global network of informa-
tion delivery, with technological devices that support a diffuse dispersion of
information in multiple directions, new connection modes need to be put in
place that correspond with this structure. Journalistic outlets need to fi nd
their new role—a role that pays its dues to the network dynamics and still
needs to evolve (Pavlik, 2000: 236).
The proliferation of digital technologies has supported dynamic exchanges
between newsmakers and whoever is connected within our global network
society. The process of ‘making the news’ does not only happen within the
closed environment of the newsrooms at traditional news outlets and among
professional correspondents in the field. News production takes place within
a multi-channeled, multi-layered information network fed by an uncount-
able number of news deliverers. In an information space characterized by
‘chaotic’ information flows, information seekers (i.e., users) will search for
orientation, for help in filtering which sources are legitimate and which are
not. There exists a need for a guide and users will most likely turn to informa-
tion sources that are common knowledge (Schudson, 1995; also see Singer,
1998). Journalists who understand the dynamics of a decentralized, non-
linear sphere of global information flow can adopt the role of news accelera-
tors, generators and commentators guiding and navigating their consumers
through the information space of the twenty-first century.
Approaching and collaborating with alternative sources can assist jour-
nalists to apply a structure to the chaotic information flows. Networking
is also a navigation tool: The bigger the network of the journalist and the
bigger the network of collaborative partners in the journalistic network,
the better. Journalists then can play the role of the fi lterers of information
who navigate their recipients through an increasingly complex information
environment in which networking becomes an inevitable part of the job.
As Bardoel predicted as early as 1996 when digital technologies were just
about to kick-start a revision of journalistic working tools:
More than ever, the task of journalism [in print and every other me-
dium] will lie in fi ltering relevant issues from an increasing supply of
information in a crowded public domain and its fragmented segments.
Journalism evolves from the provision of facts to the provision of mean-
ing. (Bardoel, 1996: 297)
A journalistic outlet constitutes only one node within this network. This
node manages non-linear information flows. In order to ‘make sense’ of
these flows, to distinguish ‘valuable’ from ‘useless’ content, journalists need
to identify reliable sources within these non-linear information flows. As
nodal points in a dense net of information providers, they need to position
themselves in between these non-linear strings, allowing for input across
various paths and thus in a way decentralizing themselves. In the context
of network journalism, nodes mark the interconnection points of the net-
work. The node is the point within a networked system of information
flows that allows intersections of information floating through digital space
from various destinations.
The paradigm of network journalism thus outlines a revised struc-
ture of journalism (on an organizational level) that takes into account
and allows for revised information flows within the network society. It
suggests an open model of journalistic contacts (i.e., linking to a wider
variety of sources) and takes into account the new geography of news
production and dissemination in which the complex information flows
are knitted together.
This is not to say that journalists have not networked with sources
before—but never in such an extended sense. The structures and the body
of the network (who is involved, who belongs to it) are changing. New
producers have entered the production chain. The significant change within
this production environment is an adaptation of journalists’ work sets, a
structural reformation in the newsroom.
Restructurizing the newsroom then needs to be accompanied by a revi-
sion of several features of ‘traditional’ journalism:
(1) a revised journalist–source relationship,

(2) a revised journalist–audience relationship and
(3) a revised journalist-to-journalist relationship including revised atti-
tudes toward colleagues working for formerly distinct journalistic
outlets from print through to radio and television and online portals.
With regard to the journalist–source relationship, digital technologies offer

new connection modes in order to support proliferating flows of informa-
tion within a radically changing global news culture. With digital technolo-
gies, new strategies of information management open up. The creation of
new outlets of expression (such as blogs, citizen journalism websites and
channels such as YouTube and Flickr) and new opportunities for access and
participation inevitably means the reconfiguration of traditional outlets.
The traditional mass media system was characterized by a
compartmentalization of the communication process into senders and
receivers, authors and readers, producers and consumers or media and
society, with resulting questions about the relationship between the
two. (Hamilton, 2003: 295 et seq.)
Network journalism functions upon different grounds and within different

parameters: It is characterized by a ‘chaotic’ structure of information flow,
fed by a vast number of optional news sources ranging from the official at
a governmental institution such as the White House providing informa-
tion on the war in Iraq to the political activists and independent journal-
ists critically reflecting upon governmental positions via platforms such as
Democracy Now!. It includes the independent journalist like Christopher
Allbritton providing reporting pieces from Iraq or the Iraqi blogger River-
bend, who provides an inside perspective on the situation from a local point
of view. It includes the sources of news agencies with stringers in the field as
well as vlogging platforms such as Alive in Baghdad, where an independent
foreign reporter team provides stories and comments on the current situa-
tion in Iraq.13
In addition, sources of information are no longer only an outlet’s own
reporters, news agencies, official sources, globally operating television sta-
tions or foreign correspondents. The segments in the news production chain
are far more diverse and within the sphere of network journalism, outlets
need to open up to these diverse input channels. Strategies of information
gathering have to become more complex, checking not only the day-to-day
press releases and whatever reaches journalistic outlets through ‘official’
channels. This change in information gathering needs to be accompanied by
a change in awareness of the digital tools—from Twitter to news aggrega-
tion sites targeting journalists like the upcoming Publish2—that journalists
can use in order to advance their reporting and widen their net of sources to
gather information. The outcome is a set of connections shaped in the form
of a multi-channeled, multi-layered information network fed by an uncount-
able number of news deliverers that supports a multiplicity of voices.
A second significant transformation within the global news sphere is
the changing attitude of audiences toward news consumption. A new jour-
nalist–audience relationship is taking shape. This relationship needs to be
viewed in terms of the ways recipients consume news. Audiences can no
longer be viewed as passive consumers. They are rather active users of news
content (Deuze, 2004: 146–147). Users have a wider variety of news pro-
viders to choose from and are increasingly technologically adept. With per-
sonal digital assistants (PDAs) and smartphones at hand, by setting up RSS
feeds online specifically designed for the taste and need of the individual
user, news recipients create their personalized news sphere:
The paths for obtaining information are characterized by a ‘networked

individualism’ (Castells, 2001). Which path and provider—be it for
local, national, or transnational topics—are up to the user to decide,
and he or she has a wide choice. (Volkmer and Heinrich, 2008: 52)
The new technological tools provide ‘an appropriate material support for
the diffusion of networked individualism’, enabling individuals to ‘build
their networks [ . . . ] on the basis of their interests, values, affi nities,
and projects’ (Castells, 2002b: 131). The consumption of news in this
respect is ‘demand-led, rather than supply-led’ (Bell, 2007: 78) and a ‘see
for yourself’ culture takes shape as Benkler describes it (2006: 218). It is
the vision of Negroponte’s customized ‘Daily Me’ (1995) becoming real-
ity. Instead of the traditional push mechanisms with news organizations
setting the daily information agenda of their audiences, users can pull
their desired news dispatches and organize their very own personal news
worlds. Journalistic outlets need to be aware of these new forms of news
consumptions, the on-demand reality of news usage, which is altering the
relationship between journalists producing news and the users of their
products.
Third, network journalism demands a revised attitude among journal-
ists with regard to their journalist colleagues. Journalistic outlets today do
not only compete with their presumably ‘equal’ contestants along the lines
of traditional demarcations between print, radio, broadcast and online
platforms. Almost every media outlet has its online counterpart, which
‘provide[s] global access to news from all parts of the world. Suddenly,
newspapers, television, radio and other news providers all fi nd themselves
in head-to-head competition’ (Pavlik, 2000: 233). Furthermore, in an
increasing number of journalists’ work, crossmedia and multimedia com-
petence is becoming a necessary requirement for the journalistic profes-
sion in the digital age (Barnhurst and Nerone, 2003; Kawamoto, 2003;
Pavlik, 2000). These developments will eventually lead to the creation of
converged news outlets with ‘formerly distinct media operations’ (Deuze,
2004: 141) drawn together into one newsroom. This development corre-
sponds with the attitudes of users toward media, as according to Regan
people use one medium to complement the other. In other words, they
like having a choice. In the future, new media outlets that work hand in
hand with old media counterparts will be the ones that prosper. That’s
because the secret to making money with new media is for media com-
panies to see themselves as content providers, and not just newspapers,
radio stations, etc. (Regan, 2000: 8 et seq.)
Network journalism corresponds well with such ‘hand-in-hand’ operations

as its very basis is the vital exchange of information across platforms—
network connections do not stop just because the output medium changes.
The converged newsroom is a new management model for newsrooms that
supports the nodal functions of a journalistic outlet sphere as:
• it corresponds with the shift from audiences to technologically adept
users of media who actively seek news on various media platforms;
• it enhances the capabilities of networking between journalists for-
merly operating in distinct media,
• it increases the opportunities of drawing more participants into the
news production process from outside the newsroom, and
• it makes possible distribution of content via various platforms in ways
that are appropriate for each medium.
(Volkmer and Heinrich, 2008: 55)
Among journalists, thoughts of converging newsrooms are often accom-

panied by fears of increasing workloads, or fears of job cuts and of
employers trying to save money through drawing together differing
media platforms and depending on a smaller staff body (Avilés and Car-
vajal, 2008; Deuze, 2004 and 2008; Huang et al., 2006; Paulussen and
Ugille, 2008; Singer, 2004). Furthermore, high degrees of competitive-
ness among journalists often characterize the relationships differing
media outlets (Deuze, 2004: 148 et seq.). Yet, collaboration is needed in
organizing the informational ‘chaos’ of the digital age. With digital tools
affecting all forms of media in a 24/7 news flow environment, journalists
need to have a deep understanding not just of one medium. They need to
learn ‘to “see the news” through more than one medium’ (Volkmer and
Heinrich, 2008: 55) and to think ‘crossmedia’. Viewing news produc-
tion and dissemination not just within the closed-up environment of one
platform such as print or television is becoming a necessary requirement
for journalists. Journalistic practice today requires multimedia compe-
tences, as journalistic work is increasingly characterized by a ‘shift from
individualistic to collective and cross-departmental team-based news-
work’ (Deuze, 2004: 148).
These three revised relationships listed above, between journalists and (1)
their sources, (2) their audiences and (3) their journalistic colleagues, demar-
cate the new flow structures and new collaborative working models for jour-
nalists in the sphere of network journalism. Journalistic outlets are nodes
within this evolving sphere. Their function is to filter the newsworthy out of
the information flow while having the technological tools to access as much
information as possible. Within a ‘space of flows’, as Castells refers to the new
structural patterns of societies, journalists can get in contact with virtually
anyone. As ‘people of all kinds, wishing to do all kinds of things, can occupy
this space of flows and use it for their own purposes’ (Castells and Ince, 2003:
58),14 journalists can make this information flow work for them. The new
‘space of flows’—in which virtually anyone can provide whatever he or she
defines as news—need not lead to a ‘death of media’, with journalistic outlets
being endangered as informants of a public sphere (see Keen, 2007, or Sun-
stein, 2009). Some journalistic outlets might die, yes, but it will be because
they have not understood the dynamics of the network society and with it the
ways in which information flows are being altered. The current developments
increase the accessibility of information and are an opportunity for journalis-
tic outlets to reposition themselves as news accelerators and navigators. If out-
lets do understand and adapt, they will have a chance for survival. Working
with the new digital tools and embracing the opportunities given, adjusting
work sets and organizational structures is a necessary part of the adaptation
process for news organizations to align themselves for the digital age.
4.4. DEVELOPING A GLOBAL NETWORK JOURNALISM CULTURE
The rapid evolution of digital information technologies and the shake-up felt
in newsrooms across the globe is reminiscent of the times when telegraphic
reporting struck journalistic outlets. In the nineteenth century, newspaper
business also faced drastic changes accelerated by new technology. Some
editors were overwhelmed by the impact telegraph technology imposed on
their work, with more news items being accessible and news agencies such
as Reuters being formed that posed a threat to the ways reporting had been
practiced up to that point in time. As Blondheim notes with regard to the
creation of the Associated Press:
The prospect of an all-telegraphic newspaper could have dampened the

enthusiasm of even the most affluent editor. With the volume of Ameri-
can news expanding rapidly with the growth of the nation, with more
and more localities being brought into telegraphic communication with
New York, and with the development of ample facilities for telegraphic
transmission, the future promised an exponential rise in telegraph bills.
Witnessing the growing public interest in distant events by reason of their
timely reporting, the individual editor must have been intimidated by the
idea of singlehandedly satisfying an ever-increasing, seemingly insatiable
appetite for news. Rising expectations deriving from the telegraph indus-
try and from systematic news gathering thus dictated that cooperative
telegraphic arrangements had arrived to stay. (Blondheim, 1994: 67)
If one replaced ‘telegraphy’ with ‘Internet’ in this quote, structural paral-

lels between the interplays of technology and journalism appear. To the
editor practicing journalism in the second half of the nineteenth century,
the environment in which news was produced must have seemed similarly
as ‘chaotic’ as the global news sphere at the beginning of the twenty-fi rst
century might seem to journalists today. The introduction of technologies
from the telegraph to the Internet challenged and challenge journalists to
integrate them in newsgathering and production techniques in order to
organize news flows and to enhance reporting procedures. It was absolutely
impossible to reverse the flow of history and to ignore the proliferation
of telegraph technology and the revised information flows the technology
brought along—and so it is today as digital technology tools have entered
virtually every sphere of our social lives.
As outlined in these last two chapters, the transformation of the journal-
ism sphere is characterized by a decentralization of information exchange
as well as by the non-linearity of information flows. The key parameters
of the evolving global news culture are the increased speed as well as the
transformed levels of connectivity. Within this sphere, journalistic outlets
are just a few of many nodes disseminating, sharing and exchanging infor-
mation. In accordance with this transformation, gatekeeping as well as
agenda-setting modes need to be revisited. Traditional notions of foreign
correspondence have become redundant and instead innovative collabora-
tive approaches with regard to newsgathering and production are emerg-
ing. Relationships between journalists, their sources, users and journalistic
colleagues are being altered. All these factors taken together form the key
parameters of an evolving global news sphere, transforming a closed jour-
nalism system into a global news sphere characterized by the paradigmatic
shift toward the structure of network journalism.
The second part of this book will be dedicated to analyzing a range of
examples and will give voice to practitioners and media analysts from the
UK, USA and Germany who in one way or the other have been concerned
with these structural changes in newsrooms. Their insights into day-to-day
practices provide valuable information on the current state of journalism
and help to show a path into the future of the profession.
Part II
Network Journalism
Practitioner Perspectives
5 Studying Network Journalism
The reality is that the elements that make good journalism, and good
journalists, will never change. Ignoring the future doesn’t mean we can
escape it. But paying attention to it means we can shape it.
(Regan, 2000: 9)
Journalists, regardless of what platform they are operating on—be it broad-

cast, print or online—are realizing the pressures of having to adapt their
practices of newsgathering, production and dissemination. Yet the question
remains for many: what to make of these changes, if and how they should
adapt their media presence and how much interaction with users as well
as with alternative sources they should allow. The reactions toward the
introduction of digital technologies to newsrooms have been extremely dis-
persed, ranging from an attitude of viewing them as both ‘a blessing’ and ‘a
curse’ (McNair, 1998: 125).
As part of the research for this book, I talked to a number of practitio-
ners and analysts and witnessed trends that suggest a movement toward a
future for the journalistic profession that will be much more interactive,
crossmedial and less top-down in its organization, less patronizing in its
approach toward news exchange and with news organizations acting more
like information nodes carrying multiple voices and story angles. This sec-
ond part of the book gives voice to some early adopters and media experts
who shared their insights with me in personal interviews. I conducted in-
depth interviews with thirteen producers, executives, media analysts and
media educators in the UK, the US and Germany who are concerned with
the implementation of digital tools.1
The central theme of these interviews was: How is journalistic work
being reorganized in the age of network journalism? I wanted to fi nd out
how journalistic organizations can be reinvented as communication nodes
within the complex, decentralized network journalism sphere in a trans-
national context. The organizations and interviewees I chose to be part of
this unique sample can be considered as either (a) forerunners in applying
network journalism structures in newsrooms, with some outlets being tra-
ditional media platforms where digital tools were adopted and other outlets
being founded on the premises of digital news production and dissemination
or (b) organizations that monitor the journalism sphere and analyze trends
in journalistic practice as well as offer training programs. The experts who
shared their knowledge at the time of my visit worked at the following out-
lets in the UK, the US and in Germany as shown in Table 5.1:
Table 5.1 Interview Partners
Outlet Expert Abbreviation
AlterNet.org • Executive Editor • AlterNet
BBC News • Editor for Interactivity • BBC
Current TV • Vice President of ‘Van- • Current TV

guard Journalism’
Democracy Now! • Senior Producer • Democracy Now!
Guardian Media Group • Director of ‘Digital Struc- • Guardian

ture and Development’
International Center • Vice President ‘Programs’ • Interviewee 1, ICFJ

for Journalists (ICFJ)
• Senior Program Director • Interviewee 2, ICFJ
MediaChannel.org • Executive Editor • Interviewee 1,

MediaChannel
• Executive Director • Interviewee 2,

MediaChannel
New York City Indepen- • Volunteer and Producer • (Indymedia)

dent Media Center (IMC)
Project for Excellence in • Senior Associate • (PEJ)

Journalism PEJ (Journal-
ism.org)
Ourmedia.org • Video Blogger and • (Ourmedia)

Volunteer
ZEIT ONLINE • Editor for Web 2.0 • (ZEIT ONLINE)

Applications
I will now briefly introduce each outlet and interviewee and briefly
explain why I chose a qualitative approach as the method of analysis.
5.1. METHODOLOGY
Professionals who deal with the effects that the transition from a closed jour-
nalistic system to an open network structure imposes on journalistic practice
are the most vital source of insight. Their views and experiences help us to
understand how journalistic outlets are being repositioned. The interviewees
who shared their knowledge here provided ‘expert’ interviews in the best
Studying Network Journalism 89
sense of the word: They shared details of their professional realities and—to
adapt Glesne’s and Peshkins’s view of qualitative research—helped to ‘under-
stand and interpret how the various participants in a social setting [i.e.,
journalism culture] construct the world around them’ (1992: 6). Qualita-
tive research approaches aim to provide an insight into lifeworlds—or in the
case of professionals, provide an insight into the construction of professional
reality from the perspective of the actors. In this sense, qualitative research
adds to a better understanding of social—in this case professional—realities
as well as to a better understanding of processes, interpretative models and
structural features (Flick, von Kardoff and Steinke, 2000: 14).
As journalistic organizations fi nd themselves in the midst of searching for
solutions to adapt to revised modes of communication in societies, choosing
a methodology that allows an understanding of an emerging phenomenon
that cannot be narrowed down to a specific time period in the past seems
logical. Surveys as provided by institutes such as the Pew Research Center
do indicate, for example, that an increasing number of users log on to the
Internet to receive (political) news or that users now increasingly consult
online platforms of independent media or citizen journalists and bloggers
as sources of information. 2 The market research company Nielsen fre-
quently provides updates on global Internet usage, surfi ng behavior of users
worldwide and the most frequented sites on the net.3 This kind of research
is vitally important to diagnose trends. However, these statistics do not
explain how journalistic outlets react to increasing non-linear news flows
proliferated by digital technologies, how they handle the vast amounts of
information available on- as well as offline and how journalistic outlets are
reorganized in the wake of an emerging global news sphere. Statistical data
provides arguments for the view that digital technology tools support the
growth of an alternative sphere of information providers with an increasing
number of alternative news outlets or citizen journalism sites and the like,
as the technology is cheap and thus lowers the barriers to produce and dis-
seminate political information (see Benkler, 2006: 212). Yet, these figures
do not explain how the work of journalists in the newsrooms is affected
and how journalistic organizations adapt to these significant changes.
As Baur and Lamnek (2005: 241 et seq.) point out, qualitative research
enables us to comprehend a (sociological) phenomenon as a whole, in all its
depth and with all its facets and dimensions. The openness of qualitative
approaches also allows ‘the researcher to approach the inherent complexity
of social interaction and to do justice to that complexity, to respect it in its
own right’ (Glesne and Peshkin, 1992: 7). Asking media practitioners how
they value the transformation of journalistic practice in its interplay with
digital technologies lets the researcher in on the perspective of insiders and
allows access to material gathered right in the center of transformation: the
newsroom. The knowledge of the interviewees who agreed to participate
in this study is vital for a further conceptualization of an evolving network
journalism sphere.4
The experts whose insights you will read here are involved with journal-
istic practice in one way or the other and many of them need to cope with
the transformations described in the fi rst part of this book on a day-to-day
basis. They are the ones directly concerned with the effects this transforma-
tion has on journalistic practice. They stand in the midst of this evolution
and with their willingness to be interviewed deliver the raw material out
of which to generate a further conceptualization of network journalism—
and to gain an exemplary picture of the current state of the art in journal-
ism. They share their notions of audiences, notions of collaboration as well
as of competition with other journalistic platforms and their thoughts on
the role journalists have to fulfill today. Their views illustrate the realities
of newsrooms and open a level of analysis that in the following serves to
reflect upon the advantages as well as struggles journalists have to cope
with in a digital environment.
What is more, as the network becomes the inevitable model for a struc-
tural change of journalistic systems, crossmedia analysis becomes abso-
lutely essential. The structural transformation of the journalism sphere
takes place across media platforms and affects print as well as broadcast
and online media. The Internet in this respect should not be viewed as a
separate medium in opposition to other media (Sterne, 1999). As Thorburn
and Jenkins explain, the emergence of digital technology ‘resist[s] notions
of media purity’ (2003: 11) and ‘each medium is touched by and in turn
touches its neighbors and rivals’ (Ibid.: 11). With an increased convergence
of ‘traditional’ as well as ‘new’ media (Bell, 2007: 13), media platforms
do not function in opposition to each other or separate from each other
anymore. In effect, platforms are merging online and this form of media
convergence ‘is more than simply a technological shift. Convergence alters
the relationship between existing technologies, industries, markets, genres
and audiences’ (Jenkins, 2004: 34). This has a crucial effect on anyone who
is part of the journalism sphere: With virtually every media outlet—be it a
television outlet or a news magazine—having its online website counterpart,
with online research tools being used by print journalists as well as radio
journalists, with journalists working for more than one medial platform
producing written reports as well as video pieces, and on the other hand
with media users consulting a variety of outlets—across the whole spec-
trum of available media (!)—to draw together their information, a study of
structural and organizational reconfigurations of journalism needs to take
into account media outlets from across the existing range of platforms. As
‘newspapers, television, radio and other news providers all fi nd themselves
in head-to-head competition’ (Pavlik, 2000: 233), singling out the Internet
as study object becomes redundant (Bell, 2007: 13; Marshall, 2004) and
blocks an open and realistic view on trends in the development.
Consequently, the media experts heard here work across the spectrum of
content platforms, with some of them being employed or volunteering for
print and others for broadcast and others working for solely online-based
outlets or yet again others monitoring outlets across the spectrum of avail-
able media platforms. This approach resembles the change in the journal-
istic environment. Here it is not only television outlets competing with
television outlets or newspapers competing with their print counterparts.
In the evolving journalistic sphere information is key and the outlet choos-
ing the best way to deliver it and to connect with the users of news is what
is at the center of interest. Here, broadcast, print and online platforms do
very much stand in direct competition.
Every single one of the outlets represented here is part of the evolving
sphere of network journalism, with each of them carrying specific struc-
tures, intentions and organizational models. In their unique features, each
organization represents an individual node within a complex system of
information gatherers, producers and disseminators. Each targets specific
segments of users, and produces and disseminates news content in its very
own ways. Each organization also exhibits various connection nodes, with
a vast number of news deliverers connected within their individual new
source spectra. And each organization stands for an increasing number of
non-linear news flows, which add to the content produced and dissemi-
nated within a global news sphere.
What all organizations have in common, though, is that they are adapt-
ing to the network journalism sphere through adopting cutting-edge mod-
els of how to connect with their users, their sources and other journalists or
by monitoring, analyzing and training journalists to work within this news
journalism culture. They all have experimented with different approaches
to information gathering, production and dissemination.
5.2. THE RESEARCH SAMPLE
For the sample presented here, thirteen media experts from the United
States, United Kingdom and Germany were chosen.5 As all three coun-
tries stand for a long tradition of journalism, are considered technologi-
cally advanced nations and are located within the Western hemisphere, the
ways to practice journalism in each of these countries are broadly com-
parable and the sample allows for a comparison of opinions and views.6
Each media organization serves either as an example of an outlet adopting
network journalism practices to newsrooms or plays an international lead-
ing role in journalism education and monitoring. Using digital technologies
for news production and dissemination, or for that matter using the World
Wide Web as a platform for training programs and/or to collaborate with
alternative news providers such as citizen journalists or bloggers is a regu-
lar feature at each of these outlets.
As the paradigm of network journalism is based on the premises of a
shared information sphere, the sample includes not only journalists work-
ing for traditional news organizations, but also so-called media activists
and media educators. To make the sample more comprehensible, I have
identified four groups:
(1) Traditional print and broadcast outlets with an international reputa-

tion who have adopted digital tools in their everyday practice in order
to enhance their source network and allow for user interactivity (BBC
Interactive, Guardian Media Group, ZEIT ONLINE)
(2) Alternative or independent media outlets providing a ‘counterbal-
ance’ of news content to traditional media outlets (Democracy Now!,
Current TV, Ourmedia.org, Indymedia NYC)
(3) Online-based independent news aggregation sites drawing together and
selecting content from various media platforms and including commen-
tary and original reporting (MediaChannel.org, AlterNet.org)
(4) Media monitoring, training and education organizations who look
into the everyday work of journalists (Project for Excellence in Jour-
nalism, International Center for Journalists)
When selecting interview partners, the following staffers were of special

interest for the sample: personnel responsible for either producing content
(i.e., experienced journalists who could provide content-related viewpoints),
personnel responsible for strategy planning within news organizations (i.e.,
staff in a leading executive role who could provide information on organi-
zational structures and future strategies), staff working for media monitor-
ing organizations (i.e., experienced journalists, trainers and commentators
who focus on the current state of the art in journalistic practice) or people
with extensive practical experience in the field of alternative media. The
following paragraphs provide a brief overview of the organizations visited
and briefly introduce each interviewee.7
5.2.1. Traditional News Organizations

BBC Interactive and the Guardian Media Group in the UK as well as
ZEIT ONLINE in Germany are organizations that build on a long tra-
dition of journalistic practice in the field of either print or broadcast.
With the proliferation of digital technologies, all three outlets early on
began to alter their newsroom strategies and launched additional online
counterparts, where they started to experiment with new formats such as
blogs or to embed user-generated content, to build online communities
or implement external links on their websites. All three outlets thus now
complement their one-way news flows and top-down reporting methods
with interactive features. Of special interest here were the fi rst-hand expe-
riences of journalists and executives working for these three outlets who
are familiar with the structures and organizational models of a tradi-
tional outlet as well as with (interactive) models that are evolving in the
global news sphere.
BBC News Interactivity Desk
With its cutting-edge approach toward the use of digital technology in news
production and dissemination processes, the British public service broad-
caster BBC makes for an interesting case in regard to studying the evolution
of network journalism. The outlet was one of the fi rst major global news
organizations to adjust its work sets in accordance with revised schemes of
connectivity and early on started to work with bloggers and user-generated
content. First analyses of the BBC’s digital strategy moves have been pub-
lished (e.g., Lee-Wright, 2008, or Wardle and Williams, 2008) and will
inform the interview analysis in the following chapters.
Originally called the British Broadcasting Company, the BBC started as
a radio service for the UK in 1922 and the history of the organization shows
that the BBC has played a role as a prototype for journalistic practices ever
since its inception.8 In November 2007, the BBC as the fi rst major global
news player announced plans to merge into a multimedia newsroom, main-
taining the BBC News website, the radio summaries and bulletins (except
for Radio 1), BBC World Service News, BBC News 24, BBC World, BBC
Breakfast and the bulletins on BBC One at one, six and ten, melting televi-
sion, radio and online into one entity.9
The online services of the BBC were launched in the 1990s and quickly
rose to become one of the world’s leading providers of information dissemi-
nated via Internet. The BBC regularly tries out new digital tools and inter-
active features on its online platform and offers services such as podcast
downloads and mobile phone-friendly versions of BBC content. The BBC
also distributes its content via various external platforms such as Facebook,
YouTube and Twitter. Bloggers from across the globe in such locations as
Iran, China or Saudi Arabia have been regularly featured on the website in
the past years and in addition, the BBC repeatedly tests co-operative news
production processes with alternative information providers. One example
was a two-week team-up with Global Voices Online, the nonprofit network
of more than 200 bloggers from around the globe.10
Of particular interest in regard to the relationship between the BBC and
its users is its move to generate debates and embrace user-generated content
material online on its ‘Have Your Say’ website. This interactive arm of
BBC News allows users to comment on current affairs and deliver video or
photo footage or to suggest story ideas. The desk is located at the Television
Center of the BBC in London.
The Interview Partner: The Editor for Interactivity at BBC News

At the time of the interview, the Editor for Interactivity had been with the
BBC for 20 years. She is an experienced television news producer who used
to work for BBC’s flagship programs and as researcher for a BBC current
affairs program after starting her journalistic career at local newspapers.
In 2001, she moved to the BBC website to work on interactive programs
involving audiences in the coverage of the UK general elections. After the
elections, she stayed at the website and with a team of initially five jour-
nalists administered a web feature called ‘Talking Point’ that hosted user
debates on current affairs. ‘Talking Point’ developed into the ‘Have Your
Say’ site where journalists now administer user-generated content and mod-
erate multiple debates.
Guardian Media Group

Like the BBC, the Guardian Media Group has a pronounced interest in
online journalism and started implementing digital technology tools in
the late 1990s. As early as 1997 the Guardian appointed a readers’ editor
responsible for creating a stable link between the Guardian and its readers,
who would respond to complaints and queries. The newspaper itself was
founded in 1821. The printed version is the flagship of the multimedia busi-
ness Guardian Media Group, which consists of a range of media outlets
such as newspapers, websites, radio stations and magazines. The online
counterpart Guardian.co.uk was launched in January 1999. Owned by the
Scott Trust as the sole shareholder, the Group preserves its fi nancial and
editorial independence.
Guardian.co.uk today is one of the most popular news resources on the
World Wide Web and offers a range of digital tools to its users, from RSS
feeds or podcasts to mobile versions of the Guardian content. It can be
found on Twitter, Facebook and other social networking services and the
Guardian also provides a number of interactive features designed to deliver
niche content on demand or to enhance community building around the
Guardian website. In its section ‘Comment is Free’, the Guardian has, for
instance, created an open space for debate around content published in the
Guardian.
The website also hosts an extensive collection of blogs on topics rang-
ing anywhere from arts and entertainment to politics, sports, technology
and media. A number of these blogs infrequently serve as platforms for
liveblogging. Depending on actuality and priority of topics, users can fol-
low frequent updates about unfolding events and breaking news. The live-
blogging services are provided for topics ranging from season finales of
popular TV shows to coverage of political debates, the aftermath of the
Haiti earthquake or the protest marches in the streets of Iran. Apart from
the talkboards that are built as hubs for open discussions (a platform cre-
ated already in the late 1990s), in February 2010 the Guardian also started
to test an activity monitor called Zeitgeist.11 The tool fosters the idea of
crowd-powered recommendations and provides a visual record that tells
users what is currently being viewed on Guardian.co.uk. Zeitgeist aims to
assist site visitors to find out which topics are attracting users of the Guard-
ian service most.
The Interview Partner: The Director of Digital Structure
and Development for the Guardian Media Group
Before he was appointed as Director of Digital Structure and Develop-
ment in 2001, the interviewee worked as a trade press journalist and in
1996 became member of staff in various positions at the Guardian. At the
Guardian Media Group he is responsible for the digital activities of the
outlet. His work is concerned with the development of strategies affecting
the Group’s digital activities in the national press, as well as in the regional
press, radio and classified businesses of the Guardian Media Group.
ZEIT ONLINE
ZEIT ONLINE is the web platform of the German weekly newspaper ZEIT
and was launched in 1996. Over the past few years, the online arm of the
print outlet has become one of the most important multimedia platforms
for news and information in the German media landscape. The weekly
magazine ZEIT was founded in 1946 and since 1996 the ZEIT Verlags-
gruppe belongs to the Publishing Group Holtzbrinck, one of the biggest
German media companies.
ZEIT ONLINE has its own editorial department running independently
from the editorial department of the weekly paper. Similar to the Guard-
ian.co.uk, ZEIT ONLINE hosts an extensive range of blogs concerned
with various issues such as politics, arts and entertainment or travel and
has managed to built a community around its website. The majority of the
stories published on ZEIT ONLINE are produced exclusively for the site.
The content is not only produced by freelancers and ZEIT ONLINE edi-
tors, but also involves staff working for the traditional arm of the weekly
magazine. Roughly a third of the articles published in the weekly are also
published on ZEIT ONLINE. Since 2006, the outlet cooperates with the
online arm of the German newspaper Tagesspiegel and it produces a news
ticker that complements the news services of both websites. In its commen-
tary sections, ZEIT ONLINE also offers direct links to the op-ed pages of
the New York Times and the Washington Post as well as to the Guardian’s
‘Comment is Free’ section.
Beginning in 2010, ZEIT ONLINE appointed a community editor
responsible for looking after its users and monitoring activities in the com-
mentary sections and on the talkboards of the site. The community editor
works together with a team of moderators and runs the debate and com-
mentary sections including the ZEIT community.
Apart from offering various mobile services including RSS or Twitter,
ZEIT ONLINE also offers a range of audiobooks and produces audio feeds
of selected articles that are available for download for a fee or can be lis-
tened to via telephone.
The Interview Partner: An Editor and Blogger at ZEIT ONLINE
A specialist for web 2.0 topics, the interview partner worked as an editor
for ZEIT ONLINE until 2008, where he developed user-participation fea-
tures ranging from user-generated content applications to navigation tools.
Until the end of 2007, he also ran a blog on the site concerned with current
IT developments, interactive media formats and social software. He started
his journalistic career in 1998 and freelanced for various German online
portals such as Heise and Netzeitung as well as ZEIT ONLINE and is an
active blogger in his spare time.
5.2.2. Alternative or Independent Media Outlets

The alternative and independent media outlets that are part of this sur-
veyed group were not created as ‘spin-offs’ or online counterparts of tra-
ditional media outlets, but rather formed on the explicit basis of providing
a ‘counterbalance’ to the latter. Part of the sample are staff at four media
outlets, with each of the organizations following different aims and holding
differing organizational structures. Included in the research were the daily
broadcast news program Democracy Now!, the citizen journalism website
Ourmedia.org, the New York City arm of the activist group Indymedia
and the interactive television and web-based platform Current TV, which
broadcasts non-fictional user-generated video stories.
Each of these outlets makes extensive use of digital tools in order to pro-
duce and disseminate content and apart from Democracy Now! the outlets
were originally launched on the web, with the online platform being the
inextricable part of their medial appearance.
Democracy Now!
Democracy Now! is a New York City-based national independent radio and
television news program operating as a non-profit organization. Its online
counterpart has over the past few years fully transformed into a multime-
dia platform, carrying audio and video streams of its full news program as
well as of each story. The news programs are also available as download-
able podcasts and written transcriptions of news stories can be accessed
on the website. Democracy Now! also translates its program into Spanish
and offers it as text or in MP3 format, distributing it to Spanish-language
community radio stations in North and Latin America. Apart from being
present on social network platforms or Twitter, Democracy Now! reaches
out to its users through calls for commentary and story ideas.
Democracy Now! started its broadcasts as a daily election radio show in
1996 as part of Pacifica Radio aired on community radio stations. In 2000,
the program began a multimedia collaboration between non-profit com-
munity radio programs, satellite and cable television and an Internet based-
service that developed into a radio and television newscast aired daily on
independent radio and television stations across the United States as well
as overseas. As of February 2010, its programs are aired on more than 800
radio and television stations in countries ranging from the US to Uruguay,
Colombia, Kosovo, Spain, the UK, El Salvador, Spain, Honduras, Japan
and New Zealand.
Democracy Now! aims to provide an alternative to corporate main-
stream news programming on politics and current affairs in the US. Its
news program concentrates on delivering a variety of perspectives on US
foreign policy and draws among other sources on independent journalists,
grassroots and peace activists, academics and analysts for its information.
Democracy Now! has been presented a range of awards, including the
Associated Press Award for Best Enterprise Reporting, the George Polk
Award for Radio Reporting and the Webby Award Honoree for Podcasts
and Politics in 2007. The station is funded through audience contributions
and foundations and its production studios are located in the Downtown
Community Television Center in New York City.
The Interview Partner: A Senior Producer at Democracy Now!

The interviewee started working for Democracy Now! in 2002. As Senior
Producer, he is mainly responsible for editing and providing newscast mate-
rial and works for the daily program. Previous to his work for Democracy
Now! he volunteered for the New York City Independent Media Center
(Indymedia NYC) and co-founded The Indypendent, the newspaper arm
of the Independent Media Center. He is also the founder of the RNCWatch
website, which covered the 2004 Republican National Convention. Prior
to his work at Democracy Now! he worked for two daily newspapers in
Massachusetts.
Ourmedia.org
Ourmedia.org is a web-based community of more than 150,000 members
that provides video producers and podcasters with a space to publish and
share their work. The multimedia platform is part of the grassroots media
movement and is designed as a converged media space. Ourmedia’s aim
is to effect local and global change through the use of social media tools.
Users can join the network as so-called ‘changemakers’ and contribute pro-
ductions ranging from video to podcasts, texts or images. The media pieces
published on Ourmedia range from documentaries to music videos, grass-
roots political ads, original music and ebooks.
The platform is divided into content channels and users can contribute
their pieces relating to specific causes they support or topics that are of
particular interest, such as environmental coverage or digital technology
developments. Ourmedia also aims to provide an interactive discussion
platform on which users can not only share their produced material, but
also learn from each member of the community. In its so-called ‘Learning
Center’ section, Ourmedia runs topical features on varying subjects, offers
producer tools and teaches users how to create content and improve their
multimedia performances. Their website also offers information resources
on media law issues such as copyright, libel or defamation rules.
Ourmedia is an open-source project and partners with a number of other
open-source applications such as Creative Commons, the Internet Archive
and the San Francisco-based social media company Outhink Media, which
supplies software and social networking tools. The organization also col-
laborates with the non-profit Internet Archive, which was founded to build
a lifetime-lasting library of free online content around topics of interest.
The Interview Partner: Volunteer and Moderator at Ourmedia.org

The interview partner works as an independent video blogger and at the
time of the interview volunteered as moderator for Ourmedia.org. He
started his career as a television journalist, working in local news for sev-
eral years as a writer and producer until he joined CNN International in
Atlanta as a producer of daily news shows. After having worked for CNN
for two years, he became involved with independent media outlets and citi-
zen journalism organizations. Since 2004 he has collaborated in various
online video projects, launched several online portals, taught video jour-
nalism online and co-authored a book on video blogging.
Indymedia NYC
As one of the biggest decentralized global activist networks, Indymedia
has been widely researched and thus is a well-known case in the field of
alternative media (for examples see Atton, 2004; Downing, 2002; Garce-
lon, 2006; Kawamoto, 2003: 15; Powell, 2003; Wall, 2003). Established by
independent and alternative media organizations and activists in 1999, the
Independent Media Center originally was designed to provide grassroots
coverage of the World Trade Organization protests in Seattle. The aim
was to create an open source and publishing information ‘clearinghouse’
(Kawamoto, 2003) for journalists with audio, video and print material on
the protests distributed through the website:
Media activists believed that the corporate media would not tell the
whole story of the protests, so they set up a Web site to give the other
side with a particular emphasis on volunteer participation and on rep-
resenting the marginalized voices of women, people of color, the eco-
nomically disadvantaged, and so forth. (Wall, 2003: 118)
Out of this initial set-up grew a collective network of independent media

organizations around the globe. Indymedia outlets now can be found on
every continent and in cities such as Vancouver, Mexico City, Jakarta,
Istanbul, Beirut, Sydney and Budapest. The activist sites are connected via
the Indymedia.org website. According to the site, as of February 2010 there
were more than 150 Independent Media Centers in operation around the
globe. Several outlets also produce their own newspapers, distributed as
paper versions, on a local level, or globally as downloadable versions via
the World Wide Web.
Because each center operates independently, the agendas of the outlets
can differ and each outlet manages its own finances.12 The aim of Indyme-
dia activists can, however, be considered similar around the globe: They
intend to provide independent views on issues concerning human rights
and global politics and consider themselves as counterbalance to corporate
media. Indymedia does not have fi xed staff and is built on the principle
that anyone can contribute to the site. Along with original reporting pieces
stand articles pulled from other sources.
The New York City Independent Media Center (IMC NYC) is one of the
most active arms of the Indymedia movement in North America. The cen-
ter has monthly meetings and runs various print, online and television pro-
ductions. IMC NYC currently has six media production teams, including
a team working on a bi-weekly published newspaper called The Indypen-
dent, a team for the Spanish version of the newspaper El Independiente
and a team for the newspaper Indykids, which carries a collection of cur-
rent news and world events packaged for children. The IMC NYC also has
a team responsible for editorial and technical questions, a photojournalist
team and a team that produces a weekly TV show.
The Interview Partner: A Volunteer With the New

York City Independent Media Center
The interview partner started working for Indymedia NYC in 2001 shortly
after September 11. At the time of the interview, he worked as a mod-
erator of the Indymedia news wire, monitoring posts and hiding offen-
sive publications on the open publishing platform. He was also responsible
for the design of features on the Indymedia NYC website that are created
out of individual stories that reach the organization across its news wire.
The interviewee also infrequently wrote for the IMC newspaper arm, The
Indypendent. As an experienced activist with Indymedia, he acted as advi-
sor and assisted with organizational questions occurring throughout the
Indymedia network.
Current TV
Current TV was launched in August 2005 on the premises that citizen
journalism productions contribute to the original reporting of professional
journalists. The so-called ‘peer-to-peer’ news and information network is
a 24/7 multi-platform media company and its content is programmed and
produced in close collaboration with users. As a fully integrated broadcast
and online platform, the outlet combines television and web, with the lat-
ter being an inevitable part of the production process. Current TV is aired
via cable and satellite channels on television across the United States and
screens an ongoing news and information stream.
Users of the website can just read or watch items, but the participation of
community members is vitally important to the service. Individual users are,
depending on their level of activity, identified as contributors, commentators
and producers and encouraged to participate in the content creation for the
program. Users can submit non-fiction video pieces of one to eight minutes
in length, a feature the station refers to as ‘interactive viewer-created con-
tent’ (VC2). Users can also submit so-called ‘viewer-created advertisements’
(VCAMs). An algorithmic blender assists the staff to determine popular sto-
ries and videos. Once these short videos—also known as ‘pods’ in the jargon
of Current TV—have made it on the website, users are encouraged to vote for
and comment on the pieces. These votings add to editorial decisions on pods
that are integrated into Current TV’s television schedule. Approximately one
third of Current TV’s on-air broadcasts are composed of this content, with
topics ranging from political comment, satire and music journalism to news
stories featuring current affairs stories from around the globe. Producers of
full-length pods and VCAMs chosen to be aired on television receive pay-
ments. Current.com also hosts a range of other interactive features such as
embedded social networking tools, comment options and discussion boards
where users can add text, computer files or webcam pieces.
Embedded in the staff body is the so-called ‘Vanguard Journalism
Department’ that is responsible for the production of original journalistic
features. The department consists of a team of reporters and producers who
travel internationally. The department also coordinates the citizen jour-
nalism arm of the outlet and collaborates with users who submit content
pieces. Users whose pieces are aired on television are viewed as partners
and might be contacted directly for future assignments.
The outlet mainly targets young adults and aims to deliver news stories
on national as well as global issues from the perspective of young viewers.
Current operates as an independent media company financed by private
investors and individuals. The headquarters are based in San Francisco, yet
Current also runs a studio in Los Angeles, an ad sales office in New York
and international offices in London and Milan. In September 2007, Cur-
rent TV received an Emmy Award for its interactive television services.
The Interview Partner: The Vice President of the

Vanguard Journalism Department at Current TV
The interview partner was at the time of the interview Vice President of
the Vanguard Journalism Department. She had started working for the
channel from its inception in February 2005, where she started to manage
the department as well as produced stories and documentary pieces. Prior
to her work for Current TV, she was a news producer at Channel One
News, a television channel aired in high schools across the United States.
She also produced a documentary series for MTV on the issue of covering
hard news for the so-called MTV generation.
5.2.3. Independent News Aggregators and Media Commentators

In addition to traditional and alternative media organizations, two online-
based news services are included in the sample that have specialized in a mix
of commentary, original reporting and the aggregation of news stories from
across the web. Staff at the web magazine AlterNet.org based in San Fran-
cisco and at the self-proclaimed ‘media-supersite’ MediaChannel.org based
in New York City were interviewed. Both outlets are solely online based and
perceive themselves as alternatives, creating counter-narratives to corporate
media. As web-based platforms, both are inescapably dependent on the use
of digital technology in order to produce and disseminate their content.
MediaChannel.org
MediaChannel aims to monitor the state of journalism and the political, cul-
tural and social impacts of media across the globe. The organization is a
global online community that cooperates with about eleven hundred affili-
ated groups worldwide, such as university journalism departments, profes-
sional media organizations and trade publications. The platform entails a
mix of original reporting, opinion pieces and commentary on the current
state of the media as well as a selection of international publications (such
as investigative reports and stories on media issues) gathered online. Along-
side articles taken from print and online publications, the site features video
material, blogs and an archive for research and article material as well as a
newswire that links to the latest news and articles on the state of the media.
In addition to original news and reports, a large part of the content is drawn
from affiliates and selected by MediaChannel-staff who keep a database of
media-related news that circulates on the web. MediaChannel thus is a mul-
timedia news aggregation site as well as a media commentary page that views
itself as a self-proclaimed watchdog of the global media sphere.
The MediaChannel website aspires to enhance citizen participation as
well as to assist media professionals in their everyday work and to provide
users with an overview of the media scene and current debate about jour-
nalistic work worldwide. The platform can also be used as an informa-
tion research pool for professional journalists as well as for activists or
citizen journalists. Starting in early 2010, the outlet also launched a so-
called ‘Student Journalist Network’. The rubric is produced with support
from the Park Foundation and designed as a social network that serves as
a collaborative platform on which journalism students and media makers
can connect, exchange questions, share knowledge or promote their own
work.
Produced by the independent media firm Globalvision New Media, the
headquarters of MediaChannel are based in New York City. It was set
up as a non-profit organization as a project of two foundations: the UK-
based global information network OneWorld—an organization developed
to support media worldwide and concerned with human rights and sus-
tainable development issues—and The Global Center, a New York-based
foundation that supports independent media. MediaChannel has received
support from several foundations such as the Rockefeller Foundation, the
Open Society Institute and the Reebok Human Rights Foundation as well
as grants from individual donors.
The Interview Partners: The Executive Editor and

the Executive Director at MediaChannel.org
At MediaChannel.org, two separate interviews with leading executives
were conducted.
The Executive Editor is one of the founders of MediaChannel and an
experienced broadcast and print journalist. He worked as radio newscaster,
reporter and news program producer for several outlets and as producer
at CNN and ABC. He also took up assignments as print editor in London
and his writings have appeared in outlets such as Boston Globe, Columbia
Journalism Review, and Z Magazine. A former Nieman Fellow in Jour-
nalism at Harvard University, he has published a wide range of books, he
blogs frequently on global media issues and he has received several prizes
for his journalistic work, including two national Emmy Awards. He is also
co-founder, vice president and executive producer of the independent media
fi rm Globalvision Inc.
The second interviewee was at the time of the interview the Executive
Director and New Media Director of MediaChannel. He draws upon a vari-
ety of new media experiences and was the co-producer of the Internet’s first
streaming media news show called The Cyber City News in 1996. He is
the cofounder of the production company Speakeasy Productions and has
worked as a content consultant and producer. He left MediaChannel in 2007
shortly after the interview and now works as independent media producer
specializing in video production. As an internationally exhibited visual art-
ist, he has displayed paintings as well as photography and video art pieces.
AlterNet.org
AlterNet.org is an alternative online-based news magazine and syndication
service that started operating in 1998 and describes itself as an ‘infomediary
portal’ brokering and filtering information out of the masses of information
in circulation. The website entails news, opinion pieces and investigative
reporting on a variety of topics, ranging from environmental, human rights
or economic issues to media critique. Apart from original reporting pieces
compiled by staff, the AlterNet website works as an information aggrega-
tion site or amplifier, providing information and news stories from other
mainly independent news sources such as alternative newspapers and mag-
azines and non-profit organizations. Its multimedia content ranges from
investigative reports to blogs, video and audio material.
AlterNet has a strong focus on user participation and community building
and explicitly addresses its audience to actively comment and provide news to
the site. According to the outlet, it currently has 30,000 registered commen-
tators, with some stories receiving hundreds of individual comments. In a so-
called ‘SpeakEasy’ section, users can sign up as commentators and are also
encouraged to create their own blogs that are embedded into the AlterNet
website. The outlet views itself as a progressive news organization providing
a counterbalance to right-wing as well as to corporate media reporting and
aims to draw wide attention to what it refers to as failures of corporate media.
The use of digital technology is perceived as a tool to promote a diverse range
of progressive voices and part of Alternet’s philosophy to remain a competi-
tive outlet in today’s media sphere and to spark citizen action and advocacy.
AlterNet is a project of the non-profit Independent Media Institute, an
organization that supports independent journalism projects. Based in San
Francisco, the site is funded through a range of private foundations such as
the Open Society Institute, the Arca Foundation and the Schumann Center
for Media and Democracy and receives funding from individual donors.
The online platform has among other prizes received two Webby Awards
for Best Web Magazine.
The Interview Partner: The Executive Editor at AlterNet.org

As Executive Editor of AlterNet, the interviewee is responsible for the
daily operations at the web magazine, including supervision of the site
and of staff. He is also the Executive Director of the Independent Media
Institute. Before joining AlterNet, he worked as publisher of Mother Jones
Magazine and has edited several books as well as newspapers. Especially
concerned with political issues and media criticism, he has written and
published a range of articles for a variety of print outlets. He was orga-
nizer of the Media & Democracy Congresses held in San Francisco and
New York City in 1997 and 1998 and in the past has taken up assign-
ments as political campaign manager.
5.2.4. Media Educators and Monitors

This interviewee group comprises staff at two organizations dedicated to
monitoring as well as to training and educating professional journalists
around the globe. Included in this sample are the Project for Excellence in
Journalism (PEJ) and the International Center for Journalists (ICFJ). As
these organizations aim to enhance journalistic work and improve profes-
sional journalistic skills as well as to screen and comment on current pro-
cesses, they can provide extensive expertise on cutting-edge developments.
Their broad knowledge of the current state of journalism helps to identify
changes relating to organizational matters at journalistic outlets as well
as to identify challenges journalists face in their daily work. Both outlets
employ staff members who previously worked at professional news organi-
zations or are still working as journalists.
Project for Excellence in Journalism PEJ (Journalism.org)

The Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ), also referred to as Journal-
ism.org, is a research organization that monitors and evaluates the perfor-
mances of the press. PEJ describes itself as non-partisan, non-ideological
and non-political and specializes in quantifying empirical methods to study
journalistic content. With its publications, the project aims to assist jour-
nalists in their day-to-day work as well as to provide insights into the cur-
rent state of journalism for consumers of news.
PEJ is probably best known for its annual publication, the ‘State of the
News Media’ report. The report covers content studies of American jour-
nalism and press performances of key events such as elections. PEJ also
provides a so-called ‘Daily Briefi ng’ that contains a daily mix of articles on
media performance and media issues aggregated by PEJ staff out of stories
provided in major press organs in the United States as well as overseas.
Aggregated articles are also collected in an online archive. All content pro-
duced by PEJ—including daily briefi ngs, reports, empirical research and
featured content as well as the PEJ archive—are accessible via the website.
PEJ also links to the website of the Committee of Concerned Journalists
(CCJ), a consortium of journalists, publishers, media business owners and
academics that offers a range of tools and information relating to the craft
of journalism for journalists as well as for citizens, students and teachers
of journalism. On its own website, PEJ also features a so-called ‘News
Coverage Index’ among other similar applications, where news agendas at
a number of print, broadcast and online news outlets are examined in real
time. These indexes provide information to determine what stories cur-
rently receive coverage in the American news media.
The project originally started in 1997 as an affi liate of the Columbia
University Graduate School of Journalism. In July 2006, PEJ separated
from Columbia and joined the social science research center and public
opinion polling organization Pew Research Center (Pew). Pew hosts a num-
ber of other projects such as The Pew Research Center for the People & the
Press, providing national surveys on public attitudes toward the press, poli-
tics or policy issues, and the Pew Internet & American Life Project, which
explores the impact of the Internet on individuals as well as institutional
processes and civic life in the United States. As part of Pew, the Project
for Excellence in Journalism is funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts. The
project is based in Washington, DC, and has received several awards for
its research projects, including the Sigma Delta Chi Award for outstanding
research in journalism in 2000, 2002 and 2004 granted by the Society of
Professional Journalists.
The Interview Partner: A Senior Associate at the

Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ)
A researcher, writer and editor, the interviewee worked as Senior Associ-
ate at PEJ at the time of the visit. He was responsible for a variety of the
project’s reports and also wrote a range of articles and essays for PEJ. His
journalistic background is mainly rooted in print media. Until he joined the
project, he worked for the Christian Science Monitor, and when I visited
PEJ he was still freelancing as media columnist for the outlet as well as for
a range of other publications. His writings have appeared in press organs
such as the Washington Post Magazine and Columbia Journalism Review.
From 1994 to 1997, he also worked as a reporter and researcher on the
National Affairs Desk at Newsweek Magazine.
International Center for Journalists (ICFJ)

The International Center for Journalists is a non-profit organization that
specializes in the provision of journalistic training for media workers. The
center aims to foster the development of independent media outlets and to
raise the standards and skills of media professionals worldwide. Founded
on the belief that quality journalism can contribute to the improvement of
human conditions, the center so far has worked with journalists in nearly
180 countries. ICFJ started operating in 1984 and since then has provided
hands-on training programs, workshops and seminars for journalists in
various corners of the globe. ICFJ also runs fellowship programs and in
addition fosters journalistic fellowships in all corners of the world and pro-
motes international exchange programs for reporters, editors and media
management staff.
ICFJ works across the whole media spectrum including print, broad-
cast and online, yet specifically stresses teaching digital tools. Its website
provides a range of educational material, including free-of-charge online
training courses in a variety of languages such as English, Spanish and
Arabic. The courses cover a variety of topics such as the practice of inves-
tigative journalism, freedom of expression, digital reporting and training
programs for citizen journalists. ICFJ also focuses on specialty journalism
and targets environmental journalists just as well as health journalists or
business reporters.
Headquartered in Washington, DC, ICFJ is funded by a range of foun-
dations and in addition finances itself through corporate sponsorships,
various organizations and US government agencies as well as individual
donors. One major project of the center is the International Journalists’
Network (IJNet), an online-based media development monitoring system
and clearinghouse for information on global media issues. Supported by
foundations such as the Open Society Institute and the John S. and James
L. Knight Foundation, the portal is an online service for media profession-
als from across the globe and assists in tracking and disseminating informa-
tion on media training opportunities. The site is available in five languages
and offers research and training material and information on matters such
as media law and ethics. The site also provides a blogging guide for citizen
journalists.
The Interview Partners: The Vice President ‘Programs’ and the Senior
Program Director at the International Center for Journalists
At ICFJ, two separate interviews with leading staff members were con-
ducted.
The Vice President ‘Programs’ is responsible for the development and exe-
cution of training programs at ICFJ. He is also responsible for the supervi-
sion of staff. Before joining ICFJ in 1999, he worked as a print journalist
starting in 1986 and wrote for newspapers including the San Jose Mer-
cury News, the Herald Journal and The State (Columbia, SC). In 1999 he
was appointed as a Knight International Press Fellow in Nicaragua for five
months.
The Senior Program Director previously worked as a broadcast jour-
nalist. At ICFJ he runs the center’s programs in Latin America and the
Caribbean and is responsible for project development as well as conduct-
ing training programs and conferences. In 1988 he received a Fulbright
Scholarship and in 1997 a fellowship at the Louisiana State University’s
Manship School of Mass Communication. In between the fellowships, he
worked in his home country of Panama as a morning newscast producer,
host and television reporter for Televisora Nacional and took up assign-
ments in Colombia, the United States and Europe.
5.3. ANALYTICAL GUIDELINES: SOME KEY

PARAMETERS FOR THE FOLLOWING CHAPTERS
The interviews were conducted in 2007 and the themes and issues raised
during the interviews are in some cases even more acute today. Since I
conducted the interviews, the number of examples that prove the point of
this book has grown massively and in academic research we are still lack-
ing conceptual approaches that tackle the trends in journalistic practice
that emerged with the advent of digital technologies in newsrooms. The
interview partners reflect upon notions of speed and revised connectivity
modes in the information age and how the introduction of digital technol-
ogy affected journalistic work procedures. They discuss how the emergence
of user-generated content, citizen journalism and blogging has affected self-
perceptions of journalists as well as supported the creation of collaborative
models that integrate these new news deliverers into journalistic production
processes. They provide extremely valuable information on the use of blogs,
podcasts or forums, digital production formats often adopted by profes-
sional journalists as a reaction to the growing number of information mate-
rial and opinion pieces produced by citizen journalists and media activists.
And they discuss the role that user-generated content features such as the
BBC’s ‘Have your Say’ website play in the news sphere of the information
age. They talk about the personalization of news services and the evolu-
tion of an ‘active’ news user as opposed to the ‘passive’ consumer of news.
Issues of gatekeeping and agenda-setting are also broached as the aim was
to gain insight on how transnational news flows affect newsroom practice,
how global connections are created via digital technology tools and how
transnational networks with news deliverers are taking shape, challenging
and reshaping the business of traditional foreign reporting. Along these
lines the case of covering the Iraq War serves as an example throughout the
discussions of the development of innovative collaborative approaches in
newsgathering, production and dissemination.
Last but certainly not least, the interviewees envision the future of jour-
nalistic organizations in what this book phrases as the sphere of ‘network
journalism’. Their reflections on the role of journalistic organizations in
a revised news sphere and how the emergence of multimedia newsrooms
might assist in collaboratively gathering, producing and disseminating news
in the information age contribute to a profound understanding of what is
happening to the journalistic sphere today. Enriched with examples taken
from current practice, the voices of the interviewees will dominate these
following chapters of the book and illustrate the realities of journalistic
production today, how the environment for gathering, producing and dis-
seminating journalistic content has changed and how we have now entered
the sphere of network journalism.
6 The Advent of Digitalization in
Newsrooms
What are the implications of an evolving sphere of network journalism for

journalistic practice? The fi rst part of this book was mainly concerned with
highlighting the theoretical underpinnings of the network journalism con-
cept. I will now turn to the realities of information exchange and analyze
how this concept fits in with the present state of journalism and what it
might mean for its future. The following analysis of newsroom practices is
grouped into six chapters, each dedicated to different aspects that highlight
how the interplay between the emergence of digital technologies and news-
gathering, production and dissemination processes transforms the practice
of journalism.
This fi rst chapter will chart the terrain by starting with a brief historical
overview of the advent of digital technologies in the newsroom, provided
through the eyes of the interviewees. The chapter will address how non-
linear information flows started to challenge journalistic practices and how
self-perceptions of journalists are being affected by this. Within a little
more than a decade and especially with the launch of the fi rst free browser
in October 1994 and the introduction of the Internet to a greater public,
(global) communication practices in general and communication practices
in the newsroom in specific began to change and the interviewees reflect
on their fi rst encounters with digital technologies as well as on what they
perceive as some of the great changes and challenges to journalistic work
as a result of that.1
6.1. DIGITAL PRODUCTION ENVIRONMENTS AND

THE COMPLICATION OF JOURNALISTIC WORK
The new media is basically a bombardment of information.

(Interviewee 2, ICFJ)
Digital technology has fundamentally transformed information gathering,

production and distribution modes. All interviewees note that the introduc-
tion of digital tools to journalistic practice has been perceived as a severe
The Advent of Digitalization in Newsrooms 109
intervention, challenging and changing the notions of how to practice jour-
nalism. When asked to describe the impact of digital technologies on day-to-
day practices, interviewees replied with a variety of comments describing the
effects the introduction of these technologies had on their work. First and
foremost, the speed at which technological advancements are made almost
seems stifling, demanding media practitioners to react. The Executive Direc-
tor of MediaChannel recalls on his personal experience:
As someone who started doing this from the fi rst moment you could
do it: When you couldn’t do video yet, we could just barely get audio
to go across a 56k, 58k telephone line. That was a big deal! And then
you could get video, but it didn’t work so well. And then suddenly ev-
ery year you are like ‘okay, what are the new codex, the compression
things, that are going to come out to make the fi les. And then [ . . . ]
fl ash video, the technology behind YouTube.’ [ . . . ] Suddenly for the
fi rst time you can easily publish, watch and stream a video online.
Like super easy! It went from being a difficulty level of eight to a dif-
ficulty level of 1 point 5. I mean, boom! Totally changed! (Interviewee
2, MediaChannel)
Producing content has not only become easier, but the ability to stream
online has also assisted news outlets to increase their reach. Via the World
Wide Web, the wide (and global) dissemination of programs has become
possible and even news outlets that formerly operated solely on a national
level, can now—at least in theory—enter the global market of information
exchange. Formerly almost exclusively occupied by large media corpora-
tions that could distribute content via costly satellite platforms, a global
information trade bazaar is gaining shape. And whereas journalists used to
produce and circulate their stories mainly within the restraints of national
or local settings and to a specific audience within a certain locality frame,
content is now increasingly exchanged transnationally.
One case in point, taking advantage of these new news dissemination
options, is the independent news outlet Democracy Now!, which originally
started as a radio program aired on a couple of dozen community radio
stations. Its Senior Editor explains how the station eventually transformed
from a radio outlet into a multimedia platform that distributes its program
not only to specific radio communities located in specific spots, but via the
net across the globe:
If you didn’t hear Democracy Now! on the one-hour news on your local
station: that’s it! And eventually we went on to the web and we started
streaming it on real audio. But again, unless you had an hour to spend
at your computer, listening to the stream, assuming the stream doesn’t
break up, that was your chance to listen. And then, over the years we’ve
expanded to MP3s where you obviously can take it anywhere, you can
share it. We now have video downloads. We started transcribing every
single segment so people can just go on to the website and read it or
they can email it to friends or print it out. A lot of blogs and other web-
sites now run portions of our transcripts on their sites. [ . . . ] We also
translate the headlines every morning into Spanish. Both in text and we
record the headlines in Spanish as an MP3. So then those headlines are
distributed to Spanish language community radio stations around this
country and also in Latin America. (Democracy Now!)
In the digital era, the radio station-turned-multimedia platform now

incorporates digital technologies to reach as many users in as many coun-
tries as possible.
Yet apart from the introduction of transnational dissemination options
to news outlets, the Internet has also had a significantly strong impact on
the communication between journalists and their sources. When the Guard-
ian Media Group Director of Digital Structure and Development started as
a journalist, he ‘had nothing but a telephone. There was no Internet, only
telephone and press cuttings and that was your life. And so everything was
very much based around your contact book’ (Guardian). And even though
the contact book is still important, the Internet now provides
an enormous database of information [ . . . ] to search from. So I think

that’s something that’s changed completely. In our times no one had
mobile phones, so you were trying to get people in their offices. No one
had emails so it was all very different. (Guardian)
The technology thus has changed the processes of gathering information,

offering journalists research tools and access to a seemingly endless pleth-
ora of information—and the Internet has become an inevitable research
tool, altering, for instance, journalistic investigation methods:
The way I write stories, you use the Internet a lot. Because it is, if noth-
ing else the world’s greatest phone book. And it is the way to get a hold
of anybody. And when you use it skeptically, it’s an excellent tool. It
can be a wonderful tool. It can mislead you. You have got to be very
careful. But when it’s used properly it’s a wonderful tool. (PEJ)
An observation by Paulussen and Ugille (2008: 34) supports this state-

ment. In their study about the use of user-generated content in newsrooms,
they note that journalists seem to mainly use the Internet as a background
research tool and rarely as a primary information source. Yet, digital tech-
nology comprises far more than just the Internet and has changed not only
content distribution options but also widened the ways of gathering infor-
mation. It also influences production processes and has widened the options
of accessing news content produced in other parts of the world. Democracy
Now!, for example, collaborates with stringers worldwide. Digital produc-
tion tools allow ‘video makers around the country and around the world
to send video to us that we can use on the program’, as their Senior Editor
points out. The introduction of digital technologies at Democracy Now!
has permitted direct access opportunities to spots in parts of the world that
the independent outlet previously did not have. Take this example as a vital
illustration and a case in point:
I think the fi rst time we started was right before the Iraq War. We had
a correspondent in Baghdad, named Jeremy Scahill, and he was work-
ing with a fi lmmaker named Jacquie Soohen of Big Noise Films. And
they were able to produce five-minute pieces from inside Iraq and then
they were able to manage to essentially sneak the material out via the
Internet. Saddam Hussein actually had a very strict fi rewall within the
country. You couldn’t send any large files. So obviously you couldn’t
send video. But they managed to be able to split the files into five hun-
dred pieces and send each individual piece, and then back in New York
we could connect the pieces together and we would have a five-minute
piece. So we were able to broadcast video records from Baghdad at a
fraction of the cost that it would take under traditional means of satel-
lites. (Democracy Now!)
The advent of digital technologies hence allowed even a small outlet such
as Democracy Now! (that does not run overseas bureaus) to invest in a
correspondent team that provides direct coverage from elsewhere on the
globe. Stories traditionally assigned to foreign correspondents operating for
national and transnational corporate outlets, public service organizations
or news agencies now can also be covered and distributed by independent
news crews freelancing, for example, for small-scale news outlets.
What is more, the dividing lines between journalistic platforms are col-
lapsing. To name just a few options that come with digital technology:
former radio-only programs such as Democracy Now! now distribute addi-
tional video broadcasts, newspapers such as ZEIT provide video on their
online portals, the Guardian.co.uk offers a range of podcasts to its users on
demand and last but certainly not least, almost every outlet in the Western
hemisphere has decided to appear on social network sites such as Facebook
and at least quite a number of outlets—no matter if they originated in
broadcast, online or print—collaborate with YouTube. This also urges a
revision of the traditional roles of journalists. The MediaChannel Execu-
tive Editor mentions how roles of journalists are increasingly transforming
and this seems to be the result of a change of news media itself:
So traditional journalism that is which we used to think of as some-

body who worked for a newspaper was assigned stories or a beat.
And cover that beat is becoming increasingly a smaller part of the
whole media ‘mix’, because of radio, because of television, because
of the Internet, because of websites, because of blogs—because of all
these new forms of communication and information. (Interviewee 1,
MediaChannel)
In addition, the emergence of global news flows proliferates a revision

with regard to the expectations connected to the journalistic work profile.
Whereas local topics used to be dealt with on a local level, globalization
not only impacts international news, but also local news. Journalists are
challenged to work within a ‘more complex world’ as the Senior Program
Director at ICFJ suggests. This ‘more complex world’ demands an under-
standing of the global impacts on local stories:
I would say that journalists now have to be more global. I mean: be-
fore it was very local. Now they have to be able to make connections
between the local and the global issues. If you don’t do that nowa-
days, you will certainly be reporting things out of context. So having
said that, the skills also would require more cultural awareness. You
wouldn’t think about that before, maybe just on the local level. But
now you have to project that into the international level. What does
that mean for people here and overseas and where can connections be
made of that? I think the skills are quite more complicated now and
certainly a journalist has to master all of them if he or she really wants
to play a good role in society. (Interviewee 2, ICFJ)
Accelerated by the process of digitalization, journalists therefore now gather,

produce and disseminate news within ‘global’ rather than within ‘local’ set-
tings. Not only has the world around them become more ‘complex’, jour-
nalistic work as such has become more ‘complex’ or ‘complicated’. This
‘complication’ of journalistic work is aggravated by the emergence of new
information disseminators.
6.2. THE REVISED SPHERE OF INFORMATION FLOWS
This was impossible ten years ago! There was no way that that was going
to happen! My investment is a 1200-buck computer, and other stuff of
course. But that just lowered the threshold to get in. And I know so many
really excellent producers and writers who got in that way.
(Interviewee 2, MediaChannel)
Easy-to-use, affordable technology has widened the circle of content

distributors as well as supported the creation of countless news outlets
in a global news sphere. A transnational sphere of information exchange
is evolving, consisting of traditional media organizations as well as an
unmeasurable number of news dissemination platforms varying in size.
New players have entered the field of news production and distribution
and so-called ‘alternative’ platforms have emerged such as Ourmedia or
Indymedia, providing content online and competing with traditional news
outlets. ‘Alternative’ media according to O’Sullivan et al. (1994: 205) and
Atton (2005: 15 et seq.) are concerned with social change, seek to involve
citizens and aim to innovate media forms and/or content. The ‘alternative
media’ movement is of course not new (Ibid.), but through the introduction
of digital technologies, alternative and independent producers have found
more options to gain a stronger voice on a greater public scale, as the alter-
native producer and videoblogger from Ourmedia points out:
The big ‘Aha’ moment was when we learned that we could distribute
our work online. Because up until that point that was the one bound-
ary. I could take video, I could tell stories, I could write it, but I couldn’t
get it out there. And now that we can—I mean, does a journalist have
to be a part of the BBC to do what he or she does? (Ourmedia)
The opportunities provided by digital technologies also draw media per-

sonnel into the news sphere who were formerly not producing journalistic
content, with one example being the career path of one of the MediaChan-
nel interviewees:
I’ve certainly come into contact with a fair amount of people with the
same sort of story as me, which is not journalist background, but who
got [ . . . ] involved in political journalism online. And most of the
people I know [ . . . ] got into it from just getting so disgusted about
things politically, just started saying: ‘I’m going to start doing some-
thing myself!’ [ . . . ] I’m defi nitely from that camp where I’m someone
who wasn’t a journalist and went: ‘Oh, what are these new technolo-
gies?’ It’s more like: I just found myself knowing how to use some of
those technologies and being like: ‘All right, I need to say something
here! And here is a way to do it.’ (Interviewee 2, MediaChannel)
This career path is just one case in point, indicating that a growing num-
ber of tech-savvy users are becoming involved with news reporting who
do not necessarily have a background in traditional journalism. This new
media personnel adds information layers to increasingly altered global
news flows. Hence digital technology has lowered the threshold to enter
the sphere of news production and distribution and news providers do not
need to be attached to large-scale corporate or public service outlets any
more in order to gain access to news consumer markets. The online sphere
provides the option of disseminating independently at a low cost—and on
a platform on which user numbers can vary anywhere between zero and
millions, or as MediaChannel’s Executive Director highlights: ‘There are a
lot of people who write blogs that get ten people a day on them. Some of
those people end up getting hundreds of thousands eventually’ (Interviewee
2, MediaChannel).
With more personnel entering the news production sphere, we also wit-
ness an increasing flow of information that is created to counterbalance
news stories disseminated by corporate and public service media. Sup-
ported by digital technology tools, the ‘balance of power’ is shifting, as
Shirky remarks (2008: 164). The online sphere provides space for alterna-
tive viewpoints that otherwise might go unheard in the coverage of tradi-
tional news outlets and not only supports the emergence of new alternative
news outlets, yet for that matter enables alternative news organizations to
amplify their voices and increase their reach. Take the example of Democ-
racy Now!:
We defi nitely try to bring out voices and viewpoints [ . . . ] that aren’t
heard in the mainstream media or aren’t given enough coverage. Espe-
cially in the lead up to the Iraq War we were probably the only national
program that consistently had experts on the show that were skeptical
and critical of what the Bush Administration was claiming was go-
ing on in Iraq and the threat they posed to the United States and the
Middle East. (Democracy Now!)
The ability to cover stories and provide space for alternative voices has also
attracted a number of media practitioners to leave corporate media and
turn toward outlets located in the independent spectrum of information
platforms, such as the Executive Editor at MediaChannel or the volunteer
at Ourmedia. The Ourmedia volunteer, for example, left traditional media
in the wake of new platforms created on the Internet. He turned away
from his corporate employer and started working independently when he
realized that there were platforms on which he could distribute his content
autonomous of a traditional news outlet:
I kind of left the professional journalism world when I was 26. I was just
burning with passion to tell the stories around me and I was in a posi-
tion, you know, I was very excited. I was at CNN! This was the news—I
imagined—that world leaders would turn and watch when events were
happening to kind of keep up with what’s going on. [ . . . ] But being
inside of that, I just realized that no one was ever telling lies. I was never
told to say something I didn’t think was true. [ . . . ] There was just a
general feeling in the environment that certain things were not allowed.
Certain questions just shouldn’t be brought up. The way to approach sto-
ries. [ . . . ] It was a self-censorship almost. And it was just very stifling.
So yes, I was gatekeeping; and [ . . . ] it was 2000 when I left and that
was just when the powerbooks came out with firewire cables and digital
video and Finalcut Pro. So I would do my day job or I would write news
and help make news and then I would go home and I would learn on my
computer how to use this new technology. (Ourmedia)
The ability to distribute content to a wider audience via independent news

platforms eventually drew the Ourmedia volunteer to leave CNN and work
for a number of independent outlets, where he felt that he was in control
of the ‘gates’—and where he felt that he could open them to stories he was
interested in. As argued in Chapter 4, using the case of Tibet: The emer-
gence of an increasing number of independent news outlets is stirring up
the conventional idea of gatekeeping and allows access to stories otherwise
suppressed by traditional media. In line with this, the Executive Editor
at AlterNet remarks: ‘There’s a larger level of distortion in the corporate
media and then underneath there’s almost everything you need to know if
you know how to find it’ (AlterNet). Along with independent outlets work-
ing on a highly professional organizational level such as Democracy Now!,
activist platforms such as Ourmedia or Indymedia hence are now capable
of producing and disseminating stories for a wider public—and they can
be heard:
In theory [ . . . ] something on the Indymedia website has just as much

of a chance of being seen and noticed as something on CNN. At least
in theory. Now that’s not how it actually works, because of various
network things. But in theory at least we’re all equal. So I think, the
technology really serves as a threshold lowering thing when it comes
to distribution. When you have a mobile phone you can take photos at
a protest or you have small recording devices like this one, with which
you can record in new ways.2 But I don’t think that’s as big a step as the
distribution side of it is. You could always get media. Now you can just
get more people to see it. (Indymedia)
Many cases in which individuals were able to impact the news coverage of
corporate and public service outlets through online reporting have occurred
over the past few years, with the story of the dying Neda in the streets of
Tehran or the information provided by citizens and activists during the
protests in Tibet being just two examples. Another striking example that
provides a case in point on how a fully fledged activist platform can influ-
ence news agendas of corporate outlets is the story of Indymedia and how
its activists drove the coverage during the Republican National Convention
that took place in New York in 2004:
It was, I think, one of the high moments of the Indymedia movement

where they had probably over a hundred whether you call them jour-
nalists or activists. But people with cameras, people that were taking
notes and really chronicling what was going on in the streets to an ex-
tent that no other media outlet could even accomplish. And they were
just breaking story after story about people being arrested on minor
charges, being held for 36 hours, 48 hours. Hundreds of people that
were arrested were held in this former bus depot that was fi lled with
toxic chemicals. The IMC managed to get photos from inside of this
bus depot before any other news outlet could. The photos ended up be-
ing published in all of the daily papers. [ . . . ] Indymedia was all over
the story as it was happening. And the rest of the media really just had
to follow the story from there. (Democracy Now!)
In cases like these, alternative and independent news outlets serve as a non-
standard news source for traditional news outlets—widening up the source
opportunities and confronting journalists with an almost uncountable
number of research and story opportunities unthinkable before the advent
of digital technologies. This is exactly what is meant when I talk about the
‘decentralized’ character of digital media, offering more opportunities to
social movements, for example, to publish, distribute and mobilize support.
Indymedia is one prime example of that (Garcelon, 2006).
Another example of how alternative news platforms can impact the cov-
erage of traditional media was the political coup that took place in Haiti in
2004. Until the major earthquake hit in January 2010, Haiti was pretty much
non-existent on news agendas of traditional media outlets. In 2004, however,
the Caribbean state did get its share of international news coverage, when
Democracy Now! eventually exposed the involvement of US governmental
organizations in a coup against the first democratically elected president of
Haiti, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, who had been exiled from the country:
Initially the US denied any role at all. They even denied there was a
coup. They said he left voluntarily. We received a call from a congress-
woman, Maxine Waters—I think it was a day or two after the coup
occurred, saying that she had just spoken to Aristide. That he’d been
flown to the Central African Republic. That it was a coup. That he
was forced to leave the country. We put her on the air right away. That
afternoon, Donald Rumsfeld was questioned based on that report as to
what happened in Haiti. It really started the ball rolling of journalists
questioning the Bush Administration over the role and what happened
in Haiti. (Democracy Now!)
As a matter of fact, independent outlets are gaining influence in the (global)

news media sphere and are being recognized by traditional media. The lat-
ter have begun to realize that an increasing number of emerging alternative
news deliverers have the potential to become competitors. The Vice Presi-
dent ‘Programs’ (Interviewee 1) at ICFJ explains:
I think part of their role [independent media] is to shake up the tradi-

tional media and to say: ‘[ . . . ] everything is changing. You are not
the only ones! You are not the only gatekeepers! You are not the only
guardians, the ones who can decide what is news and what isn’t!’ And
they’re exercising that role and I think they are winning the argument,
because young people are not reading traditional news organizations.
Younger people seem to be turning away from traditional media and

instead search for information from an increasing number of platforms
online, especially on social networks such as Facebook. 3 In addition, plat-
forms such as YouTube, easy-to-handle blog software or various websites
that offer comment functions provide the tools for individuals to publish
their content. Traditional media outlets are challenged to consider how to
incorporate the material produced by these non-standard sources. Ignoring
them would be a fundamentally wrong approach, argues the Senior Associ-
ate at PEJ:
YouTube is a really interesting thing. A lot of it is ridiculous and worth-

less. But [ . . . ] some of it is really interesting and it’s like anything
else: it really depends on the person. What is the role of those people?
Increasingly they will be providing content or providing raw material
that will become content. I think that’s going to happen. If you’re the
editor of a newspaper or a producer of a newscast and you get incred-
ible footage from somebody who’s out there, are you really just not go-
ing to use that at all? And then I think you’re going to get it more and
more often. You’re going to get stuff from out there. (PEJ)
A transnational sphere of participation is emerging in which the amount of

information strings crisscrossing through the information sphere is grow-
ing. This information can be delivered by alternative or independent news
outlets just as well as by private citizens or independent producers. Each of
them constitutes a (smaller or larger) information node within a complex
net of information disseminators and producers. And each of them consti-
tutes a possible source for journalists within the complex sphere of network
journalism.
Yet, this diversity of sources comes as a challenge, as journalists struggle
to navigate through a restructured global news sphere. As the Senior Pro-
gram Director at ICFJ explains, there are not only more sources available,
but journalists need to identify ways to fi nd them and how to verify them
as reliable. The questions are:
Where do we get that source? What tools do we use to get the source?
With technology, with the Internet, where you might have very good
sources, you can also have blind sources there. So, where do we go
for that source? How do you weigh the importance of the sources in
a heating environment? That basically changes the value of a source
and changes the way we use sources for information. So, that’s why
the skills of the journalists have changed so much, because the sources
have gotten more sophisticated as well and you might perceive some-
thing that is not necessarily real when you deal with a source today.
And before you were pretty sure that the source was representing what
the source said it was representing. (Interviewee 2, ICFJ)
Or to put it another way: ‘It used to be [ . . . ] the source that is in favor,

the source that is against. The expert source or the government source or
the civil society source. They were extremely well structured. Now, I don’t
think that line exists’ (Interviewee 2, ICFJ).
The revised sphere of information flows also carries another implication
apart from diversification and confusion with regard to the relationship
between journalists and sources: Journalists seem to fear that the grow-
ing competition through alternative and independent outlets disseminating
information might cost them their jobs. This is a scenario the Indymedia
volunteer is also concerned with. Even though he does support the idea
that alternative outlets seek to add more voices and therefore broaden ‘the
streams of information that sort of flow into the journalistic reservoir’,
these alternative platforms, in his view, cannot serve as substitutes for tra-
ditional media. He fears that ‘when you have an army of unpaid freelancers
providing information, you can then no longer pay real journalists [ . . . ].
I don’t necessarily think that an army of bloggers should necessarily cost
all the journalists their jobs!’ (Indymedia) His argument reflects just one
of many concerns articulated by journalists in the wake of the transforma-
tion of the journalism sphere—and it raises the question: Are journalistic
outlets and their staff prepared for the challenges the sphere of network
journalism holds for them?
6.3. THE JOURNALISTS’ STRUGGLE WITH SELF-PERCEPTIONS
The attitude is: ‘Who do these people think they are that they can tell
stories better than us?’
(Ourmedia)
With the emergence of an increasing number of news disseminators, jour-

nalists seem to be not only afraid of losing their jobs, but at times these new
news disseminators are identified as threats to trained journalists who fear
for their position of being the leading purveyors of news production:
If you were a mainstream journalist and you’ve gone to a school and

you’ve worked on three different newspapers and you’ve built your ca-
reer and you have certain skills and you have a certain sense of yourself
and your credibility, it’s a bit threatening and aggravating if somebody
who doesn’t know what they’re doing suddenly is a journalist here
at a press conference. Somebody stands up and asks questions who’s
from the local parent teacher association, okay? [ . . . ] You resent that!
You say ‘How is that possible? Why is this person here and block-
ing my chance to get access to the decision makers?’ (Interviewee 1,
MediaChannel)
Journalists seem to feel as if they were in competition with these new play-
ers. A certain self-perception of journalists is under siege, as one of the
interviewees at ICFJ points out:
Journalists sometimes tend to think of themselves as, you know, the

ivory tower thing: ‘We are the ones who know how to take the in-
formation, interpret it for the public and give it to the public.’ And I
think that’s not a healthy attitude. I think it’s good for there to be more
sources of information and more ways for people to express themselves.
Such self-perceptive views of traditional journalists as being the purveyors

of truth is also highly criticized by the Ourmedia volunteer, who argues
that even though corporate journalists might perceive themselves as the sole
information disseminators, they might not necessarily attain journalistic
standards. Producing investigative journalism pieces, for instance, can be
considered an ideal form of journalistic production. However, the room
given to investigative journalism is declining in the reality of the day-to-day
corporate newsroom work:4
That’s something that when I was in journalism school, those were

the books we read. This idea of a journalist who would go out and
fi nd stories. Would like, you know, have a beat, and they would have
like a neighborhood or the crime scene. And they would get to know
people in that community and people would tell them tips. That’s what
I wanted to do. Then when I ended up at CNN, which I thought was
like the top of journalism, [ . . . ] it was like working at Burger King. I
had a schedule, I had a couple of shows that I helped to produce and it
was very rote. I didn’t do any journalism. I put together news. I didn’t
actually help find them. (Ourmedia)
This type of attitude among ‘elite’ news producers disturbs a number of

independent producers who would prefer to see a dialogue evolving between
news consumers and journalists as well as between independent and corpo-
rate news producers:
They [corporate journalists] come out there very authoritative! And so

when they aren’t telling the truth or when they’re wrong, people get
angry! And I think those of us in the grassroots who are bloggers, we
don’t really take the attitude of ‘We are the authority’. I take the atti-
tude of: ‘You know what? I’m a person, I’ve gone out, I’ve asked these
things of people, here is what I found out and these are my sources.
What do you think?’ So it’s more of a conversation. (Ourmedia)
This ‘authoritative’ attitude of traditional journalists as described by the

Ourmedia volunteer seems to be even further pronounced in countries with
less access to digital technologies. In countries with a ‘closed’ media system
still in place, traditional journalists often still occupy the role of the domi-
nant news distributor and are not necessarily being challenged by inde-
pendent or alternative competitors. ICFJ, for example, trains journalists
in countries where news production and dissemination is still very much
an ‘elite’ business and ICFJ’s staff has observed that journalists working in
such environments are often unwilling to adopt digital tools. When I visited
the ICFJ headquarters, one of their trainers had just been to Colombia for
nine months, working with management staff at newspapers in the country.
Reflecting on her stay, she revealed to the interviewee that the attitude
was very much a ‘head in the sand attitude’—much more than there is
here [US]—among newspaper owners, publishers, top editors, about
the need to change to accommodate new technologies. Because fewer
people are connected to the Internet in many of the countries where
we work, it’s easier for traditional media to say: ‘We don’t need to pay
attention to that!’ In countries where connectivity is very high, you
can’t ignore it and you’re losing readers very quickly. So I think that
in many of the countries where we work that there is a fear—or even
more fear—of the changes and a refusal to accept it and to change.
The reluctance to introduce digital technologies to newsrooms is met with

incomprehension by quite a few of the interview partners as the emergence
of a greater number of news producers and disseminators is viewed as a
necessary wakeup call for traditional journalists:
Journalism is an insular, scared profession that needs to open up a

bit. And there is too much going on in the world for journalists to be
as covered in their shells as they have been. It’s helpful that things are
getting stirred up and mixed around and they are kind of back on their
heels a little bit. (Indymedia)
Instead of trying to fight for a right to exclusiveness or an ‘elite’ position

within the global news sphere, the interview partners stress that journalistic
outlets should rather alter their newsgathering and production processes and
incorporate these evolving global news flows. These new paths to material
and sources allow for a dynamic process of information gathering as well
as for a greater accessibility to more spots around the globe. Journalists,
according to the interviewee at PEJ, should be much more open toward these
new sources. The Internet in this respect comes as a valuable tool that pro-
vides journalists with the means to research further details on stories:
I can read about what’s going on in the world by just a few clicks with
my mouse. [ . . . ] If I really want to fi nd out what’s going on in Myan-
mar I can do that. I mean that’s up to me. And there are people out
there who are posting on it and there are news agencies out there that
cover it and I can go get that stuff. (PEJ)
The Internet provides an enormous amount of background information and

according to the Senior Associate at PEJ this is one of its greatest assets:
Part of being a journalist is: You have to acknowledge that you just
don’t know everything. And when you get an assignment . . . I particu-
larly think about this as a magazine writer, but I get assignments and I
don’t know about the topic. And I just basically spend a month or two
just informing myself on the topic and I read everything I possible can
on it and you fi nd out when you do those stories: there is this entire
network of people who only care about this topic that to you seemed
utterly obscure. And those are the people you kind of have to lean on
to get the thing done right. (PEJ)
This statement can be interpreted as a call for more transparence and it is a

call for journalists to pay attention to non-standard news sources.
However, the evolving global news sphere in which information flows
multi-directionally and in which information strings produced by tradi-
tional as well as alternative news disseminators overlap does not only impose
challenges on traditional journalists. The Indymedia volunteer points out
that alternative news providers are struggling to adapt as well. With some
traditional media outlets starting to monitor the alternative media sphere
to pick up stories, the boundaries between these spheres seem to disappear.
Two formerly antagonized spheres of news production are moving toward
each other. This demands not only a repositioning of traditional news out-
lets, but also requires reflection on the side of alternative media:
Indymedia was sort of founded on this opposition between ‘Them’ and

‘Us’: ‘We are the radical amateurs doing crazy things and you are the
boring professionals who do things this way!’ And that is not the way
it is anymore! (Indymedia)
The ‘balance’ between traditional and alternative news outlets is—in the
words of the Indymedia volunteer—becoming ‘somehow modeled and
mixed up and confused’. Furthermore, outlets such as Indymedia struggle
with the growing number of other alternative competitors. Platforms such
as YouTube as well as the proliferation of user-generated content portals
on corporate and public service outlets offer individuals more choices to
publish their material. Accordingly, Indymedia is challenged just as well as
traditional media outlets to reposition itself within this network journalism
sphere, as
the absorption of these formerly amateur forms into the mainstream

world potentially draws users away from Indymedia. It’s fi nally dawn-
ing on the people in the network that: ‘Holy crap! You don’t have to be
the media just by going to Indymedia any more! You can be the media
and send your little video to CNN!’ (Indymedia)5
Thus one has to note that not only traditional journalistic outlets have to
fi nd their position within this revised structure of information exchange.
Both traditional as well as alternative news producers and disseminators
are starting to realize that our information space is shared by a number of
outlets—or nodes—that contribute to (global) news flows, no matter how
small or big each individual outlet is.
All in all, one can say that the transformation of the information sphere
seems to have a severe effect on self-perceptions of traditional journalists
as well as on self-perceptions of alternative news disseminators. Traditional
journalists are urged to abandon their supposed ‘elite’ status. Accordingly,
the Indymedia volunteer advises journalists:
Not to be so damn serious for one thing. [ . . . ] They will have to bring
the skill of not having to have the last word. Kind of this perpetual
openness to revision, which I think mainstream journalists now have a
hard time with. [ . . . ] I think we’ll start to see this become more and
more of a web, kind of a seamless web as more and more young people
enter the field. (Indymedia)
The journalism sphere is being altered into a network of many nodes, includ-
ing traditional, alternative or independent news producers and deliverers.
They all add content and are nodes within this network journalism sphere
in which traditional and non-traditional streams of information merge into
one sphere of (global) news flows. This also includes the (formerly silent)
news consumers as information deliverers and conversational partners for
journalists: ‘Journalism has evolved in a way that feedback is not an option.
It’s not an option, it’s not a choice—it’s a requirement for journalists now!’
As these fi rst remarks on the state of journalism after the advent of
digital technologies already show, journalists now have the company of a
variety of new news deliverers within the space of the global news sphere.
Alternative platforms such as Ourmedia or Indymedia and independent
new outlets such as Democracy Now! are just three out of many demanding
a place alongside traditional journalists.
7 The Shared Information Sphere
User-generated Content Providers,
Citizen Journalists, Media Activists
Among the new news deliverers adding to (global) news flows, four groups
seem to stand out at this point: media activists, citizen journalists, bloggers
and user-generated content providers. However, there is no set defi nition as
to what is behind each of these groups or if and how they differ in their char-
acter and in the ways they produce and distribute content (for a number of
terms currently in use see Kelly, 2009: 17). This conceptual lack of terminol-
ogy also became obvious throughout the interviews. The interviewees often
had differing types of content deliverers in mind when talk came to any of the
groups mentioned above. Some would, for example, not divide between citi-
zen journalists and user-generated content providers whereas others would
stress that these were two very distinct types of information deliverers.
Instead of treating these information deliverers as a somewhat unspeci-
fied ‘bunch’, though, I will draw lines here as each of these groups carries
specific characteristics and impacts journalism in differing ways. This chap-
ter as well as the following will explain what each group can deliver. Each
one constitutes a specific form of information node in a network journalism
sphere. Making clear distinctions as to what kind of material each of these
groups can contribute to information exchange will assist in understanding
what kind of node they represent and how they fit into this dense commu-
nication net. Therefore I am treating the groups as separate entities—or as
distinct information nodes. In the following sections I will characterize each
one and analyze its specific impact on the transformation of the journalism
sphere, starting with one group that encompasses individuals who deliver
story ideas, video material or comment to traditional outlets. I call this type
of information deliverers the group of user-generated content providers.
7.1. USER-GENERATED CONTENT PROVIDERS

AS INFORMATION NODES
The phrase we use, somebody in the World Service used, was: ‘It’s
a global network of stringers.’ And that’s what we’ve got really. I
mean they’re not journalists. They’re just people who happen to live
in parts of the world who’ve emailed us, want to tell us their story.
(BBC)
The Shared Information Sphere 125
Part of these new news flows journalists deal with are users who do not
necessarily intend to add content on a regular basis to news organizations,
but more likely happen to be on the spot of an event and more incidentally
than intentionally witness a story that might seem of interest to journalists.
The Executive Editor of MediaChannel clarifies one fundamental differ-
ence and attempts to draw the line between user-generated content provid-
ers and bloggers or citizen journalists:
A lot of what’s been talked about as citizen journalism is like the guy
with the cell phone who’s outside the subway station in London when
the victims of the bombing are brought up and he gets some images
of it. That doesn’t make him a ‘journalist’! That makes him an ama-
teur photographer who’s selling his images or giving them to the BBC
or somewhere else. A ‘journalist’ is ‘reporting’ on something: That
takes reporting and that’s what’s not happening. The World Trade
Center here in New York, there were thousands of people with cam-
eras who took pictures of it. Some of them got in newspapers, some
didn’t, okay? But that didn’t make them all journalists. (Interviewee
1, MediaChannel)
User-generated content then rather refers to the ‘ordinary’ person from

the street who happens to be an eye witness on the spot when a supposed
‘newsworthy’ story appears. One ICFJ interviewee characterizes this user-
generated content as an important part of the increasing information flows
reaching editing desks, becoming
one of those new sources that we need to start dealing with. [ . . . ]

[The user] is a new breed of sources that could be anyone anywhere
that has changed the face of journalism. So I wouldn’t call him a jour-
nalist, because he doesn’t do that on a regular basis. [ . . . ] I would call
him the new breed of sources that the media is relying on. (Interviewee
2, ICFJ)
The use of footage or information provided by the man or woman from

the street is of course not a completely new phenomenon. Journalists have
always been interested in hints and story tips. The Guardian interviewee
explains:
There are normal, non-professional, amateur people who get access to

information, which could be of interest in normal media whether it’s on
the web or in print or TV. There’s nothing new about it. You happen to
catch Prince William snogging in a nightclub, snap a picture on your
mobile phone. That would have been a story ten years ago, that will be a
story now, it will be a story forever. It’s just that the technology to label
that is much greater. [ . . . ] It’s sort of adding in some cases a rich tapes-
try to news, because of catching frequencies and that’s fine. (Guardian)
What is revolutionary and a challenge to routine journalistic work pro-
cesses is the sheer mass of user-generated content that reaches newsrooms
today. With digital cameras and broadband access at hand, getting access
to footage from a spot where a supposed story occurs without a journalist
on the site at that very moment has become much more likely. Furthermore,
the barriers to getting in touch with a journalistic outlet and providing
comments on a story or pictures and videos from the spot of an incident are
lower than ever before. Users can easily upload a picture or video on vari-
ous online platforms or email content directly to news outlets. The content
they add to the newsgathering chain is an addition that is viewed mainly
positively by the majority of the interviewees, for example by the Senior
Associate at PEJ:
If it’s used properly, I think it’s a wonderful thing to have. Particularly

if you’re talking about the camera. If there is something big that hap-
pens and you get like fi fty different emails from people sending you
video or photos. The thing that comes to mind is the bombing in Spain.
[ . . . ] You have got to be careful obviously about the content, as you
don’t want it to be too disturbing. But what are the odds that you’re
going to have somebody there when something like that is happening.
It can’t be a replacement of other coverage. But in terms of adding
something to the coverage you have: Yes! It can add a lot! It can really
add a lot! (PEJ)
The ICFJ Senior Program Director furthermore points out that users do
not only add content, but in a number of cases have become the fi rst
source of information for journalists. In his view, this changes the nature
of the information gathering process, with the importance of official
sources and the like declining: ‘The people are the source now. The tra-
ditional ways of gathering the news are not functioning how they used to
function. The people are beating the official sources and the traditional
sources’ (Interviewee 2, ICFJ). The gathering process is actually being
inverted, with users being the fi rst source in an increasing number of
cases: ‘You start with the locals, with the people. It could be through the
blogger, through online, through anywhere. But you have got to start
there. And from there you double-check all the facts with the traditional
sources’ (Interviewee 2, ICFJ).
Illustrating his train of thought, he uses an example he encountered
while traveling to Panama. During his visit, a bomb exploded in front of his
sister’s house, tearing apart the car of a neighbor who works as a Supreme
Court Justice:
Her [my sister’s] son, who is twelve years old, goes out with his cell
phone. He filmed everything: the car on fire—everything! The police
came afterwards, the investigators sealed the place, the kid went out. He
found a bottle of gasoline spread in the bushes afar from the place and
another gallon that had contained gasoline. He pictures everything, films
everything, he calls the investigators. They came: ‘Oh, I didn’t know
this!’ [ . . . ] They left—no reporters! No one was there, nobody came!
The car was left there. It was still there! And I said: ‘Is this any news?’
No! Her neighbor, her next-door neighbor is one of the Supreme Court
Justices! An extremely important guy in the country! No security came.
And I said: ‘He got it on tape!’ My nephew came to my house, showed
me the film: clear film on his cell phone. The whole fire—amazing! [ . . . ]
I mean, forty feet high, the flames! With audio! ‘Send it in. I will give you
the name!’ He sent it to the TV station. The people is the news! It’s not
the officials anymore. (Interviewee 2, ICFJ)
The twelve-year old boy thus became a source for journalists. In this
case, the roles of the news gatherer and the receiver of news are reversed,
with the little boy being the informant and deliverer of news and jour-
nalists or officials such as the police being the receivers. Users can now
deliver information either before or simultaneously with offi cial sources,
or provide background information and footage once a story breaks.
This marks a significant turn in the process of news gathering, under-
lining the increasing importance of stories reaching news desks from
multiple directions and indicating an increase in the number of possi-
ble information deliverers a journalist can work with: ‘The good side is
that all the sudden we’re getting information that we never would have
gotten before. Journalists can’t be everywhere. Citizens are’ (Intervie-
wee 1, ICFJ). Other examples of citizens turning into content producers
include the Boxing Day tsunami when mainly tourists in affected regions
provided footage of what happened. Their stories, pictures and videos
revealed the devastating effects of the wave. Journalists were rarely at the
place when the tsunami hit. Another striking example the interviewee
mentions is this one:
People recording police abuses against private citizens. [ . . . ] Before

there might be an allegation that that happened, but there was no
proof. Now we’ve got the evidence right there. So that’s a good thing
that this kind of information is getting out. There is a multiplicity. (In-
terviewee 1, ICFJ)
The increasing amount of content being sent in by users has inevitably led
to the creation of new news divisions at traditional news outlets, respon-
sible for utilizing user-generated content. Some big-scale examples are the
creation of an Interactivity News Desk at the BBC or CNN’s iReport plat-
form. Here, users are perceived as potential participants in the news pro-
duction chain. This indicates a change in attitudes toward audiences, who
were formerly fi rst and foremost known as (silent) receivers of information,
but not as content deliverers. The example of the Interactivity Desk at the
BBC illustrates how this traditional perception of audiences no longer holds
up.1 Wardle and Williams (2008) have conducted a study of the BBC’s user-
generated content hub and illustrate how the awareness among journalists
grew after 9/11 that citizens contribute content and how a turning point
was reached with the Boxing Day tsunami and the London bombings in
July 2005. The user-generated content hub is now responsible for the ‘Have
Your Say’ website of the BBC. 2
One of the interviewees worked as Editor for this division at the time of
my visit. She provided insights into the work processes of the Desk and gave
some figures indicating the dimensions of user-generated content streaming
into the BBC: In 2007, 12,000 emails reached the Interactivity News Desk
on a quiet day; bigger stories usually gathered around 15,000 emails. Dur-
ing the Lebanon War in 2006, all in all the BBC counted about 150,000
emails on the subject sent in by users. Such emails make up the content the
Desk provides:
We’re doing multiple debates. Not a debate on every story, but we do

about say seven or eight debates on the key topics of the day. We get
hundreds of pictures every week. [ . . . ] You’ve seen something appear
on the wires, something’s happened and you put what we call a ‘post
form’ on a story on the news website which because it’s so huge—the
BBC website—because it’s running about 6 million unique users every
day, and because people now traditionally come to the web, because it’s
instantly updated to fi nd out what’s going on, your net of people who
could give you information is pretty enormous. So all you need are one
or two people to say what’s going on. (BBC)
For the BBC Editor, this kind of content delivered by non-professional

‘amateur newsies’ (Allan, 2004) has become an inevitably useful pool of
information—and it is a gateway to news content as well as to background
information:
I mean basically they’re giving you the most fantastic access to a story
as a journalist. And the July 7th bombings in London sort of was the
turning point in all of this. People were showing us what was going on
under ground and there was no professional journalists or cameramen
down there. They were the only way we could get what was going on
on that day. We had 20 thousand emails, and a thousand pictures or
something to tell that stories—so fantastic! They didn’t see themselves
as journalists. We’ve gone back to a lot of them after and said: ‘Why
did you do it?’ And they thought they did it, because they wanted to
tell people what was going on. And that’s quite a normal thing now.
People caught up in a huge event, they want to pass on the story. And
predominantly [ . . . ] not for payment. (BBC)
Through connecting and reconnecting with its ‘informal’ information
sources from around the globe, the BBC Interactivity Desk has since its
inception in 2001 developed a contact database of its users. The database
provides an opportunity for editorial staff to directly connect with users
living in various countries in case a news story breaks. The BBC refers to
them as their ‘global network of stringers’ who—even though they are not
(!) perceived as journalists by the BBC—provide direct access to a number
of stories and background material. The systematic development of rela-
tionships with users eventually has become part of the overall BBC cover-
age. One example underlines how this means access to spots that might be
hard to cover:
There was a coup in Thailand last year [2006] and we had a few people
who’d messaged us in the past from Bangkok about other stories. So
as soon as we heard tanks are rolling down the streets in Bangkok we
emailed these people. And they looked out of their window and said:
‘Oh yes, tanks are rolling . . . ’ Straight on to world television, straight
on to the website! And these were people who we can go back to. And
that’s instant access to stories, which is transformational! (BBC)
With the inception of the BBC’s Interactivity Desk solely dedicated to the
content provided by users, the outlet has embedded a number of new con-
tent deliverers. This innovative form of gathering news and converting parts
of the audience into ‘informal’ news reporters marks a turn away from
the sender–receiver model, and a turn toward more interactive informa-
tion structures within the BBC. The specific way of partnering with news
users—the opening of gateways that allow for more news flows apart from
the use of traditional information strings such as news agencies or corre-
spondents—is an example of how a traditional news organization is adapt-
ing to the revised dynamics of news exchange. The case of the BBC shows
how an outlet provides its users with a platform where they are encouraged
to contribute content and to a certain extent be part of the public service
broadcaster. Users become individual information nodes not only receiving,
but sending content to the BBC; they serve as a source within the network
journalism sphere in which collaborative interactions between journalist
outlets and users have become possible.
Another example that outlines how network collaborations are evolv-
ing, with users as stringers and information deliverers, was the coverage of
the Virginia Tech shooting in April 2007. The interview at the BBC took
place the day after the shooting and the Editor explained how news reached
the Interactivity Desk on that day. User-generated content was a vitally
important part of the BBC coverage as users contacted the BBC directly to
either comment on the story or to provide further background material as
some users had been directly involved with the shooting. The content they
provided was generated at the Interactivity Desk and forwarded to various
production arms within the BBC—a typical way the hub collaborates with
other BBC arms. The Desk was, for example, contacted by an engineering
student who had been caught up in the shooting:
[He] had barricaded the door against this gunman [and] wrote the
most compelling story on email and then, of course, we call him back
and it’ s on all our radio outlets.3 It was on our Today program this
morning, which is our flagship radio program, it makes stories for the
website and he’s all over. And that happens, that’s not just a one-off.
Every day something will happen and we’ll put a form on and we’ll
get response. And that is amazing: From being a very small little unit
and not many people knew about us, it’s now universed and the BBC
understood that user-generated content, which is what we call it, will
help your programs from the most average story. (BBC)
With the creation of an Interactivity Desk, the BBC hence has assigned a
team of journalists responsible for systematically distributing news stories
and background information within its organization. What is more, the
desk is a newsgathering pool. Here the BBC receives story hints that other-
wise might have gone unheard. An example:
Let’s say there’s a story today about student nurses feeling under pressure
to do the work of senior nurses, because of pressures in the health ser-
vice. Then we get case studies from nurses saying: ‘Yes, that happened to
me.’ They can not only make stories for the website, but they can be on
our radio broadcast or television broadcast. We can go and film them for
our packages. In the past if you were making a television piece or a radio
piece, you would have rung up the charity or the Union or the Health
Service or whatever involved and say: ‘Can you give us a case study.’ We
don’t have to do that anymore. We’ve got them! And over the years since
2001 the database we’ve built up of people who have stories to tell is
just fantastic! So now, anything that happens we can get eyewitnesses,
because they write in, say what’s happening. (BBC)
This is a perfect example of what has become known as ‘crowdsourcing’:

using the audience to deliver story hints and background material.4 This
works on an international level as in the cases of Thailand or the Virginia
Tech shooting, on a national level as in the case of the story about student
nurses in the UK and it works just as well on a local level, as Wardle and
Williams (2008) have found. The BBC Wales, for example, has launched
the ‘Here For You’ project (for a detailed analysis see Wardle and Williams,
2008: 27 et seq.), a community outreach project that is committed to build-
ing a closer relationship with the people of Wales by promoting digital
literacy. Story suggestions from users are most welcome here and users can
even take part in the production process of news about the community:
The results of these collaborations are quite striking. These relation-
ships produce stories which would otherwise stay under the radar of
the BBC and would probably remain untouched by the mainstream
media. Also, because stories come directly from communities, they are
often more relevant to a wider range of audience groups. (Wardle and
Williams, 2008: 14)
Be it with the creation of a community project such as the one in Wales

or through the inception of the Interactivity Desk that provides stories for
all arms of the BBC, both examples illustrate how the BBC values user-
generated content as an additional option in covering news stories. Accord-
ing to the BBC Editor, active users are far more than a resource, and rather
a group of active citizens who can ‘educate’ journalists. Asked if users are
actually able to ‘teach’ journalists, she replies:
Of course you can learn from them. Some people tell you the most vivid
stories; they send fantastic pictures. Often the pictures and the video
quality is as good as any professional has made. I mean they maybe not
doing it professionally themselves, but their picture quality and things
like that. [ . . . ] They’re as good as any you might get from a profes-
sional. And if it’s the only picture of that story, then you’ll take that
whether it’s wobbly or blurred or whatever. (BBC)
As user-generated content has become an inevitable part of the BBC coverage,

one part of the routine work of journalists at the Interactivity Desk is to build
relationships with these informal stringers, not least to ensure that they send
the material to the BBC and not elsewhere. This requires a careful handling
of content provided by users and the establishment of mutual trust:
If they’re going to send you the material they have to trust you. That
you’re not going to abuse it or use it in any sort of offensive way or
misuse it or say things about them which clearly distort their story.
So what’s important for us is the audience trust us. If they want to tell
their story via the BBC, we’ll treat them fairly. We’re completely clear:
‘You come to us. We’re a publicly funded organization. We can’t pay
you for it.’ We’re not like some newspaper groups. We couldn’t afford
to get everybody fifty quid for their pictures [ . . . ], but we will treat
you absolutely fairly. We’ll be very open with you. We’ll say what’s
happening to your material. If we’re publishing it, we’ll show you it
and you’ll get a massive audience. And then—in picture terms—if you
send us a picture and we’ve used it and then some organization, too,
would pay. Come and say: ‘Hey, we’ll buy that picture!’ We’ll go back
to you and say: ‘You own the copyright. If you want to sell your pic-
ture you can do.’ We may buy the copyright if it’s a one-off picture and
it’s fantastic. As we’ve always done; as journalists have always done.
But because there’s so much now we can’t afford to buy everything
by the copyright. So they own the copyright. If they wanted to sell it
they could do. So that’s sort of a basis we’ve worked out. To have that
relationship they need to trust you, they need to realize that the BBC is
going to be a massive audience for their material. (BBC)
However, the interview partner also points out that the number of con-
tributors is still by far smaller than the number of mere news consumers:
And in all this excitement about user-generated content you must re-
member it is still a sort of minority of the audience who were doing it.
It’s a really good minority and really fantastically important to our job,
but more people are watching and reading the news than taking part
in it. (BBC)
This goes with what Horowitz (2006: Online) defines as the ‘1—10—100
rule’ of user participation: In general only one percent of the user community
can be defined as ‘creators’ who deliver content. Ten percent make up for the
group of ‘synthesizers’ who do participate and send comments or share links
to material produced by an outlet, yet 100 percent of the ‘consumers’ will
benefit from the actions of the group of contributors and ‘synthesizers’.
While the BBC has developed a systematic approach toward collaborat-
ing with users on a range of stories, this is not an accepted practice at every
journalism outlet. User contributions are in the majority of cases limited to
breaking news coverage and incidents such as bombings, disaster and crime.
Wardle and Williams have found that even at the BBC and despite efforts to
collaborate, the material provided is in many cases ‘little more than a novel
alternative source of raw material among many. As one journalist stressed,
newsrooms could be doing more to encourage audience members to have
more impact on the fi nal product’ (2008: 16). This corresponds with many
interviewee replies and is an indication that as of now, ‘amateur’ content is
fi rst and foremost only incorporated in journalistic practice as a resource
when covering a somehow ‘unusual’ event:
You talk about the same handful of things. We had a whale down in
the Thames and everyone has got that picture. All we have is sort of:
Fire up at Buncefield and everyone has taken photos of that. So every-
one’s got all this stuff, but actually it doesn’t amount to the day-in-day-
out routine coverage of everything that’s going on. (Guardian)
However, what does amount to the day-in-day-out routine is, as this inter-
viewee also mentions, that journalists are confronted with a much larger
quantity of information in circulation and that editors have to fi lter this
vast mass—the result being in the ideal case a much better product because
there are many more resources at hand:
And if you’re doing your job, you’re making a much more creative pack-
age by bringing this information in. But at the same time you’re still
making a package and you’re using it as another source. (Guardian)
The central question for journalists at news outlets then becomes: What
filters do they want to agree on? They also have to decide whether they
want to follow the example of the pioneering BBC and launch a completely
new arm of their organization devoted to user-generated content. The BBC
is still one of a few organizations that has created a team solely responsible
for the generation of user-generated content. This might be an indication
why apart from the BBC’s systematic approach to forming relationships
with users, the relevance of user-generated content mostly is reduced to
breaking news coverage. In addition, studies on the practices of traditional
newsrooms and their adoption of user-generated content also indicate that
journalists still often perceive their news outlet as the gatekeeper (Thurman,
2008). An extra arm of their outlet dedicated to user-generated content
material might collide with their understanding of who is allowed to gener-
ate and produce content. What is more, journalists are often concerned, for
example, over ‘the news value of some user generated content; its standards
of spelling, punctuation, accuracy and balance; and the influence of blogs
on the mainstream news media’ (Ibid.: 144).
However, the problem might not necessarily lie with the quality of the
content. As the example of the BBC shows, there are many cases in which
the outlet gains and not loses. The general problem rather lies with the
organizational contexts existent in newsrooms that hinder the adoption
of user-generated content as Paulussen and Ugille (2008) have found in
their comparative study of two Belgian newspapers and a local community
website. They conclude that the biggest problem in regard to user-generated
content is an often-felt resistance against opening up in traditional news-
rooms that is a result of the daily routines, work practices or organiza-
tional structures of newsrooms. Unless staff members are assigned to the
task of monitoring content provided by users as in the case of the BBC’s
Interactivity Desk, news routines at traditional outlets often do not allow
for active user participation. Journalists are too busy with their day-to-day
work and there is barely space left (let alone do they have the training) to
embrace user-generated content as a valuable addition to reporting. This
echoes a statement made by the Indymedia volunteer who signals that the
value of user-generated content and the possibilities it could provide if used
not only as a ‘one-off’ source for breaking news are often completely under-
estimated. He refers to CNN and the major chunk of content gathered and
uploaded on its iReport portal and criticizes that this material often repre-
sents not much more than a collection of ‘odd’ home videos:
‘iReport’! Now, what is that? [ . . . ] I mean, what is that like: ‘Hey,

send us footage of your dog and like he did crazy tricks!’ [ . . . ] That’s
like ‘Americas Funniest Home Videos’ or something. [ . . . ] Here is
when we will be able to say there is a real change. When those orga-
nizations are accepting footage that’s simultaneously both serious and
not breaking. Okay? So, when they’re taking footage that has actual
serious public value and political content and isn’t: ‘I’m on the scene
and saw the London subway bombers five minutes before they were
dead.’ If they ever take serious footage that’s not got this aura of ‘On-
the-spot’: that’s when there will be a legitimate change. This other stuff
is just sort of like: ‘Wow, we know there is this technology out there
and we know there are all these crazy cameras doing their stuff. So we
have got to incorporate them somehow! So let’s make it fluffy; or if
somebody has something that we don’t have, let’s get that, too, and if
we can, let’s get it for free!’ If there ever is real footage being provided
by people and it’s more than just ‘I saw the volcano explode kind of as
I was walking by and I just had my camera out.’ That’s I think when
there will be a real difference. (Indymedia)
Another point of criticism is raised by the Guardian interviewee and con-

cerns the handling of user-generated content during disaster coverage.
Footage sent in by users can shift attention solely to spots accessible for
tech-savvy users, whereas other parts of the world, where you might not
fi nd eyewitnesses with a camera at hand, are being ignored. Journalists
who solely focus on user-generated content as a gathering method then are
running the risk of neglecting technologically ‘underdeveloped’ areas. The
interviewee refers specifically to the Boxing Day tsunami of 2004:
Actually that was completely skewed towards where there were affluent
Western tourists in most cases, where you had sort of clusters of tour-
ists. In Sri Lanka and places in Thailand: People with video cameras
to the hand. You had a ton of information coming from that. Infor-
mation, the video footage: Absolutely gripping! It would have found
its way into any media outlet. Banda Aceh, which is actually where
the worst atrocities were held, none of that! Actually there, everyone
had to depend on the fact that news organizations were going. ‘This is
where we’re going. We’re going to send reporters out, because it’s not a
tourist set.’ (Guardian)
News coverage of regions such as Banda Aceh was solely provided by tradi-
tional journalists. This stresses that journalistic organizations—apart from
relying on an increasing number of users providing material—defi nitely
still need their networks of professional correspondents:
And I think the job of a newspaper is to go: ‘Where are things happen-
ing in the world and how we’re going to cover it and what resources
can we bring in to help tell that story most effectively?’ Those might be
blogs from other people, it might be pictures sent in by citizens et cetera
et cetera et cetera. But that’s part of a broader sense of ‘How to tell the
story.’ And I think if all you do is skewed by where people already are,
where this sort of amateur activity is happening, you’re probably not
doing your job. Now, just after the tsunami there was this earthquake
on the India-Pakistan border. There was no bloggers there! No one
snapping things with their mobile phones. (Guardian)
As this statement illustrates and as the interviewees repeatedly point out,

there needs to be a level of critique that accompanies the practices of imple-
menting user-generated content in the day-to-day business. This also refers
to the ways in which corporate news organizations use the footage and
which at times seems questionable:
You know, if something happens I would want to see it. I guess what we
all hate about television especially in America is that then that picture
will get flashed every ten minutes. Or it gets flashed, flashed, flashed
and that becomes the only piece of news people hear. (Ourmedia)
This corresponds with a statement of one of the ICFJ interviewees, who

hints at the dangers of flashing the same picture over and over again as
their impact is multiplied ten-fold, hundred-fold, thousand-fold over

the impact of words. So for example [ . . . ] police abuses: Yes, it’s
shocking and people see that and they’re outraged and they want some-
thing done about it. And those images get replayed over and over and
over again and their impact is compounded in such way that sometimes
the other context is lost. And I think there we have to be very careful in
using those kinds of images and video to be sure that we’re seeing the
whole story. (Interviewee 1, ICFJ)
The handling of user-generated content then also raises ethical issues. Which
kind of footage provides added value and which kind of footage could stir a
story in the wrong direction or spin it in inaccurate ways? Whereas in gen-
eral the interviewees signal a positive attitude toward the use of amateur
material, they also repeatedly point out that the way news organizations
deal with user-generated content at times seems to lack reflection as to
appropriate standards of handling the footage:
I think there’s a dangerous territory around privacy! It’s a sort of stop.

Just because a minor soap star goes to the shop doesn’t mean that peo-
ple should be paying two hundred quid just so everyone can snap them
with their mobile phone. And these two things of risk and privacy pose
longer-term ethical debates for how we might engage with this content.
Because you resume and say: ‘Well, we don’t want paparazzi.’ Then we
have a press commission where we talk about: ‘Actually we don’t want
paparazzi doing this.’ But actually, what about amateurs? What about:
does anyone have a right to not be snapped by a complete amateur with
a mobile phone and someone buying it up? (Guardian)
What is more, digital material can easily be faked—and some users might
have good reason to simulate a story or forge a video: ‘A lot of the people
who are using this kind of citizen journalism stuff taken by cell phones
are paying for it. And that means that people have an incentive to go out
and fi nd stuff that maybe isn’t really accurate’ (Interviewee 1, ICFJ). Simi-
larly reacts the ZEIT ONLINE Editor, who does welcome user-generated
content but views parts of it critically, though, especially thinking of the
dangers amateurs might get themselves into. As he puts it, ‘journalists who
were educated to work as journalists do have a defi nitive advantage. And
this being, that they take a professional risk they know and can estimate’
(ZEIT ONLINE). Amateurs on the other hand might underestimate the
risks of certain situations just for the sake of snapping a picture and getting
their footage and their name into the news. He refers to an incident that
took place in 2006 during a school rampage in the German city of Ems-
detten where students tried to take pictures of the unfolding events:
So they [the students] turned on their little mobile phones, switched on

the video mode and walked towards the school, while all others were
storming towards them to flee to the schoolyard. That’s misunderstood
citizen journalism, completely misunderstood citizen journalism! This
human being puts himself in danger in that moment, forgets about his
flight reflex. That’s one of the things I find very, very alarming about that.
I’m not saying that every professional journalist is much better in this
respect. Someone might surely have gone there as well. There are enough
examples in professional journalism. But in the case of a professional
journalist, I would say, that’s a professional risk. Also, to determine this
risk evaluation. I can’t expect this from an amateur. (ZEIT ONLINE)
Similar incidents have been reported, for example, during the Buncefield
fi re in 2005, when a series of explosions at the Hertfordshire Oil Storage
Terminal destroyed large parts of the surrounding area and hundreds of
nearby homes had to be evacuated. Lee-Wright notes that during the inci-
dent kids with mobile phones ran toward the danger field to take close-up
pictures and offer them to reporters (2008: 255). The Guardian Director
comments:
If you take something like Buncefield: That was a dangerous fi re! But
you don’t go and sit there and say to people: ‘We’ve got five-hundred
quid if you can fancy getting your toes singed.’ You have to be quite
careful! [ . . . ] One of the things is: professional journalists in positions
of risk. They are professionals who are able to manage those positions.
You don’t want suddenly get everyone doing it just for the hell of it!
(Guardian)
What seems to be missing then are general guidelines for journalists that
deal with standards of how to handle such content. With a greater range
of source opportunities emerging, journalists are challenged by situations
that are not addressed in standard ethical codes of journalistic organiza-
tions. The confusion in the wake of an increase in user-generated content
therefore requisitions a revision of such guidelines and encourages a dis-
cussion about how to handle the material. Some news organizations now
provide guidelines for their staff on how to deal with such content or how
to perform in social networks. Reuters, for example, set out its social media
policy in February 2010 and provides a manual for journalists on social
media. The Radio Television Digital News Association (RTDNA) has also
released Social Media and Blogging Guidelines.5 Yet, whether guidelines
already exist and whether journalistic outlets like it, hate it or are insecure
as to how to handle it, the transformation of our sphere of news exchange
is inevitably taking place and user-generated content is part of this. And
as one interviewee concludes: ‘The more cameras the better! I think the
more people are out there that are following what’s going on in this coun-
try, can hold those in power accountable. I think, that can only be a good
thing’ (Democracy Now!). Accordingly the Executive Editor at AlterNet
comments: ‘Well, you have to tell the stories the best you can and if that’s
the only images that you have and you can verify them, of course’ (Alter-
Net). Besides this, the emergence of user-generated content can challenge
journalists not only with regard to the question of how to use it as source
material. It can also provoke them to improve their own coverage:
Once you lose the fact that you are the only people with access to a mass
audience, because now everyone can have access to a mass audience, you
have to opt your gain! You have to prove what you’re doing. You have
to provide something that can’t be done just by an amateur. And I use
the term ‘amateur’ by the way [ . . . ] not in a derogative way. It’s just a
sort of monitory thing. Actually, someone doesn’t make their living from
this. Some of the most important astronomers are complete amateurs.
They’re just obsessives. And they achieve breakthroughs, because that’s
what they’re obsessive about in a way that someone who’s paid a salary.
Einstein was an amateur mathematician. He really was and they paid his
office when he came out with the theory of relativity. (Guardian)
This statement supports the argument that journalists should view user-
generated content as another resource and a legitimate option to gather
news material. Dealing with this content and with these alternative sources
of news—or individual information nodes for that matter—should also be
taken as an incentive to improve the coverage provided by journalists them-
selves—a perception that is also applicable with regard to content produced
and disseminated by two other groups of alternative information providers:
so-called media activists or citizen journalists.
7.2. MEDIA ACTIVIST AND CITIZEN JOURNALIST

PLATFORMS AS INFORMATION NODES
The point is amateurs—enthusiastic amateurs—have a valid role to

play in pretty much every endeavor. And enthusiastic, motivated—
heavily, highly motivated—amateurs are very often a fantastic force
to be working with, because they are different to professionals who
sort of deliver between nine to five.
(Guardian)
Media activists as well as citizen journalists are two groups of new news
providers who carry the potential to severely impact (global) news flows. The
Indymedia coverage of the Republican National convention in New York
City in 2004 when activists gathered and distributed material to traditional
news organizations and drove the coverage has already been mentioned as an
example in the preceding chapter and there are many more examples of how
citizen journalists make their impact felt on news coverage. Before I turn to
other examples and how the interviewees perceive the relationship between
citizen journalists, media activists and traditional journalists, though, I want
to clarify the difference between user-generated content producers and media
activists or citizen journalists. Media activists as well as citizen journalists
differ from user-generated content producers in so far as they generally do
not just happen to be on the spot when, for example, a bomb explodes. The
ambitions of citizen journalists or media activists reach far beyond snap-
ping a picture with a mobile phone coincidentally. Media activists and citizen
journalists are concerned with a continuing coverage of issues they are inter-
ested in and they choose various methods to provide such coverage: They
adopt traditional news formats and, for example, publish print magazines
or newspapers or launch TV channels, often focusing on local communities
as the Indymedia NYC group demonstrates, and of course they use the most
powerful technology at hand that helps them to distribute content locally and
nationally as well as globally: the Internet.6 Via the World Wide Web they
can publish and distribute in whatever format they prefer: They can share
audio or video, write articles or become bloggers and publish on a stand-
alone website or join a citizen journalism platform or an activist network.
Accordingly, some interview partners do consider citizen journalists as legiti-
mate journalist ‘colleagues’:
As long as they are providing information where they can provide sources
and that is a continuing information-interactivity sharing-process, I
think we have to call it journalism! [ . . . ] You are not a journalist just
because you went to school or because you work for the mainstream
media. You are a journalist, because you are in a process of seeking
information in a balanced way. You are using sources, you are putting
things in context, you are getting feedback, you are in the communica-
tion industry and being part of it. It’s just that there are different ways
of doing it now than ever before. (Interviewee 2, ICFJ)
Even though the interview partner here also argues that ‘mainstream media
might be probably the most powerful’ and the ‘most recognizable form of
journalism’, citizen journalists as well as media activists have the potential
to eventually drive stories and therefore have to be considered journalistic
partners:
Now, you can call it ‘civic’, you can call it ‘social’, ‘public journalism’.
You can call it ‘one person journalism’ or there are people that say
it’s ‘angular journalism’ or ‘grassroots journalism’. You name it, but
you got to have ‘journalism’ in there, if you are providing information
that people want to know and someone wants to hide. If someone is
sending information to a wider audience—to more than one person—
and that information is valuable, uses sources and is something some-
body else wants to hide: it’s news! And if it is news, it is journalism.
Citizen journalists and media activists have produced and disseminated

content long before digital technology arrived. However, these alternative
voices used to be less powerful within the (global) information sphere. The
advancement in technological tools, though, has enabled a greater number
of citizens to participate and produce acts of journalism. Drawing upon an
example taken from the history of alternative media, the Democracy Now!
producer stresses that
Frederick Douglass was a citizen journalist in many ways. When he

started his fi rst newspaper advocating against slavery he had no jour-
nalism background at all. But he had a message that he felt had to get
out. And he started his own newspaper and I’m sure he would have
started a blog if he was around today. (Democracy Now!)7
The improvement of dissemination technologies then has empowered citi-

zen journalists and media activists to provide a wide variety of information
and to feed many more stories into the information sphere. As Bennett has
pointed out, their coverage goes ‘beyond standard mass media in terms of
the extent, the depth, and (potentially) the quality of information about a
vast range of political subjects’ and they ‘provide citizens with information
on demand, rather than when it is supplied in sufficiently dramatic fashion
by officials and prominent sources along organizational beats’ (2004: 310
et seq.).
These ‘organizational beats’ that mainly drive the journalistic practice
at traditional news outlets often stand in contrast to the coverage provided
and sources used by citizen journalists or media activists. In a comparative
study on websites of traditional news outlets in Israel and their citizen jour-
nalist counterparts, Reich (2008) weighs production processes of citizen
journalists against those of traditional journalists and fi nds that citizen
journalists are often hindered in having access to news sources. He uses this
as an argument that citizen journalism can complement but not replace tra-
ditional journalism and critiques that ‘the sources in citizen journalism are
largely defi ned by the serendipitous encounters and idiosyncratic choices
of lay people as well as their inability to access better-positioned sources’
(Reich, 2008: 742). According to him, because of such access problems
citizen journalists make limited use of human sources and thus ‘are freed
of the burden of having to confront, negotiate with, and come to terms with
fellow human beings. Instead, they are more inclined to show up at the
news scene and use the web as a news source’ (Ibid.: 749). However, even
though Reich does have a valid point to make here, he does also miss the
point of what citizen journalism is and what it has to add to the sphere of
network journalism. His argument can be turned on its head; journalistic
routines at traditional news outlets also invite charges that often journal-
ists too heavily rely on official sources and news routines. And although
Reich rightly points out that PR reps and spokespersons tend to ignore citi-
zen journalists and rather talk to journalists working for traditional news
organizations, the question remains, though, whether this routine way of
gathering is always the ‘better’ way to do journalism. According to the
Ourmedia volunteer, the ‘alternative’ voices of citizen journalists or activ-
ists accumulate otherwise narrow news agendas of the traditional media:
I think a good experiment is when you wake up, go down to the store
and you buy every paper, every major paper there. Put them side-by-side
and you’ll notice that most of the front-page stories are the exact same.
Everyone’s covering the same thing. And I think that’s why grassroots
media has kind of been flowering, because people know that those five
stories are not the only things going on in the world. (Ourmedia)
An impression shared by the MediaChannel Executive Editor:
I think this is one of the problems today that a lot of news templates,
ways of covering stories, are similar in many different outlets. So you’ll
fi nd the same stories often set by the news agencies. By the AP or
Reuters. What they lead with, other people pick up or other websites
pick them up. It’s cheaper and easier to do that than maintaining your
own stringers and your own people from around the world and have
confidence in your news judgment as opposed to their news judgment.
Often disagreeing with coverage provided by traditional media organiza-

tions, citizen journalists and media activists are capable of delivering differ-
ent perspectives—or another layer of information—to stories. In addition,
they often perceive themselves as ‘oppositional’ to traditional journalists, as
this MediaChannel interviewee reflects. However, they do not only contest
traditional media views and thus are opponents, but represent much more.
In a sphere of network journalism, they are nodes just like each traditional
journalistic outlet represents a node. Citizen journalists, media activists
and the outlets they choose as distribution channels have already become
part of a global news sphere—be it oppositional or consensual content they
gather, produce and distribute. They should be viewed as valid additional
nodes and working together with citizen journalists or media activists could
add value to the output produced by news outlets.
Traditional media organizations are starting to realize the growing
importance of such platforms. One of the first examples raising the atten-
tion of traditional news media was the Korean-based OhmyNews.com.
Now, platforms such as MoveOn.org, GlobalVoicesOnline.org, OneWorld.
net and NowPublic.com also increasingly become known among journal-
ists. However, independent media outlets are still far more open to collabo-
ration with citizen journalists or media activists:
Historically Democracy Now! has had a close relationship with a lot

of people connected with Indymedia. But I would imagine that in
more mainstream newsrooms around the country they’re realizing
that whether it’s Indymedia or these blogs—that they are consistently
breaking important stories and it has to be looked at and they have to
be given the credit they deserve! (Democracy Now!)
Corporate and public service news outlets seem to be just getting aware of
the potential usefulness of material produced and disseminated by activists
and citizen journalists. As mentioned in Chapter 5, the BBC, for example,
collaborated with the blogger network Global Voices Online as part of its
so-called ‘SuperPower Season’, a program special dedicated to highlighting
how the introduction of the Internet has changed people’s lives worldwide.
All interviewees agree that these new voices are a ‘valuable’ (PEJ) addition
to the traditional news media coverage. Media activists and citizen journal-
ists can provide
insights into a whole other part of the world that you wouldn’t see
otherwise. Global Voices is a really interesting site. I think OhmyNews
is a really interesting site. These are interesting experiments in how to
bring citizen journalists into the process. (PEJ)
One corporate outlet extensively collaborating with citizen journalists and
media activists is Current TV. The organization is apparently designed as
an integrated web and TV platform on which both—original reporting
produced by journalists as well as material produced by citizen journalists
and activists—fi nd their place in the day-to-day news schedule. Current TV
hence represents an information node within the evolving network journal-
ism sphere in which traditional journalists work side by side with citizen
journalists and media activists. This is a distinctively different approach
compared to the collaboration model of the BBC’s Interactivity Desk. Pri-
marily, Current TV is not interested in user-generated content, but rather
asks for fully fledged reporting pieces to be sent in by its users:
Current is more about people who have personal access or insights into
a particular situation as opposed to ‘I just happen to have my camera
. . . .’ Now, we’ve had people send us those things and we certainly
highlight it. But I think that’s sort of the playing field that the tradi-
tional outlets are on. They want to call out for those breaking news
images. And we’re looking for really unique personal reports from
people in our demographic, because we think that that’s what is sort of
missing from the news and journalism that younger people are really
wanting. (Current TV)8
By incorporating alternative voices in its daily schedule, Current TV aims

to provide angles to stories not necessarily found at other outlets. And even
though its basic journalistic concept differs from the BBC’s Interactivity
Desk, the general aim of both outlets is quite similar: While the BBC views
its user-generated content providers as ‘stringers’, Current TV builds a data-
base of ‘stringers’ through collaborating with media activists and citizen
journalists. This has eventually led to the evolution of collaborative story
productions. Even though Current TV has a very limited number of staff
and offices only in the US, UK and Italy, the outlet operates transnation-
ally. As it combines web and television, it is able to disseminate its content
globally and attract users as well as producers from various countries. In
addition, Current TV might send correspondence teams overseas to cover
stories, but in many cases it relies on citizen journalists. The interviewee
explains:
We try to do a collaboration of stuff where our reporters will reach out

to citizen journalists. You know, we might not have money to travel
to Venezuela. But we’ve been working on this report on Hugo Chávez
and there happens to be a citizen journalist out there who is filming the
protests because of the TV station being shut down and that person is
capturing that as a collaborative process for this journalist, in some
sense. So there are ways to incorporate citizen journalism into tradi-
tional journalism, I think. (Current TV)
Current TV not only looks for individual viewpoints or statements provided
by its citizen journalists. These stringers are often also producers of complete
individual reports. In addition, the outlet is on the lookout for story angles
that differ from the coverage provided by traditional media outlets. After
the fatal shooting at Virginia Tech, for instance, Current TV did not send a
correspondent team, but approached Virginia Tech students via email and
listservs and encouraged them to provide their own account of the event:
When the campus was flooded with news media so much so that the
students actually had to tell the media to leave, we never sat foot on
that campus. But what we did do was we gave the students a platform
to tell our viewers what was going through their heads through web
cam stories. They sent vlogs, in a sense, via the web cams. We had a
student who was sitting on the bunk bed in his dormitory saying that
he just heard those shots and he just told us what was going through
his head. It was very intimate; it was in his own words. There wasn’t a
reporter going like this [interviewee approaches interviewer up close].
Kind of like a feeding frenzy. (Current TV)
These reports carried very personal views and some students also used their
web cam stories as an opportunity to critically reflect upon the coverage of
the shooting provided by corporate news outlets:
One guy sent us a report. It said: ‘I did an interview with somebody

from CNN and at fi rst I told the reporter what I was thinking and
then I started thinking that this reporter doesn’t care what I’m going
through. They just want to hear more details, more of the gory details.
And I got really upset and I heard that there was this network where
I could just tell you what I feel. So I’m sitting here in my room and
this is what’s going through my head right now.’ And at the end of his
conversation—his web cam thing—he says: ‘You know, I’m really sad
right now, but I feel a little bit better doing this.’ And he submitted it.
We aired these vlogs in a very like ‘raw’ and unvarnished way and I
feel like it was about letting these people, who’d been affected, speak
in their own words for themselves without engaging in that feeding
frenzy. (Current TV)
Such coverage features very personal viewpoints and accounts for quite a
number of stories produced and reported by citizen journalists or media
activists and indicates that their ‘rules’ and ‘standards’ might at times dif-
fer from traditional understandings of how to cover the news. Opinionated
reporting often seems to be favored over somewhat ‘objective’ or ‘factual’
news reporting proposed by most traditional news organizations. These
highly personalized reporting styles at times also target traditional media.
One example is the coverage provided, for example, by Indymedia:
They have a critique of the media. They think media is an important
issue and they want to be the media. They want to offer another
narrative about what’s happening. There is a demonstration taking
place and [ . . . ] newspaper guys are standing on the police side of
the line and reporting on the numbers and the signs and what they
can see. The Indymedia person is in the crowd. And he’s actually
a participatory journalist. He’s participating in what’s happening
and giving a perspective on the people who are in. (Interviewee 1,
MediaChannel)
To this interviewee, Indymedia’s global online production and dissemina-

tion system is an ‘impressive’ model of organizing a transnational activist
network on the basis of digital technologies. However:
That doesn’t mean some of the reporting isn’t just what I would call
‘Fuck You!-Reporting’. Basically saying: ‘They lied . . . ’ It’s sort of
‘Point-Of-View-Reporting’, which has a validity. It’s more commentary
than it is news and information. But there is good news and informa-
tion there, too. (Interviewee 1, MediaChannel)
Yet, this turn toward personalized reporting also indicates that dealing
with such content and allowing alternative news providers to become part
of the production chain raises questions of journalistic standards an outlet
such as Current TV sets for its contributors—or criteria outlets such as
Ourmedia or Indymedia establish for content disseminated on their plat-
forms. Obviously, traditional journalistic criteria such as ‘impartiality’
as promoted by many public service or corporate news organizations are
hardly applicable when reporting is personalized to a certain degree—a
dilemma Current TV tries to solve as follows:
I do think that some of the values of traditional journalism need to

be understood by citizen journalists on the other end! Which is why
[ . . . ] we have this code of ethics and standards that we apply to our
citizen journalist reports. And we really do hold them to a high stan-
dard. And I think that that’s important. (Current TV)
The Senior Program Director at ICFJ goes as far as to state that a debate is
evolving especially concerned with the issue of standards for citizen jour-
nalists or media activists:
You might need standards, of course. [ . . . ] Whether or not they want

to use the traditional journalism standards. I don’t know if they are
actually going to do it. If they do it—I know there are some new me-
dia people doing it—that’s journalism! Now, if they don’t want to use
it, would they create new standards [ . . . ] so people know what to
expect? That’s being developed right now. However, I feel that jour-
nalism standards will prevail and they will defi nitely remain as a core
value of journalism. Whether or not everybody uses it: we don’t know.
The problem of introducing general standards or guidelines for alterna-

tive media producers is an issue that also urges discussions among citizen
journalists and activists. The interview partners volunteering at Ourme-
dia and at Indymedia already had their share of struggling to deal with
some material uploaded on their platforms. The Indymedia interviewee
comments that eventually ‘you have a lot of “dreck” in Indymedia which
are the re-prints and the rants and the kind of crazies’ (Indymedia). This
highly biased material can at worst call the reliability of an information
node such as Indymedia into question, because it overshadows that Indy-
media is also capable of providing valuable information or background
material:
The best stuff, the stuff that is what I think Indymedia is supposed to
be, is: ‘I was at this thing and this is what I saw and this is what I heard
and this is how I felt about it and I’m now going to tell you and I’m go-
ing to share it with you!’ So I’d say a lot of it is direct sort of fi rst-person
engagement with either situations or activities. (Indymedia)
However, these ‘rants’ disseminated via media activist or citizen journalist

portals do eventually cause problems. The Ourmedia volunteer describes
a general feeling circulating in the sphere of alternative media, where the
ideal of freedom of speech has repeatedly collided with radicalism at times
proposed within the spaces of alternative media networks:
We have this ideal, this vision of what we want it to be. To empower

people! But it gets a little dirty when you actually start trying to do
that and things are happening that you don’t always expect. Like, you
know, people will be dirty and nasty, and [ . . . ] people will start rant-
ing. Free speech is great, but sometimes people don’t know what they
are talking about. They’ll start talking about politics in a way that just
makes no sense. Or sometimes there is hate. People, when they have
free speech, they start saying what they hate. And sometimes their hate
is other people or other genders or whatever. (Ourmedia)
Citizen journalism and media activism hence seem to entail two sides of the
medal: Whereas these platforms allow the circulation of more perspectives
as well as information and opinion in addition to material provided by tra-
ditional media, they also struggle to control their producers and to ensure
that the quality of reporting meets professional standards. The Ourmedia
volunteer comments:
Of course, I have got to say that I love grassroots journalism, because, my
ideal is that everyone has a voice and we can all take part. But the reality
is that: They drive me crazy! I think there’s not enough humbleness in
the grassroots scene. You have some guy that has a camera and suddenly
he thinks he is the best or that he is an authority! You know, sometimes
he is as bad as a mainstream journalist. And Indymedia—which I love
and I think it’s a great thing that got started and I think Indymedia like
in Manhattan, they do a very good job for events—[ . . . ] but there’s so
much in-fighting, they fight amongst each other. [ . . . ] I definitely don’t
go to them for information of the world. Only if there’s an event I will
read what they say. Other than that there’s so much politics and stuff
that I don’t even understand. (Ourmedia)
Another important aspect mentioned with regard to citizen journalists and

media activists is that the German interview partner was struggling to find
examples of any widely known platforms operating within Germany. Whereas,
for instance, the concentration of alternative dissemination platforms seems to
be fairly high in countries such as the US, the German national media sphere
looks quite different. This might indicate that media spheres, for example, in
Germany do in some sense differ. Here, platforms such as Indymedia have
so far failed to attract the wider attention of traditional news outlets or large
audiences. The ZEIT ONLINE Editor believes that because of a structural
difference of national media spheres, a platform such as OhmyNews would
not work within a pluralistic media sphere as existent in Germany:
I can’t see them at the moment, but don’t want to exclude [the possibil-
ity] that they could also work in Germany. I only see one minor struc-
tural difference. If one has looked at the South Korean media system
before OhmmyNews appeared, then I would simply say that was not a
pluralistic media system in that sense. But we do not have that system
in Germany. In spite of this we have—in spite of many one-newspaper-
districts and similar [situations]—a relatively pluralistic system still.
There are many published opinions; there are many different published
opinions and hopefully additionally many different published facets of
one topic. (ZEIT ONLINE)
A valid point made. However, the material gathered here can only serve as
an indicator that structural differences of specific national media spheres
might be the reason why citizen journalist or media activist platforms flour-
ish in one country, but might go unnoticed in others. This is a question that
cannot be solved within the parameters of this study and further research
comparing (national) media systems is needed to shed light on this aspect.
However, there is one group of ‘new’ news disseminators that defi nitely
has gained fame in many countries around the world, including those with
pluralistic media systems: bloggers.
8 The Shared Information Sphere
Blogs and their Impact on Journalism
Bloggers are the group of new information deliverers that so far has gained
the most attention from journalists and in scholarly research (e.g. Lasica,
2003; Matheson, 2004; Reese et al. 2007; Wall, 2005). How many blogs
there are on the web is not exactly measurable, with new ones created vir-
tually every minute while others are abandoned yet still present on the web.
Blog search engines such as Technorati try to keep track of their numbers
and provide lists of blogs most read or quoted. As of April 2010, Blog-
Scope, for example, an analysis tool for the blogosphere developed as part
of a research project at the University of Toronto, was tracking more than
44.2 million blogs worldwide.
The range of topics blogs are concerned with is vast. Blogs can be per-
sonal diaries created for friends and family or they are dedicated to a spe-
cial area of expertise such as technology blogs, corporate blogs run by
companies, fashion blogs or entertainment blogs. The blogs of interest here
are the ones that focus on the coverage of political issues and daily news,
monitor journalistic performance or comment on emerging trends in jour-
nalistic practice. These blogs can be categorized as the ‘commentariat’ of
the information age and this is the characteristic feature that makes this
group of content providers so special with respect to this book. How such
blogs constitute information nodes in the sphere of network journalism
and how the relationship between blogs and traditional journalism can be
described will be discussed on the following pages.
It should be mentioned here that citizen journalists and media activists
often use the format of the blog to raise their voices and blogging aggrega-
tion platforms such as Global Voices Online are proof of that. However,
as blogs do support a specific style and form of writing that has also been
adopted by journalists working for traditional news organizations, they do
deserve special attention.
8.1. BLOGGERS AS INFORMATION NODES
Very little gets by the blogosphere anymore. And in that sense you got
to be more careful. I think journalists are much more careful about
their facts. They are more thorough in their research. They may not
show their biases so easily, because they can’t back them up.
(AlterNet)
Bloggers who dedicate their websites to commenting on and interacting with

content produced by media outlets often critically reflect upon the daily
news coverage. In the words of the Ourmedia volunteer: ‘The mainstream
media are kind of like the foundation that all of us [bloggers] build around.
A lot of blogs, again, aren’t journalism. They’re more commentary. It’s a
blog post about a story that they read’ (Ourmedia). Bloggers do not neces-
sarily have direct access to a news story, but use material already accessible
online as well as offline for discussion and critique. As the Senior Associate
at PEJ enunciates, ‘a lot of them [bloggers] don’t do a lot of reporting, some
do. But a lot of them are just putting forward kind of opinionated interpre-
tations of what’s already going on in the news’ (PEJ). Accordingly, most of
the interviewees draw a line between traditional news organizations and
the blogosphere. One interviewee at ICFJ explains:
As a consumer of news myself, I’m interested in blogs, I read them,

but I distinguish between that and a traditional news organization.
Because often I think, the newer media, blogs and that type of thing,
have their benefit and I know what I’m getting when I read them,
which is opinion. It’s often not reporting. The reporting is still tradi-
tionally often done by the more traditional news organizations. (In-
terviewee 1, ICFJ)
This does of course not mean that producing commentary or opinion pieces
is not part of journalistic work. Pamphleteering, for example, has played a
vitally important role in journalism since the French Revolution (Stephens,
2007). And ‘commentary’ reminds one of the interviewees of a historical
case in point in the United States:
There was a period in our history, I think it was right before the revolu-
tion, where pamphlets became all the rage. You could easily, cheaply,
print small pamphlets. [ . . . ] Basically little magazine type things. And
I think that’s sort of what’s going on with the blogging right now. It’s
like suddenly everyone realizes: ‘Oh, I can have a voice to! I can make
something!’ (Interviewee 2, MediaChannel)
With the emergence of the Internet as a platform to easily publish and dis-
tribute such comments, the engagement with news topics has reached a
climax: Commentary is not only found in the paper or as a segment of
TV shows; everyone can now set up a blog and discuss his or her topic of
choice. And the topic of choice for a whole group of bloggers is the work of
professional journalists: ‘Now any time someone will write a story or make
a TV story about something, there are blogs that fact-check; that document
the problems; that put the word out’ (Ourmedia).
Critically reflecting upon the work of journalists has become the focus
of numerous bloggers. They feed off of mainstream journalism (Reese et
al, 2007; Wall, 2005) and are establishing themselves as fact-checkers who
hold journalists accountable for what they write or broadcast:
It [blogging] holds the mainstream media to open to criticism in a way

that it never has been before. People are watching them and comment-
ing on them and their fuck-ups are not going unnoticed. Not that that
can change things over night, but it is changing things. They realize:
‘Oh, people are scrutinizing us more.’ And they’re going to have to
justify more how their coverage is. And that’s defi nitely good. (Inter-
viewee 2, MediaChannel)
With the appearance of blogs in the US, for example, the Ourmedia volun-
teer asserts that:
You can tell in this country that that affects the coverage! That journal-
ists now for traditional media: They know when they tell a story, their
feet are going to be held to the fire! And I think that is good! So it’s not
always that bloggers compete and tell parallel stories, one is more right
than the other. It is more like the bloggers will fact-check the main-
stream media and keep them more honest. (Ourmedia)
This specific group of bloggers described here has taken the role of watch-
dogs, monitoring content provided by news organizations and delivering
critical reflections on the coverage of both commercial and public service
outlets. Bloggers constitute information nodes in the network journalism
sphere and function as commentators who in many cases provide feedback
for traditional news organizations.
The proliferation of blogs has also sparked a reciprocal effect in the
emerging relationship between journalists and bloggers. Not only do blog-
gers monitor journalists, but journalists vice-versa monitor bloggers now:
‘An increasing number of journalists is going to start to follow what is
happening in blogs. Especially with regard to their respective fields of
expertises’ (ZEIT ONLINE). Both are reversibly feeding material into each
other’s production chains and they are increasingly interconnected online.
On the web, ‘another level of interacting with content’ is taking place and
‘people are interacting with our [Guardian] content, but not on our site.
[ . . . ] I think there’s a broader sense which is the sort of tactile engage-
ment with content’ (Guardian). As described by the interviewee, interactive
conversations evolve around content produced by news outlets. Bloggers
initiate discussions and trigger conversations through commenting on news
coverage. As a result of this, they foster a wider dissemination of content
originally produced, for example, by the Guardian. Online tools such as
link or trackback functions make it possible to follow the path such conver-
sations take while they crisscross through the World Wide Web.
Blogs furthermore do not only link to traditional media publications.
They are also becoming research pools for journalists, easily traceable via
search engines:
Never underestimate Google as a research tool and blogs per se are sim-
ply always at the top of Google in terms of topics due to their extremely
good ranking because of their clear labelling and so forth. If there’s any-
thing [to be found], blogs are generally amongst the fi rst hits. Whether
they [journalists] surface on Google or whether they actually went as far
as using a blog-search engine to effectively form an opinion. There are
those situations where it really works when journalists explore blogs.
There are always a few occasions where it happens, that one positively
starts looking [for these things] systematically. [ . . . ] One investigates, if
there is anything related [to the subject matter]. And this shows that this
is already being taken advantage of. (ZEIT ONLINE)
However, taking aside the connections developing between the traditional

journalism sphere and the blogosphere, both blogs and traditional news
organizations are in essence very distinct in character. The striking dis-
tinctive feature between traditional journalism and the blogosphere is the
often-observed level of partiality. Whereas journalists working for tra-
ditional news organizations in general perceive themselves as impartial,
many bloggers do promote a more personal tone:
What they publish, how they publish [it], according to which standards
they publish, if they adhere to classic journalistic ethic principles, or if
they like a relatively well-known German blogger [the German blogger
Don Alphonso], who is actually innately a journalist, in fact abandon
those principles and essentially do nothing other than to become very
polemical and really write their opinion very explicitly—more explic-
itly, than he would have ever been allowed to do as a journalist, includ-
ing corresponding choice of words and so on. It’s up to the individual,
of course. He also takes full responsibility for what he or she writes and
that is certainly a small deviation from the traditional media company.
(ZEIT ONLINE)
Independent bloggers typically carry this personal tone in their writing,

while journalists—attached to a news organization—are bound to act in
accordance with institutional guidelines, as
at the end of the day the institution is jointly responsible for what hap-
pens in it. [ . . . ] It is also held accountable for it by the reader. If we
publish a bad article as a rule it then doesn’t say: ‘What has such and
such written?’ But rather: ‘What have you [plural] written?’ Now if a
blogger writes something—okay, that’s when they say: ‘Why did you
[singular] write it like that?’ (ZEIT ONLINE)
This is just one of the differences between independent bloggers and tradi-
tional journalists. However, traditional news organizations have begun to
acknowledge (at least some) bloggers as information providers and perceive
them as part of the (global) news sphere. The BBC, for instance, has inte-
grated bloggers on its website and regularly features blogs from countries
such as Cuba or Iraq:
I mean the BBC has to be an impartial news organization. You know

what our charter tells us to do. So that is what we do. A lot of these
bloggers are very partial! A lot of these people come with strong views.
Now we can display all those views so we get a range of voices. We get
all sorts of different people with different views adding to the story.
And what we hope is: We can display all this and then whoever is read-
ing it or viewing it or listening to it can make their judgment. We’re
telling the story as best we can with comments from all sides of the
argument and let people make up their own mind. (BBC)
Besides such approaches to integrating bloggers into traditional news opera-

tions, the evolution of blogging has also been met with fear. One of the ICFJ
interviewees worries that blogs might be misunderstood as a replacement
for traditional media—a role that according to him bloggers are unable to
fulfi ll. Traditional media outlets see it as their duty and social responsibility
to uncover stories, to, for example, reveal abuses of power or breaches of
privacy rights. Bloggers on the other hand are ‘not the ones going out and
fi ling a freedom of information request to get that information, working
the sources, doing the role of traditional journalists. And that’s the danger’
(Interviewee 1, ICFJ). The interviewee gives an example:
New York Times won a Pulitzer for its stories revealing governments’
wire-tapping of US citizens. Not just foreigners, but Americans. We’ve
always had sort of a belief that in this country we have a right to privacy
and that there needs to be a check on governments’ ability to investi-
gate citizens and that traditionally has been through courts who give
permission for invasive procedures to get information from citizens.
And the New York Times reported on a program that is secretly wire-
tapping Americans and getting information from them without any
oversight from courts really. The Washington Post won a Pulitzer also
for its investigations of secret prisons in countries in Eastern Europe
and South East Asia and Afghanistan where people who were arrested
by US Forces were sent to these secret prisons and methods could be
used on them that would not be allowed under US jurisdiction. I think
those are both important stories! They were again uncovered by tradi-
tional journalism. Bloggers have commented on them of course quite
a bit. But I think that what I fear could happen is that we are sort of
discounting the role of traditional journalism at our peril, because we
haven’t yet found a way for the kind of reporting that finds that kind of
information to be supported fi nancially through new media and blog-
gers. (Interviewee 1, ICFJ)
In line with this, traditional journalists do seem to feel the urge to incor-
porate bloggers in their coverage as they are part of the evolving global
news sphere, however, not for the sake of sacrificing the responsibilities
they carry as journalistic outlets. The blogging tool as such, though—ini-
tially only used by alternative media—has found its way into traditional
journalistic outlets and almost every organization now has set out one or
more staffers to blog.
8.2. JOURNALISTS AS BLOGGERS: THE ADAPTATION

OF AN ALTERNATIVE MEDIA TOOL
Some of their blogs have become essential reading and in some cases
they are more important than a lot of the coverage that’s actually in
the paper.
(Democracy Now!)
In the wake of the increasing popularity of blogs, media organizations have

not only started to monitor them or feature certain blogs on their web-
sites, but they have assigned some of their staff members to blog. They now
appoint ‘their own journalists to use the same techniques that the citizen
journalists were using’ (ICFJ Interviewee 2). Blogging offers journalists a
‘vessel’ (Indymedia) to transport information in a digital space. It is a tool
that in the eye of the Guardian interviewee constitutes an ‘evolutionary step
in online publishing’ and a news organization can benefit from using it:
Actually it means we don’t have to write stories, we can update what

we want, we can have comments immediately, people can link to an
individual thing et cetera et cetera, plus it is all happening in one place.
It was just the perfect form for working on the web. It just had every-
thing: it’s all there, the whole kit and caboodle and it is very search
engine friendly. So really, it’s just a passive thing. A blog is just an entity
and a journalist will use it just in the same way as my Mum might use
it to describe the activity of her cat. The debate about ‘What is a blog?
What isn’t a blog?’—sort of meaningless! I think that the software that
came with blogs and then what has emerged: this is how content is
meant to work on the web. And I think journalists were right to seize
it as a tool. Who then uses it and how they use it is another matter.
(Guardian)
The majority of interviewees are blogging themselves or have blogged at

some point in their journalistic careers. Active bloggers at the time of the
interviews were the Ourmedia volunteer, the ZEIT ONLINE Editor and the
MediaChannel Executive Editor. The latter explains that he uses his blog
as a way to write a counter-narrative about the news everyday. So I’m

actually offering an analytical take. What’s in the news, what’s not in
the news, what other people are covering, what we’re covering here et
cetera, et cetera. (Interviewee 1, MediaChannel)
He perceives himself as a commentator, especially analyzing the work of

his journalist colleagues:
Because my feeling is that our news system is not doing a good job of
covering the news and covering what’s happening. And so I want to
point that out and I want to also give people other resources, links. You
know, the New York Times said this, but the Guardian of London said
something very different. (Interviewee 1, MediaChannel)
Such a turn toward blogging marks a (re)turn toward ‘opinionated’ jour-

nalism within the ‘professional’ sphere of journalism, making ‘mainstream
journalists more like the journalism in the 60s in a sense, because blogs
have personal voices’ (AlterNet).1 The Indymedia interviewee comments
that ‘one of the reasons why political blogging has taken off so much in the
United States is because there isn’t an outlet for that unabashedly partisan
political perspective’ (Indymedia). However, this (re)turn is also challeng-
ing journalists with respect to their work routines—especially in regard to
their tone and style of writing:
If you’re going to be a good blogger you’ll have to share your own ex-
perience! If you’re an objective journalist you’re not in the story! You
typically are not. So, I assume for some journalists this is uncomfort-
able. But for other journalists it’s very exciting, because they’ve got so
much that they want to express that doesn’t fit easily into the confines
of the traditional journalism story. [ . . . ] Now, blogging requires a
certain kind of personality. Especially if you’re going to be a serious
blogger, because you basically do it all the time! I mean you have to be
a manic personality. You have to be really energetic, and you have to be
paying attention all the time. You can’t just like dapple once in a while.
You won’t get any audience paying attention to you! Blog every once a
couple of days—who cares. (AlterNet)
Another characteristic of blogs that differs significantly from the traditional
work practice of journalists is the invitation to users to participate in a con-
versation. Blogs are much more than an author’s commentary page: They
encourage readers to add their opinion or even add additional information.
Reese et al. explain that the very characteristic of blogs is that they ‘provide
the connectivity lacking in the professional media’ (2007: 239). Through
their embedded commentary function, blogs allow interaction. Linking
and trackback functions support the development of a net of information
sources around a news story. Their ‘ease of use, low barriers to creation and
maintenance, dynamic quality, easy interactivity, and potential for wide
distribution’ (Ibid.) are their foremost characteristics. 2 Some bloggers, for
example, use the commentary function of each blog as crowdsourcing tool
(Briggs, 2010). Asking questions in a blog and inviting users to participate
and deliver additional information or comment on a story is the true added
value of blogs. It embraces Surowiecki’s (2005) idea of using the ‘wisdom
of crowds’ in favor of a better end product.
However, the interactive opportunities the format allows often go
unrecognized by journalists who blog on websites of traditional news
organizations:
If you look at a lot of newspaper blogs, there won’t be links. Their

blogs are basically articles, they are done in blog format. But a good
blog will have links that go off. But a lot of newspaper and TV’s web-
sites don’t want links off their site, because that gets them off the site!
Which is a little crazy. (Ourmedia)
Thurman (2008) conducted a study of blogs at professional news organiza-

tions and his findings support the above comment. He reveals how some
organizations try to exercise control over a sphere that has interactivity as
its main characteristic and thus should allow for engagement rather than
restrain users and command them to silence. Thurman found that ‘amongst
the mainstream British online news media, only the Guardian.co.uk allowed
comments to be posted to its blogs without pre-moderation’ (2008: 145).
Such handling of content does neglect the social conventions of the blog for-
mat and is lead by a ‘desire to retain, and in some cases reclaim, control
over the editorial content of the publications in question’ (Ibid: 151). The
ZEIT ONLINE Editor argues along these lines, similarly criticizing that the
options a blog offers might often not be used in their entirety:
From a journalist nowadays publishing at least online I expect that he/she

is able to compose salient links. From a journalist, who publishes online
I expect that he/she [ . . . ] addresses relevant user answers personally. If
he/she responds to them himself/herself in his/her next article; if it’s a
column for example, which lends itself to this. If he/she’s administrating
a blog, then maybe it also lends itself to him /her seizing it that way. As
an example we do have this in our [publishing] house, too, very differing
ways to treat this [subject matter]. I, for instance, react directly to user
comments on my blog. But for example my colleague Jochen Bittner [ . . .
] responds to user comments later on. Basically when he enters an item
pertaining to a similar topic, he picks up [previous] issues. But in his own
comments, hence those comments regarding his blog entries, you can’t
find anything [written] by him. Therefore he still draws a clear distinc-
tion: ‘I am the one here, who writes the text. You are the ones posting the
comments. I read them but I do not leave comments.’ (ZEIT ONLINE)3
Journalists ignoring typical characteristics of blogs fail to acknowledge

what Jarvis (2009) proposes as the main ingredients of today’s produc-
tion sphere: engagement with users and the ability to link to other content
provided across the web. He takes Google as an example of a company
that has best understood the dynamics of the information age. Google
has according to him learned that sharing and collaboration are the most
salient values. Ceding control to customers and letting them become part-
ners in the production chain are important. The blog format with its inter-
active features allows exactly that: to let the users in on the thoughts of the
individual blogger and to take on board information, advice and links to
other sources.
The Indymedia volunteer adds another point of criticism. Although he
more generally welcomes blogs as an addition to the journalistic toolkit, he
questions whether journalists are capable of being ‘good’ bloggers:
There was a day and the Times like a year ago [2006], when their blogs
dealt with the Oscars, food, wine tasting and the most ridiculous, stu-
pid things. Now, that’s changing. They are starting to have blogs about
politics now, fi nally! I guess the question for me is what’s the value
added there? [ . . . ] What value are they adding to what the Times al-
ready does? I don’t necessarily think that they’re adding all that much.
First of all [ . . . ] these people don’t know how to blog! That’s the first
thing! They do not write like bloggers, most of them. They write like
journalists trying to blog. They just sound stilted! They just sound so
damn serious, still! [ . . . ] They just can’t get into that casual smirky-
ness like a good blogger can. (Indymedia)
Taken together, the critical reflections on the work of journalists who blog
for traditional news organizations indicate that although the blog format
has been adopted, there is room for improvement in regard to the ways
journalists utilize blogs. Traditional news organizations, for example, need
to learn how much ‘blog’ is actually useful for the outlet:
Everybody has a blog now. Every outlet has a blog. They have several
blogs. They can be good and they can be bad. The bad thing is when
the outlet is so eager to have something in the blog that they just have
people constantly filing to their blog, because they want to have some-
thing fresh all the time. And there is nothing bad about that except
that ultimately what it means is the person who’s doing that is probably
spending less time reporting. (PEJ)
With regard to this, the interviewee draws an interesting parallel between

television news coverage and blogging:
It’s like the cable news phenomenon. You don’t really see much on cable
news, because they keep going back to the correspondent every twenty
minutes. How can that person do any reporting? He really can’t. But
their job is to stand in front of the camera every twenty minutes and
say: ‘You know, this is what’s happening. There is a courthouse behind
me and there is a chaos going on there. We’re going to have more for
you in twenty minutes.’ And there is never anything they really say, be-
cause the fact of the matter is: You can’t just spend all your time typing
in a blog or staying in front of a camera. A lot of journalism isn’t what’s
on the paper or on the screen! It’s all the stuff that goes on behind the
scenes and when you start telling somebody to put more and more of
that stuff out there, they have less time to do the reporting that really
makes journalism complete. (PEJ)
According to this statement, blogs are an add-on in which extra layers are
provided in addition to conventional coverage, but they should not replace
the traditional fields of work. What is more, if blogs are used, their full
potential should be seized as well. This includes linking to sources, listen-
ing and reacting to user comments and writing in a more personal tone.
To allow the blog format to seize its full potential, ZEIT ONLINE, for
example, handles its blogs slightly different from regular news stories. Its
bloggers are allowed to write more personally and the interviewee explains:
‘We do not edit blog posts. Concurrently the author is responsible for his/
her blog’s content. There is no second check. [ . . . ] It really is purely that
author’ (ZEIT ONLINE).
Blogs also can provide a space for journalists to incorporate stories and
topics that might otherwise not get any attention, for example, in a news-
paper (as the newspaper can only provide a limited number of pages) or
on television or radio (as the clock time frame limits the amount of cover-
age). The ZEIT ONLINE interviewee explains that ZEIT’s blogs are often
used to delve into special topics more deeply, a procedure that at times can
attract users to regularly follow a particular blog:
Blogs are fast, they are authentic, and above all they offer this imme-
diate user connection. We observe this on all our blogs, that certain
communities are formed within these blogs. Those are often the same
ten people that react to every blog entry. To illustrate we have this
marvellous ‘How capitalism works’ blog. It’s called ‘Herdentrieb’. A
terrific blog, I think. Personally I know very little about economics
and I don’t understand many of the contributions [to the blog]. But the
level of the comments on it is sometimes unbelievable! It has thereby
become a professional platform. And it’s our usual ZEIT fi nancial cor-
respondent, stationed in Frankfurt, who elaborates on topics he just
can’t tackle in the paper. Either because they’re too specific, because
they’re simply too long. He can do so much more there! He has so many
more options! He can insert more pictures, stats, graphics. That’s left
up to him. That’s his highness. And nobody interferes with how he
ultimately wants to design it. (ZEIT ONLINE) 4
Blogs thus can offer niche rooms for stories that usually do not have priority
on journalistic day-to-day schedules. Current TV, for example, uses blogs to
give its users insights into its production processes. This includes that jour-
nalists write about the story behind the story as Current TV aims to be trans-
parent about what is happening throughout the making of the program:
Because we think that that is not only interesting to watch and clues
the viewer in into the whole, the bigger picture of the story. But it also
sometimes can affect the story [ . . . ]. The audience deserves to know
about those sorts of things! And some of those things have to do with
what the reporter is thinking or feeling at a particular time or their
observations, which come out in the blogs. So we do feature a lot of
our reporter blogs and I try to blog when I can and when I feel inspired.
And I think that that connects the audience to the reporter, the pro-
ducer a little bit more and builds that more personal connection with
this person who is out investigating a story. (Current TV)
The introduction of blogging to traditional newsrooms thus has opened

up entire new paths of telling stories, adding more variety to the content
delivered.
Yet despite adopting the blogging format, for some journalists it still
seems important to draw a line and perceive themselves as ‘different’ from
the blogosphere. While Rosen as early as 2005 optimistically headlined an
article on his blog with the title ‘Bloggers vs. Journalists is Over’, it might
be more applicable to note that it should be over, but still is not. Some
journalists still view themselves as somewhat ‘superior’ to bloggers—a dis-
tinction that might be owed to the ‘declining sovereignty’ Rosen attests and
that translates into the fear of losing power over a system of information
dissemination that is increasingly opening up to a vast number of informa-
tion providers.
In the sphere of network journalism, independent bloggers and tradi-
tional journalistic outlets are sharing the same space. The links created
between the blogosphere and the traditional journalism sphere inevitably
tie them together. Bloggers reference the content produced by journal-
istic outlets and professional journalists adopt blogging as a legitimate
format. These are indicators of a transformation process. Bloggers have
understood to position themselves in the sphere of network journalism.
However, quite a number of traditional journalists seem to measure the
supposed distinctiveness between the journalism sphere and the blogo-
sphere along the lines of values such as ‘accountability’ or ‘credibility’,
with blogs being perceived as less accountable or credible. This straight-
edge needs critical reflection.
9.3. BLOGGERS VERSUS JOURNALISTS? ACCOUNTABILITY AND

CREDIBILITY IN THE SPHERE OF NETWORK JOURNALISM
There are people who are worried about standards. I think that there’s
hysterical media out there already! Fox News, I mean how many mil-
lions of people watch O’Reilly and he puts out the dreck! Ridiculous,
hysterical stuff that they make up. So nothing that any blogger could
create could be as bad as Fox. So that’s where you’re stuck! There’s
already loads of crap out there that you can’t trust. News you can’t
use from people you can’t trust.
(AlterNet)
The turn toward personalized journalism accentuated in blogs has often

been criticized by journalists as interfering with the role of a journalist as
an impartial observer. In many cases, though, the argument that bloggers
or citizen journalists lack accountability or credibility because their stories
carry points of view, that they deliver opinionated stands and are not pro-
duced by ‘professionally’ trained journalists, lacks foundation. Journalistic
outlets are vulnerable to failures and flaws just as well as bloggers who take
their business seriously.
One example mentioned frequently throughout the interviews with
regard to failures of traditional news media was the run-up to the Iraq War
and how traditional media especially in the United States reported on the
unfolding confl ict. The Executive Editor at AlterNet points out that
the ability to invade Iraq was partially eased by the inability of the
media to ask tough questions or to do their job essentially. In fact they
did the opposite. They fed the information that helped the war happen.
(AlterNet)
Similarly, the Current TV interviewee criticizes that values such as account-

ability or credibility cannot only be called into question when discussing
the material provided by bloggers, activists or citizen journalists. According
to her, audiences today have less trust in traditional outlets. Using the same
example of the run-up to the Iraq War, she states that the lack of trust in
this case was caused by the failures of traditional media:
Why didn’t we know that there were no weapons of mass destruction

in Iraq? Why didn’t the public know about Osama bin Laden before
September 11? Why didn’t we care about Afghanistan before Septem-
ber 11? Why did Americans know so little about the rest of the world
and why does the world know so much about the United States? There
is a lack of emphasis that’s put on places like Afghanistan. Even today
coverage of it is very limited! So that’s the job of the media whether
you are a professional or you’re not! The job of the media is to inform
and enhance and expand the knowledge of what’s really going on
out there. We can blame politicians, but the fact is that the American
public is very ill informed. The American public wasn’t at fault, it’s
the media’s job to keep its people aware of what’s going on. So some
people are doing that well in the professional world and some people
aren’t. But I think that an average citizen—and especially in the 18 to
34 demographic, which is what we target—is kind of seeing through
that. Not only seeing through that, but wanting to make a difference
and become more of a leader in journalism or reporting. And now
people can, because they have the outlets to disseminate information.
(Current TV)
Along these lines argues one MediaChannel interviewee:
There are certain journalistic values that are important. Honesty,

truthfulness, balance to some degree, ethical values, accuracy. These
are all issues that are in dispute. In other words: The people who report
on the march to war in Iraq, they all claimed they were being accurate.
Secretary Rumsfeld said this and they reported what he said. But they
didn’t then also speak to other people saying that Secretary Rumsfeld
is lying to you. He’s wrong! He doesn’t have accurate information. In
other words: The duty of journalism is not just to be a stenographer, to
report what they’re hearing, but to add value, context, background and
other information from other sources to be more diverse! (Interviewee
1, MediaChannel)
Instead of discussing journalistic standards only with reference to bloggers

or citizen journalists, this debate then should rather be deployed to the
whole information sphere that is shared by professional journalists and
activists, citizen journalists or bloggers. Every information provider adding
content has to be held accountable. The argument of a lack of credibility or
accountability then can be held against traditional media just as well as it
can be held against alternative media:
I think it’s debatable whether even the mainstream media is living up
to the values that students are taught in journalism school. I never went
to journalism school, but I imagine they teach you that fairness and ac-
curacy are two of the most important things. And it’s also informing,
giving your audience the information that they need to make informed
decisions. I think it’s debatable whether especially American media is
fulfilling that promise. [ . . . ] I guess we can question whether bloggers
are living up to these values, too. But I don’t even know if the people
that we see as the journalists in this country are living up to it. (De-
mocracy Now!)
Users now have options to complement the information provided via tradi-
tional outlets with information accessed via alternative platforms. The turn
away from (or at least a critical approach toward the coverage provided by)
traditional media might very well be the outcome of increased information
flows in circulation. What the interviews cited here sense with respect to
this is supported by recent research into audience behavior: The trust in
corporate or public service outlets is declining and users are increasingly
critical of news coverage. A 2009 survey conducted by the Pew Research
Center, for instance, fi nds that the press accuracy rating has hit its low-
est point in more than two decades, with 63% of Americans stating that
they view news stories provided in the news media as often inaccurate. 5 As
the MediaChannel Executive Director asserts, accountability is not a value
automatically guaranteed by some journalist working for a specific outlet,
but the product of an informed consumer who is capable of searching for
different angles to a piece of information:
Just because they’re mainstream doesn’t mean there is accountability.

In a sense maybe it’s not such a big deal. Maybe that idea that they
somehow know what they’re talking about is bullshit anyway and
maybe it’s better that people don’t put any difference between what I
write in my blog or what you write in your blog or what the New York
Times or Washington Post or Time Magazine write. Then it gets put on
to you. Then it’s just maybe up to you as the consumer. ‘Does this guy
ever cite sources? No!’ Well, maybe that’s a problem. Maybe he’s mak-
ing it up out of his head. On the other hand: What if somebody starts
just citing sources that don’t exist? Can you sue a blogger for . . . ? It’s
hard for you to know. There are a lot of grey areas. (Interviewee 2,
MediaChannel)
Criticizing alternative media as being less credible or less accountable

therefore seems to be a questionable debate in light of recent failures of
traditional media outlets and should not be held as an argument against
alternative media, bloggers, citizen journalists and the like. This is in
line with what Rebecca Blood frequently advocates for. In one of her
blog entries she argues to fi nally put the discussion around trustworthi-
ness and credibility that has evolved around blogging to rest. Instead,
she points out that whoever provides ‘good’ journalism is the one users
should consult:
When a blogger writes up daily accounts of an international confer-

ence, as David Steven did at the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable
Development, that is journalism. When a magazine reporter repur-
poses a press release without checking facts or talking to additional
sources, that is not. When a blogger interviews an author about their
new book, that is journalism. When an opinion columnist manipulates
facts in order to create a false impression, that is not. When a blogger
searches the existing record of fact and discovers that a public figure’s
claim is untrue, that is journalism. When a reporter repeats a politi-
cian’s assertions without verifying whether they are true, that is not.
(Blood, 2004)
Another important argument in favor of citizen journalism and blogging

is that their publications usually do not go uncriticized. The interactive
character of digital communication spheres already allows for control
mechanisms or as Shirky remarks, ‘amateur publishing relies on corrective
argument even more than traditional media do’ (2008: 65). The AlterNet
interviewee explains:
Just like almost every journalist has an editor, every citizen journalist
has an editor. Because if you have your own blog, then people com-
ment there or edit for you. [ . . . ] The OhmyNews model, I guess, is
similar. So it’s not like all the sudden people who aren’t trained are
getting access to huge audiences and changing people’s minds. It’s not
possible! The system has all the safeguards. So, I think it’s all healthy!
(AlterNet)
Within a restructured and decentralized sphere of information production

and dissemination, a discussion of journalistic values and standards thus
needs to address all participants who add their portions to the information
flows. It cannot be used as an argument against the utilization of alter-
native sources at traditional newsrooms; and it is too unreflective to be
counted as an argument to generally treat alternative voices as unreliable
sources or unacceptable partners for news services. So-called spin doc-
tors, for example, can be found in any arm of the information exchange
chain. News spinning is not an exclusive terrain of a specific journalistic
medium or format or of a certain group of information providers. It could
be PR representatives spinning the news, it could be politicians, it could be
activists—but it might as well be traditional journalists themselves. The
AlterNet interviewee:
I trust the blogosphere a lot more than I trust most journalism, because
it’s so transparent. And as soon as somebody says something wrong—if
they are in any way prominent—there are dozens of people, who will
correct them. It’s kind of like the Wikipedia in that sense. There may
be some falsehood out there for a brief moment, but there’s a kind of
fierce debate that goes on and in the end you generally come out know-
ing more than you did before. (AlterNet)
Accordingly the interviewee is convinced that this ‘group process’ of news

production has a lot of advantages. Even though it might not be a ‘fool-
proof or failsafe’ system, he has little sympathy for journalists who attack
the blogosphere as being inaccurate and the like:
Somebody just did an essay saying he would be happy to see if blogs

were all gone by tomorrow. Some prominent journalist, I forgot who he
was. Silly! So many more people are involved, engaged, excited, coura-
geous, expressive, fi nding stuff out, holding people accountable. That’s
great! Before, there were just a bunch of elite people who often wrote
stuff without really doing much reporting. Or when they did reporting
they talked to their friends. It’s so typical of the New York Times to
have an article where some person who went to some fancy college talks
to a handful. And this is often with women’s issues around women and
work and stuff like that: They talk to a handful of people who are all
kind of the same corner, the same niche and then they come to a con-
clusion about a pattern. Like: ‘Women are staying home and not really
going back to work after they have their kids.’ But they’re only talking
to women who are quite wealthy, whose husbands have their hedge
fund. Directors or something like that. So a lot of the stuff that the cor-
porate journalism system produces is very class centric. And that really
doesn’t know that much or tells stories about poor people or people of
color or people that are on the coasts. (AlterNet)
From this point of view, alternative media have ‘the right’ to reciprocally
criticize traditional news media, hold them accountable and challenge jour-
nalists to improve their work—a notion that seems to gain ground espe-
cially in countries with an extremely centralized news media system, as one
of the interviewees at ICFJ explains:
We run some programs with editors from around the world. And an
editor from a very important paper in Liberia told me last year for
example: ‘You know that my paper’—which is one of the mainstream
media there—‘if my paper provides some sort of information that is not
confi rmed, that is something that we think is happening or might hap-
pen, people will be less likely to believe what we wrote about that fact
than if they read it on the web!’ So what it tells you is, that in certain
countries the web is more reliable than the mainstream media! In this
country [United States] I doubt it and I doubt it in Europe as well. In
certain cases they might provide a scoop, but in general the mainstream
media still prevails credibility, and also are the main source of infor-
mation of the people. But in certain countries—unbelievable! Citizen
journalists are more reliable than the mainstream media! (Interviewee
2, ICFJ)
Credibility and accountability thus are becoming the determining values to

which corporate and traditional as well as alternative media need to mea-
sure up. They seem to become the central values for content produced and
disseminated, especially in light of increasing amounts of content provided
by a vastly growing number of information deliverers online. However,
this does not come without dangers. One interviewee at ICFJ reflects on
his experience as a journalism trainer and on certain risks the Internet as a
research tool does involve:
Even among journalists, traditional journalists—and this is in coun-

tries where we work, not necessarily in the United States—[ . . . ] a
lot of young journalists do tend to just take whatever they read on
the Internet at face value. They don’t take certain steps to figure out:
‘Okay, how reliable is this source? What can I do to check whether this
website has any accuracy? Is it endorsed by anybody that I trust? Does
it have a track record of reliable reporting in commentary?’ Even young
journalists who should be more aware of that don’t do that! They just
see something on the Internet: ‘Wow, I didn’t know that!’ And then
sometimes it ends up in traditional media as well, because somebody
saw it on the Internet. (Interviewee 1, ICFJ)
The issue of how to handle the content floating via various information
strings into outlets is seemingly affecting traditional as well as alternative
news outlets. As the interviewees frequently point out: With a growing
quantity of information circulating around the globe, the central task jour-
nalists have to fulfill in order to hold up to claims for accountability and
credibility is fact checking. It has become the most central and an inevitable
task of journalism. Fact checking is especially important when digitally
produced content provided by unknown sources is used. The Guardian
apparently learned its lesson through an editorial blunder, which lead to
the publication of falsely labeled user-generated footage:
There were some fi res in the South of England and we published a

photo we got sent in by a user. There’s woods, blazing, spectacular
photo! No one noticed that in fact there was an elk in the middle. Now,
there haven’t been elks in England for about 700 years. Because it was
actually a photo taken in Canada about five years earlier. (Guardian)
The elk example is a reminder of the most important task journalists have
to fulfill in newsrooms today:
You’ve got more information coming in, so you need to check it much,
much better. And I think that, again, it’s a journalistic skill and the fi rst
thing is: if something is too good to be true, it often is too good to be
true! And I think we just have to keep a calm head around that. It’s just
one of those things that you have to deal with. (Guardian)
Yet, even though fact checking has always been an inevitable part of pro-
ducing journalism: In the wake of an increasing amount of information
streaming into news outlets as well as considering the speed at which infor-
mation travels via digital wires and the sheer volume of accessible informa-
tion, the modes of how to fact check every single bit of information are
challenged: ‘It’s just whether having to apply them at a greater pace [ . . . ]
we’re slightly in danger. We push a lot of content out, a lot more than ever
before. And being able just to verify that on a regular basis gets much,
much harder’ (Guardian).
Similarly, the AlterNet interviewee views fact checking as the inevitable
part of journalistic work when dealing with the increasing amount of infor-
mation in circulation. This holds advantages as well as disadvantages:
Well, the proof is in the pudding. It’s what they write and whether it
holds up! You can make your argument based on ‘according to the
sources’ or statistics that you can go back and check. Now, we have
Google and LexisNexis and so many different things. (AlterNet)
A tool such as the web hence does provide a journalist with more options to
fact check. However, one also fi nds inaccurate information here or pieces of
information that were not meant for a wide audience. As it runs at a much
faster pace and is disseminated at a bigger rate, problems arise:
So there is where there is a risk and there is an interesting case where

one of our writers was interviewing a woman and she revealed some-
thing about her habit and medical condition and there was some confu-
sion whether she was just inexperienced—the woman who was talking
to the journalist was just inexperienced—or she thought it was off the
record, was unclear. But the article was printed and of course it went
into Google and the woman called and, in fact, more so her husband
who was a lawyer called and said that this is terrible. That people in
her family don’t know about this and it would be very devastating if
they did. So we took the story down, which is easy to do. But then he
said: ‘You have to get rid of it in Google!’ Well, fi fty hours of work later
it still hadn’t been taken off Google, because it’s like an endless train.
Because somebody else links to it and it’s all over. So it’s on Google
again in another way. So this is like one of the undersides of the web
and citizen journalists in that if something gets out there, it’s hard to
get it back into the box. (AlterNet)
Yet, who is the one who makes such mistakes or causes editorial blunders
just as well as who gets it right and provides useful pieces of information is
not determined by the form of the outlet; it can be an independent blog or
it can be a traditional news organization. Most importantly, though, is that
either way they hold up certain standards:
I think that the role of a reporter should be: Report on things accu-
rately and honestly. And that can happen from all different levels as
[ . . . ] we’ve seen here at Current. Some reports that come from non-
professionals are some of the most authentic and honest pieces about
things that you might not have heard of versus professional reporters
who might be regurgitating a headline that they read here and there or
have already sort of figured out the story before they’ve left the office.
(Current TV)
Current TV is one of the best examples that shows that these supposedly
distinct spheres can work together. Intersecting the blogosphere, citizen jour-
nalism and traditional media outlets, using information strings that connect
all of these nodes in favor of better coverage is what the sphere of network
journalism holds for the better of the journalistic profession as such.
An interesting case from Germany exemplifies that information flows
from various angles—be it user-generated content footage, stories pro-
vided by professional news organizations or commentary submitted in
the alternative media sphere—increasingly intersect. The case demon-
strates how bloggers, traditional journalists and user-generated content
providers now are part of one sphere of information exchange and how
control mechanisms unraveling accuracy breaches are part of this. During
Hamburg street riots on May 1, 2008, user-generated footage of an inci-
dent made its way onto the online platform of the German tabloid BILD.
The footage provided screen shots taken from a user-generated video and
apparently showed how a supposed radical, hooded man tried to set a car
on fi re by pushing a cloth soaked with a flammable liquid through the
car window. BILD titled it, ‘Slobs are setting cars on fi re’. Footage of the
same incident taken from another angle was also uploaded on YouTube.
Watching the complete video piece, the incident appears completely dif-
ferent: The supposed ‘slob’ does not push the burning cloth into the car,
but pulls it out. The story was covered by one of Germany’s leading media
criticism websites, BILDBlog. The authors held both BILD and YouTube
footage against each other and suggested to their readers to make up
their own minds on questions of accurate reporting and the use of user-
generated footage. 6
Apart from disclosing how easily information can be manipulated, this
example also shows how supposedly counterflowing media spheres such
as the traditional press and the platform BILDBlog as well as the video
portal YouTube are now connected to each other. Content and comment
get pushed and pulled from one site to the other and they feed off of each
other. This indicates a level of interconnectedness between the blogosphere
and the formerly closed system of journalism that marks a turning point
toward an open field of information exchange. Information dissemination
has become multi-faceted.
This does bring with it dangers and an independent blogger is to a
certain degree much less controllable than a professional journalist who
has an editorial board in his or her back. One MediaChannel interviewee
comments:
Anyone with access to a computer can start writing a blog. And there
are no rules! You don’t have to fact-check your blog if you don’t want
to. You can be accused of being a bad blogger and say: ‘Great, I’m a
bad blogger, so fuck off!’ [ . . . ] Your editor is not going to come and
talk to you about if you are an ethical journalist. So there is a danger
and that has already happened, too. (Interviewee 2, MediaChannel)
However, the interviewee also points out just like others cited above that
this is a general problem of the whole information sphere. Despite these
inherent dangers and given that the corrective elements are also part of this
sphere, the greatest potential of blogs lies in their openness, allowing for
an interactive conversation—a feature traditionally produced news does
not offer:
I know a lot of really smart, dedicated people who are writing great
blogs and just having a facilitating dialogue that needs to happen.
There are also hacks out there who are writing horseshit of every po-
litical persuasion. So there is big danger. I mean, for me this is the other
thing! For me this almost has less to do with journalism than it has to
do with civics. [ . . . ] Anything connected to media is under radical
change. But for me even more important isn’t that the media is chang-
ing, but what I see as the whole blogosphere phenomenon and even
what I do producing video and media pieces. For me the importance is
more that it’s a dialogue! (Interviewee 2, MediaChannel)
Who to trust within this sphere then might depend on how the relation-
ship between journalists, bloggers, media activists and citizen journalists
is going to develop. Mutual trust between these information providers
evolves, according to the ZEIT ONLINE interviewee, over time. Such trust
can be put into a traditional news outlet just as well as into an alternative
news disseminator:
Dependability is indeed usually defi ned over a period of time. Hence
let’s take any given blogger: If I believe that he/she truly works neatly,
then eventually my [ . . . ] threshold of scepticism will decrease. At some
point I will start believing him/her. And once I trust him/her, then I
will verify to a lesser degree what he/she is doing. (ZEIT ONLINE)
Along these lines, the credibility of an outlet develops over time. Media-
Channel’s Executive Director once more:
The credibility is a delicate thing. Credibility is not something you can

easily wrap your head around. And usually you get credibility through
time. The reason that the New York Times and the Washington Post
and the Boston Globe and a few other newspapers carry more weight
than others here in the United States is because they’ve been around
for a long enough time and they have withheld a certain amount of at-
tacks you would assume over the years that they’ve been around long
enough. It’s like they seem to know to print things that haven’t got-
ten them sued enough that they’re not here anymore! (Interviewee 2,
MediaChannel)
The sphere of information thus has become far more complex, decentral-
ized and fi lled with non-linear proceeding strings of information floating
through digital connection wires. If more journalists will start to disperse
links across the web, if more of them will reach out and engage in dialogues
with their users, remains to be seen. Accuracy and credibility, though, are
qualitative attributes that should not be contextualized with either ‘tradi-
tional’ or ‘alternative’. When asked if journalists can learn from bloggers or
citizen journalists, one interviewee states:
They should. I am not sure if they are really doing it. Yet you can at
least learn a lot from amateurs with regards to user-participation and
the like. [ . . . ] That you do not need to take everything personal. That
you maybe not even necessarily should. I think this is an area in which
one [the journalist] could learn a lot. (ZEIT ONLINE)
This might be just one other advantage of the network journalism sphere:
‘traditional’ as well as ‘alternative’ news producers can learn from each
other. They should neither be understood as competitors nor should blogs
be kept at bay with the argument that they are less credible or less account-
able. Lasica (2003) and Reese et al. (2007) stress that bloggers and journal-
ists do complement each other. In the sphere of network journalism they
intersect and push content back and forth—something that traditional
journalistic outlets can profit from (!) as bloggers are not only promoting
‘the circulation of public dialog’ (Reese et al 2007: 257). Through linking
back to news organizations, they do offer users the opportunity to engage
with material: ‘In fact, much of what these blogs do is push readers to other
information that they would not have otherwise read’ (Ibid.). Bloggers have
understood to use information strings running toward and away from their
platforms—and they draw connections between the nodes.
Within the network journalism sphere, then, all news producers and
disseminators eventually share the same information space. They merge
into one global information sphere and can make this interactive sphere
work in favor of a more comprehensive coverage, tied together in a dense
web of useful information. And the information can very well be provided
by bloggers.
9 The Active User in the Network
Journalism Sphere
With the number of platforms disseminating information via the net on

the rise and with journalism turning more conversational, the way users
engage with content is also changing. Users now have a greater choice of
who to prefer as their information providers. As receivers of information
and thus customers of news organizations, they decide who is going to be
watched, listened to, read and therefore trusted—and the group of users
eventually decides on the fate of a media outlet.
The importance of users as content providers for journalistic work has
already been discussed in Chapter 7 of this book. Whereas in the past the
only option to interact with a news organization directly was through
the letter to the editor or an enquiry over the phone, users today have the
means to get in touch with news outlets and engage with the content pro-
duced on a much larger scale. Commentary functions or user-generated
content platforms integrated into the web appearance of a news outlet
allow users to leave statements or discuss issues of interest. In this chap-
ter the focus will not so much be turned on the issue of user-generated
content and what a journalistic outlet can do with it, but on the changing
behavioral patterns of users: How do they receive information, where do
they search for it and how do they engage with it?
Users are increasingly distributors of news themselves. The ‘people
formerly known as the audience’, as Rosen (2006: Online) refers to
them, actively seek content. Even more than that, they are the prolonged
distribution arm of news outlets as they recommend their choice of news
stories to their peers. The passive receiver of the past has become the
active user who engages with stories, links to them, tells friends, deliv-
ers critiques. On their Facebook pages or Twitter accounts, users can
post links to their favorite news stories or critically engage with content
provided by news organizations. This changing dynamic of informa-
tion exchange with users becoming an important arm of information
distribution networks is a key characteristic of the network journalism
sphere.
9.1. JOURNALISTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF USERS
The relationship is no longer completely passive. [ . . . ] It used to be

an adult feeding children. But I think now it’s much, much more of a
dialogue, much more information passing both ways.
(Guardian)
As early as 1971, Toffler introduced the term ‘prosumer’ to defi ne the

relationship between news audiences and news organizations. In his
view, the consumer of news is a more informed citizen ‘who would need
to be kept content by allowing for a greater customizability and indi-
vidualisability of products’ (Bruns, 2006: 275). In the digital age where
consumers have the technological means to draw upon a wide range of
news sources and to engage with content, this defi nition holds more truth
than ever before. McNair explains that users today are ‘media literate,
relatively suspicious and disbelieving and increasingly cynical. Informed
skepticism about what is read, seen and heard in the journalistic media
can be assumed to be a common feature of the contemporary reception
environment’ (1998: 39). Traditional news outlets accustomed to a closed
system of journalistic production are challenged to decide how to deal
with users who demand options to engage with the content disseminated
on these platforms. As the Guardian interviewee explains:
I think the single biggest challenge we face as news organizations is

that [ . . . ] a decade ago [ . . . ] pretty much all our processes were
about outgoing information. It doesn’t matter if it was our marketing,
our publishing: everything was about outgoing. Trying to actually
phone in: nightmare! We kept the roots into the organization down
to an absolutely minimum: ‘Write a letter!’ That was pretty much it.
And over time, if there was some way you measure it, the volume of
information coming in has multiplied enormously. (Guardian)
In his view, this development is a result of the transforming (global) infor-

mation sphere in which citizens (as well as journalists) can access more
information. The introduction of comment and feedback sections or the
inception of positions such as a reader’s editor at the Guardian or a Com-
munity Editor at ZEIT ONLINE highlight the reactions of news organi-
zations to cope with the new situation.
The reader’s editor every year gets more and more letters. Not be-
cause we’re doing more things wrong, but just because more people
feel it is their right to question and challenge what we’re doing! Our
journalists are getting more emails, or we set up things on the website
where we would get more response. (Guardian)
The Active User in the Network Journalism Sphere 171
Similarly, the work of the BBC at their Interactivity Desk reflects an atti-
tude change toward audiences. In his assessment of the BBC’s strategies
for its digital future, Lee-Wright outlines that BBC News chiefs are ‘striv-
ing to fi nd better ways of communicating with them [their users], more in
the way of dialogue than demagogue’ (2008: 255). Forming an interactive
producer–consumer relationship and tapping its full potential is a point
also made by the BBC Editor interviewed for this study. She recalls her
encounter with interactivity during the 2001 elections in the UK. This
was the fi rst time she was assigned to the task of building ‘conversational’
relations with users:
I came along and thought it was absolutely fantastic and it was in a way
a bit of a revelation to me: That we started off saying what were people
interested in the election and what did they want to talk about and we
would get all these emails back instantly. And having been working in
traditional broadcast this was fantastic! You had instant response to
what was going on and you could really engage what the public wanted
to hear about. (BBC)
What she describes is the creation of an engagement relationship between

journalists and users. Accordingly, traditional journalistic outlets such as
the BBC now are not merely platforms disseminating news content. In the
‘Have your Say’ sections users become part of the production chain and the
BBC facilitates discussions about its content and cultivates conversations
among its users. The high level of acceptance of sections such as the Guard-
ian’s ‘Comment is Free’, of the ZEIT ONLINE talkboards and the BBC’s
‘Have Your Say’ site reflects this demand for conversational formats:
On the Lebanon War last year we got like a hundred and fi fty thou-
sand emails on that topic alone. Shilpa Shetti: It was a big brother rac-
ism row, do you remember that? A celebrity TV program. Thirty odd
thousand emails. Individual stories. Usually a bigger story gets about
fifteen thousand emails. We have engaged them. And when it goes over
that we know [ . . . ] people are going mad [laughs] about a story. So
we’ve got all this information to deal with, we just then have to pass it
on to others. And News 24, which is our digital television channel, they
trail all the time: ‘Send your emails, have your say! We’ve got an mms
number, send your pictures and things.’ And they all come in to us and
we process them and send them back. (BBC)1
Other than seeing the audience as a ‘herd’ of mass consumers, journalists

are starting to learn to change their attitudes toward them—especially with
regard to younger users who are pulling the plug on traditional news dis-
semination models:
That’s happening, young people are not reading traditional newspapers
any more. So, traditional news organizations I should say including
broadcast, need to fi nd ways of reaching those people, need to convince
those people that you do want somebody responsible making decisions
that what you’re reading on blogs in many cases and seeing on news
websites, that you shouldn’t just take it at face value. And that what
you read in the traditional news organization, although mistakes are
made there, too—but for the most part you can trust it. [ . . . ] I do—
but I’m an old person [laughs]—I tend to believe something that I read
in the New York Times more than I would something that I see on a
blog. Because I feel like there defi nitely are people there who are check-
ing it and who are very careful about what information they put out.
This argument does remind one of the discussion of credibility and accu-
racy raised in the previous chapter. Gaining the trust of young users is
closely tied to a change in attitude toward audiences. Responsiveness here
is not an option, but a must because, according to the Current TV intervie-
wee, especially young users are reluctant to accept the traditional sender–
receiver model of news distribution and consumption:
I think that’s one of the reasons why the younger audience is sort of
disenchanted. Because it’s been very top-down and it’s been very much
about the same headlines on the same channels, sometimes at the same
moment! I mean it’s crazy how they can time things to a tea [ . . . ]. I
think what exists today is sort of like the same regurgitation of the
same stories told in the same ways—until now. (Current TV)
In order to regain trust especially with younger audiences, journalists are in

need of reforming the relationship with their users. As the Guardian inter-
viewee points out: ‘What we going to have to learn and get better at is: We
need—as an organization—to be as good at managing incoming informa-
tion as we are at managing outgoing information’ (Guardian).
This incoming information can reach a news outlet from all corners of
the world because consumers are not necessarily restricted to accessing
news content distributed within their specific geographical locales.2 The
new relationship with users is formed in an online space that allows readers
from virtually any connected spot within the global sphere to engage with
content. The potential dialogue between news producers and users is tak-
ing place in a transnational arena and the group of users is not limited to a
national audience. AlterNet, for example, counts according to the intervie-
wee roughly between ten and fi fteen percent of users accessing the website
from outside the US. The BBC’s ‘Have Your Say’ site receives comments
from users who post their messages from virtually each continent. Cur-
rent TV receives submissions from around the globe and MediaChannel
operates with affi liating groups based in a number of different countries.
These are just a few examples of how the production and dissemination
as well as the reception of information has to be contextualized within an
emerging global setting today and how users engage with content produced
and disseminated online.
It is also important to note that users increasingly use multiple platforms
to get their news. A survey of the Pew Internet and American Life Project
published in March 2010 found that 92 percent of Americans use a variety
of different platforms to get news, with 46 percent stating that they consult
four to six different platforms for news and information on a typical day,
from sources including national TV, local TV, the Internet, local newspa-
pers, radio and national newspapers (Purcell et al, 2010: Online). News
organizations are facing much more competition with a rising number of
news providers who deliver information across numerous platforms. The
report stresses that:
The internet is at the center of the story of how people’s relationship to

news is changing. Six in ten Americans (59%) get news from a combi-
nation of online and offline sources on a typical day, and the internet
is now the third most popular news platform, behind local television
news and national television news. (Purcell et al, 2010: online)
The community of news consumers thus is adapting to the networked

structures conveyed by digital tools. While the group of news consumers
for a single platform can potentially comprise users from different parts of
the world, users in addition seek information across platforms, potentially
engage with content or provide feedback. In this transnational exchange
pattern, interaction between producers of news and their costumers has
become an important part of the development:
Interactivity now is a requirement to do journalism. [ . . . ] We need to

develop new strategies to improve it. We need to implement new ideas
to straighten it. So it’s a whole new field for journalists that I don’t
think was there before! Before it was a decision that we made in an
outlet. It was something you wanted to do. But I think it’s a require-
ment now. It goes beyond the choice of the journalist or the media.
The active user demands a change in attitude toward audiences and the
level of participation and engagement with content a news organization
allows. In line with this, Jenkins’s characterization of how consumers func-
tion in the digital era summarizes this argument greatly:
If old consumers were assumed to be passive, the new consumer is active.

If old consumers were predictable and stationary, then new consumers
are migratory, showing a declining loyalty to networks or even media.
If old consumers were isolated individuals, then new consumers are
more socially connected. If old consumers were seen as compliant, then
new consumers are resistant, taking media into their own hands. If the
work of media consumers was once silent and invisible, they are now
noisy and public. (Jenkins, 2004: 37 et seq.)
And they can be ‘noisy and public’ because they have access to instruments
that enhance the reach of their comment or content provided: Digital tech-
nologies offer excellent tools to assist users in raising their voices. These
tools can foster interactive conversations. How a journalistic organization
uses these voices strategically and in favor of one’s own outlet will be of
crucial value to the survival of journalistic organizations.
9.2. THE DEVELOPMENT OF INTERACTIVE CONVERSATIONS
Obviously in Utopia journalists would actually have a relationship

with the audience. And it would be a partnership, where someone
would write a story and they would listen to comments maybe on a
blog. And would get back and forth!
(Ourmedia)
Journalists ‘need to be more conversational. They need to be willing to

listen to people’, claims the Ourmedia volunteer, who signals that this is
the only way to pay tribute to changing interaction patterns in a network
society. The ideal medium to facilitate such conversation is currently the
Internet. It is the fi rst platform that allows direct interaction between a
news disseminator and his or her audience. The BBC Editor points out that
journalists need to react to the users’ demands of engaging in an interaction
with journalists and the content they produce:
I think the consumption of news has completely changed in the last

ten, twenty years. That it used to be something you noted, you lis-
tened to and you just sort of ‘all right, great, that’s what it is.’ Now
you think: ‘I want to be part of it.’ [ . . . ] So it was a monologue be-
fore and now it’s a dialogue. ‘I want to have my say in that. Yes, I un-
derstand that. I’ve got a story similar to that or I’m caught up in that.
Let me tell you what really happened.’ Or just a very simple thing: ‘I
feel strongly about something. I’ll vote online.’ It can be a very basic
non-time-consuming participation as well. And then we adapted to
that. We suddenly thought: ‘Yes, that’s what the public are wanting
to do, and we can in a way capitalize on it. Because they can help us
do our jobs.’ (BBC)
Here, the BBC Editor describes the ideal relationship between journal-
ists and users. The Indymedia volunteer accentuates that the willingness
of journalists to engage in a conversation about content will be key to
binding users to a news platform. Such conversation would eventually
include journalists, citizen journalists, bloggers, activists or audiences
alike:
Ideally it means that journalists and amateur journalists and readers

will engage in a conversational process to create better journalism.
Someone will say something is wrong and they will provide their own
expertise on something that’s already written. (Indymedia)
One way of doing this is to carry online chat sections. The Guardian’s
‘Comment is Free’ format, for example, is designed as an open space for
debate and invites users to engage with the articles provided by Guardian
authors. It hosts a range of blogs and contributions from Guardian com-
mentators and also carries the main commentary articles or editorials from
both newspapers of the Guardian Media Group. This idea of facilitating a
conversation is also behind some rubrics carried on the BBC’s ‘Have Your
Say’ platform. The BBC provides the topic (as well as encourages readers to
contribute a topic) and the users provide their input:
Yesterday we did a story about mental health, whatever. It could be

French elections, whatever. So we ask for people’s comments. Clearly
we don’t verify everyone’s comments sent in. People could be sending
in, saying something that we can’t check. But it’s a message board.
I think that’s fi ne. We put them up there and we make it very clear:
These are not the views of the BBC. This is just what people are send-
ing us. (BBC)3
The Guardian has also given room to communities that specialize in cer-
tain topic areas. Its travel site ‘Been there’, for example, is composed of
user-generated content. Here, Guardian users can submit travel tips, videos
and photos or create individual travel guides for fellow users. As the Guard-
ian interviewee explains, ‘the user-generated content is there, but it’s given
a defi nition and shape by us.’ The Guardian uses the full potential of its
crowd to create a unique travel forum run by a professional news organiza-
tion, yet with content fed in by users:
And our role there is: We’re like a campfi re that people gather around.
And I think this shift in that case really is interesting. We are no longer
the people who are responsible for all the content. We sort of shepherd
it and herd it a bit, but we are very minor, but the whole thing wouldn’t
exist in its format unless it was us doing it. (Guardian)
As fi rst studies indicate, the interactive possibilities of the net to contribute
to the blurring of the roles between consumer and producer are welcomed
by some journalists. In a survey of online journalists from Latin America,
North America and Europe, Schmitz Weiss and de Macedo Higgins Joyce
fi nd that feedback options as well as active contributions made by readers
are acknowledged as useful material in the newsroom (2009: 593). Yet the
range of participatory devices does not only entail chats or sections where
users can, for instance, make story suggestions. The Current TV model
shows that interaction with and participation of users can be a whole busi-
ness model on the information market:
Current is all about allowing our audience to interact. So we consider

it a two-string experience. We are always calling out for feedback, not
only highlighting the work of our audience and our viewers through
VC2 or viewer-created content, that’s what we call it. [ . . . ] You can
go on our website, you can vote for pieces, you can comment on them.
You can call them out if they’re inaccurate, the pieces that are online.
We feature those pieces on our air. It’s kind of a cycle between the TV
and the Internet. So for Current, we think that interactivity is key, it’s
a huge part of our network and involving our audience is a huge part
of what we do. We don’t see our audience as passive viewers, though
they can be if you’re just sitting in front of the TV and you just want to
watch it [ . . . ]. But there is also an opportunity to engage and to get
off the couch and do something and react and know that your opinion,
your comment is just part of this bigger conversation. (Current TV)
This conversational idea is accentuated in the blog format and the adapta-
tion of this format at traditional media outlets as shown in the previous
chapter is one striking example of the way interaction patterns are chang-
ing. The MediaChannel Executive Editor:
What’s happening is increasingly mainstream journalists have added

blogs because of their popularity. I mean you’ve gone to a situation,
I don’t know their current number, but 50 million people blogging!
That’s a phenomenally successful number of people! What does that
say? It says people want to participate in media; they just don’t want
to be recipients of media. Okay? And as a result we see that the cir-
culation of newspapers and the TV ratings of news shows have fallen
significantly. People are turning away from it; they’re turning away
from traditional media. So traditional media is now adding video to
websites, is adding blogs, is adding more opinion columns et cetera try-
ing to keep the audience and therefore also keep the advertising. So this
is the crisis that the media is in. This new media in some cases is not
just supplementing old media; it is the media for many people. That’s
all they read. [ . . . ] This is a profound cultural problem that’s deeper
than just journalism. It’s about people being citizens and can they as
citizens learn what’s going on in their world or not? (Interviewee 1,
MediaChannel)
Learning what is going on in the world can be a process resulting from a

conversational exchange of information. The phenomenon of crowdsourc-
ing through interactive online conversations as practiced in parts of the
blogosphere is an example of this. Some bloggers use the comment features
of their blogspots as such crowdsourcing instruments (see Briggs, 2010:
70ff). They gather information on a topic through actively asking the audi-
ence to participate and engage with their readers on a whole new level. The
Ourmedia volunteer:
I think that those of us that have been on the web, we realize that the
people know as much as we do. Or the person that watches my video
knows as much as I do! And so it’s important for me to get comments
or emails or to get voices back. Either telling me ‘I got my facts wrong’
or suggesting another way I could go on that story. It’s very important!
(Ourmedia)
The blogosphere holds one prominent example that proves the point of
collaboration and the opportunity to draw upon the knowledge of users
in order to improve or check a storyline. In 2007, blogger Joshua Micah
Marshall asked his readers to send him information on US attorneys being
fi red in various districts across the US. The story broke on his blog ‘Talk-
ing Points Memo’. It turned into a massive controversy and the publication
eventually lead to congressional investigations by the Department of Justice
and the White House, where it was checked whether the state offices were
fi ring attorneys in order to gain political advantages:
[Joshua Micah Marshall] basically said that: ‘It seems like something
weird is going on in my district.’ It really reached out to the com-
munity. ‘Is anything sort of fishy going on in your community or are
you seeing any unusual activity regarding US attorneys and things like
that?’ And it was these people who happened to be in those little dis-
tricts that were noticing that their attorney was being fi red and that’s
how it broke. Who knows if it would have happened or happened as
soon as it did if it wasn’t for this site. I thought that was fantastic!
[ . . . ] That was community involvement that actually broke this big
story. (Current TV)
The AlterNet interviewee refers to the same case and argues that form-
ing information circles and partnerships through a blog brings with it the
option to improve the quality of journalistic content. A positive develop-
ment in his view:
I think that the journalism has approved and will continue to improve
because of the blogs. And there are journalists who are brave enough to
kind of—or smart enough—to open their process up. [ . . . ] Joshua Mi-
cah Marshall has been able to break stories by asking his readers to do
research for him. And suddenly the power of one is the power of fifty!
[ . . . ] They’re able to call the congressperson in fi fty different places
and get the answer and that adds up to this. And he [Marshall] couldn’t
possibly do that by himself! The journalists that put their emails on
their articles or allow people to comment on it and then go back and
engage with them are I think better journalists for it. (AlterNet)
Participating with content thus holds advantages for both sides: The user
can interact with content and the journalist in return receives useful feed-
back and information:
For me relevant interactivity begins with participation. [ . . . ] Partici-

pation really means, that the user actively decides to do something that
will yield a reward in some shape or form for him. So not simply typing
in zeit.de, but that for example he/she actually sits down to read an
article and then thinks: ‘Mhmm, maybe the author’s not quite right
about that. Or whatever, or perhaps there’s another perspective to this.’
And sits down to write a comment in response to the article. That’s
true interaction to me. However, interaction is not entirely one-sided
for me. Subsequently [ . . . ] for me it’s part of being a good journalist
to accommodate the interaction and actually involve oneself. (ZEIT
ONLINE)
With the World Wide Web in place, the tools to facilitate this conversation
are right at hand—and journalists using them acknowledge that the society
they cater to carries (digital) networking as a defi ning principle of its inter-
action patterns.
Web 2.0 is probably the original intention for the web, which was a
desire for people to use it for their own creative expression. [ . . . ] I
kind of believe in the ‘wisdom of crowds’ notion and that the readers
out there know a lot and that should be taken advantage of. I think
the blogging revolution has given a lot of people who had no way into
the world of radiant journalism the avenue. And many of them have
surfaced as being great writers or tenacious trackers of information.
On AlterNet right now we have about twenty thousand people who are
registered to make comments. And some stories get five or six hundred
comments. (AlterNet)
Yet, this does not come without a price. An increased level of interaction
does have its downsides as well: ‘Tricky road however, because there are
trolls and there are nasty people and we don’t have the staff to monitor
those comments nearly as much as we would like’ (AlterNet). Instruments
have to be in place to secure the accurateness of information and organi-
zations need strategies for how to deal with offensive comments or false
information. Sites like the Guardian, Current TV, ZEIT ONLINE and the
BBC’s ‘Have Your Say’ do carry sections in which they explain the ground
rules of engagement. Users usually have to agree to terms and conditions
and ensure that they do not post any offensive comment or fake material.
Some organizations also take their customers on board to monitor the com-
mentary sections and offer users opportunities to rate the content of their
fellow commentators, for example, at AlterNet:
So we’re trying without imposing censorship, without being heavy

handed [ . . . ], we’re trying to get the behavior shaped by the people
themselves, even though some people will attack this claiming that we
are taking away their First Amendment rights even though we’re not.
But we are probably being more conscious of taking away . . . delet-
ing people’s stuff if they’re really abusive. Sexist, racist, any of those
things. (AlterNet)
The problem of trolls trying to invade a site or abuse it to spew radical

comment is also well known to grassroots platforms such as Indymedia.
‘Interactivity’ in this sense involves a whole other contextual dimension:
At least in the Indymedia world, interactivity means dealing with trolls

[laughs]! Dealing with disrupters. There is not a very high dialogue
level on the Indymedia website. There is some! There is some, but
you’re dealing with very committed political people with passionate
positions on things and I fi nd that the conversation on Indymedia any
way more often resembles kind of scrawling things on a bathroom wall
than it does any sort of engaged interactive dialogue. If you step back
and you kind of look at the website as a whole, there is obviously some
interactivity and some conversation going on. But if you look at the
comments people make to individual stories, maybe you’ll get five re-
ally good comments right away that are actually useful and then you’ll
just get this pure nonsense. (Indymedia)
Dealing with offensive postings, generating high-quality information and

conversations and setting rules for each individual platform are the tasks
every journalistic organization operating within the space of the World
Wide Web has to fulfi ll. The facilitation of conversations with users and
the inclusion of interactivity features is becoming an inevitable part of jour-
nalistic production in the evolving network journalism sphere and how to
manage these conversations online is just one emerging task journalistic
organizations have to deal with.
Another important point refers to what users do with the content pro-
vided by news organizations away from the actual website and at some
other place in the networked space. Online tools such as RSS feeds sup-
port the personalization of news services and social bookmarking tools
or social networks such as Facebook are places where users exchange
links, recommend stories or discuss issues they personally have an inter-
est in. How to engage with the spaces created by social networks is
probably one of the most important lessons to learn for news organiza-
tions today.
9.3. SOCIAL NETWORKS AND THE

PERSONALIZATION OF NEWS SERVICES
The reality is: There is a difference between reading a newspaper that

has to show up every day and that is going to be held accountable in
ways that somebody blogging in his underwear in his living-room isn’t.
And so the question becomes: How do people make those choices?
People reading the news or watching the news or consuming media.
How are they going to figure out who is full of shit and who is not!
The fi rst generation of computer-literate users especially in Western coun-

tries such as the US, the UK or Germany is growing and this generation is
completely unfamiliar with a time before the Internet.4 Young media users
can hardly relate to a non-interactive, closed journalism sphere, or as the
AlterNet interviewee explains, ‘a lot of young people are not interested in
that top-down model! That’s going back to the web 2.0. They are much more
interested in communicating with each other, and using tools and being cre-
ative and creating their own multimedia-mashups’ (AlterNet). These digital
natives have found their online homes on Facebook, MySpace, the German
StudiVZ or on any of the numerous other platforms that supply space and
the necessary tools for the creation of online communities. Social networks
are by defi nition communities where peers exchange personal updates or
photos as well as viewpoints or recommendations. And with respect to the
latter, these social network sites are becoming the extended distribution
arm for online information.
For example, two of the easy to use tools Facebook offers are the ‘Share’
application and the ‘Like button’. Within a matter of a few seconds, users
can indicate that they like a certain status update of a friend or a news
article they found somewhere on the Internet. They can recommend links
to articles or videos and to their favorite news websites. Applications such
as these can have a significant impact on user behavior and news consump-
tion patterns. As the Pew study about ‘The Participatory News Consumer’
in the United States suggests:
To a great extent, people’s experience of news, especially on the in-
ternet, is becoming a shared social experience as people swap links in
emails, post news stories on their social networking site feeds, highlight
news stories in their Tweets, and haggle over the meaning of events in
discussion threads. For instance, more than 8 in 10 online news con-
sumers get or share links in emails. (Purcell et al, 2010: Online)
This kind of social interaction with peers does determine to a certain extent
what users read, listen to or view on the net. The same survey also fi nds
that ‘50% of American news consumers say they rely to some degree on
people around them to tell them the news they need to know’ (Ibid.). Such
recommendations can be found on social networking sites through applica-
tions such as the Like button.
Many news outlets now are realizing that attracting especially the
young generation of Internet users does not only work through one’s own
homepage. With users growing up partially in the interactive world of
social networks, a new marketplace for content has emerged and, in addi-
tion, many platforms now do not only use their own homepages for the
distribution of their content, but share information or links via YouTube,
Facebook or Twitter. Delivering content on a variety of (interconnected)
platforms across the net is one step toward securing that the content of an
outlet fi nds wide distribution. Other ways are to embed social bookmark-
ing tools, Like buttons and easy-to-use functions that enable users to send
an article via email with not more than a click of a mouse.
These options do help news organizations to ensure that users find
their content in many network nodes across the web—and not only on
the homepage of the outlet. With the move into the online spaces potential
users might visit, news outlets acknowledge the power of networked com-
munication: They tap in to the opportunity of social networks where users
can share the content they fi nd the most interesting. As Briggs points out:
‘It’s important to understand the collateral benefits of social media distri-
bution and participation. [ . . . ] Journalists can earn social capital—the
concept of becoming the trusted center for a community—by engaging in
multiple channels’ (2010: 332 et seq.).
This type of engagement acknowledges the power of recommendations
and links. Users who share their favorite stories or point their peers to top-
ics of interest are important individual information nodes in the sphere of
network journalism. They push links into a widely connected sphere and
secure a wider distribution of information. Users who actively engage with
content are a force to be reckoned with. Their power to distribute informa-
tion should not be underestimated as they potentially drive web traffic back
to the sites of journalistic organizations or for that matter discourage their
peers from following the coverage of certain news organizations if they
have proven it to be insufficient or inaccurate. Outlets that acknowledge
the power of social networks and pay tribute to it through their presence
in these online communities—just as well as outlets open to feedback or
stories delivered by users—do use the potential power of the interactive
conversation in a networked world. They recognize that the position the
‘receivers’ of information take toward journalism has changed.
In accordance with this, asked how the media usage might look like in
ten years’ time, the BBC interviewee replies:
I think integration and interactivity will just be absolutely part of peo-

ple’s everyday lives. Because say, in ten years time did you say, people
who are now teenagers, who are the sort of MySpace, Bebo people will
be the generation. That is just how they live now! Everybody will be get-
ting their news where they want it, when they want it, how they want
it. There will be no sit-down-appointment to view stuff. It’ll all be when
people want it. It’ll be sort of there and we just have to adapt to that. And
there’ll be a load of changes. We might have to go through some rocky
times and maybe not spend as much on our traditional services. We’ve
got to give the audience what they want on the platform. (BBC)
And—in addition—on any platform users favor, including social network

sites. Developing a strong social media presence will help news organiza-
tions to connect with users in many virtual corners online and enhance the
reach of distributed content.
10 Transnational News Flows in the
Network Journalism Sphere
The impacts of digitalization and globalization are maybe strongest felt

in the field of foreign reporting. Within a sphere of global news flows, the
contextual settings in which foreign news stories are presented are under
scrutiny. At the same time, the emergence of transnational networks such
as CNN and the new access opportunities even to remote spots on the
globe are changing the practice of corresponding across borders. New job
profi les have emerged, with so-called parachute journalists sent on short
assignments to hot spots or backpack journalists traveling without staff
or a crew to points of interest.
As argued in Chapter 4, the traditional focus of reporting from afar
mainly concentrates on foreign perspectives and the angles from which
a story is told are often limited. However, while more people across
the globe digitally connect to the news from afar and while events in
one world corner might very well impact the life of people in another
corner, local insights gain importance. What is more, with the help of
digital technology, journalists in many cases now have access to a larger
number of local information sources and can extend their network of
information providers. These sources do not only include foreign cor-
respondents or local fi xers. Citizen journalists, bloggers and the users of
news services to a growing extent are becoming part of the production
chain as the international operations at outlets such as Current TV or
at the BBC’s user-generated content desk demonstrate. These new news
deliverers feed local perspectives into the global coverage of news and
do contribute to a coverage that is rather ‘transnational’ than ‘foreign’
in its nature.
This chapter will highlight how these dynamics of foreign corre-
sponding are influenced by today’s network structures. Drawing upon
examples taking from coverage of the war in Iraq and its aftermath,
I will highlight some opportunities digital distribution methods and
the growing number of source options offer in the fi eld of foreign
corresponding.
10.1. PARACHUTE JOURNALISM AND THE
TRANSFORMATION OF FOREIGN JOURNALISM
I think the move towards new media is almost accelerated in people

who care about the world, because the traditional media do such a
bad job of covering the world. So people who care about the world
are often more likely to turn to some Internet sources, new sources of
information, because there’s so little available.
Asked about the interplay between foreign correspondence, globalization

and digitalization, the interviewees did reflect on some major trends and
identified a number of changes in and challenges to the profession. One
of the strongest concerns expressed is about the fi nancial pressures news-
rooms are suffering from. As the PEJ interviewee explains, in order to save
money numerous overseas bureaus, for example, of US news outlets have
already been replaced by so-called parachute journalists, that is, journalists
who are flown to spots of interest especially in the event of elections, politi-
cal crises, war or natural disasters:
Whenever they started closing these bureaus, the fi rst reaction of many
of the major news organizations was: ‘Well, we’ll parachute people in.’
Which is: ‘We still have correspondents. They’re all based out of New
York.’ And when there’s a hot spot, they fly into the area and they fi nd
out what’s going on. (PEJ)
This development does at times jeopardize the quality of foreign reporting.

It can, for example, contribute to a fatal loss of context for news stories:
What you lose when you don’t have the person there is: a) you have
none of the backstory. You really don’t know how the situation got to
where it is. The way you fi nd that, the way you know that stuff is: You
have somebody who has experience there. [ . . . ] If there is a topic you
know a lot about and you see somebody write about it: Eight times out
of ten, maybe nine times out of ten you’re going to be unhappy with it.
And you’ll be like: ‘This person completely missed this angle, this an-
gle. How could they ignore this factor.’ And when news organizations
stop having correspondents on the ground they sacrifice that. That was
what they had. They fly people in; maybe they are excellent writers.
Maybe they are even excellent reporters. But you know, when I fly into
an area I can be the best reporter of all, but if my story is really this
event and the background of this event is actually like several hundred
years of history: That’s going to be hard for me to capture in a week,
two weeks, in a month. Having somebody on the ground makes all the
difference. They can get the nuances. (PEJ)
Transnational News Flows in the Network Journalism Sphere 185
What the foreign correspondent used to deliver was background to the
story. Being ‘embedded’ in a country gave the journalist access to locals,
enhanced his or her knowledge of the country. Now that news outlets
often rely on the same reporters to cover event sites in numerous different
countries, the foreign correspondent permanently based in a bureau in one
specific locale appears to be a dying species. Dying with this professional
profi le are the contacts a correspondent established—contacts a parachute
journalist cannot set up on the ground in a matter of a few days or weeks.
What seems to be missing is the link to a specific country and the inside
knowledge. The majority of the interviewees argue, parachute journalists
are not capable of filling this gap the vanishing institution of the foreign
correspondent leaves behind:
Parachute journalism is defi nitely not a good trend. You’re losing so

much context when you have somebody who doesn’t know a country
drop in for a week to do a reporting and then disappear again and not
show up again until the next crisis happens or something like that.
As opposed to having somebody there who really knows the country,
knows the context, isn’t going to make mistakes, isn’t going to have
misinterpretations of something. So I do think that’s a bad trend. Some-
times it’s necessary because you just don’t have anybody in the country,
but again, this idea of having people that you have relationships with in
countries around the world—even if you’re going to send one of your
own experts in as a parachute journalist—but just team them up with
somebody who’s there, who’s local, who knows the situation is very
important so that you’re not misreading things. (Interviewee 1, ICFJ)
Along those lines argues the ZEIT ONLINE interviewee with respect to
parachute journalists:
There are people who are very, very, very, very good at this. But I believe
these are very, very, very, very few. And of course it’s just extremely
dangerous! And in case of doubt they are indeed essentially vastly war
and crises experienced. But what I view as exceedingly critical is: They
mostly aren’t experts on the subject matter, educated on it. You can’t
really be overly familiar with all conflict areas around the world. And
obviously it’s nice if somebody knows the ropes in Iraq, or possibly
even in Afghanistan, but then we send him to the Congo and the situa-
tion might seem completely different there. (ZEIT ONLINE)
The AlterNet Executive Editor draws an interesting parallel between para-

chute journalism and fictional representations of reporters. The glorifi-
cation of the journalistic hero is a stereotypical image that according to
him corresponds with the unrealistic approach of parachuting journalists
around the globe:
Well, you know, we have these classic characters that show up in movies.
This journalist who shows up and figures out the problem and is the hero.
But, I don’t know. Parachuting anybody in for anything is really not the
way to find out what’s going on! They do that in politics here. They try
to win an election and then parachuting experts from another round who
are supposed to know what they’re doing, but they don’t pay enough at-
tention to people on the ground who really do know that. (AlterNet)
The general tone of the interviews is that parachute journalism does not
appropriately replace foreign correspondents based in permanent overseas
bureaus. To add a comment from the Ourmedia volunteer, he fi nds that this
type of reporting is also ‘boring very often, because they don’t really give
any local color or depth. I mean it’s in and out. Unfortunately that’s a lot of
the journalism that we see on TV or read in the paper’ (Ourmedia).
Another more general problem identified with respect to foreign cor-
responding in general is reflected in the argument that the story a reporter
wants to deliver is often not necessarily the story news outlets want to see
on their news agendas:
Well, a foreign correspondent is there to cover a story for their outlet.

And most of these correspondents who go there are very frustrated
because they can do the story, but they can’t get it on the air in Amer-
ica. They don’t make the decisions about what gets reported and what
doesn’t. And a lot of their reporting tends to look the same, because
somebody in Washington has seen or somebody in New York has seen a
story from Iraq on another channel. They say: ‘Get me that story! Give
me the casualty, give me the dead . . . another American soldier is dead.’
Is that the story of Iraq? Or not? (Interviewee 1, MediaChannel)
The argument raised here goes with what the Dutch foreign correspondent
Joris Luyendijk expresses as the main driver that got him to write a book
about his experiences as news correspondent in the Middle East. In an
interview, he notes that while on assignment he could hardly report the
stories he wanted in the way he wanted. What to cover and in what manner
to present a story were largely subject to factors outside of his control such
as the agendas set by wire services or chief editors. As a correspondent,
he often found himself ‘at the end of the news-production assembly line.
By the time I got involved, it had usually been decided already whether to
cover something and also how’ (Kester, 2008: 502).
Back to the discussion of parachute journalism in particular, though,
there is one positive outcome mentioned by some interviewees. Even though
parachuters might miss local knowledge or the necessary depth in coverage,
they at times do accomplish one important mission: Parachute journalists
can create awareness for crisis regions that might not receive enough atten-
tion globally.
For someone like Anderson Cooper to go to Sudan [ . . . ]: He’s become
like one of the best-known journalists on CNN. And he was recently
in Darfur and I guess that’s an example of parachute journalism. But
it also did raise the issue of what’s going on in Sudan better [ . . . ]. I
guess, journalists have been there for a long time. But he does have the
star power, so I guess it helps a little bit. Maybe it takes someone like
him to go to a place to actually start getting attention on this country.
(Democracy Now!)
Parachute journalists also directed the attention of a global audience, for

instance, after the Haiti earthquake in January 2010 or after the Boxing
Day tsunami in 2005. Their ability to point audiences to certain events is a
quality stressed by the BBC interviewee; however, she also notes the fl ipside
of such coverage. In many cases, foreign correspondence in general and
parachute journalism in particular do concentrate on breaking news, but
fail to follow up on stories:
Journalism has always gone where the story is and reported it. And
let’s say the tsunami where a whole load of people were sent and then
they came away again. But they covered the story and the devastation
caused there was revealed to the world. So I think it’s a derogative term
to say ‘parachute journalism’ when it is just really showing what was
going on there. What I think we might be guilty of is: We don’t go back
and follow up stories enough. (BBC)
Bearing in mind the criticism noted with regard to parachute journalism

and a declining quality of foreign correspondence coverage in general,
users wanting to fi nd information about the world might have to seek
other options.
One option to replace traditional foreign corresponding is to follow the
coverage provided by so-called backpack journalists or multimedia report-
ers. In many cases, they work freelance and instead of going where the
majority of foreign correspondents travel, they often cover spots where
other journalists rarely show up.
10.2. BACKPACK JOURNALISTS ON INTERNATIONAL TERRITORY
Our people, when we send them out, they’re lean. Sometimes it’s one
person, mostly it’s two, just because they have a partner to help with
all the stuff. But they’re shooting their own stuff, they are writing for
our website and blogs and fi ling stories. They’re editing on the road
and we have editors who will help out on editing as well. But it’s sort
of like that one-man-band backpack journalist.
(Current TV)
Training journalists as backpack journalists or multimedia reporters for
corresponding tasks could be one option for filling the gap the foreign
journalist leaves behind. Backpack journalists are in general much more
independent than the majority of their colleagues. They often travel alone,
comparatively light and on a fraction of the budget needed for traditional
foreign correspondence operations. Equipped only with a bag full of digital
technology gear to shoot and edit video, produce audio and send text files
via digital connections or satellite links, the backpack journalist does not
rely on a rather expensive crew of technicians or a number of producers.
ICFJ’s Senior Program Director notes, however, that practicing back-
pack journalism is not necessarily new. During a visit to the French televi-
sion channel TFI in the early 1990s, one of the managers introduced him
to the at the time new editing suites and pointed out that TFI staff were
also trained to handle a camera, do the voice-over and so forth. For this
manager, this was ‘the journalist of the future’—for the interviewee, this
practice described the day-to-day routines and journalistic realities in many
countries:
I was working [ . . . ] in Panama [at that time], which is a developing

country where the media don’t have that many resources. There are few
reporters in the networks. There are not many cameramen. And I had
done that in a developing country! I had used the camera once, because
we had no cameramen. I had asked the questions myself, I had written,
I had edited my story. And I was in a developing country. And she [TFI
manager] was telling me: ‘This is the journalist of the future!’ When
I went back to my newsroom in Panama I met the reporters. They all
were: ‘How was your trip to France? You visited all the news media!’
So I said: ‘Yes, it was great! But let me tell you, guys: you are all the
journalists of the future!’ I think that is nothing new in the developing
world where resources are scarce. (Interviewee 2, ICFJ)
Assigning journalists to not only write a story, but also produce it thus is not
necessarily a new development, but a fairly atypical practice at traditional
news organizations, especially in the developed world where journalists are
often specialized to concentrate only on the task of reporting. In times where
financial pressures increasingly demand the cutting of costs, preparing jour-
nalists to work as a one-man-band, however, does seem like an option. In
alternative journalism, though, where financial resources are often limited,
this practice is much more common. The Senior Producer at Democracy
Now!, for example, points out that journalists trained on multimedia devices
can produce stories with a fraction of the budget compared to traditional for-
eign corresponding operations. This comes as a true advantage, for example,
when reporting from war zones, where the highest flexibility is asked of jour-
nalists to produce under extremely difficult circumstances:
During the Lebanon War one of our video producers went to Lebanon
and was fi ling reports from Southern Lebanon. And she managed just
with a video camera and a laptop and a microphone to be able to pro-
duce and edit five-minute reports from Lebanon, send it back over the
Internet. That’s all the technology she had. And then we would play it
on the show the next day. (Democracy Now!)
Yet there are more factors apart from lacking fi nancial resources that do
support the assignment of backpack journalists. As the boundaries between
formerly distinct media types are blurring and with crossmedia operations
at news organizations in increasing demand, journalists are required to
develop multimedia skills. Training journalists as multimedia reporters and
sending them out as backpack journalists is one response:
I think that this is something that the mainstream media is exploring,

because they never had to deal with it. Just in the last ten years. It just
happened that technology has forced the mainstream media to think
that way. That news is not only the recording, the audio, or the text, or
the pictures, or the video. That news is now everything together. It has
to be together. (Interviewee 2, ICFJ)
Viewed from this perspective, the backpack journalist almost seems to

be the inevitable professional profi le. It already implies that a journalist
works ‘across media’, that is, produces content for various media platforms.
Accordingly the BBC interviewee notes:
People have to be multimedia now! Journalists have to be multimedia!

The days when I worked a long time ago in television news, we used to
go with the producer or correspondent, a cameraman, a soundman and
sometimes a lighting man. So a three-man crew, three-person crew.
That’s way gone! Now the cameraman often edits and shoots, edits and
maybe does a bit of production himself. And the correspondent does
his radio piece, does a television piece and writes for online. That’s ab-
solutely part of the business now and they have to be multimedia. We’re
a multimedia world! There’s no question that our correspondents who
are out and wherever don’t write a piece for online as well as do their
normal job. So they just have to do it! (BBC)
Current TV is an example of a commercial outlet that operates mainly

with backpack journalists when it sends its staff on overseas assignments.
This practice does according to the interviewee not only save costs, but has
another advantage in certain situations. Whereas large journalistic crews
often appear invasive, backpack journalists might get closer to the people
who can best provide insight and background information:
I think some of it is very imaginative and creative. It sometimes goes
places where ordinary media outlets don’t go. And actually lives with
the people and kind of can recount what’s going on there. It gives you
that kind of contacts, the human interaction that’s missing in a lot
of reporting where somebody is standing and saying: ‘In the build-
ing behind me so and so has just said such and such.’ (Interviewee 1,
MediaChannel)
For the Current TV interviewee, this is the main advantage of the backpack
journalist. The unobtrusiveness of the equipment and a small-size team
allows to reach out to sources who are more likely to pass on information
in a less ‘staged’ environment:
I feel like it breaks down some of the barriers when you’re in a place.
You’re not rolling in with a big crew and you seem very intimidating.
You’re able to integrate more with your surroundings and that’s the
way I usually work when I’m out in the field and I fi nd that the easiest
way, because you can really develop relationships more easily. So that’s
sort of how we function here! (Current TV)
The prospects of assigning backpack journalists to the task of foreign cor-

responding, however, are also viewed as rather controversial by some inter-
viewees. One major point of criticism expressed is concerned with a rather
personal tone of stories provided by backpack journalists. The PEJ inter-
viewee, for example, notes that there is a danger that the journalist him- or
herself becomes the center of the story and might personalize the reporting
to a degree in which the attention is drawn away from the initial object of
reporting:
I think that if you’re talking about somebody who goes around, who’s
the backpack journalist and who is like hitting hot spots, hot sites;
what is that journalism ultimately going to be? It’s ultimately going to
be about the person. It’s not going to be about the places as much as
they want it to be. Because that’s not the way it works. It’s going to be
everything filtered. It’s kind of like: ‘If it’s Tuesday then I must be in
Kabul.’ What you’re really doing is getting this person’s kind of instant
impression of what’s going on. And you’re getting his unique view of
what’s happening and that’s fi ne. But it’s not the same as like having
somebody there whose focus is to get as much as possible to the bottom
of the story. Those are two different things. (PEJ)
Along these lines, one of the ICFJ interviewees fears that the reduction
of a foreign corresponding team to a one-person-crew is hardly capable
of delivering the same quality reporting for different media formats. The
backpack journalist might be an option as the journalistic profi le of the
future, yet it should be regulated and restricted in the amount of the assigned
workload. Otherwise the quality of reporting might suffer:
I think it’s a necessary thing in the way that [ . . . ] traditional media

have to be changing and adapting and that means having multimedia
websites, so that you’ve got your journalists in a country or wherever
they are in this country, too, are able to do audio, sometimes video, to
take pictures. But there is an impact! It does mean that as a journalist if
I’m doing that, then I don’t have as much time to focus on simply report-
ing the story, getting good information and writing a good story. I’m
distracted, I’ve got to get some video to match my story, I’ve got to take
some pictures, I’ve got to get audio, whatever. (Interviewee 1, ICFJ)
He rather wants to see both, traditional foreign correspondents and back-

pack journalists, as part of staff at media organizations. In accordance
with this, one ICFJ interviewee also demands that backpack journalists and
traditional foreign corresponding crews should work side by side and feed
different story angles into news coverage:
Larger news media have the ability to send different people in, have the
basic reporter and then somebody in. We have a trainer in Egypt right
now who’s a New York Times multimedia guy when he’s not training
for us and so his job is to go and let’s say a story breaks out in an Afri-
can country and the Times will send their correspondent there. They’ll
also send him to do the multimedia part of it. So the traditional re-
porter is still free to just spend his or her time making sure that they’re
getting the story right, that kind of thing, while they have him there to
do some filming, take some pictures, get some audio, do graphics, all
that stuff. But that’s the New York Times, not everybody has that abil-
ity. (Interviewee 1, ICFJ)
The BBC similarly tries to avoid overly heavy workloads for its reporters
in the field, yet does require them to work multimedia:
Obviously we’re not going to say: ‘You’ve got to work three times as
hard, because you’ve got three platforms.’ We just say we pick the most
sensible things to do. Maybe you don’t need to do fifteen two-ways
on News 24. Maybe you do eight and write an online piece as well.
(BBC)
However, in many cases the typical backpack journalists are freelancers

who have to ensure they can sell their material. The pressures of having to
work crossmedia, making a living off it and having to guarantee a constant
flow of stories can be problematic for a freelancer on the road without a
regular income:
Well he/she’s [the backpack journalist] a ‘jack of all trades’, where left to
his/her own devices, he/she is really under so much pressure to deliver sto-
ries, that I once again have to view this critically. [ . . . ] But additionally
it’s a bit of a question, you can always say ‘backpack journalism’: What
have we got here? Now is it somebody who holds a salaried position and
then travels there for a month? Or is it somebody who is independent and
just goes there? That once again makes a rather large difference because
an independent [journalist] relies on selling his/her material. But can gen-
erally only sell it when he/she’s already able to say what it is. As a salaried
[journalist]—one can say: ‘Okay, you’ve got a month. Come up with a
few nice stories!’ That’s a huge difference! (ZEIT ONLINE)
More generally the AlterNet interviewee notes that being a backpack jour-
nalist imposes challenges that might be too heavy to carry for a single
reporter:
It’s one thing to take a little camera and shoot five minutes of an inter-
view and upload it. That’s fi ne, but I mean, if you try to weave together
a story all by yourself under bad conditions? I don’t think anyone could
expect people to do that. Pretty hard! (AlterNet)
All in all the comments of the interviewees do leave the impression that
backpack journalists do add information layers to stories that traditional
foreign correspondents might miss. However, backpack journalism just as
well as parachute journalism does not compensate for declining numbers
of foreign correspondents and overseas bureaus. Besides this, traditional
foreign corresponding, backpack and parachute journalism essentially do
have one characteristic in common: None of them can cover a story in all
its complexity or reach out to the whole range of potential sources a global
information sphere provides.
The sphere of network journalism then does not only demand differ-
ent correspondent profi les but also a widening of information circles. Net-
working with more sources enables journalists to deliver more viewpoints
and more story angles. Offering a mix of viewpoints gathered via the web is
one option. As discussed earlier in this chapter, one of the criticisms raised
against traditional foreign corresponding is that reporters often concen-
trate on breaking news, but do not follow up on events once a news story is
off the day-to-day agenda. The BBC, for example, tries to make up for this
lack of follow-up coverage through its online presence where it reaches out
to local communities:
We do go back, the New Orleans hurricane for example. All sorts of

things we go back and say: ‘What’s happening there now?’ Because we’re
conscious of the fact that people feel we go, do a big story, and then never
go back. So we are—through the audience as well actually—trying to go
back and say: ‘Are things better or worse’ or whatever. (BBC)
The BBC’s user-generated content desk is just one platform in cyberspace
that aims to follow up on stories and to provide various story angles through
user participation. But the BBC is of course not alone. The vast space of the
World Wide Web hosts an uncountable number of platforms that provide
alternative sources of information from virtually any connected corner of
the world, with bloggers or citizen journalists supplying local coloring and
viewpoints. Some of these pages do carry the potential to fi ll the gap left
behind through the closing of overseas bureaus and they also contribute
material a backpack or parachute journalist might not be able to access
on the ground. An increasingly globalized world demands a mix of global,
local and glocal perspectives and the Internet is becoming a gateway to
access such information.
The move onto the web to receive information from other parts of the
globe also accentuates the change in the character of international reporting
in the network journalism sphere: Here, users can choose from a number
of news websites that provide news told from diverse perspectives. News
from supposedly ‘other’ spots of the globe is embedded into different and
often more ‘local’ contexts. These are viewpoints often missing in the cov-
erage provided by foreign correspondents, who embed news stories within
frameworks of ‘otherness’.
10.3. USING GLOBAL NEWS FLOWS: COLLABORATING

WITH NON-STANDARD NEWS SOURCES
So ideally you wouldn’t have a journalist who just arrived there from
New York and is trying to capture what’s the situation in Iraq that
has really hundreds of years of back-story to it that they might not
know at all. So we try to fi nd journalists or sources on the ground
who have a much broader understanding of the situation.
(Democracy Now!)
Seib explains that among the currently available international coverage

‘parochialism flourishes, as if the politics and culture of a news organi-
zation’s home country were all that matter’ (2004: 2). Traditional for-
eign reporting often does not take into account to mix national, global
or local perspectives on news stories. However, through the new source
access opportunities, foreign news coverage in a globalized sphere can
potentially reach farther and go beyond frameworks of reporting about a
country from a foreigner perspective. In the network journalism sphere,
news coverage of supposed ‘foreign’ issues calls for fresh approaches in
terms of a transnational framework. Such fresh approaches could con-
tribute to a better understanding of the dynamics at play in a globalized
world. The Executive Editor at MediaChannel, for example, argues that
decisions made in the US might very well impact the situation in Iraq
or Afghanistan or in locations around Africa and news coverage should
reflect this. He suggests that in some cases a stringer operating out of
centers of (global) decision making might bring more depth to a story
than the on-the-spot reporting provided by a foreign correspondent or
parachute journalist:
If I was in Iraq and I wanted to cover the war, I would go to Wash-

ington and cover it from there, because that’s where the decisions are
being made about their country. [ . . . ] In other words, when I worked
in Africa years ago we discovered: There was more information about
Africa in America than in Africa about Africa. So if you want to know
what’s happening in Africa it’s not enough simply to be there, but also
know: What is the World Bank doing? What is the International Mon-
etary Fund doing? What’s happening at the United Nations? In other
words: You need a textured picture and in a globalized world often it’s
not the ideal like what’s happening here also relates to larger issues.
Globalization thus pushes supposedly local issues into a global context.

This needs to be taken into account when it comes to angles from which
a story is produced and how it is put into a larger context—and this is an
angle neither a parachute nor a backpack journalist or a foreign correspon-
dent can necessarily provide. They might be able to add important pieces
to the information puzzle, but cannot deliver a complete picture of a story.
Foreign news stories play out in a global arena and include a whole complex
of story angles and local or global perspectives. They cannot be covered
from just one specific spot on the globe or by using just one angle as path to
a story. In order to add depth and to contextualize a story within a global
setting, news organizations are challenged as to how to operate within a
developing transnational sphere. Who to choose as sources and who to
connect with in order to gather information is one aspect of this changing
dynamic in international reporting.
The online sphere does support this move into the transnational sphere, yet
according to the MediaChannel Executive Director, journalists still lack
strategies of ‘who’ to implement and how to organize this transnational
information network:
I still think that that is something that has yet to be really tapped fully.
That there is more of a global exchange. It’s already happening, people
now actually start to be able to pick up other sources online. But I
keep feeling like [ . . . ] I know there’s 20 guys like me in Europe and
50 guys like me in . . . There is tons of people doing it. But it’s like: ‘I
don’t know them!’ And that’s a little weird! Or like: I’m on listservs of
political bloggers in the United States for example. Now I know those
lists are happening all over, but how come our list doesn’t know about
these other lists? They’re yet to have that more global communication.
[ . . . ] I really want to promote more news journalists and media mak-
ers to connect more on a global level. Because when you have a global
perspective, which I think is very crucial right now, a global perspec-
tive is one that makes every story different. The global perspective of
an economic story, if you have a global perspective you can start to
identify with people in other parts of the world and start to see how
they’re having the same issues. It allows you to get out of thinking in
terms of within your country or your culture. And politically as well.
As a consequence of this, he proposes that journalists need to learn how

to move within a globalized sphere of information exchange and eventu-
ally have to contextualize news content in a transnational setting. Taking
the example of how US news outlets tend to report about Israel or Iraq he
comments:
George Bush says this about Israel or about Palestinians. Now, we au-
tomatically put anything that’s said about Israel or Palestine by politi-
cians in the United States, it will be compared to other politicians in
the United States. Most people in the United States don’t know that
our stands with Israel is radically out of line with the rest of the world
basically. And we never talk about something like that. And when we
talk about Iraq we don’t talk about why aren’t the other Gulf States
more involved or in what ways are they involved. The Iraq War is po-
litical, so even when we talk about the Iraq War in the newspaper it’s
about the election. It’s about the Democratic Party versus the Republi-
can Party. [ . . . ] With more people writing and creating and analyzing
from a global perspective, I think it would give us a radically different
take on the world. (Interviewee 2, MediaChannel)
The central question then is: How can outlets strategically expand their
networks? Forming relationships and using alternative news sources in
order to span a global web of contacts is according to the interviewees the
inescapable step that needs to be taken. Journalistic organizations need to
reach out and develop a network of sources and hence provide global and
local takes on stories. With the whole spectrum of politics, economy and
society being pushed into, being contextualized and functioning within a
global setting, journalistic practice inevitably needs to follow.
Forming partnerships with other journalistic outlets operating in spe-
cific regions can be one approach or as one ICFJ interviewee formulates it:
It means that:
they [journalistic organizations] have to fi nd new sources of informa-

tion for international news. So that means perhaps sometimes form-
ing partnerships with news organizations in other countries that are
still covering parts of the world; means establishing relationships with
stringers and freelancers in countries around the world. (Interviewee
1, ICFJ)
Such a move might compensate in part for the closing of international

bureaus and this statement can be interpreted as a call for journalistic orga-
nizations to widen their networks and team up with a larger number of
stringers who add angles and background to a story. Optional partner out-
lets are news agencies or international bureaus of journalistic colleagues.
Yet, with a growing number of smaller news organizations emerging, with
citizen journalists or media activists and bloggers operating in various parts
of the world, there are many more options. The other ICFJ interviewee, for
example, notes that small local organizations could function as stringers:
In South Africa there is a network, like a very grassroots news agency

of community news media. [ . . . ] In Latin America there are people
calling me for ideas of creating their own little news agencies based on
the web, because now it is going to be easier to do it. I think we are
going to see a lot of regional, small, community-based news agencies
that are going to be created because of how accessible technology is. I
mean, look at Yahoo News, Google News! This is an example of how
information is going to be delivered in a non-traditional way! It’s not
a mainstream news agency, though it is being used by many people as
their main source of information—even for the media! For the main-
stream media! You don’t need an AP or Reuters or Agence France or
BBC! I mean you have non-traditional systems of news delivery. (Inter-
viewee 2, ICFJ)
In order to form collaborations between news organizations, grassroots

news agencies, bloggers or citizen journalists, though, an increased level
of communication between these nodes in the information network is nec-
essary. Sharing stories and viewpoints becomes an essential ingredient of
international news coverage:
People who are media makers and journalists and what not, they can
be sharing their stories and their resources on a global way. What I’m
thinking of specifically: I’m on a list that’s all US progressive more
or less political bloggers. And my thought is, these people should be
talking with people in Europe. Or some of these people should [ . . . ].
When you have a good list, it really does become a community. It really
is a resource! People will say: ‘Hey, I’m writing about this. Does this
ring a bell with anyone or is this . . . ’ If you have that happening with
people who are blogging just in the United States then that’s one thing
and that benefits people in one way. When you have those people—you
have people blogging or communicating on lists on a global level—you
can start and use that as a resource. Those references and that context
is going to work the way into stories so that in people’s news it is going
to be often more of a global perspective. And I think that that’s the key.
I would add: This is only possible if all sides start to understand that they
are moving within the same sphere of information exchange. In this sphere,
improved methods of information exchange are key. Forming global net-
works might eventually add various perspectives to a story. Listservs as
mentioned in the quote above eventually were the fi rst forms of such col-
laborative information exchange models on the web. The ZEIT ONLINE
Editor:
I can remember the Kosovo War very well. I had subscribed to a com-
puter game mailing list. Completely different subject, but there was a
participant who lived in Belgrade. He wrote daily updates on the situa-
tion in Belgrade vie email. Along the lines of: ‘The coal-burning-power
plant just blew up.’ And similar stories. That wasn’t any different, just
a divergent format because it wasn’t quite as easy back then to simply
build a website. And he wrote for a specific public. That was essentially
like a closed blog, but it completely turned the game mailing list into an
unbelievable discussion mailing list on the sense and absurdity of war
and related topics. [ . . . ] There were Americans, British, there were
French, there were Italians, there were Germans—incredibly mixed!
And unsurprisingly this was a very exciting type of public, formed by
this. Nowadays he’d most likely create a blog and report on what’s hap-
pening. Back then he did it that way. (ZEIT ONLINE)
The information the gamer provided in the closed environment of the mail-
ing list back then, a blogger could provide today via the Global Voices
Online network, or a user through the services of the BBC or a citizen jour-
nalist through sending a video to Current TV. Sources on the ground—be
it local journalists, bloggers, citizen journalists or users—are gateways to
information and an increasingly important source for journalists. They add
layers to stories and in some cases might supply coverage from spots hardly
accessible such as Zimbabwe:
The BBC aren’t allowed to report from Zimbabwe. But last night on
the ten o’clock news John Simpson, our foreign editor, did a special
report on Zimbabwe in which he read out three emails from people
inside Zimbabwe saying how horrific it was now. So places like that,
it’s the only way to get news out! And it covers areas. (BBC)
One other example also illustrates that the BBC is ultimately wandering
down the path of increased collaboration with users of its services on the
ground, especially in remote areas. In this case it used a rescue worker to
get fi rst-hand information after a natural disaster on the Philippines:
There was a mudslide in the Philippines, a huge mudslide; a school

wiped away, horrific story about a year ago. And the area was so re-
mote. It took two days, 48 hours, for TV crews and reporters to get
there. Within about half an hour of that happening we had an email
from somebody, a charity worker, saying: ‘I’ve got the phone number
of somebody who’s working on the mudslide, a rescue worker. And you
can speak to him.’ And we did. He was all over the news and on the
online stories. And the crews got there two days later. [ . . . ] In a way
doing international coverage is easier, because it’s more useful, because
it takes so long to report. Because you can’t be everywhere. (BBC)
Delivering local perspectives and mixing them with traditional foreign

corresponding might ultimately lead the way to a multi-layered style of
transnational news reporting. This style of reporting does do justice to an
increasingly globalized sphere and takes into account many more view-
points and story angles.
Providing a range of viewpoints on a story to get a better picture of the
situation on the ground is especially crucial in times of war when national
bias often does lead the way for the tone of coverage. Aday et al (2005)
note in their cross-cultural analysis of television coverage of the Iraq War
in 2003 that the supposed value of ‘objectivity’ often goes out the window
when it comes to war reporting. Instead, ideology becomes the main driv-
ing force and journalists often privilege official sources or uncritically echo
opinions of military representatives or politicians.1 These fi ndings corre-
spond with a comment made by the AlterNet interviewee. He highlights the
dangers of relying too heavily on one-sided viewpoints:
Well, you know, Judith Miller and some of the journalists, they brought
us Chalabi and all the information that Bush used to justify invading
Iraq. So we would have been better with them not being there! Because
the fact that you’re in a foreign country doesn’t mean you’re any closer
to getting the truth and reporting it! The New York Times has been
really good about Iraq, but I think increasingly it’s really hard for them
to get outside of the greenzone. And if you’re embedded into a military
unit: Jesus, you can’t really write stuff that’s very critical, because the
people are protecting your lives! You got to have second thoughts about
that! [ . . . ] That’s why the Internet has made information more ac-
cessible. And especially in situations where outsiders have a hard time
getting in and understanding what’s going on. (AlterNet)
How in the case of the war in Iraq a mix of traditional foreign reporting
and the use of alternative sources did add to the conversation will be the
subject of the following pages. Examples of different forms of war cover-
age will illustrate the emerging diversity of viewpoints accessible in the
network journalism sphere: With correspondents, parachute journalists,
independent backpack journalists or Iraqi bloggers at work, the case of the
Iraq War stands representative of how news flows can function today.
10.4. THE CASE OF COVERING THE WAR IN IRAQ
The case of Iraq totally changed the landscape of how news is

reported! When reporters can’t leave the greenzone, there is a big
problem in what reality the audience and the public is seeing. So blog-
gers are totally instrumental; bloggers and vloggers in giving a certain
insight. [ . . . ] That window into the world of what everyday Iraqi
civilians are going through is something that still isn’t being reported
on as much as it should be, I think.
(Current TV)
How news reached global audiences out of Iraq during the military cam-
paign in 2003 and in the fi rst years after illustrates how communication
flows are changing. With a growing number of news deliverers covering the
confl ict from different angles and sharing their stories online, more sources
are accessible for anyone who seeks information about the situation.
One case in point are Iraqi bloggers who reached out to global audiences
and gathered millions of users in front of individual computer screens. The
success story of Iraqi bloggers is partially a result of the difficulties corre-
spondents working for traditional media organizations in Iraq had to face:
The foreign correspondent in Baghdad has created what’s a new type

of journalism called ‘Hotel Journalism’. In other words: These people
are stuck in hotels, they can’t get out, because it’s so dangerous. And
as a consequence we’re getting a very narrow view of what’s happen-
ing there. They are kind of all reporting on what each other are say-
ing. [ . . . ] I think a lot of these people are brave and they are well
intentioned, they are trying to get at what’s going on. It’s just not easy.
Stuck inside the greenzone, direct access to stories was and mainly still is
restricted. Palmer and Fontan (2007) conducted interviews with journalists
and fi xers in Iraq who work for French and British news outlets and found
that local knowledge and background to stories is mainly provided through
the lens of the fi xers. Due to the security situation and language barriers,
gathering fi rst-hand information is extremely difficult for Western journal-
ists. They do not blend in with the local population, often lack cultural
background and are highly dependent on fi xers and Iraqi journalists. This
bears a number of risks: Mistranslations, for example, often go undiscov-
ered and fi xers are in control to form certain views (Palmer and Fontan,
2007: 13). They are well aware of the content that fits best with certain
national agendas and do anticipate what kind of information journalists
look for as they know that ‘foreign newsgathering is a routinized process
where only certain categories of information are going to be relevant, as
dictated by Western news values’ (Ibid.: 18).
In addition to these mainly cultural problems, the lack of financial
resources and declining numbers of staffers for international operations
add to access difficulties. The World Wide Web can come as an important
tool in this respect. It offers the opportunity to connect with locals outside
of the greenzone and to receive fi rst-hand information from Iraqis:
As bureaus are being cut [ . . . ] people don’t have people to throw at Bagh-
dad. You don’t have people to throw at Kabul. People don’t have people
to throw at Darfur. So how do you find out what’s going on there? Well,
you’re going to have to use the resources you have on the computer. You’re
going to have to use more of them. And you’re going to have to be careful
about how you use them. But the advantages are [ . . . ] if you’re a small
paper or small TV station or radio station [ . . . ], television, newspapers,
magazines: You’ve got to rely on these, because you just don’t have the
resources anymore to do it if you want to have feet on the ground. (PEJ)
Such optional sources of information can be citizen journalists or bloggers.

Especially at the height of the war in 2003, in the aftermath the following
years and in some cases up to now, Iraqi bloggers shared their account of
the situation and provided perspectives not reported by foreign correspon-
dents. The Democracy Now! interviewee reflects:
I think the Iraqi bloggers . . . for me it’s an amazing story. Right now,
especially for any Western journalist, they are so constrained as to
what they can do in Iraq. [ . . . ] Many of them can’t even leave the
greenzone. And you really can’t report on a war if you’re spending all
the time with the military and with the occupiers. But the bloggers
who have perhaps more than anyone else really given a sense of what
it’s like living in Baghdad, living in Nadjaf during a time of war. So I
think, it has opened the eyes, I’m sure, of journalists around the world
as to what day-to-day life is for Iraqis. And it’s also allowing Iraqis to
speak in their own voice, not just in sound bites or short quotes in the
newspaper. But allowing them day after day to really explain what’s
going on in their country and how the war is affecting them personally.
(Democracy Now!)
The Iraqi bloggers provided voices from inside Iraq and organizations such
as MediaChannel used them as an important information resource. For
example, the organization worked together with an Iraqi blogger who from
August 2003 until October 2007 wrote under the pseudonym Riverbend
about the conditions in Iraq after the war:
She calls herself Riverbend because she lives at the bend of a river.
And she’s basically reporting on the war, writing about the war from
her own experience inside her family. So it’s an insight-out approach.
But she’s Iraqi. She’s also a very, very good writer. So she’s able to
offer comment and discussion of the lives of ordinary Iraqis who are
invisible in most of the media. We never see them, we never hear
from them. So here’s a war, [ . . . ] obviously there’s more than two
sides or many sides. But we’re only hearing from about one. We’re
hearing about what the USA is doing and maybe the Iraqi govern-
ment, which is totally unrepresentative. And that’s supposed to be
Iraq! But what about all these people who are not in the government,
who are living through this nightmare every day? And she is their
voice. She’s one of the voices of that community and it’s the legitimate
voice and an important voice. But you label her and call her ‘blogger’;
suddenly she doesn’t have the credibility of somebody else who may
in fact have been wrong about everything he’s done. (Interviewee 1,
MediaChannel)2
The personal tone of blog entries such as the ones written by Riverbend
does collide with journalistic ideals of ‘neutral’ or ‘factual’ reporting. How-
ever, her writings shed a different light on the situation. Iraqi bloggers like
her added a different perspective to news stories and they provided an extra
layer of information to the ‘conventional’ content provided by foreign cor-
respondents.
Another and probably the most prominent spokesperson in this respect
was the so-called Baghdad blogger who wrote under the pseudonym ‘Salam
Pax’.3 He blogged the 2003 breakout of the war from inside Iraq and his
writings did not only bring him to fame in the blogosphere, but news media
around the globe drew upon his material and gained him readers in many
countries of the Western world:
That guy, the reason why we all loved him, is because he sounds like a
real person. [ . . . ] It was journalism, but it was also storytelling and
sometimes I think that’s a little bit different! When I watch American
journalism, very often it’s very cold and analytical. It’s full of facts,
which is good, but when you see a blogger like that, there’s all that stuff
plus there’s this humanity behind him. And that really brings you into
the story. It makes you care! I think that this notion of being ‘objec-
tive’ has gotten brought way too far. Where for some reason journal-
ists think that they aren’t allowed to get involved or have an opinion.
(Ourmedia)4
Salam Pax did also inspire other Iraqis to start blogging such as a dentist
from Baghdad who started ‘Healing Iraq’, a blog that is at the time of writ-
ing this book still alive and updated on a regular basis. The Indymedia
volunteer followed this blog when the war broke out and he was intrigued
by the many layers of information provided by this particular blogger:
So, this was a guy [ . . . ] who as soon as the invasion happened, started
this amazing blog! And he would have maps of like the Armedian
neighborhood in Baghdad. And he would say: ‘This is what is happen-
ing right now in my neighborhood. There are people firing guns over
here, here and here. And there are militias on the other side here.’ And
he would draw all this and then he would have pictures of it happening
underneath there. It was amazing! (Indymedia)
Bloggers such as Salam Pax, Riverbend and the dentist from Baghdad can
be found in many parts around the globe and report from many spots hard
to reach or at times even inaccessible for journalists. Their accounts can be
an extraordinarily useful resource for journalists and they add interpreta-
tive angles foreign correspondents might miss:
Foreign journalists, fi rst of all, they are in danger. Secondly, the mili-
tary is not going to let them see very much. So, in situations of crisis
like that it often becomes essential to have citizen journalists giving
information out. It’s been true in China, it’s been true in Latin America
[ . . . ]. And it’s just one piece of the larger picture. (AlterNet)
Going back to the example of Iraq, other sources providing information

pieces, adding content as well as contexts, were journalistic projects such
as Alive in Baghdad, a weekly news program that regularly streamed
videos online until late 2009. 5 The project was initiated by independent
journalist Brian Conley, who traveled to the Middle East in 2005 cover-
ing Iraqi life. A year later he went back equipped with digital produc-
tion devices and trained Iraqis to produce weekly news bulletins for a
global audience on the life in Iraq beyond the greenzone. The project also
collaborated with traditional news organizations and produced work for
outlets such as the BBC or Sky News. Alive in Baghdad gave an insight
into rarely covered lifeworlds and went to areas where foreign correspon-
dents are rarely found.
Other journalists providing alternative viewpoints to the coverage of
traditional foreign correspondence were independent journalists such as
Kevin Sites and Christopher Allbritton. They both traveled as backpack
journalists reporting out of Iraq, especially during the height of the con-
flict. Kevin Sites, for example, gained fame for his reporting on his vlog
kevinsites.net. He was one of very few journalists not embedded with mili-
tary troops and provided multimedia-reporting packages. After working
in Iraq, the former NBC News and CNN correspondent went on to work
for an online news program at Yahoo News called Kevin in the Hotzone
where he covered armed conflicts around the globe as a solo multimedia
reporter. Equipped with not more than a bag full of digital devices includ-
ing a laptop, two digital cameras, a satellite modem, a satellite phone and
a standard mobile phone, he has ever since been on assignments in the
Middle East and elsewhere.
Leaving for Iraq in 2002, the former AP, New York Daily News and
Time Magazine reporter Christopher Allbritton also posted stories from
inside Iraq. He initially went into the country fi nancially supported by the
readers of his ‘Back to Iraq’ blog and stayed on and off in Iraq until 2006.
His reports did catch the attention of a number of news organizations and
he ended up not only blogging on his own website, but fi ling reports to the
Boston Globe, the San Francisco Chronicle and Time Magazine. The stories
published on ‘Back to Iraq’ added background that traditional correspon-
dents did not provide and his insights widened the contextual framework
about the Iraq conflict. For his current blog ‘InsurgencyWatch’ Allbritton
now reports from Pakistan and Afghanistan and uses the same reader-
funded model he started for ‘Back to Iraq’. About himself he writes:
I’m a fi rm believer in mainstream newspapers as a source of great in-

formation, but I’m also realistic. With fewer and fewer newspapers
sending staffers overseas (or even using stringers and freelancers), the
ability for Americans to get good foreign news and analysis is suffer-
ing. (Allbritton, 2010: Online)
With his blogs he aims to fill this gap in order to ensure that what happens
in countries such Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan remains in the attention
zone of his users. For the Indymedia interviewee, reporters such as Sites or
Allbritton break with the conventional frameworks of war coverage and
they are an essential resource of information that deserves attention. Look-
ing in retrospect at the coverage Allbritton provided from Iraq, he notes
that ‘Chris Allbritton should be setting the agenda in Iraq! Because he actu-
ally seems to be doing reporting and actually talking to people, instead of
sitting in the greenzone filing stories from his hotel room’ (Indymedia).
Another way to provide a broader scope of perspectives from Iraq is to
embed user-generated content in foreign corresponding footage. The BBC,
for example, uses this material to complement the content provided by its
own reporters: ‘The BBC has a team there, but they can’t leave the green-
zone. Very rarely do they go out. It’s just not safe. But ordinary people in
Iraq can tell their own story’ (BBC). The result of such collaboration during
the height of the Iraq War and in the years after was featured on the BBC
website, which carried a host of special reports put together by BBC editors.
The content is gathered from users and covers the life stories of people in
Iraq. Just a few examples that can still be found on the site are features like
‘Fleeing Iraq’ (a collection of stories from Iraqi refugees) or ‘Iraqi Voices’
where Iraqis tell their story of day-to-day life in the country.6
The Iraq War is one of the fi rst cases in the recent history of journalism
where traditional news organizations have started to realize the potential
of networking with alternative information providers, be it users, bloggers
or freelance backpack journalists. They all added context and local color-
ing that often was missing in conventional foreign news coverage. And even
though the PEJ interviewee notes that working with alternative information
sources differs significantly from working with foreign journalists, he also
stresses that they are a tremendous resource, especially in times of foreign
bureau cut downs:
And there are defi nitely things that are lost in that relationship. It’s
not the same as like saying: ‘You’re my reporter and I know you. And
I know your work and I know I can trust you. I know where your
strengths are; I know where your weaknesses are. I know when you
give me something what I’m going to get.’ But I don’t have that any
more. You’re not there anymore. So having these people out there can
be a great benefit to media organizations. (PEJ)
The interviewee at Current TV argues that fi nding the citizen journalist or

the blogger to collaborate with to expand the margin of perspectives might
at times even be more useful than sending an organization’s own reporters
into the field:
We had one of our reporters who wanted to go to Iraq. He followed a

convoy last year and he wanted to go back and check on that convoy. And
I didn’t approve that story, because I said: ‘What new information are you
going to get? Not only is it expensive, it’s risky, all that sort of stuff, but be-
yond that what real story beyond what this convoy is doing are you going
to get that’s different? And so let’s use our energy and resources elsewhere
to expand on other stories and let’s find that citizen who is in and outside
of the greenzone and let’s find that blogger and let’s find that vlogger who
wants to submit something for Current. (Current TV)
Overall, the case of covering the war in Iraq and its aftermath does illustrate
that establishing networks with users, bloggers or independent backpack
journalists can help create a rich pool of information. The case exempli-
fies the opportunities the network journalism sphere provides and it serves
as grounds for the assumption that an evaluation of current collaboration
models at news organizations becomes necessary. An ‘opening up’ of inter-
nal networks, allowing more information channels to enter the production
chain of a media outlet, does not need to happen at the cost of credibility.
It does ask of news organizations, though, to deliberate who they choose
as collaborators:
You’re talking about the reputation of your news organization. That
is the most valuable commando that you have as a news organization,
it’s your reputation. If you damage it you’re really hurting yourself.
But again, I think that these people are valuable—number one—, and
number two: it’s more necessary than ever. You have to fi nd a way to
use them and to make it work, but the way I would go about doing it I
think is: Look at their work, ask them to file some reports for you, see
if things check out. And then it’s like anything else. It’s like if you’re
a reporter: Over time I start to trust you more and more. If you’ve
done many things right and I don’t have problems with your work and
you bring me something that’s sensational I’m going to say: ‘Okay, I’ve
trusted your work before, this is what you say happened. Maybe I’ll ask
you for some clarification.’ If I don’t know you and you come to me and
say: ‘Oh my God, I’ve got this unbelievable story for you’ my fi rst reac-
tion is probably going to be: ‘Right, that’s unbelievable!’ I don’t think I
would believe it. And maybe somebody else will go with your story and
you’re right and that’s wonderful, but I can’t play with the reputation
of my news organization! That’s too important.’ (PEJ)
Strategies are needed to set rules on how to embed alternative information

flows into conventional newsgathering and production processes. And such
strategies are more important than ever, as otherwise stories about war or
crisis and especially from countries and regions that are hard to access most
likely will lack appropriate coverage.
On the other hand, bloggers—just as the stories provided by the news
agency or the correspondent in the greenzone—deliver only one part of the
complex settings around foreign news stories. As one interviewee warns:
Usually those kinds of things [blogs] are not telling me the whole story.
They’re from a very narrow focus of ‘what is my life like’, somebody
who’s writing that kind of blog isn’t getting the opinion of, you know,
what do the Sunnis think, what do the Shiites think, what do the Kurds
think, what does [ . . . ] the US coalition think. All that kind of stuff
that I get from traditional media. So, to me it’s a balance. I love that
stuff. Some of those blogs that I read are just gripping, they’re fascinat-
ing. And there is stuff I don’t get in traditional media. [ . . . ] It adds to
the voices. It gives us information we weren’t getting before. But I still
read the traditional—not everybody does. [ . . . ] I don’t think they are
[bloggers] giving me the full context and they are [ . . . ] often not able to
do investigative reporting. Let’s say you’re reading a blog from a Shiite
[ . . . ] in Iraq. They wouldn’t be able to talk to the people in the Sunni
community. And so I guess I could read lots of different blogs and make
sure that I’m getting a balance, but it’s dangerous if you’re getting your
information only from blogs, you run the risk of getting one side of the
story and not getting the full context. (Interviewee 1, ICFJ)
The foreign reporting provided by news organizations thus should not
only rely on bloggers. It is the information mix just as well as the mix of
sources that makes the news coverage multi-layered and delivers a complex
and more accurate picture of the stories being told. Journalists play a very
important role in this process:
Dave Winer said a while ago: ‘You don’t need reporters in Iraq! You
don’t need reporters in Iraq, because there’s going to be a thousand
bloggers and you run an aggregation engine over that and that’s better!’
Now all that collection of voices: Very powerful and very engaging. But
having one person on the ground and a desk back in the UK and people
who are committed to actually distill that, to make sense of it, to make
human judgments based on years and decades of experience really, re-
ally adds value and I think is very, very important. (Guardian)
The task of journalists then is to draw together the information they receive
from their correspondents just as well as from bloggers, citizen journalists,
users or officials such as military staff or politicians. It is neither only the
correspondent nor only the blogger who delivers the full picture—required
is a mix of various angles, viewpoints and background that adds context to
stories unfolding in a globalized world. Or as one interviewee claims:
I want both. To me the whole thing is that there’s just more sources
and I think that’s good as long as we can figure out a way to ade-
quately understand what we’re seeing, reading whatever. I want both.
I would love to get some 16-year old blogger on Haifa Street in Bagh-
dad. I’d love to read that! Would I trade that for being able to read
the AP story on Iraq that day? No, probably not. I want them both!
And from that I’ll start formulating my own opinion. (Interviewee 2,
MediaChannel)
The story of the Iraq War coverage is therefore also a story about the
importance of shaping collaborative networks between traditional journal-
ists and alternative news providers. In times of globalization news stories
can hardly be grasped through the lens of the supposed ‘foreign’. With the
help of digital technologies and the World Wide Web, various angles have
become accessible. Information transmitters such as satellites or broadband
connections do not stop at the border of the greenzone. These devices pro-
long the scope of journalists; they help to reach the many people who want
to tell their story and who provide pieces of information that help to better
understand the complex settings unfolding in a globalized sphere.
11 Reconceptualizing Journalistic
Outlets as Information Nodes
Journalists have always been in demand of sources who share and deliver
information. Without sources news production would be an impossible task.
However, as so far argued in this book, the emergence of non-linear global
information flows fundamentally affects the work of journalists and their
‘conventional’ collaboration models. The argument presented here is that the
underlying dynamics driving these processes of change are fostered by digital
technologies and by the emergence of the network society. But what is the
role of journalistic outlets within the sphere of network journalism? Where
should they position themselves in the context of increasingly decentral-
ized information flows and how can journalists effectively use the optional
sources who offer multiple layers of information to a story?
Tapscott and Williams (2008) argue that in today’s world, collaboration
has become the inevitable business operation that affects every industry and
demands new work models:
For the business manager, the number one lesson is that the mono-
lithic, self-contained, inwardly focused corporation is dead. Regardless
of the industry you compete in, or whether your fi rm is large or small,
internal capabilities and a handful of b-web partnerships are not suf-
ficient to meet the market’s expectations for growth and innovation.
(Tapscott and Williams, 2008: 314)
Applied to journalistic work this means that professional news organizations

have to adapt to the rules of openness and collaboration or they will perish.
In this remaining empirical chapter, the main arguments that have lead this
book will be summarized and combined with suggestions as to how journal-
istic organizations can adapt to the sphere of network journalism.
11.1. THE FORMATION OF A NETWORK

OF MULTIPLE RELATIONSHIPS
First of all you have to want to broaden and diversify your news offer-
ings. Not everybody does that. They fi nd it threatening, because they
don’t think the audience is interested or whatever. They are also very
absorbed in their own Egos and their own institutional Ego. But if
you do want to, you can do it!
Today’s journalism sphere—to use the words of the AlterNet intervie-

wee—is a ‘flattened’ one in which traditional news disseminators have to
deal with more competitors from the independent as well as the alternative
media sphere. As digital technologies make it easier to access more sources,
the restructured information flows support the extension of the journalistic
network—especially internationally:
Networking is not exactly the smallest part of a journalist’s job, and

in particular networking amongst colleagues to mutually exchange in-
formation and so forth. That’s just an element of it. That today this
predominantly takes place online simplifies the process. That has to be
acknowledged perspicuously. If I want information from Argentina, I
get information from Argentina. I know people in Argentina. If I want
information from Russia, I can call somebody there whom I trust. I can
also send him an email—preferably encoded. Hence, there are these
options. Put it this way: Journalistic opportunities to network interna-
tionally have improved exponentially, and for me it’s the case where I
can honestly say that in countries currently exhilarating for me I either
have somebody on site locally or I have someone sitting somewhere else
who is extremely knowledgeable [on a situation]. Therefore if I have
any questions about a specific topic, I can ask. My personal network,
for my journalistic work in Germany as well as internationally is in fact
so diverse, that it isn’t just comprised of journalists. More often than
not it also includes bloggers. (ZEIT ONLINE)
Strategically forming relationships with potential news gatherers and dis-

seminators within this global network journalism sphere may assist to con-
trol the information flows. Developing collaboration models with bloggers
or citizen journalists is one part of this. The transformed sphere calls for
a plan of action to organize a news outlet around these new global news
flows. However, such plans can only succeed if journalistic organizations
understand that ultimately the sphere in which they move has radically
changed. This demands, as one of the ICFJ interviewees argues, less ‘antip-
athy’ from traditional journalists toward alternative news disseminators
and vice versa. According to him, traditional media are
standing on an island and this is probably going to be very accurate

with global warming: The island is getting smaller and smaller and
smaller and at some point you’ve got to change and figure out some
other way of surviving, because pretty soon there is not going to be an
Reconceptualizing Journalistic Outlets as Information Nodes 209
island anymore and that’s the situation traditional media are in. Many
traditional media people are just in denial! [ . . . ] There are cases where
it is working. There are cases where the two sides are trying to work to-
gether. But I still see a lot more division than I do [see] coming together.
Recent research into journalistic practice supports the interviewee’s

remarks. In their study of interactivity features in traditional newsrooms,
Paulussen and Ugille (2008: 37), for example, identify a number of current
professional newsroom practices as the main problem. They point out that
(1) strong hierarchies in present newsroom cultures often stand in the way
of collaboration, (2) newsroom practice often lacks negotiations among
staffers, for example between IT personnel and editors and (3) journalists
struggle to change an often rather skeptical attitude toward the use of alter-
native sources and more collaborative approaches because they fear higher
workloads and in addition complain about a lack of time and resources.
Similarly, Schmitz Weiss and de Marcedo Higgins Joyce (2008, 597) have
found that budget and resource constraints are the main arguments jour-
nalists raise with respect to this. Paulussen and Ugille summarize:
Although the interview transcripts are full of quotes concerning the

increased importance of interactivity, we cannot but conclude from
our interviews and observations that handling user generated content
(blogs, forums, etc.) or interacting with users do not seem to be part
of the daily routine activities in the newsroom. (Paulussen and Ugille,
2008: 35)
Based on the fi ndings presented here I add that the reason new approaches
toward newsgathering, production and dissemination seem to be hard to
adopt is an even more fundamental one. The conflicts between traditional
organizational structures and fresh approaches toward collaboration and
thus the problems of adapting new models of journalistic practice are
rooted in the main argument presented here: The dynamics and the power
of networks are often not understood.
Many journalistic organizations lack awareness of the impacts the
evolving network journalism sphere has on their work and traditional top-
down organization models do not pay tribute to the new ways information
flows. The hierarchical structures do barely leave space for bloggers, citizen
journalists or activists. Instead, new source and collaboration options are
mainly greeted with fear and interpreted as an add-on to workloads. But, as
one interviewee stresses vividly, these alternative news providers now are ‘a
fundamental part of the new communication chain, whatever you want to
call it. And every news media—mainstream or no mainstream—will have
to rely on [them] if you wanted to survive as a media in the 21st century’
(Interviewee 2, ICFJ).
In accordance with his assertions, the ICFJ interviewee pledges that
journalists need to understand the degree of impact the restructured infor-
mation flows have and proposes that journalists have to take bloggers or
citizen journalists ‘serious’:
They got to understand the power of the communication chain now

and that there are good things that will happen because of that. First
it’s recognizing. I don’t think we have reached that point. I think es-
pecially the large media begin to recognize that. And they are facing
it in different ways. First it was very timid. They would create their
webpage; they would allow some people to interact now, because they
realized they cannot ignore these people. They begun, as you know,
getting their bloggers, they selected their bloggers and now they are
part of the mainstream. They are co-opting some of them and now they
see that this is not enough! [ . . . ] How should the mainstream or the
professional journalists react to this? I would say that more and more
they would have to incorporate these citizen journalists, or bloggers, or
audiences into their news sections. [ . . . ] There is a little bit of that. But
I don’t think it’s fully fletched yet. (Interviewee 2, ICFJ)
Other interviewees argue accordingly. The ZEIT ONLINE Editor, for

example, views the number of alternative news disseminators as a procre-
ative addition:
I believe it to be complementary. It just doesn’t work any other way! You

can’t compare it in that sense. It can only be mutually fertile. Because
if an interesting blog-entry appears somewhere, if all else fails one can
always say to the correspondent: ‘How about it? Can you investigate
this?’ More often than not he’ll have a better grasp of it than me on site.
As a result I can tell him: ‘This sounds quite interesting, please check it
out!’ And that’s how it really works. (ZEIT ONLINE)
Similarly reacts the BBC Editor:
I see it all as complementary. I think people want their news from lots of
different sources. They’ll come to the BBC site and find out maybe the
overview of what’s happening, maybe they’ll send in some comment or
messages. And then they’ll probably have their favorite blogs that they
get on RSS or whatever they do. And they have multiple sources. And
if we can help make sense of some of that then that’s a good thing. I
don’t see us as in competition with people who are doing the blogs and
things. (BBC)
Strategic embedding of collaborative actions can help to guarantee a mul-

tiplicity of voices and reporting from various angles. A journalistic outlet
can benefit from the new possibilities and potentials if it embraces the logic
of interactivity that Tapscott and Williams phrase as ‘the new art and sci-
ence of collaboration we call wikinomics’ (2008: 3). According to them, ‘to
simply intensify existing management strategies’ is insufficient:
This is more than open source, social networking, so-called crowd-

sourcing, smart mobs, crowd wisdom, or other ideas that touch upon
the subject. Rather, we are talking about deep changes in the structure
and modus operandi of the corporation and our economy, based on
new competitive principles such as openness, peering, sharing, and act-
ing globally. (Tapscott and Williams, 2008: 3)
MediaChannel’s business model is based on exactly these premises. Accord-

ing to its Executive Director, the future of journalism lies in the creation of
collaborative networks:
That’s what MediaChannel is [ . . . ]; it’s thirteen hundred affiliated

groups. It’s a whole network of organizations and that’s what I’m try-
ing to argue for to the blogosphere and these others that we have to
fi nd ways of working together, because that’s what’s going to give our
voice more clout and power in the marketplace. But it’s a hard thing to
do, because we have a nation of 350 million individualists who don’t
want to work with other people necessarily. That’s part of the tradition
of this country [United States]. And so it’s difficult to do that. And
often also there’s competition among these different groups and they’re
competing with each other and they’re attacking each other and there
is sectarianism and the right wing and the left wing doesn’t talk to each
other and all the rest of it. So you do the best you can, but at least our
philosophy is what we call ‘Post-Particip’. In other words: We don’t
want to just be covering the world through the eyes of the Democratic
Party or the Republican Party. We want to go deeper, more insightful,
more independent, more analytical, more investigative. (Interviewee 1,
MediaChannel)
Despite the difficulties described by the interviewee in fostering such col-

laborations, the improvement and enlargement of networks is becoming an
important part of journalistic work.
In search of models that could serve as an example of how to reorganize
work structures in line with the changing environment, a look at the current
news practice of alternative journalism outlets can be useful. Gillmor (2006),
for example, proposes that traditional media can learn from the production
and dissemination models employed in the alternative media sphere:
Journalists will use the tools of grassroots journalism or be consigned

to history. Core values, including accuracy and fairness, will remain
important [ . . . ], and professionals will still be gatekeepers in some
ways, but the ability to shape larger conversations—and to provide
context—will be at least as important as the ability to gather facts and
report them. (Gillmor, 2006: XXV)
Outlets such as Global Voices Online are good cases in point. The platform
understands how to create and sustain global collaboration networks, how
to foster interaction and how to aggregate information. It pushes voices and
commentary on the global news agenda otherwise often ignored and allows
users to selectively pull the information they seek. The approach of Global
Voices Online is one model of how to handle content streaming through
the sphere of network journalism that could be used as an example for the
revision of operational modes at traditional news organizations.
The Senior Associate at PEJ also advocates for increased interaction
between journalists and alternative news providers such as bloggers or
citizen journalists and suggests integrating the latter especially in regard to
global news coverage:
Do I see a partnership with some of them? Yes, I do. I really do. I

think it’s where we’re going to head in fact. [ . . . ] I actually have a
lot of respect for what they [alternative news providers] can bring,
because the fact of the matter is: Even the biggest news organization
can’t have feet on the ground in every location. And the idea that you
would have: Listing posts. People you can rely on. [ . . . ] The idea of
using them would be that: ‘I can’t be there. You can be there. So what
I want to do is establish a relationship with you. I need you to give me
this information. I’m going to edit you. You need to understand that.
But we’ll pay you some token, some money, you supply me with some
content.’ (PEJ)
To collaborate with alternative sources could help a news organization to

span a web of stringers around the globe. As mentioned above, this is how
MediaChannel works, incorporating as many voices as possible from as
many sides as it can reach:
I’ve always thought it would be very inexpensive to actually have what

we call ‘Inside-Out-Journalism’. This is what we did on our program
on human rights. We had submissions from journalists in all different
countries. I went for example to the ‘Human Rights Conference’ in
Vienna. But I also met journalists from other countries and they sent us
reports as a result of my meeting with them! So when we covered Sara-
jevo we did so with the fi lmmakers of Sarajevo who are covering their
own city, who have better access, they know the language et cetera et
cetera. It was better coverage than what the other newspapers had for
the most part. (Interviewee 1, MediaChannel)
How to access sources, who to contact and also in what order sources
should be approached are important questions in this regard. During the
China earthquake in May 2008, for example, fi rst news accounts of the
disaster were not delivered by news agencies, but via the microblogging tool
Twitter. As outlined in Chapter 4, cases like this are an indication that the
order of whom to contact on a story, where to receive breaking news and
where to get background information is not set as it used to be. An ICFJ
interviewee describes how the gathering process for news used to travel
down a fairly determined path:
Before, journalists would have to start with the official sources, with
the mainstream sources, with the people who are the experts and so
on. Now, if you think about it, this is the last place I would go for the
information. [ . . . ] So, where do you start? You have got to start from
the people. You have got to start from the eyewitnesses. You have got
to start from the citizen journalists, from the blogging, from the people
in the field, from the local angle. And then you have to go for the offi-
cial, and the traditional, and the experts, and the global. So, before we
would go from the official, from the global to the local. Now we have
to go to the local, to the grassroots, to the wider picture, to the official
and to the global connection. [ . . . ] Now the people, the local, manage
information and they are able to share it easier. Before it was more dif-
ficult. (Interviewee 2, ICFJ)
Hence, awareness that the digital sphere offers access to much more infor-
mation needs to be established and—taken from there—strategies for col-
laboration need to be developed. And every journalistic outlet has to review
which role as a news organization it wants to take within a restructured
sphere of information.
11.2. THE ROLE OF JOURNALISTIC OUTLETS

IN THE NETWORK JOURNALISM SPHERE
The techniques, the methodologies used by journalists, identifying

information, looking for it, processing it, delivering it and reacting to
it: I think it’s going to change defi nitely. It has changed already. I see
it as a more people-oriented profession.
In the sphere of network journalism, the roles of journalistic organiza-

tions are under revision. Picard stresses that journalists used to distin-
guish themselves from others and to add value through their ‘search and
research skills’ (2009: 4). However, as he explains, digital technologies
are much more than just distribution and content processing tools. They
are also content gathering and creation instruments—and they are most
importantly instruments that not only journalists themselves can use, but
their users or citizen journalists as well. In accordance with this, Picard
demands:
Journalism must innovate and create new means of gathering, process-

ing, and distributing information so it provides content and services
that readers, listeners, and viewers cannot receive elsewhere. And these
must provide sufficient value so audiences and users are willing to pay
a reasonable price. (Picard, 2009: 6)
The news organizations chosen as case examples in this book do try to

provide such added value and they have chosen organizational work struc-
tures that reflect the changing realities of news production. Journalists
here become central networkers within the transformed sphere of global
information flows. Journalists at the BBC’s user-generated content desk, for
example, are now a contact point in the production and dissemination pro-
cesses. They are central nodes knitting together information that reaches
the outlet and they create and sustain partnerships with users. This is not
necessarily a new task, yet fostered by the increasing amount of accessible
information, this process has become ever more important and it includes
networking with sources formerly ignored:
I think a journalist is still what he’s always been. You’re searching for
the truth, you’re telling the story as accurately as you can with the in-
formation you have. And you obviously have your legal skills and your
understanding of a story to tell it in the best possible way. What user-
generated content is giving is more tools to tell that story. [ . . . ] And
I think the role of the journalist is changing. It defi nitely is changing.
They have to have more awareness of how to tell their story. And this
is another way they can tell their story! They have to realize that the
audience can feed information to them. And they use that to tell their
story in the best possible way. (BBC)
Paying tribute to the complex realities of today’s news flows, the BBC has
thus created a new job profi le: The journalists at their Interactivity Desk
are solely responsible for networking with users, producing user-generated
features and distributing user-generated content for stories across all BBC
platforms. The main objective of the staff here is:
to check it [the incoming information], to be forensically sort of: ‘Is this

what it is?’ It is that: Their telephone number, is it in America? That
photograph, does it look like all the other stuff? Is it on the agencies, is
it really their picture? That’s their job as journalists. So it’s a different
type of job, but it’s still journalism. (BBC)
The journalists here are fact-checkers and networkers, responsible for gen-
erating and filtering content out of vast amounts of non-linear information
floating into their newsrooms and they found the basis for the creation of a
wide network of stringers.
Similarly, Current TV has assigned a group of staff to facilitating a con-
versation and creating a relationship with citizen journalists. Its Vanguard
Department produces original features and in accordance with this admin-
isters a global interaction network with citizen journalists. The interviewee
explains how this collaboration works:
I have a team that works on the citizen journalism and then we also have
the original end, all with the aim of speaking to, with and about this
demographic [their young viewers]. So in a way our professional end of
journalists is: young roving reporters who are content modeling. Sort of
being a model for citizen journalists. And also calling out to citizen jour-
nalists for help! So we do kind of blend the two. (Current TV)
She also provides an example for such collaborative efforts in producing a

story:
We might have a reporter that’s out doing a story on migration. Migra-

tion is a big theme that we cover. And it’s a very big issue; immigration
is a big issue on the US–Mexico border. But Current is really an inter-
national network and we see ourselves as an international community
having an international conversation. So while we might cover a story
on the Mexico–US border, we might also have a reporter who is cover-
ing the African exodus to Europe. So we can see some of the similar
issues that are happening around the world. But at the same time we
would ask our citizen journalists who have a really unique access to
some of these stories that we might not have access to, to bring those
stories into the conversation. [ . . . ] And it fits into this bigger picture
of what the whole department is doing. It’s trying to report on these big
global issues with the help of our citizen journalists. So we try to set the
stage for what the big forces are at play, and then our citizen journalists
are filling in those pieces in the puzzle. Often at times they are creating
new pieces of the puzzle that we never thought of. (Current TV)
The advantages the establishment of a network with citizen journalists has

are greater access to more spots around the globe as well as gathering more
stories and getting an idea of what topics users are interested in. This type
of journalistic work also suggests that the role of journalists in the news-
gathering, production and dissemination process is altered as more and
more information is in circulation. The job of journalists is increasingly
to fi lter out the best and most important pieces. The AlterNet interviewee
describes it as follows:
They’re sanity keepers, because if we considered every single person
who thought that they should be writing at AlterNet, we would never
get it done! So there’s a universe around you with the people whose
writing you know is good or you can trust them to do what they said
you’re going to do. You can trust them to back up their sources. They
are reliable. And then sometimes you give new people a chance! It’s
always new blood coming in. But the new people that you’ve never
worked with before, you’re more cautious and you’re more careful or
you may go back and check out other things they’ve written or you talk
to somebody who has worked with them. So it’s all very intricate and
maybe informal. It may not be written down. But the way that anybody
deals with too much is to start with the familiar and be comfortable
with that and then hopefully go into wider circles, because you want
to get variety, you want to get other points of view or you’re fi nding
something you never even thought about. (AlterNet)
News organizations thus could be central nodes in a densely populated

information sphere, providing guidance through the masses of content
in circulation. Journalists become the navigators through vast amounts
of information in this process. They pick and match information pieces;
they aggregate, select and organize information flow. They filter and apply
valence, put sources in order of importance, depending on who at a certain
point in time provides the most valuable information, be it an official or an
alternative source.
With more outlets aggregating and disseminating news, organizations
wanting to succeed in the network journalism sphere then need to pro-
vide a competitive package that ultimately has to consist of a larger spec-
trum of voices and angles to stories. In accordance with this, the BBC,
for example, views its role as an ever more important one today: ‘One
thing is people don’t have lots of time and there’s so much out there. So
what broadcasters and newspapers can do is point you to the best. [ . . . ]
Recommendation, things like that. It’s all bringing the best to the top’
(BBC).
Traditional media organizations are still powerful agenda setters, but
they now compete with many more information disseminators. Allowing
other news disseminators to join in, to open up to a variety of partakers, is
an important part of the process:
If somebody has access to stories that other people don’t have . . . you
get that story in somewhere, because people want to be the competitors,
so what have you? So there is a bright future for citizen journalism, but
I think what we need is media transformation. In other words: The
media system needs to be reformed and changed. [ . . . ] Citizen jour-
nalism is just one piece of a larger puzzle of different forces that could
hopefully transform the media to have it play more of a democratic role
in our society. More of an informative role than it’s playing right now.
Global news flows then are an indicator for the transformation of the jour-
nalism sphere that demands a reorganization of the staff body and—as
the BBC or Current TV models suggest—the establishment of departments
that absorb and distribute these information flows. One ICFJ interviewee
asserts:
I think it would benefit them [news outlets] to do that, because again,

they have to adapt, they have to change or they’re going to lose all their
readers and if we can convince young readers that traditional news me-
dia are a voice you can trust and that you can still get the new media
information, the blogs, the citizen journalism that you want, but you
have somebody who you trust. Who is telling you: ‘This is the good
stuff. This can be believed’. Then I think that that’s worth it for the
news organization. They’re keeping readers; they’re getting younger
readers that they will lose otherwise. (Interviewee 1, ICFJ)
Additional training on the use of digital tools is a necessary action in respect

to this. In order to know how to fi nd the most valuable information pieces,
journalists need instruction on devices that can assist them. Digital tech-
nologies help to use the power of crowdsourced collaboration in favor of
journalistic work. They also assist to monitor the web and it is crucial that
journalists know how to apply such tools. This not only includes a good
knowledge of aggregation instruments such as RSS that help scan the web
or of tools such as Twitter. It encompasses instructions on the use of social
networks such as Facebook for journalistic purposes just as well as knowl-
edge of how to master search engines effectively or how to use analytical
instruments such as Google Trends, to name just a few tools that help jour-
nalists navigate through the network journalism sphere (for an overview
of useful tools see Briggs, 2010). Websites such as Journalism.co.uk should
become mandatory reading for journalists as they provide educational sup-
port on digital technology trends and recent developments in journalism.1
Knowledge of tools will not only make navigating through information
easier, but as the ZEIT ONLINE interviewee suggests, using the necessary
tools can shift the perspective on a supposed ‘information overload’.
I became a net-user in 1995 and it has steadily increased since. But I

fi nd it has grown to be much more pleasant to navigate. The net hasn’t
developed into [something] less clearly arranged. It simply expanded.
Just look at search engines from 1998. They certainly still were search
engines! In this day and age you almost have fi nd-engines. That’s a
huge difference! Even if to date Google only indexes a very small frac-
tion of the net, it’s still the case that Google currently plays a relatively
paramount part in fi nding information. Or other search engines, but
the classic one is Google. But I don’t think it has gotten any worse to
navigate. I, myself, use social bookmarking systems for support. They
simply work very, very well. [ . . . ] Because it allows me to have a
memory for topic strands. (ZEIT ONLINE)
Conveying digital technology training for journalists will provide

them with the necessary tools to navigate successfully through the net-
worked sphere.
What is more, awareness for the mass of useful content accessible needs
to be boosted:
One of the things that we have to be aware about and journalist train-
ing has to change accordingly, is that the more material you get in from
the public, the more you have to check it! So my take on all this is: You
don’t go into this whole new participation thing thinking: ‘We don’t
need journalists!’ You actually need journalists to make the most of
this content. Because the material you get in, you need to check it. Is it
right? Is this person really in Virginia in the High School or are they
just living somewhere else making it up as to hoax you? Is that picture
really from where it is? And that’s the role of journalists to check it.
And like any skill: The more you do, the better you get at it. (BBC)
And the better you might as well get not only in aggregating the amount of
information floating through the net, but also in deciding which platform
is the most appropriate to disseminate the content. Print, broadcast and
online platforms do function according to different rules. Space or time
constraints as a journalist will fi nd in a newspaper limited to a specific
amount of columns and pages or in a broadcast bulletin constrained within
a strict time frame are not existent online. Neither the space of a newspa-
per column nor the three-minute feature on television or radio news can
directly compete with the options provided within an online space. With
regard to newspapers, the ZEIT ONLINE interviewee remarks accord-
ingly: ‘Yet paper is fi rst and foremost a limitation! It is a constraint in
room. I cannot set links on paper. I cannot let any form of interaction take
place on paper’ (ZEIT ONLINE).
Thus not only should journalists use alternative news disseminators as
complementary, but they should also use different media platforms as com-
plementary. The Ourmedia volunteer suggests that traditional platforms
such as television or radio, for example, could serve as breaking news out-
lets, whereas their online counterparts provide in-depth reporting:
And maybe that’s what’s going to happen is that mainstream media is

going to be more about these anomalies that are happening around the
world. And the web is going to be more the depth. Like: ‘Here is the
story of a family in Africa’. You probably won’t see that on TV, but on
the Internet it’s there. And it would be a minute long; it could be ten
minutes long. Online there’s no limitations of anything. It’s just the
limitations of taste and peoples’ patience. (Ourmedia)
This is a call to create awareness for the opportunities conventional dis-

semination platforms in accordance with the opportunities of online plat-
forms offer. Traditional outlets could reposition themselves as the central
information nodes within the sphere of network journalism. They gather,
aggregate, organize and contextualize information flows:
Apart from the technologies there and the millions of ways you can
contact people or listen whether you podcast, vodcast, listen on your
PC, watch TV on your little PDA or whatever: We could be a prism
through which all this is channeled. And so the best comes out. We can
maybe say: ‘This is what’s out there and the blogs and maybe we can
lead you to the best.’ And I think that’s a positive thing for broadcast-
ers! [ . . . ] Because one thing is: people don’t have lots of time. And
there’s so much out there. So what broadcasters and newspapers can
do is point you to the best! The recommendation, things like that. It’s
all bringing the best to the top. (BBC)
News organizations such as the BBC can act as a coordination ‘supernode’.

Their financial means and their size just as well as their long-standing tra-
ditions and reputations as reliable news providers place them in a good
position to attract large user numbers.
Accordingly, with well-trained, tech-savvy journalists who know how
to handle non-linear content flows, outlets might be able to profit from
the increasing amount of information in circulation—including informa-
tion disseminated by bloggers or citizen journalists. A trusted traditional
news organization then could be the guide, providing, for instance, the
best information gathered from a variety of sources, including alternative
media. One ICFJ interviewee suggests:
That means that the news organization on its website—probably not

doing this in the paper-paper—is saying: ‘Here is the best stuff coming
out of China right now. These are the people who really know. They’ve
called things right before.’ So some—and it doesn’t even have to be a
traditional media organization. That’s where I’m going to go. I would be
more likely to trust when the New York Times tells me: ‘These are the
blogs out of China that have the most credibility, that have been right,
they’re looking at all sides’ or something like that. (Interviewee 1, ICFJ)
This reconfiguration of journalistic outlets and the acceptance of non-lin-

ear news flows into the newsrooms also needs to be accompanied by an
understanding that online journalists or journalists gathering and evaluat-
ing user-generated content or journalists collaborating with non-traditional
news disseminators are by no means ‘second-degree journalists’:
That’s often the point I discuss most with my print colleagues, who
believe online [journalism] to be ‘Quickly, quickly! Faster, faster! A
quick fi x job!’ We witness this in our own online editorial department,
in particular in that area, we see it very, very prevalently. Those stories
most readily accepted by the user are those that require a lot of effort.
With a fair bit of time invested in them. And they are received un-
proportionally well. Concurrently it pays not to publish three smaller
reports, but instead one big story. Users have come to expect this. This
could be due to our unique profile. But I basically don’t think so. I
think many users are happy about receiving good stories extra on top
of the news. Ultimately it’s the combination that counts. And if the
topic happens to resurface, they just type it into Google or whichever is
the leading search engine in the future. Then they will fall straight back
onto us. (ZEIT ONLINE)
In accordance with this, the interviewee also stresses that the payment for
online journalists should reflect that they add valuable contributions:
Online journalism has been underfunded for a long time and also very
much understaffed. This has been also reflected in the quality. You have
to openly admit that: If I do not have time and do not have money, I
cannot write a good article! That simply does not work. I need the time
to make phone calls, to drive there if necessary. (ZEIT ONLINE)
The aspect of appropriate payment does touch the very heart of the dis-
cussion involving citizen journalism, bloggers and traditional journalists.
Professional journalists do get paid to fulfi ll the role of the information
provider; media activists or citizen journalists in general work without pay-
ment. In this context, the often articulated fears of critics of the digital
information sphere such as Keen (2007) or Carr (2005) proposing that the
profession of journalism will be replaced by untrained ‘amateur’ reporters
who lack skills and competences seem to be exaggerated:
You have people who are actively motivated. If you’re looking at Indy-
media it’s much more almost as: ‘If you want, you have the stories
to tell us’—very active there. And I think that’s good. People have an
outlet and it part-time provides an alternative to the mainstream. But
I think what you’re left with in terms of professional media is: We
are committed and obliged. All our salaries depend on us producing
The Guardian and everything that’s around it every single day! And
if it means we need to send a reporter to Iraq, we’ll send a reporter to
Iraq. If it means sort of sitting there and covering politics, we cover the
broad spectrum of things and we are obliged to do it. And our sense of
obligation to do it every day and therefore to be completely relied upon
and hopefully trusted in what we do is really where we are. And you
can get fragments of that in different places, but I think what newspa-
pers do and professional media organizations do is: They write the way
across the spectrum of content on a continuous basis every single day.
And I think that bloggers do a bit, but it’s not the same. (Guardian)
Journalists then still have a vitally important role to play in the sphere of
network journalism—yet they need to understand that this role needs adap-
tation. The PEJ interviewee stresses:
I think that what’s going to happen with the citizen journalist is going
to be less ultimately of a revolution than it is an evolution! The main-
stream media will adopt some of the better stuff and will fi nd ways
to use it and incorporate it into what they do. And it will make the
mainstream media better. I think there’s no question on that. But it’s
not [ . . . ] going to be the utopian version of ‘Everybody is a journalist’
and ‘Oh my God, did you see what Bob down the street or some guy
two towns over . . . he is doing incredible reporting on issue X!’ That’s
not going to happen! Because Bob’s got a job, and he’s got a life and
he can’t just be doing journalism all the time! Ultimately until you get
paid to do something, I don’t see how you have the time to do it prop-
erly, unless everybody is just independently wealthy and can go out and
just be a journalist in their spare time, because they find it interesting.
There are just not many people who can do that. (PEJ)
The institution of journalism thus is as important as ever, but the roles of

journalists have to match the structures of the sphere of network journal-
ism. This also includes that news organizations not only collaborate with
sources outside of their own organization. It also includes that journalists
need to develop crossmedia skills and collaborate with journalists working
for different platforms within their own organization.
11.3. MULTIMEDIA NEWSROOMS
The times when journalists specialized to work for one specific media plat-
form are coming to an end. Huang et al. argue that ‘many news practitio-
ners’ functions are gradually changing or are expected to change as media
convergence rolls on. As a reporter in a converged media environment,
knowing how to write is probably no longer enough’ (2006: 86). Multi-
media qualities thus grow to be essential for journalists working in the
network journalism sphere. Exemplary for this, the BBC Editor states:
The phrase we use now is Video-Audio-Text. Because television is on
the web! Radio is on the web! You’re telling your story on whatever
platform is the best one to get it out on. And there is a chap who’s now
editor of The Telegraph who talks about ‘Ownership of the Story’. It’s
the story you own, not the medium. You’re covering Iraq and you’re
doing it in all these different ways and the audience can reach it. But it’s
the story that is the important thing, not the fact you’re three minutes
on the 10 o’clock news. (BBC)
Almost no news outlet performs journalism on only one dissemination

platform any longer. Newspapers such as the Guardian now disseminate
podcasts, independent radio outlets such as Democracy Now! carry text
video versions of their news bulletins online, newspaper weeklies distribute
video pieces online such as ZEIT ONLINE or radio and television broad-
casters such as the BBC produce ‘video-audio-text material’ for their online
platform. These are already steps toward convergence and point down
the road toward the creation of multimedia newsrooms. And even though
many organizations seem to still view their outlets strictly as a newspaper,
a radio station or a TV station, the times when one outlet produced content
for just one single platform are over.
In the wake of convergence, though, journalists often state fears of a
decline in quality. The Ourmedia volunteer argues:
I think that that’s going to increasingly just keep making journalism

bad. Because journalists are being asked to do more and more and get-
ting paid less and less. They’re expected to not only write, but also run
the camera and edit, whereas before that was done by different people.
Back in the old days you might have been expected to do one story a
day or one story every couple days. Now they’re expected to blog all
day long as well as do these stories. It’s not possible! (Ourmedia)
Research into the practice of multimedia newsrooms does at large reflect

the fears voiced by the interviewee. A number of studies are concerned with
the impacts of convergence operations on journalistic practice (e.g., Avilés
and Carvajal, 2008; Boczkowski, 2004; Erdal, 2009; Huang et al., 2006;
Silcock and Keith, 2006) and similar to the general fears of journalists in
the wake of changes to current news practice as stated above they fi nd that
time pressures and heavy workloads are among the main concerns of jour-
nalists. Deuze, for example, summarizes that
journalists tend to be cautious and skeptical towards changes in the

institutional and organizational arrangements of their work, as lessons
learnt in the past suggest that such changes tend to go hand in hand
with downsizing, lay-offs, and having to do more with less staff, bud-
get, and resources. (Deuze, 2008: 8)
Similarly argue Avilés and Carvajal (2008) or Huang et al. (2006: 876
et seq.), who found that journalists are greatly concerned about being
expected to do more work for less money, mainly to the fi nancial benefit
of a media company.
What is more, even though the strict divisions in convergent newsrooms are
supposed to fade, journalists still do see each other more as internal com-
petitors than partners in the production of news. Silcock and Keith (2006)
found that journalists involved in converged newsroom operations often
encounter language and culture-based challenges. Converged print and
broadcast newsrooms, for example, often operate in front of a backdrop
of differing newsroom cultures and different work routines. One result of
this is that instead of sharing content, some stories or angles are withheld
and thus the notion of two competing newsrooms still holds up. Guided by
stereotypes of journalists working for another platform within an outlet,
Singer (2004) and Deuze (2008) also assert deep ‘cultural clashes’. Espe-
cially print reporters are according to Deuze highly critical toward their
colleagues in broadcast and even more so toward their colleagues work-
ing for online arms of a news outlet (2008: 9). These ‘cultural differences’
among news staff are according to Singer (2004: 16) the result of differing
ideologies, work routines and organization structures.
Erdal (2009)—who reports about the obstacles of differing journalis-
tic cultures at the Norwegian public service broadcaster NRK—similarly
observed that even though the main management strategy there is to foster
teamwork across various platforms, strong hierarchies within multimedia
newsrooms prevail, with online journalists often being the last in line (Ibid.:
225). He fi nds that ‘it proved difficult to get from just sitting side by side
to actually cooperating’ (Ibid.: 222). However, Erdal’s study also provides
a positive glimpse of convergence when he suggests that: ‘The question of
what defi nes quality journalism may slowly be changing, as the ideal of the
highly specialized radio or television professional is complemented by the
versatile crossmedia reporter’ (Erdal, 2009: 227).
To summarize and analyze the fi ndings presented in these fi rst studies
of multimedia newsrooms: The main problem seems to be a lack of knowl-
edge about how other media platforms work. This could be the point of
intervention: building trust among journalists working in converged news-
rooms. One way to go about this is to teach at least a minimal degree of
practical tools needed to work on different media platforms. In addition,
Silcock and Keith conclude that ‘an organization’s ability to deal with cul-
tural confl icts may ultimately have some effect on its ability to profit from
convergence’ (2006: 624). Drawing upon this ability will be the key to mak-
ing multimedia newsrooms work.
So despite the difficulties visible in convergence operations, studies like
the ones undertaken by Erdal, Huang et al. or Silcock and Keith in com-
bination with the statements gathered throughout the interviews for this
book do provide valid grounds for the assumption that the integration of
platforms is a necessary step to take in journalistic practice. Converging
formerly distinct media platforms promises to work in favor of the journal-
istic end product. However, convergence operations will only succeed with
appropriate staff training that equips journalists to think across media.
The case of the BBC is one example in this respect. In April 2008, the
organization was one of the first of its size that converged into a multimedia
newsroom.2 At the time of the interview in 2007, the preparation of con-
verging BBC newsrooms was already visible in the structural coordination
of disseminating content within the outlet. Staff at the Interactivity Desk,
for example, reflected the plurality of dissemination options at the BBC,
with journalists originally trained on radio, as well as on the BBC’s various
television channels working side by side on the same desk.
Drawing together staff from different arms within the BBC does ensure
that the journalists know what kind of content might be useful for a certain
platform. Thus, new teams are created within the BBC, specialized on gen-
erating content for all platforms the organization encompasses. The inter-
viewee explains the procedures of disseminating news within the BBC—an
example of how content crisscrosses through the various arms of the outlet:
‘We have an internal wire that we tell everybody what we’re doing. So you
can call them stakeholders if you want. They all look at what we’re doing
and they try and get stuff for their program. (BBC)
The material the user-generated content desk gathers feeds into national
channels as well as into the BBC World Services, be it radio or television:
So we work like a hub. It’s a hub! We’re at the center getting all this
stuff and it all goes out to all sorts of people. And it’s taken a while to
get them up to speed. I mean a lot of people didn’t want to, you know:
‘Oh, there’s another thing to think about. I’m so busy, I can’t think
about this. But I actually think it helps me. If I do this, then I’ve got
access to the story.’ I think people have now bought into it interna-
tionally. But it certainly happened more quickly domestically. I think
people who were in the domestic channels realized more quickly how
important this stuff was. (BBC)
Other news outlets that still hold up the boundaries between dissemination
platforms do seem to start realizing as well that journalists do not eventu-
ally have to work within just one journalistic medium:
The interesting thing that’s happening in print is photographers at print

media organizations are increasingly not photographers any more.
They’re ‘videographers’. And they’ve found a way to get the screen
grasps from the videos to such nice resolution that they can actually
use them for photos in the paper if they need to use them. So in terms of
the great convergence aspect of it all: I think it’s really interesting and I
think that increasingly the line between print and audio and video will
break down. And you’ll have—I hate phrases like this—’Multi-Plat-
form-Content-Providers’. But that’s what they’re going to be. And they
really are going to be out there giving you everything. And that’s really
interesting. [ . . . ] The New York Times site right now is better than it
was two years ago. It’s just much more interesting. [ . . . ] It’s a better
site. It’s a better site; it’s a richer site. There’s a lot more there. (PEJ)
Similarly, many journalists working for the Guardian are not only equipped
with pen and paper anymore:
There are quite a few reporters on the Guardian who would rather
not go anywhere without an additional camera. It’s not because
they’re obliged to take photos, but actually sometimes it’s just quite
handy. [ . . . ] They’re not great photographers, they are never going
to be great photographers; they’re not obliged to take photos. But
actually there are just times when it would be handy to do it. And I
think the natural progression for all these things is not that you give
people sort of tons and tons and tons of stuff! But I think the best
journalists will use the best tool to tell the story. (Guardian)
The Guardian is also using audio material quite a lot. This has proven to be
an inevitably useful tool for its print and online journalists:
We had an incidence with Peter Mandelssohn a few weeks ago, where

we interviewed him. He said on the Today program that we misquoted
him. Fine! We put the audio up on the website and: ‘No, we didn’t
misquote you! This is exactly what you said!’ And I think at that point
a journalist [ . . . ] starts to go: ‘Actually this is going to help us do
our job better!’ And I think the ordinary people running around using
loads of different media in a completely mindless way to create video
that no one is really interested in is one thing. But I think to give cre-
ative people the tools to tell the story in the best possible way is not
just sort of a ‘nice’ thing. I just think that is part of the evolution of
journalism. And I think text is very powerful, but it is just one way of
doing things. (Guardian)
The solution to guarantee that this evolution runs as smoothly as possible

can only be found in advanced training for journalists as well as in reas-
signing journalists and reorganizing newsrooms in order to work most
effectively across various dissemination platforms. As Huang et al. (2006:
94) stress based on the fi ndings of their study on multimedia newsrooms:
There need to be resources as well as time dedicated to education and train-
ing of multiplatform reporting skills for staff as well as training students of
journalism. Journalists might still be trained for a specific area of expertise,
but do need at least a basic understanding of how other arms of an outlet
function and they need to understand that they are not in competition with
their colleagues, but work as a team for the better of the product.
Accordingly, the Senior Program Director at ICFJ foresees the creation
of new departments that work interconnectedly:
We will see new positions created in the mainstream media and in the
non-mainstream media. [ . . . ] Such as journalists that handle just the
citizen journalists and the blogging. Or a journalist that would be ex-
tremely specialized in new media. He is just going to be working on the
whole package issue. Like the ‘backpack journalist’. You will probably
going to have backpack journalists, reporters. Literally! That’s going to
be their title. You probably are going to see more positions such as jour-
nalists for new strategies. Or innovation journalists. You will probably
also going to see whole new departments for the ‘parachute foreign
correspondents’. Full fletched departments for that. However, I think
the core values of journalism and the importance of credibility will still
be extremely important. [ . . . ] If there is something that is going to re-
main, it is going to be the seek for credibility, the thirst for credibility!
From the people and from the media and from anybody working in the
media industry. How do we get that? We will see! I think it is being
reinvented. (Interviewee 2, ICFJ)
Part of this reinvention is a repositioning of journalistic outlets within the

larger framework of the evolving network journalism sphere that presup-
poses the awareness of the evolution of revised structures. As the term ‘net-
work’ already suggests, news organizations need to reposition themselves
and defi ne their place within a dense net of information providers. Each
organization constitutes just one information node within a wider system
of nodes and each organization is just one part of today’s information flows.
As what kind of node an organization wants to act within the complex sys-
tem of news production and dissemination is up for the specific outlet to
decide. In accordance with this, news organizations consider which niche
as an information provider they want to fi ll. Tailoring a specific type of
audience or specializing on a certain topic area could be one way to go
about this:
So the way of news networks to react to that is going be getting more

specialized. They say: ‘Well, everybody is now sharing this and provid-
ing this. Maybe we are going to be the leaders on the specialized news’.
Bloomberg for example: Economic news. How many people can do
that? I don’t think that many. (Interviewee 2, ICFJ)
With the proliferation of smaller news organizations and through the

growing amount of news disseminators, such specialization can eventually
be the outcome of the flattened, decentralized network journalism sphere.
Current TV is an example of such an organization positioning itself as
a niche information node that addresses especially young audiences and
concentrates on background information and story angles provided by its
own staff in collaboration with citizen journalists. Take the example of
the coverage on the Virginia Tech shooting once more, where Current TV
never set a foot on campus as opposed to news organizations focusing on
the breaking news angle of the story:
We all knew what happened. You can go through the facts of what hap-
pened and that is what certain outlets are there for. That is what I go to
if I want immediate breaking news. I know where to go. But if I want
to get a real personal take and kind of like a deeper look from the voice
and point of view of somebody in our demo: That’s what you’re going
to get when you’re going to come to Current. (Current TV)
Current TV occupies just one niche within the information market. Within
the restructured sphere of network journalism, then, the role of journalists
is inevitably reshaped through the reorganization of the news sphere into a
conglomerate of decentralized information nodes that can operate within
niche markets, yet also collaborate with other nodes. The platform itself on
which news is disseminated becomes irrelevant to a certain degree. More
importantly, the tools and sources journalists use to process the informa-
tion will lead the way to the platform on which a specific sort of content
can best be delivered—and the next generation of journalists growing up
in a multimedia environment might not even bother to think within restric-
tions of one specific medium:
If you just talk about the collection of people in Journalism College

now, who are in their early twenties, they will all be grown up. To
them, editing a video-package will be just intuitive. There’s nothing
special about it. It’s just part of what they do. Why wouldn’t they? And
so this video-text-audio, I think that’s just going to become part of the
mix over time. (Guardian)
And this ‘media mix’ of smaller and larger information nodes, the mix
of traditional journalistic platforms, blogs, citizen journalism and media
activist sites or user-generated content providers, is eventually transform-
ing journalistic practice into an interactive collaboration.
12 Conclusion
A new globalized geography of journalism is taking shape, based on the

structure of the network. It is a journalism in which boundaries between
traditional media outlets of print, radio and television and between national
and foreign journalism are blurring and merging online. To quote Castells,
a network is a ‘highly dynamic, open system, susceptible to innovating
without threatening its balance’ (2000c: 501 et seq.). A network journalism
structure does not eliminate ‘balance’, but requires ‘re-balancing’. Journal-
istic practice is currently in this state of ‘re-balancing’—it is adapting to the
new dynamics of information exchange. Journalistic practice used to be a
closed operation, with only a few partakers contributing to newsgather-
ing, production and dissemination. These processes have now been shifted
into an open, dynamic space and each chapter in the empirical part of this
book has addressed different aspects of the digital challenge as well as the
opportunities involved in this shift.
Within the network journalism sphere, an uncountable number of
information nodes are emerging. These information nodes vary in size
and include traditional journalistic organizations as well as citizen jour-
nalism platforms, media activist platforms, bloggers and user-generated
content providers. Each of these nodes positions itself in a specific niche.
Each one takes a distinctive place in the network journalism sphere. The
variety of forms these nodes can take indicate that the global informa-
tion sphere has become by far more complex, with more information
deliverers taking part in the news production processes around the globe.
They all contribute to the vast network of information production and
dissemination.
The journalistic system in the network age thus constitutes a complex
collection of information nodes, within a sphere in which collaboration and
cooperation between news organizations and news distributors becomes
essential. Only teamwork allows a degree of control over these ‘chaotic’
non-linear information flows. Collaboration and cooperation, and the
creation of partnerships, become the ingredients of successful journalistic
practice. Journalistic organizations must adapt to the dynamics of this net-
work journalism sphere.
Conclusion 229
The interviewees who took part in the study presented here appeal to
journalists to understand the new dynamics and find ways to reposition
themselves within a globalized network of information nodes. These sources
suggest that if news organizations do not adapt to the emerging structures
of network journalism, they might run the risk of perishing. If journalistic
outlets ignore the transformation of the journalistic production environ-
ment, they will eventually become isolated, and might fail to survive in a
network society in which users increasingly search for news ‘on demand’
and—not least—for guidance through the vast amounts of information in
circulation. In the era of network journalism users can personalize news
services, and the recommendations of peers become yardsticks as to what
content and which platform will be accessed.
The role of journalistic organizations in this reconfigured sphere of infor-
mation exchange could be to guide their users. They can position themselves
as ‘supernodes’. This can only be achieved, though, if news organizations
concentrate on providing competitive news packages that include the many
story angles and viewpoints criss-crossing through the information space.
Cooperation and collaboration with alternative sources, searching for the
other angle, for the other ‘truth’ and for the fresh perspective is becoming
ever more important in this respect.
This book, then, can be read as a voice in support of a new model of
journalistic organization, a call to action for journalists to revise the tools
they use for their work as well as to renew their networks in order to navi-
gate through today’s restructured, decentralized information flows. This
demands an attitude change on many levels. Mainstream journalists and
alternative news providers are not necessarily competitors in the sphere of
network journalism, but rather collaborators or complementary informa-
tion providers. Users are not silent absorbers of news, but have the potential
to be individual information nodes.
Acknowledging that users can be active in the news production process
and that the ‘wisdom of crowds’ is a core principle of the network journal-
ism sphere then demands time and resources to build and enhance net-
works with potential collaborators. It is not an easy task, for sure, but it is
doable as the many examples outlined in this volume prove.
This book was written with the aim of conceptualizing the evolving net-
work journalism sphere. It has aimed to reveal significant changes in the
structures of global journalism today, and to create awareness of the chal-
lenges that lie ahead, as well as the opportunities. However, this is merely
the starting point for further research.
To name just three other aspects affected by the transformation processes
outlined here that urgently need more attention: Journalism education will
need to be restructured, new business models need to be put in place and
questions of media literacy in regard to users need to be addressed.
In regard to the fi rst, the reorganization of journalistic practice calls for
new approaches to journalism education and training. Journalists need to
know not only how to use digital technology, but develop an understand-
ing of the wider impacts processes such as globalization have on the way
people think and act in a network society. In addition, curricula in journal-
ism courses should now include alternative journalism as a regular teaching
module (Atton, 2009: 284). And it is important to recognize that not only
might some alternative news providers be valuable information resources,
but the way they gather, produce and disseminate information may be lead-
ing the way toward the future of journalism. Platforms such as NowPublic
or Global Voices Online are excellent case studies in this respect. The work
of the Voices of Africa Media Foundation demonstrates how the story of
Africa can be covered from angles often ignored in traditional media. These
new information deliverers teach us how to deal with alternative sources
and show that in many cases the blogger, the citizen journalist or the user
can contribute much more than just a picture fl icked ‘by accident’.
Secondly, and since all this is not going to be possible without adequate
fi nancial means, more research and investigation into future business mod-
els is urgently needed to ensure the economic survival of news organiza-
tions. Studies such as Currah’s (2009) What’s Happening to Our News
underline that increasing commercial pressure is undermining the business
models journalism used to build upon and news organizations have to date
not found the silver bullet into a bright future. The way to a sustainable
future can only be paved on the basis of an understanding of the fundamen-
tal transformation the journalism sphere has undergone.
Thirdly, users will need to be educated to navigate the global news sphere.
I would not go as far as to say ‘that learning to be journalists is in fact a
key life skill for private citizens this century’ (Duffield, 2006: 5). However,
Duffield is right to remark that users of news will need to be trained in
how to cope with ‘vast floods of information, like a journalist’ (Ibid.). With
more users signing up for social networks and with an increasing amount
of information in (global) circulation, a call for media literacy education
is necessary. Users need to learn the ground rules of the network sphere—
from issues of how to protect their privacy or how to move securely within
social networks to issues of knowing how to estimate and value informa-
tion as well as to identify ‘reliable’ sources in the online sphere.
To conclude, network journalism takes place on many levels. Network
journalism describes the reconfigured relationships of professional journal-
ists with their sources, be it in the integration of user-generated content
to collaborations with bloggers or the development of partnerships with
citizen journalists. It also describes the way in which journalists interact
across media platforms and connect with their colleagues in a multime-
dia environment. And above all, network journalism suggests a structural
model of the journalistic environment today in which news organizations
function as information nodes.
First steps in the adaptation process of journalistic organizations adjust-
ing to the network journalism sphere include the adoption of alternative
Conclusion 231
media tools such as blogging and the incorporation of interactive features
such as online forums and user-generated content platforms. Journalistic
organizations are beginning to realize that the way their users deal with
content, how they search for it and where they engage with it is changing
and that they have to modify the ways in which they present information
to their users accordingly. Journalistic organizations are also beginning
to realize that transnational news flows demand new approaches toward
reporting from afar.
If they adapt successfully, the role of journalistic outlets here can be not
only to identify and distribute information that is credible, but to enable
access to a wider mix of viewpoints, and to guarantee their users the most
valuable pieces of information—be it the best blog entry, the best citizen
journalism piece or the best documentary fi lmed by one of their own cor-
respondents. Core values such as reliability, credibility and accurateness
will be even more important in the sphere of network journalism, given the
range of voices and the multiplicity of perspectives available on stories.
To end with Castells: ‘Networks are open structures, able to expand
without limits, integrating new nodes as long as they are able to commu-
nicate within the network’ (2000c: 501). This is exactly what journalis-
tic outlets should be: open to expand and open to integrate contemporary
(global) information flows. Journalistic practice today is taking place in an
interactive sphere, where collaboration is key and the sharing of informa-
tion and knowledge a core value.
Notes
NOTES TO THE INTRODUCTION
1. This quote is taken from an interview conducted in 2007 that is part of a

series of interviews conducted for my PhD thesis. An analysis of the informa-
tion I gathered throughout these interviews with thirteen media practitioners
will be presented in Part II of this book.
2. For the story behind the video see the New York Times article titled ‘Honor-
ing Citizen Journalists’ by Stelter (2010: Online).
3. Keen (2007) subtitled his polemic ‘How today’s Internet is Killing our Cul-
ture’. His statement culminates in the slander of comparing users and pro-
ducers of web content to monkeys, drawing upon T. H. Huxley’s theory
according to which an infi nite number of monkeys equipped with an infi nite
number of typewriters will eventually create a masterpiece—not without
producing fi rst and foremost a pile of useless content, though. Keen refers to
an essay written by Jorge Luis Borges in 1939 that sums up Huxley’s idea of
the infi nite monkey (Borges, 1999).
NOTES FOR CHAPTER 1
1. Or as McNair puts it: ‘If the environment changes, so does content’ (2006:
48).
2. Giddens refers to the advent of satellite communication and the launch of the
fi rst commercial satellite in 1969. The advent of instantaneous communica-
tion via satellite and its worldwide spread as well as the spread of its succes-
sors like personal computers and the Internet took place within only a few
decades.
3. Namely, this work is inspired by the works of Appadurai (1996), Beck (2000),
Featherstone (1990), Giddens (1999), Robertson (1992, 1995) or Urry (2003),
who all view globalization as a concept with far-reaching consequences for
every aspect of human life—and that includes journalistic practice and its
outcomes.
4. For a striking rationale against technological determinism see Nye’s arti-
cle Shaping Communication Networks: Telegraph, Telephone, Computer
(1997) as opposed to, for example, Negroponte’s Being Digital (1995) that
carries the underlying idea of digital technology being a natural force.
5. I do not want to peculate Schroeder’s perspective here. He argues for a more
sophisticated view of technological determinism, which comprises that
technological determinism holds truth, but only to a degree as ‘science and
234 Notes
technology do determine social change, but from a social science perspec-
tive, their role in society is never independent of what they do to change the
natural and social worlds’ (2007: 2 emphasis in original).
6. Briggs and Burke, for example, propose that technology has to be ‘treated as
social activity, involving people and products as well as patents’ (2005: 151).
Their illustration of the use of print technology in Russia and the Orthodox
Christian world underlines this argument. It was not until the early 18th cen-
tury and Tsar Peter the Great that print became a vital part of social and
economical life in Russia. The first printing press had already reached Mos-
cow in 1564, but was destroyed by the rulers at the time (Briggs & Burke,
2005: 13 et seq.). In addition, the press was fi nally founded in St. Petersburg
no earlier than 1711: ‘The fact that printing arrived so late in Russia suggests
that print was not an independent agent, and that the print revolution did not
depend on technology alone. Printing required favourable social and cultural
conditions in order to spread, and Russia’s lack of a literate lait was a seri-
ous obstacle to the rise of print culture’ (Ibid.: 14). Elsewhere, the authors
draw upon the invention of the telephone, which in 1876 was still viewed as
unnecessary for society as such. The fi nal breakthrough of the phone as mass
communication tool was to come decades later (Ibid.: 117). Nye argues that
the choices of inventors or consumers are the decisive elements. Telephone
inventor Alexander Graham Bell, for instance, ‘advertised it [the telephone]
until the 1920s as an instrument of business and vital communication’ (1997:
1071). Telephones were not sold to the public as a communication tool for
almost two generations. Accordingly, Winston argues that a need has to be
identified in order to push an invention through in society (1998: 67). Before
the usefulness of the invention is not obvious and potential values are not
credited, scientists will most likely turn away from developing their ideas
further—and so will consumers if they do not see the advantages of a tech-
nological innovation. The case of the introduction of the computer supports
this idea, as it was seen ‘exclusively as a serious instrument of business, gov-
ernment, and the military for a full generation’ (Nye, 1997: 1071).
7. Nerone analyzes the evolution of the Penny Press as an example of a jour-
nalistic development rooted in social and political change. Schudson uses the
same example, arguing along similar lines (1978).
8. On this note, the works of James W. Carey are of invaluable importance.
From the 1970s onward, he called for a rethinking of ‘journalism history’
and how it was practiced, proposing a ‘cultural history’. He claimed to
view ‘communication as culture’ (Carey, 1989). According to him, journal-
ism aims at the maintenance of cultural norms and ideals that unite society
(see also Kaplan, 2003). Analyses of journalism history such as Briggs’ and
Burkes’ A Social History of the Media (2005) or Winston’s Media Technol-
ogy and Society (1998) are based on the idea of a close relationship between
technology and the media (see also Anderson and Curtin, 2002; Brügger and
Kolstrup, 2002, or Conboy, 2004). These historical analyses create a contex-
tual framework for the analysis of developments in journalism over time.
9. According to this, media organizations can be attributed with the power to
control the flows of information and act as ‘missionaries of capitalism’ (Her-
man and McChesney, 1997). Other proponents of ‘cultural imperialism’ are
Mattelart (1979) or Schiller (1976, 1998).
10. Similarly, Straubhaar talks of ‘hybridization’ (Straubhaar, 2007: 5): ‘In
hybridization, global forces bring change, but that change is adapted into
existing ways of doing things via a historical process in which existing local
forces mix with new global ones, producing neither global homogenization
nor authentic local culture, but a complex new hybrid with multiple layers of
Notes 235
culture, where older, traditional forms may persist alongside new ones. This
situation is neither a complete resistance to rejoice about nor a complete loss
of identity to despair about, but a complex contradiction of both continuity
and change’ (2007: 5 et seq.).
11. For an overview of various defi nitions of the concept of ‘culture’ see Hanitzsch
(2007: 369).
12. One should also take into account that a culture of professional journalists
might differ significantly from journalistic (sub)cultures such as peace jour-
nalism or development journalism (Hanitzsch, 2007: 368).
13. Weischenberg and Scholl (1998) similarly argue, drawing upon cross-national
comparisons of journalistic attitudes that processes of professionalization in
journalism are quite similar across different countries.
14. See McNair: ‘The online sites established by print and broadcast media in
the 1990s transformed the pattern of flow of journalistic communication
by allowing print and broadcast news outlets hitherto constrained within
national boundaries to achieve global reach, extending their relationships
to anywhere and anyone on the planet with access to a networked computer
and the relevant linguistic ability’ (2006: 121).
15. As Rosenau points out: ‘It is technology [ . . . ] that has so greatly diminished
geographic and social distances through the jet-powered airliner, the com-
puter, the orbiting satellite, and the many other innovations that now move
people, ideas and goods more rapidly and surely across space and time than
ever before. [ . . . ] It is technology, in short, that has fostered the interde-
pendence of local, national and international communities that is far greater
than any previously experienced.’ (1990: 17)
16. The term ‘cyberspace’ as coined by Gibson aims ‘to describe a ‘virtual’ land-
scape made up of all the information in the world’ (Bell, 2007: 17). ‘Cyber-
space is entered as disembodied consciousness, by ‘jacking in’ to the network,
and the landscape is a battleground over the ownership of and access to
data, between corporations and hackers. Gibsonian cyberspace thus refers to
visions of cyberspace which trace back to Gibson’s vivid descriptions’ (Ibid.:
17).
17. Similarly, Shirky points out: ‘The internet augments real-world social life
rather than providing an alternative to it. Instead of becoming a separate
cyberspace, our electronic networks are becoming deeply embedded in real
life’ (2008: 196).
18. It should be noted that within this framework, places do not disappear, but
as Castells points out, ‘their logic and their meaning become absorbed in
the network. The technological infrastructure that builds up the network
defi nes the new space, very much like railways defi ned ‘economic regions’
and ‘national markets’ in the industrial economy; or the boundary-specific,
institutional rules of citizenry (and their technologically advanced armies)
defi ned ‘cities’ in the merchant origins of capitalism and democracy’ (Cas-
tells, 2000c: 443).
19. Along these lines argue Halcli and Webster (2000), who critique that Castells
might be too overenthusiastic in his novelty claim as well as with his argu-
ment of the ‘network’ as the central structure of social organization. Accord-
ing to them, Castells neglects that inherent conservative (social) structures
and established inequality roasters in society still do have a major important
role to play in shaping social realities.
20. Along these lines, Hirst and Harrison critique that Castells neglects long-
grown relations that exist between the evolution of new technologies,
modes of production and in fact the capitalistic system (Hirst and Harrison,
2007).
236 Notes
21. Mosco (2004) argues even more radically against a positivistic approach
toward the evolution of digital technologies and the interplay between tech-
nology and social developments. He goes as far as to deconstruct what he
views as supposedly too enthusiastic ‘myths’ around digital technology and
cyberspace and views the belief in a ‘new order’ as a pervasion of every aspect
of today’s world of fi nance.
22. According to this model, media organizations act as the organ of elites dis-
seminating their ideology and thus perpetuating the elites’ dominant role
in society. The ‘control paradigm’ ‘is premised on economic determinancy,
whereby ruling elites are presumed to be able to extend their control of eco-
nomic resources to control of the cultural apparatuses of the media, includ-
ing the means of propaganda and public relations, leading to planned and
predictable outcomes such as pro-elite media bias, dominant ideology, even
‘brainwashing’’ (McNair, 2006: 3). The ‘dominance paradigm’ thesis can
be identified in the works of, for example, Hall et al. (1978) or Herman
and Chomsky (1988). For an overview of ‘dominance paradigm’ theories see
McNair (1998: 21–28, 2006: 21–33) and Campbell (2004: 86–103).
23 For a discussion of Four Theories of the Press and its limits as a model for
the journalism-state relationship in the information age see Campbell (2004:
31–43) as well as Ostini and Fung (2002).
24. The problem of accessability has been captured with the terminology of the
‘digital divide’, which brings major disadvantages to societies and countries
that do not have or only have limited access opportunities to digital tech-
nologies. For discussions of the ‘digital divide’ see, for example, Castells
(2002b: 247–275), Thussu (2000: 247–259) or vanDijk (2005). Norris or
van Dijk, for example, also point out that social divisions are influenced
by unequal societies and thus ‘digital divides’ do not necessarily only exist
between different countries or regions around the globe, but can rather
also be found within the borders of one country (Norris, 2004; vanDijk,
2005).
25. Similarly, following Appadurai, Bell explains that flows ‘don’t merely circle
the globe like satellites; they land. Where they land, and what results from
their landing, is similarly unpredictable (even though there are patterns and
there is stability in parts). Where they land are the nodes in the network. But
there are different kinds of nodes, some with greater capacity to control at
least some flows, for example by refusing entry to some people, or blocking
some media content from being accessible. ‘Strong’ nodes can act as mag-
nets, drawing down some flows while also pushing others away, deflecting
them elsewhere. Other nodes are relatively powerless, and are endlessly buf-
feted and battered as flows land’ (2007: 70).
26. The mass media system as defi ned by Luhmann includes journalism, enter-
tainment and advertising (Luhmann, 2000). This notion has been criticized
widely. For a critical reflection see Görke and Scholl (2006: 650).
27. This concept is based on constructivist theories that maintain that reality
as such can only be interpreted and thus ‘constructed,’ but not represented
(Luhmann, 2000: 5 et seq.).
28. Luhmann is aware that influences from outside are possible. However the
influences he thinks of are only concerned with interferences through spin or
public relations efforts, for example in the case of the successes of military
censorship of reports in Gulf War I (Luhmann, 2000: 8). Apart from these
professional actors, it seems that according to Luhmann’s understanding of
the operations of systems, actors outside of the ‘mass media system’ have no
power whatsoever to influence media, but instead are silenced as outsiders
and condemned to the role of receivers.
Notes 237
NOTES TO CHAPTER 2
1. As Thussu points out: ‘The establishment of the news agency was the most
important development in the newspaper industry of the nineteenth century,
altering the process of news dissemination, nationally and internationally’
(2000: 20).
2. Campbell vividly explains: ‘For journalism, the impact of both new trans-
portation technologies and the telegraph revolutionised the way news was
made. It is no accident that the global news agencies that still dominate the
world, Reuters, Associated Press and Agence-France Press, had their origins
in the nineteenth century (the former two associations began in direct rela-
tionship to the new telegraph technology)’ (2004: 4).
3. Innis views technology as a causal force transforming the structure of a cul-
ture. Whereas I support his approach ‘using historical situations as a social
lab’, as McLuhan has termed it in the introduction to Innis’ The Bias of
Communication (1951), I remain skeptical of overstating the impact of tech-
nology as a ‘force’, as this argument does too closely relate to a technological
determinism. Nevertheless, Innis also points out: ‘A medium of communi-
cation has an important influence on the dissemination of knowledge over
space and over time and it becomes necessary to study its characteristics in
order to appraise its influence in its cultural setting’ (1951: 33).
4. For the sake of completeness it should be noted that papermaking was a tech-
nique invented well before the printing press. First papers occurred as early
as the second century AD and the technique of printing from woodblocks
was already in use in China since the seventh century (see for example Füssel,
2001, or Mitchell, 2007). Five decades prior to Gutenberg’s press, moveable
metal type had also been successfully used in Korea, but the Koreans made
little use of it (Willmore, 2002: 90).
5. For a history of the newsbook see Raymond (1996). He identifies newsbooks
in England in the seventeenth century as precursors of journalism. According
to him, the evolution of newsbooks ‘can be seen to lead directly to the jour-
nalism of the eighteenth century, when the newspaper became an established
factor in British Politics; when the daily newspaper appeared, beginning with
the Daily Courant in 1703; when leisurely journals, such as The Tatler, The
Female Tatler, Swift and Sheridan’s The Intelligencer, and The Spectator,
began to fashion a literary discourse discrete from politics; and when the
provincial newspaper developed’ (1999: 15).
6. Rantanen makes a valid point in this respect, noting that a greater schol-
arly attention to this period in history is of great value: ‘Communication
research often lacks a historical dimension. Most research concentrates on
the twentieth century and thus fails to acknowledge that it was the fi rst elec-
tronic media of the nineteenth century, news agencies, that changed concepts
of time and place and became early agents of globalization. The electronic
media in the nineteenth century were the fi rst to decouple time and distance
by bringing news from remote places instantaneously’ (2003: 438).
7. In Britain, William Cooke and Charles Wheatstone were credited with the
invention of the fi rst working electric telegraph in 1836, while Morse devel-
oped his own version parallel to it and his code entered the scene in 1838
(Willmore, 2002: 92).
8. One example in this respect was the New York Sun. Blondheim notes that this
newspaper was among the fi rst dailies to use a steam-driven press, advancing
the printing process and contributing to the improvement of paper. The Sun
also excelled to ‘accelerate the speed with which news reached its presses.
238 Notes
Chartering fast locomotives, dispatching carrier pigeons, even setting special
editions in type on board express steamships that carried late news were
characteristic of the newspaper’s efforts’ (Blondheim, 1994: 48).
9. Schudson’s information source here is Stover (1961).
10. For example, at the penny press outlets in New York, which ‘focused on the
nearby and everyday, and for the fi rst time hired reporters on a regular basis
to cover local news. Reporters were assigned to the police, the courts, the
commercial district, the churches, high society, and sports’ (Schudson, 1980:
27).
11. Blondheim provides a detailed study of the foundation of the Associated
Press and its relationship to telegraphy. With regard to the founding date of
AP there is considerable discussion. However, the year 1848 has been gener-
ally accepted (Blondheim, 1994: 48 et seq.).
12. For a detailed history of Reuters see Read (1999). Read repeatedly also draws
upon the aspect of technology and its role in the evolution of Reuters.
13. For an interesting account of how Julius Reuter used pigeons see Read: ‘On
24 April 1850 he [Reuter] made an agreement with Heinrich Geller, an
Aachen brewer, baker, and pigeon-breeder, to provide a total of 45 trained
birds for a service between Brussels and Aachen. Twelve birds were to be
always available at Brussels; all birds were to be returned by train each day to
Brussels, ready to fly back the next day. This pigeon news service was started
on 28 April. It obviously worked well, for under a contract on 26 July Geller
agreed to assign all his pigeons (over 200) to Reuter’s use’ (1999: 11).
14. Putnis’ article adds an interesting aspect to the discussion of the history of
news agencies. He outlines how Reuters failed to establish itself as the leading
distributor of news in Australia at the end of the nineteenth century. Accord-
ing to Putnis, this failure was the result of the resistance of major newspapers
in the metropolitan markets of Australia to a ‘globalization’ of international
news delivery. Instead, Australian newspapers created an alternative system
of gathering international news that heavily relied on cooperation models
among Australian-based news outlets. Additionally, the Australian press
‘may have maintained some link with Reuters most of the time, but it also
successfully asserted its independence and insisted on dictating the terms of
its relationship with Reuters’ (2006: 2). Australian newspapers also created
London-based bureaus in order to keep their independence and to be able to
focus solely on news of interest for the Australian population.
15. Namely, these are the four major Western-based news agencies AP, United
Press International (UPI), Reuters and the direct successor to Havas, Agence
France Presse (AFP). For an overview of studies of news flow, selection,
agency content and agency structures see Boyd-Barrett (1980) as well as
Boyd-Barrett and Rantanen (1998), where agencies are characterized as
agents of globalization.
NOTES FOR CHAPTER 3
1. For more information on NowPublic.com, check the FAQ section on their

homepage. Information on the Mumbai terror attacks are tagged on the web-
site under the title ‘Mumbai’.
2. For current statistics on the number of active Facebook users check Face-
book’s pressroom online.
3. Similarly, Straubhaar (2007: 18) and Benkler (2006: 22) point out that a
greater number of actors take part in the production and dissemination of
Notes 239
news. Pavlik stresses the ability of what he defi nes as ‘traditional sources’,
‘serving as primary news providers to the public, often bypassing the tradi-
tional news gatekeepers altogether’ (2000: 236).
4. Accordingly Jarvis organized a meeting titled ‘Networked Journalism Sum-
mit’ at the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism in October 2007.
NOTES TO CHAPTER 4
1. See the article on Deutsche Welle Online by Bösch (2008). For similar
accounts see the coverage provided on ZEIT ONLINE and their news pieces
on Tibetans trying to draw attention to their situation via platforms such as
YouTube or Twitter (Kleinz, 2008: Online).
2. See the Guardian.co.uk article by Sweney (2008: Online). For another
account on the censorship imposed on mainstream media see the Associated
Press news story published in the International Herald Tribune where it is
pointed out: ‘Information about the violence has come out through foreign-
ers leaving Lhasa, Tibetan activist groups and phone calls to people in Lhasa’
(International Herald Tribune/Associated Press, 2008: Online).
3. See the BBC’s feature on ‘Accounts from Lhasa and Beyond’ (2008: Online).
4. One striking case of staged propaganda occurred when the Chinese gov-
ernment allowed a selected delegation of journalists from outlets such as
the Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, USA Today, Al Jazeera and the
Associated Press on a state-organized media trip into Tibet. The purpose of
this visit was to show the world that the situation in Tibet had calmed down.
During the press visit, a group of Tibetan monks managed to get through to
the journalists, making claims that religious freedom in Tibet was suppressed
and accused the Chinese government of lying to the outside world about the
situation in Tibet. For more information on the story see the coverage on
Guardian.co.uk (Watts, 2008: Online) or on the website of the Financial
Times (Dyer, 2008: Online).
5. Among others, articles on issues of censorship with regard to China and the
situation in Tibet can be found in the New York Times (2008: Online) or on
the Guardian website (Kiss, 2008: Online).
6. Livingston and Bennett have conducted an analysis of CNN international
desk stories from 1994 to 2001 asking if journalists with greater techno-
logical freedom through the uses of mobile devices such as videophones
and other mobile transmission technologies would make less use of officials
framing the story and executing gatekeeping functions. The authors conclude
that ‘event-driven news has not changed the core of the organizational gate-
keeping process from its reliance on official sources’ (2003: 372). ‘When an
unpredicted, nonscripted, spontaneous event is covered in the news, the one
predictable component of coverage is the presence of official sources’ (Ibid.:
376). What Livingston and Bennett do not analyze is the interplay between
digital technology and the delivery of information material from a range of
sources apart from official channels and how this impacts the organizational
gatekeeping processes of journalistic outlets.
7. For the background on the deal between the government, the royal family
and the press see for example the Telegraph.co.uk article by Pierce (2008:
Online).
8. Matt Drudge was not the fi rst one to report on the story of Prince Harry, but
his Drudge Report is one of the websites with the highest traffic on the net
ever since he broke the story on the Clinton-Lewinsky affair. The fi rst outlet
240 Notes
to report on the story was the Australian magazine website New Idea on
January 7, 2007, but it went largely unnoticed until Drudge picked the story
up. For information on how the story broke see for example the Guardian.
co.uk story by McMahon et al. (2008: Online) or the Telegraph.co.uk story
by Gardham (2008: Online). A portrait of Matt Drudge and his Drudge
Report can be found on Telegraph.co.uk (Harnden, 2008: Online).
9. For an account of how Twitter became the tool for breaking news in this case
see for example the article on Telegraph.co.uk (Beaumont, 2009: Online).
10. Others have criticized that the loss of the gatekeeping function is also a result
of the commercialization of news resulting in a decline of gatekeeping stan-
dards, with journalism flattening into ‘infotainment’ and driven by political
spin (Kovach and Rosenstiel, 1999).
11. Bennett’s work can serve as a basis for a reconfiguration of gatekeeping
models in the information age. He suggests a ‘multigated model’ that con-
centrates on a collection of four factors or ‘gates’ that shape news content,
namely (1) personal and professional judgment values of journalists, (2) orga-
nizational routines, (3) economic factors and (4) information and communi-
cation technologies. For a detailed outline of his model see Bennett (2004).
12. For an overview of audience behavior see the State of the News Media
Report 2008 conducted by the Project for Excellence in Journalism (2008a:
Online).
13. These examples will be illustrated and discussed in detail in Chapter 10 of
this book.
14. The examples Castells uses in this context are mainly related to grassroots
groups such as anti-globalization movements (Castells, 1999).
NOTES FOR CHAPTER 5
1. The interview study was part of my PhD project and approved by the Ethics
Committee at the University of Otago in November 2006. All interview part-
ners agreed to participate voluntarily. The reference code of the University of
Otago Ethics Committee for the project is 06/175.
2. See for example the report Understanding the Participatory News Consumer
conducted by the Project for Excellence in Journalism that researches how
cell phone users access news (Purcell et al., 2010: Online). The research paper
Politics online analyzes Internet use of Americans for news or information
about the midterm elections, conducted by the Pew Internet & American Life
Project (Horrigan, 2006: Online).
3. For an overview of some of Nielsen’s databases on global Internet activity
or online audience measurements, refer to their Netratings page. The 2010
State of the News Media report conducted by the Project for Excellence in
Journalism contains an analysis of the Nielsen ratings of people’s online
behavior.
4. On the purposes and aims of expert interviews see Meuser and Nagel (2003).
In the context of qualitative research, experts are viewed as informants.
Researchers use their expertise knowledge on the object of investigation in
order to gain insights (see Keuneke, 2005: 262; Hoffmann, 2005: 270).
5. Each of the interviews was roughly between 40 minutes and 60 minutes long
(with the exception of one interview lasting up to 100 minutes) and was
based on a semi-structured questionnaire that served as a guideline for each
individual interview and allowed comparability of the responses. In order to
guarantee openness to the responses of the interviewees, the questionnaire
Notes 241
contained open questions, allowing the interviewees to chart their thoughts
and opinions in depth.
6. The reference systems of journalism’s aims and purposes can be considered
as similar, whereas journalistic systems, for example, in the Arab world are
grounded on different premises. An outlet such as Al Jazeera, for example,
would have been an interesting object to study with regard to its ways of
networking with its Western counterparts such as ZDF in Germany or CNN
in the US. Yet, Al Jazeera is operating within a vitally different environment
characterized by a fairly ‘young’ tradition of commercial broadcasting as
well as being strongly dependent on its host nation in terms of censorship.
For a history of Al Jazeera and the development of an Arab journalism cul-
ture refer to Sakr (2007) or El-Nawawy and Iskander (2002).
7. The interviews were conducted in three blocks throughout the fi rst half of
2007. The fi rst interview block took place in Washington, DC, and New
York City in January 2007 with interviewees based in New York City at
MediaChannel.org, Democracy Now! and Indymedia and interviewees at
the Project for Excellence in Journalism and at the International Center
for Journalists, both based in Washington, DC. The second block of inter-
views was conducted in Europe in April 2007 and included visits to the
BBC and the Guardian Media Group as well as a meeting with a staff
member of ZEIT ONLINE. The interviews with BBC and Guardian staff
members were conducted in London. The interview with the producer for
ZEIT ONLINE took place during a conference in Berlin. A last block of
interviews was conducted in San Francisco in late May and the beginning
of June 2007. I met with staff from AlterNet.org, Current TV and Ourme-
dia.org. All interviews were record-taped and transcribed. The informa-
tion provided here about the organizations and about the interviewees was
gathered throughout the interviews and collected from the websites of each
organization.
8. For further information on the history of the BBC refer to its website.
9. Peter Horrocks, the Head of BBC Newsroom, announced the reorganization
of the BBC on November 12, 2007 (2007: Online).
10. The team-up was part of the BBC’s so-called ‘SuperPower Season’, a program
special that ran across all BBC platforms and was dedicated to underscoring
how the introduction of the Internet has changed people’s lives. For more
information on the ‘SuperPower Season’ see the articles by Horrocks (2010:
Online) and Herrmann (2010: Online). The cooperation between the BBC
and Global Voices Online was also covered by various outlets, e.g. on the
Guardian website (Bunz, 2010: Online) or on the editorsweblog.org (Conde,
2010: Online).
11. For more information on the launch of Guardian’s Zeitgeist project check out
the blog entry by Catt and Pickard on the Inside Guardian.co.uk blog (2010:
Online).
12. Even though fi nances are handled by IMC’s centers individually, all activities
at each IMC center are funded through donations.
NOTES TO CHAPTER 6
1. For the general acceptance of the launch of the fi rst free browser as marking
the ‘beginning’ of the Internet as a mass medium, see McNair (2006: 118)
and Lovink (2008). Lovink points out: ‘The significant change of the past
several years has been the ‘massification’ and further internationalization
242 Notes
of the Internet. In 2005, the one billion user mark was passed’ (2008: x et
seq.).
2. The interviewee is referring to an iPod, which was used to record the inter-
view.
3. For further research, for example, on how young users access the Internet
or use social networks such as Facebook and other alternative platforms for
news, see the Pew Report on ‘Social Media and Young Adults’ (Lenhart,
Purcell, Smith and Zickuhr, 2010: Online).
4. Stray conducted an interesting study in regard to original content provided
by outlets online. He researched the so-called ‘Google/China hacking case’.
In February 2010, the New York Times broke a story about the hack attacks
on a number of American companies that occurred in 2009. According to
unnamed sources, these attacks could be traced back to a technical univer-
sity and a vocational college in mainland China. Stray researched how many
news outlets did provide original reporting pieces on the story after it broke
and he found that: ‘Out of the 121 distinct versions of last week’s story about
tracing Google’s recent attackers to two schools in China, 13 (11 percent)
included at least some original reporting. And just seven organizations (six
percent) really got the full story independently’ (2010: Online).
5. The interviewee refers to CNN’s iReport platform where users can provide
self-edited content.
NOTES TO CHAPTER 7
1. A number of research studies provide an overview of the work practices in

such newsrooms. Thurman (2008), for example, analyzes user-generated
content features at UK outlets based on in-depth interviews with editors at
leading news media websites. Hampel (2008) provides an overview of the
practices on the CNN user-generated platform iReport, a feature launched
in 2006 that got its own stand-alone website in 2008.
2. Wardle and Williams also found in their study that ‘there was no fi xed def-
inition of “UGC” [user-generated content] among journalists’ (2008: 54).
What they did fi nd overall were six different types of ‘UGC’ in use at the
BBC: ‘Audience Content (including Audience Footage, Audience Experience,
Audience Stories), Audience Comment, Collaborative Content, Networked
Journalism, and Non-news Content’ (Ibid.).
3. The student, Nikolas Macko, provided the BBC with an eyewitness account of
the shooting that can be accessed on its website (BBC News, 2007: Online).
4. For more examples of how crowdsourcing works for journalists just as well
as for corporations and in fields such as product development see the online
article on Wired written by Howe (2006: Online). He gathers a range of cases
where crowdsourcing became an inevitably useful tool for journalists and
corporate companies alike.
5. The Reuters Social Media Guidelines are covered in the section on ‘Report-
ing from the Internet’ as part of the Reuters Handbook of Journalism, which
is accessible online. The Social Media and Blogging Guidelines of the Radio
Television Digital News Association can also be retrieved online.
6. For an overview of citizen journalist activities see Kelly (2009).
7. Frederick Douglass is one of the most prominent figures in the African Amer-
ican history of the United States. A former slave, he became a leader of the
abolitionist movement and as a statesman, reformer and author he fought
for freedom, emancipation and equal rights. He is notably famous for his
Notes 243
autobiography Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, fi rst published in
1845.
8 The interviewee mentioned throughout our conversation that Current TV
targets a demographic group aged between eighteen and thirty-four.
NOTES TO CHAPTER 8
1. The so-called ‘new journalism’ movement in the 1960s was rooted within
a group of US journalists ‘frustrated by the fetishisation of the objectivity
principle and the limits which (they believed) it placed on their work, broke
free of the conventions of their profession and began to develop a subversive,
‘anti-objective’ style which became known as new journalism. The new jour-
nalism movement intentionally set out to undermine the notion of objectivity
by combining the techniques of journalism with those of literature, and to
demonstrate that all supposedly objective accounts of reality are highly sub-
jective’ (McNair, 1998: 73, emphasis in original).
2. The study conducted by Reese et al. (2007) is based on a content analysis of
the six most prominent blogs in the United States and outlines perfectly how
bloggers have understood to position themselves within an interactive sphere
of information exchange, making use of the technological means as well as
of the network in which they move.
3. Jochen Bittner used to run a blog on ZEIT ONLINE called ‘Beruf Terrorist’
(= Occupation: Terrorist). He stopped blogging in June 2007, but the blog,
including an archive, is still accessible.
4. The ZEIT ONLINE blog ‘Herdentrieb’ (= Herd Instinct) is at the time of
writing run by six staff members who are all economics and finance journal-
ists.
5. The full report titled ‘Press Accuracy Rating Hits Two Decade Low’ is acces-
sible online.
6. For the whole story go to the BILDBlog archive (2008: Online).
NOTES TO CHAPTER 9
1. The Indian actress Shilpa Shetti was the winner of the British TV show
Celebrity Big Brother UK in 2007. She was involved in a large controversy
when she allegedly became the target of racist bullying by other housemates
during the show.
2. Nevertheless, it needs to be mentioned here that this engagement is restrained
with regard to language skills as well as dependent on means of access such
as Internet connections and can be restrained through censorship walls cre-
ated, for example, by governments. The discussion of the digital divide men-
tioned previously has to be taken into consideration here.
3. As mentioned in the chapter on user-generated content, these comments can
also feed into stories, yet then are checked out: ‘So something that’s going to
be in use in either the television or radio is verified. Though the debates as a
whole aren’t’ (BBC).
4. See Volkmer’s (2006) edited volume on media usage and media memory
across generations. For a vivid portrait of this generation, the documentary
Growing Up Online produced as part of the American public television pub-
lic affairs series Frontline is worth watching.
244 Notes
NOTES TO CHAPTER 10
1. Aday et al. (2005) base their research on a content analysis of news coverage
at ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox News Channel and Al Jazeera.
2. According to her last blog entry dating back to October 2007, Riverbend fled
to Syria. Her blog entries were published in two books and her publishers
note on their website that they have not heard from her since. Her blog is
currently resting, but still available online.
3. It should be noted here that the interviewee at ZEIT ONLINE has a word of
warning with regard to using bloggers who write under pseudonyms. A lot of
Iraqi bloggers, for example, choose to remain anonymous in order to protect
themselves and their families from threats by opposing groups. However,
this bears a certain risk for users: ‘The minority of these bloggers provide an
editorial department [on their websites], where I could quickly call to check:
‘Do you even exist? Are you actually a real person or do you lead a purely vir-
tual existence?’ That doesn’t work. That’s what’s so very, very difficult about
that’ (ZEIT ONLINE). This is a problem that needs careful consideration.
However, if one takes into account the many pieces of false information and
hoaxes that came out of mainstream news organizations, the problem might
become relative in size. As noted in Chapter 8, accountability and trust in a
source do develop over time and as long as journalists are aware that they
have to handle online sources with a lot of care, developing collaborations
with bloggers who choose to remain anonymous can be an option.
4. The blog of Salam Pax is resting but still accessible online. Stories about
him and his work can be found, for example, in the Guardian (McCarthy,
2003: Online), at the BBC (Rice, 2004: Online) and the German weekly
Stern (Stillich, 2003: Online) among many others.
5. According to the information on the website of ‘Alive in Baghdad’, at the
time of writing this book the Iraqi Bureau Chief had been relocated to Swe-
den after receiving threats related to his journalistic work. He initially was
hiding in Syria, which left the project without its leading staff member and
caused significant problems for the grassroots outlet. Financial difficulties
are adding to the problems of sustaining the reporting and the project is cur-
rently working on new approaches to secure regular coverage of the situation
in Iraq.
6. At the time of the interview conducted at the BBC, it also had a staff member
assigned to particularly work on Middle East interactivity.
NOTES TO CHAPTER 11
1. Here, journalists can, for example, fi nd introductory information on topics

such as how to master Twitter, how to use RSS and social media for news-
gathering, how to do precision surfi ng using search engines or how to create
podcasts.
2. See Horrocks’ announcement of the restructurization plans on BBC in
November 2007 (2007: Online). The articles of Stabe (2008: Online) or Rob-
inson (2008: Online) reflect on the move into the new newsroom in April
2008.
Bibliography
Aday, Sean; Livingston, Steven; Hebert, Maeve (2005). ‘Embedding the Truth:
A Cross-Cultural Analysis of Objectivity and Television Coverage of the Iraq
War’. The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics 10(1), 3–21.
Albarran, Alan B.; Chan-Olmsted, Sylvia M. (eds) (1998). Global Media Econom-
ics: Commercialization, Concentration, and Integration of World Media Mar-
kets. Ames: Iowa State University Press.
Allan, Stuart (2004). News Culture. Second Edition. Maidenhead: Open Univer-
sity Press.
Allan, Stuart (2005). ‘News on the Web. The Emerging Forms and Practices of
Online Journalism’. In Stuart Allan (ed) Journalism: Critical Issues (pp. 67–81).
Berkshire: Open University Press.
Allan, Stuart (ed) (2005). Journalism: Critical Issues. Berkshire: Open University
Press.
Anderson, Benedict R. (1983). Imagined Communities: Refl ections on the Origin
and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso.
Anderson, Christopher; Curtin, Michael (2002). ‘Writing Cultural History. The
Challenge of Radio and Television’. In Niels Brügger; Søren Kolstrup (eds)
Media History. Theories, Methods, Analysis (pp. 15–32). Aarhus: Aarhus Uni-
versity Press.
Appadurai, Arjun (1990). ‘Difference and Disjuncture in the Global cultural Econ-
omy’. In Mike Featherstone (ed) Global Culture. Nationalism, Globalization
and Modernity (pp. 295–310). London/Newbury Park/New Delhi: Sage.
Appadurai, Arjun (1996). Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globaliza-
tion. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Atton, Chris (2004). An Alternative Internet: Radical Media, Politics and Creativ-
ity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Atton, Chris (2005). Alternative Media. London/Thousand Oaks, CA/New Delhi:
Sage.
Atton, Chris (2009). ‘Why Alternative Journalism Matters’. Journalism 10(3),
283–285.
Atton, Chris; Hamilton, James (2008). Alternative Journalism. Los Angeles:
Sage.
Avilés, Jose Alberto García; Carvajal, Miguel (2008). ‘Integrated and Crossmedia
Newsroom Convergence: Two Models of Multimedia News Production—The
Cases of Novotécnica and La Verdad Multimedia in Spain’. Convergence: The
International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 14(2), 221–239.
Baldasty, Gerald J. (1992). The Commercialization of News in the Nineteenth
Century. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Bardoel, Jo (1996). ‘Beyond Journalism. A Profession between Information Society
and Civil Society’. Journal of Communication 11(3), 283–302.
246 Bibliography
Bardoel, Jo (2002). ‘The Internet, Journalism and Public Communication Poli-
cies’. Gazette: The International Journal for Communication Studies 64(5),
501–511.
Bardoel, Jo; Deuze, Mark (2001). ‘‘Network Journalism’: Converging Competen-
cies of Old and New Media Professionals’. Australian Journalism Review 23(2),
91–103.
Barnhurst, Kevin G.; Nerone, John (2003). ‘US Newspaper Types, the Newsroom,
and the Division of Labor, 1750–2000’. Journalism Studies 4(4), 435–449.
Barnouw, Erik (1966–1970). A History of Broadcasting in the United States. Three
Volumes. New York: Oxford University Press.
Baur, Nina; Lamnek, Siegfried (2005). ‘Einzelfallanalyse’. In Lothar Mikos; Clau-
dia Wegener (eds) Qualitative Medienforschung. Ein Handbuch (pp. 241–252).
Konstanz: UVK.
Beck, Ulrich (2000). What is Globalization? Translated by Patrick Camiller.
Malden, MA: Polity Press.
Beckett, Charlie (2008). SuperMedia. Saving Journalism so it Can Save the World.
Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Beckett, Charlie; Mansell, Robin (2008). ‘Crossing Boundaries: New Media and
Networked Journalism’. Communication, Culture & Critique 1(1), 92–104.
Bell, Daniel (1973). The Coming of Post-industrial Society: Venture in Social Fore-
casting. New York: Basic Books.
Bell, David (2007). Cyberculture Theorists. Manuel Castells and Donna Haraway.
London/New York: Routledge.
Benkler, Yochai (2006). The Wealth of Networks. How Social Production Trans-
forms Markets and Freedom. New Haven/London: Yale University Press.
Bennett, W. Lance (2004). ‘Gatekeeping and Press-Government Relations: A Mul-
tigated Model of News Construction’. In Lynda Lee Kaid (ed) Handbook of
Political Communication Research (pp. 283–314). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erl-
baum Associates.
Blanchard, Margaret A. (ed) (1998). History of the Mass Media in the United
States: An Encyclopedia. Chicago: Fitzroy Dearbor.
Blondheim, Menahem (1994). News over the Wires. The Telegraph and the Flow
of Public Information in America, 1844–1897. Cambridge/London: Harvard
University Press.
Boczkowski, Pablo J. (2004). ‘The Process of Adopting Multimedia and Interactiv-
ity in Three Online Newsrooms’. Journal of Communication June, 197–213.
Borges, Jorge Luis (1999). The Total Library: Non-Fiction 1922–1986. London:
Penguin.
Boyce, George; Curran, James; Wingate, Pauline (eds) (1978). Newspaper History:
From the 17th Century to the Present Day. London/Constable/Beverly Hills: Sage.
Boyd-Barrett, Oliver (1980). The International News Agencies. London/Consta-
ble/Beverly Hills: Sage.
Boyd-Barrett, Oliver; Rantanen, Terhi (eds) (1998). The Globalization of News.
London/Thousand Oaks, CA/New Delhi: Sage.
Braman, Sandra (2004). ‘Technology’. In John D.H. Downing; Denis McQuail;
Philip Schlesinger; Ellen Wartella The SAGE Handbook of Media Studies (pp.
123–144). Thousand Oaks, CA/London/New Delhi: Sage.
Bridge, Gary; Watson, Sophie (eds) (2002). The Blackwell City Reader. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Briggs, Asa; Burke, Peter (2005). A Social History of the Media. From Gutenberg
to the Internet. Second edition. Cambridge/Malden, MA: Polity Press.
Briggs, Mark (2010). JournalismNext: A Practical Guide to Digital Reporting.
Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Brügger, Niels; Kolstrup, Søren (eds) (2002). Media History. Theories, Methods,
Analysis. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.
Bibliography 247
Bruns, Axel (2005). Gatewatching. Collaborative Online News Production. New
York: Peter Lang.
Bruns, Axel (2006). ‘Towards Produsage: Futures for User-Led Content Produc-
tion’. In Fay Sudweeks; Herbert Hrachovec; Charles Ess (eds) Proceedings:
Cultural Attitudes towards Communication and Technology (pp. 275–284).
Perth: Murdoch University. Retrieved April 1, 2008, from: http://produsage.
org/articles.
Calabrese, Andrew (1999). ‘The Information Age According to Manuel Castells’.
Journal of Communication Summer, 172–186.
Campbell, Vincent (2004). Information Age Journalism. Journalism in an Interna-
tional Context. London: Arnold.
Carey, James W. (1974). ‘The Problem of Journalism History’. Journalism History
1(3), 5–27.
Carey, James W. (1989). Communication as Culture: Essays on Media and Society.
Boston: Unwin Hyman.
Castells, Manuel (1996). The Rise of the Network Society. Oxford: Blackwell.
Castells, Manuel (1999). ‘Grassrooting the Space of Flows’. Urban Geography
20(4), 294–302.
Castells, Manuel (2000a). ‘Materials for an Exploratory Theory of the Network
Society’. British Journal of Sociology 51(1), 5–24.
Castells, Manuel (2000b). End of Millennium. Vol. III of The Information Age:
Economy, Society and Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Castells, Manuel (2000c). The Rise of the Network Society. Vol. I of The
Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture. Second Edition. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Castells, Manuel (2001). The Internet Galaxy. Refl ections on the Internet,
Business, and Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Castells, Manuel (2002a). ‘An Introduction to the Information Age’. In Gary
Bridge; Sophie Watson (eds) The Blackwell City Reader (pp. 125–134). Oxford:
Blackwell.
Castells, Manuel (2002b). The Internet Galaxy. Refl ections on the Internet, Busi-
ness, and Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Castells, Manuel (2004). The Network Society. A Cross-Cultural Perspective.
Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
Castells, Manuel; Ince, Martin (2003). Conversations with Manuel Castells. Cam-
bridge: Polity Press.
Chaffee, Steven H.; Metzger, Miriam J. (2001). ‘The End of Mass Communica-
tion?’ Mass Communication & Society 4(4), 365–379.
Chalaby, Jean K. (1998). The Invention of Journalism. London: Macmillan.
Chapman, Jane (2005). Comparative Media History. An Introduction: 1789 to the
Present. Cambridge/Malden, MA: Polity Press.
Chapman, Jane; Kinsey, Marie (eds) (2008). Broadcast Journalism: A Critical
Introduction. London: Routledge.
Coe, Lewis (1993). The Telegraph. A History of Morse’s Invention and Its Prede-
cessors in the United States. Jefferson, NC/London: McFarland & Company
Inc. Publishers.
Collins Australian Dictionary (2003). Fifth Australian Edition. Pymble, NSW:
Harper Collins.
Conboy, Martin (2004). Journalism. A Critical History. London/Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Conboy, Martin; Raymond, Joad; Williams, Kevin; Tusan, Michelle (2006).
‘Roundtable Discussion of Martin Conboy’s “Journalism: A Critical History”.
London: Sage, 2004’. Media History 12(3), 329–351.
Corner, John; Harvey, Sylvia (eds) (1991). Enterprise and Heritage: Cross-Cur-
rents of National Culture. London/New York/Routledge.
248 Bibliography
Cottle, Simon (2009). Global Crisis Reporting: Journalism in the Global Age.
Maidenhead/NY: Open University Press.
Cottle, Simon; Rai, Mugdha (2006). ‘Between Display and Deliberation: Analyz-
ing TV News as Communicative Architecture’. Media, Culture & Society 28(2),
163–189.
Couldry, Nick (2004). ‘The Productive “Consumer” and the Dispersed “Citizen”’.
International Journal of Cultural Studies 7(1), 21–32.
Cresswell, John W. (2003). Research Design. Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed
Methods Approaches. Second Edition. London/Thousand Oaks, CA,/New
Delhi: Sage.
Currah, Andrew (2009). What’s Happening to Our News. An Investigation into
the Likely Impact of the Digital Revolution on the Economics of News Publish-
ing in the UK. Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Retrieved
January 10, 2010 from: http://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/about/news/
item/article/whats-happening-to-our-news.html.
Dahlgren, Peter (1996). ‘Media Logic in Cyberspace: Repositioning Journalism
and its Publics’. The Public 3(3), 59–72.
Delwiche, Aaron (2005). ‘Agenda-setting, Opinion Leadership, and the World of
Web Logs’. First Monday 10(12). Retrieved April 01, 2008, from: http://fi rst-
monday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1300/1220.
Deuze, Mark (1999). ‘Journalism and the Web. An Analysis of Skills and Standards
in an Online Environment’. Gazette. The International Journal for Communi-
cation Studies 61(5), 373–390.
Deuze, Mark (2001). ‘Educating New Journalists: Challenges to the Curriculum’.
Journalism Educator 56(1), 4–17.
Deuze, Mark (2003). ‘The Web and its Journalisms: Considering the Conse-
quences of Different Types of Newsmedia Online’. New Media & Society 5(2),
203–230.
Deuze, Mark (2004). ‘What is Multimedia Journalism?’ Journalism Studies 5(2),
139–152.
Deuze, Mark (2005). ‘What is Journalism? Professional Identity and Ideology of
Journalists’. Journalism 6(4), 442–464.
Deuze, Mark (2006). ‘Participation, Remediation, Bricolage: Considering Princi-
pal Components of a Digital Culture’. The Information Society 22(2), 63–75.
Deuze, Mark (2007). Media Work. Cambridge/Malden, MA: Polity.
Deuze, Mark (2008). ‘Understanding Journalism as Newswork: How It Changes,
and How It Remains the Same’. Westminster Papers in Communication and
Culture 5(2), 4–23.
Douglass, Frederick (2006). Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass. Project
Gutenberg. Retrieved January 10, 2010 from: http://www.gutenberg.org/cata-
log/world/readfi le?fk_fi les=216491&pageno=1.
Downing, John (2002). ‘Independent Media Centers: A Multi-local, Multimedia
Challenge to Global Neo-liberalism’. In Marc Raboy (ed) Global Media Policy
in the New Millennium (pp. 215–232). Luton: Luton University Press.
Downing, John (2003). ‘The IMC Movement Beyond “The West.”’ In Andrew Opel;
Donnalyn Pompper (eds) Representing Resistance: Media, Civil Disobedience,
and the Global Justice Movement (pp. 241–258). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Downing, John; McQuail, Denis; Schlesinger, Philip; Wartella, Ellen (eds) (2004).
The SAGE Handbook of Media Studies. London/Thousand Oaks, CA/New
Delhi: Sage.
Duffield, Lee (2006). ‘Thinking like Journalists: How Journalists and the General
Public can Work Together in the Information Economy’. In Lee Duffield; John
Cokley I, Journalist. Coping with and Crafting Media Information in the 21st
Century (pp. 1–52). Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Education Australia.
Bibliography 249
Duffield, Lee; Cokley, John (2006). I, Journalist. Coping with and Crafting
Media Information in the 21st Century. Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Educa-
tion Australia.
Edgar, Andrew; Sedgwick, Peter (eds) (2002). Cultural Theory. The Key Concepts.
London/New York: Routledge.
Ellul, Jacques (1964). The Technological Society. Translated by John Wilkinson
and with an introduction by Robert K. Merton. London: J. Cape.
El-Nawawy, Mohammed; Iskander, Adel (2002). Al-Jazeera: How the Free Arab
News Network Scooped the World and Changed the Middle East. Cambridge:
Westview.
Entman, Robert M. (1989). Democracy without Citizens: Media and the Decay of
American Politics. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Erdal, Ivar John (2009). ‘Crossmedia (Re)Production Cultures’. Convergence:
The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies. 15(2),
215–231.
Fagen, M.D. (ed) (1975). History of Engineering and Science in the Bell System:
The Early Years 1875—1925 (pp. 22–23). Prepared by Members of the Techni-
cal Staff, Bell Telephone Laboratories. New York: Bell Telephone Laboratories,
Inc.
Featherstone, Mike (ed) (1990). Global Culture. Nationalism, Globalization and
Modernity. London/Newbury Park/New Delhi: Sage.
Featherstone, Mike; Lash, Scott; Robertson, Roland (eds) (1995). Global Moderni-
ties. London/Thousand Oaks, CA/New Delhi: Sage.
Featherstone, Mike; Lash, Scott (eds) (1999). Spaces of Culture. City, Nation,
World. London/Thousand Oaks, CA/New Delhi: Sage.
Flick, Uwe; Kardoff, Ernst von; Steinke, Ines (eds) (2000). Qualitative Forschung.
Ein Handbuch. Hamburg: Reinbek.
Füssel, Stephan (2001). ‘Gutenberg and Today’s Media Change’. Publishing
Research Quarterly 16(4), 3–10.
Garcelon, Marc (2006). ‘The ‘Indymedia’ Experiment: The Internet as Movement
Facilitator Against Institutional Control’. Convergence: The International
Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 12(1), 55–82.
Garnham, Nicholas (2004). ‘Information Society Theory as Ideology’. In Frank
Webster (ed) The Information Society Reader (pp. 97–120). London/New York:
Routledge, pp. 165–183. (First published in 1998 in Loisir et Société 21(1).)
Gibson, William (1984). Neuromancer. London: Gollancz.
Gibson, William (1995). Neuromancer. London: Harper Voyager.
Giddens, Anthony (1999). Runaway World: How Globalisation is Reshaping Our
Lives. London: Profi le Books.
Gilboa, Eytan (2002). The Global News Networks and U.S. Policymaking in
Defense and Foreign Affairs. Paper published by the ‘Joan Shorenstein Center
on the Press, Politics & Public Policy’ at Harvard University. Retrieved Decem-
ber 10, 2010, from: http://www.hks.harvard.edu/presspol/publications/papers.
html#g
Gillmor, Dan (2006). We the Media. Grassroots Journalism by the People, for the
People. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly.
Glesne, Corrine; Peshkin, Alan (1992). Becoming Qualitative Researchers. An
Introduction. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Gordon, R. (2003). ‘The Meanings and Implications of Convergence’. In Kevin
Kawamoto (ed) Digital Journalism. Emerging Media and the Changing Hori-
zons of Journalism (pp. 57–73). Lanham/Boulder/New York/Toronto/Oxford:
Rowman & Littlefield.
Görke, Alexander; Scholl, Armin (2006). ‘Niklas Luhmann’s Theory of Social Sys-
tems and Journalism Research’. Journalism Studies 7(4), 644–655.
250 Bibliography
Gowing, Nik (1994). Real Time Television Coverage of Armed Conflicts and Dip-
lomatic Crises: Does it Pressure or Distort Foreign Policy Decisions. Paper
published by the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics & Public Policy
at Harvard University. Retrieved December 10, 2010, from: http://www.hks.
harvard.edu/presspol/publications/papers.html#g
Habermas, Jürgen (1989). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An
Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Translated by Thomas Burger
with assistance of Frederick Lawrence. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Halcli, Abigail; Webster, Frank (2000). ‘Inequality and Mobilization in “The
Information Age”’. European Journal of Social Theory 3(1), 67–81.
Hall, Peter Christian (ed) (2004). Die Krise des Medienmarktes. Geld—Struk-
turen—Standards. Mainz, Germany: Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen (Mainzer
Tage der Fernseh-Kritik; 36).
Hall, Stuart; Critcher, Charles; Jefferson, Tony; Clarke, John; Robert, Brian
(1978). Policing the Crisis: Mugging, the State, and Law and Order. New York:
Holmes & Meier.
Hallin, Daniel C.; Mancini, Paolo (2004). Comparing Media Systems: Three Mod-
els of Media and Politics. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hamilton, James W. (2003). ‘Remaking Media Participation in Early Modern Eng-
land’. Journalism 4(3), 293–313.
Hampel, Matt (2008). ‘iReport: Participatory Media Joins a Global News Brand’.
In Media Re:Public. News and Information as Digital Media Come of Age.
Published as part of the Berkman Publication Series. The Berkman Center for
Internet & Society at Harvard University. Retrieved January 10, 2010 from:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/pubrelease/mediarepublic/downloads.html
Hanitzsch, Thomas (2007). ‘Deconstructing Journalism Culture: Toward a Uni-
versal Theory’. Communication Theory 17, 367–385.
Hannerz, Ulf (1996). Transnational Connections. Culture, People, Places. Lon-
don/New York: Routledge.
Hardt, Hanno (1990). ‘Newsworkers, Technology, and Journalism History’. Criti-
cal Studies in Mass Communication 7, 346–365.
Hassan, Robert (2004). Media, Politics and the Network Society. Maidenhead/
New York: Open University Press.
Hassan, Robert (2007). ‘Network Time’. In Robert Hassan; Ronald E. Purser (eds)
24/7. Time and Temporality in the Network Society (pp. 37–61). Stanford, CA:
Stanford Business Books.
Hassan, Robert; Purser, Ronald E. (eds) (2007). 24/7. Time and Temporality in the
Network Society. Stanford, CA: Stanford Business Books.
Hassan, Robert; Thomas, Julian (2006a). ‘Introduction’. In Robert Hassan; Julian
Thomas (eds) The New Media Theory Reader (pp. xvii–xxvii). Maidenhead,
UK/New York: Open University Press.
Hassan, Robert; Thomas, Julian (eds) (2006b). The New Media Theory Reader.
Maidenhead/New York: Open University Press.
Held, David (1995). Democracy and the Global Order: From the Modern State to
Cosmopolitan Governance. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Herman, Edward S.; Chomsky, Noam (1988). Manufacturing Consent: The Politi-
cal Economy of the Mass Media. New York: Pantheon Books.
Herman, Edward S.; McChesney, Robert W. (1997). The Global Media: The New
Missionaries of Corporate Capitalism. London/Washington, DC: Cassell.
Hirst, Martin; Harrison, John (2007). Communication and New Media: Broad-
cast to Narrowcast. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Hoffmann, Dagmar (2005). ‘Experteninterview’. In Lothar Mikos; Claudia
Wegener (eds) Qualitative Medienforschung. Ein Handbuch (pp. 268–278).
Konstanz: UVK.
Bibliography 251
Høyer, Svennik (2003). ‘Newspapers without Journalists’. Journalism Studies 4(4),
451–463.
Huang, Edgar; Davison, Karen; Shreve, Stephanie; Davis, Twila; Bettendorf,
Elizabeth; Nair, Anita (2006). ‘Facing the Challenges of Convergence: Media
Professionals’ Concerns of Working Across Media Platforms’. Convergence:
The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 12(1),
83–98.
Inglis, Fred (2002). People’s Witness: The Journalist in Modern Politics. New
Haven: Yale University Press.
Innis, Harold (1950). Empire and Communications. Toronto: Dundurn Press.
Innis, Harold (1951). The Bias of Communication. Toronto: Dundurn Press.
Jarvis, Jeff (2009). What Would Google Do? New York: Collins Business.
Jenkins, Henry (2004). ‘The Cultural Logic of Media Convergence’. International
Journal of Cultural Studies 7(1), 33–43.
Jenkins, Henry (2006). Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide.
New York: New York University Press.
Johnson, Michael L. (1971). The New Journalism. The Underground Press, the
Artists of Nonfiction, and Changes in the Established Media. Lawrence/Man-
hattan/Wichita: University Press of Kansas.
Jones, Steve (ed) (1999). Doing Internet Research: Critical Issues and Methods for
Examining the Net. London: Sage.
Kaplan, Richard L. (2003). ‘American Journalism Goes to War, 1898–2001: A
Manifesto on Media and Empire’. Media History 9(3), 209–219.
Kawamoto, Kevin (ed) (2003). Digital Journalism: Emerging Media and the
Changing Horizons of Journalism. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Keen, Andrew (2007). The Cult of the Amateur. How today’s Internet is Killing our
Culture. New York/London/Toronto/Sydney/Auckland: Doubleday/Currency.
Kelly, John (2009). Red Kayaks and Hidden Gold: The Rise, Challenges, and
Value of Citizen Journalism. Published by the Reuters Institute for the Study
of Journalism. Retrieved January 10, 2010 from: http://reutersinstitute.politics.
ox.ac.uk/publications/risj-challenges/red-kayaks-and-hidden-gold.html.
Kester, Bernadette (2008). ‘Working at the End of the Assembly Line: A Conversa-
tion with Joris Luyendijk about the Impossibility of Doing Western-style Jour-
nalism in Arab Countries’. The International Journal of Press/Politics 13(4),
500–506.
Keuneke, Susanne (2005). ‘Qualitatives Interview’. In Lothar Mikos; Claudia
Wegener (eds) Qualitative Medienforschung. Ein Handbuch (pp. 254–267).
Konstanz: UVK.
Kovach, B.; Rosenstiel, T. (1999). Warp Speed: America in the Age of Mixed Media.
New York: Century Foundation Press.
Lamnek, Siegfried (1993). Qualitative Sozialforschung. Second Edition. Wein-
heim: Beltz.
Lash, Scott; Urry, John (1994). Economies of Signs and Space. London, Thousand
Oaks, CA/ New Delhi: Sage.
Lasica, J.D. (1996). ‘Net Gain: Future of the News on the Internet’. American
Journalism Review 18(9), 20–33.
Lasica, J.D. (2003). ‘Blogs and Journalism Need Each Other’. Nieman Reports 57,
70–74.
Lawrence, R. (2000). The Politics of Force: Media and the Construction of Police
Brutality. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Lee-Wright, Peter (2008). ‘Virtual News: BBC News at a ‘Future Media and Tech-
nology’ Crossroads’. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into
New Media Technologies 14(3), 249–260.
Lévy, Pierre (1997). Collective Intelligence. Cambridge: Perseus.
252 Bibliography
Livingston, Steven; Bennett, W. Lance (2003). ‘Gatekeeping, Indexing, and Live-
Event News: Is Technology Altering the Construction of News?’ Political Com-
munication 20, 363–380.
Lovink, Geert (2008). Zero Comments. Blogging and the Critical Internet Cul-
ture. New York/London: Routledge.
Luhmann, Niklas (1995). Social Systems. Translated by John Bednarz Jr with Dirk
Baecker. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Luhmann, Niklas (2000). The Reality of the Mass Media. Translated by Kathleen
Cross. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Luyendijk, Joris (2009). People Like Us: Misrepresenting the Middle East. New
York: Soft Skull Press.
Marshall, David P. (2004). New Media Cultures. London: Arnold.
Marvin, Carolyn (1988). When Old Technologies Were New: Thinking About
Electric Communication in the Late Nineteenth Century. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Matheson, Donald (2004). ‘Weblogs and the Epistemology of the News: Some
Trends in Online Journalism’. New Media & Society 6(4), 443–468.
Mattelart, Armand (1979). Multinational Corporations and the Control of Culture:
The Ideological Apparatuses of Imperialism. Translated by Michael Chanan.
Brighton, Sussex: Harvester Press; Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.
Mäkinen, Maarit; Wangu Kuira, Mary (2008). ‘Social Media and Postelection Cri-
sis in Kenya’. The International Journal of Press/Politics 13(3), 328–335.
McChesney, Robert W. (1998). ‘Media Convergence and Globalization’. In Daya
Kishan Thussu (ed) Electronic Empires. Global Media and local resistance (pp.
27–46). London/New York/Sydney/Auckland: Arnold.
McCombs, Maxwell E.; Shaw, Donald L. (1972). ‘The Agenda-Setting Function of
Mass Media’. Public Opinion Quarterly 36, 176–187.
McCombs, Maxwell (2005). ‘A Look at Agenda-setting: Past, Present and Future’.
Journalism Studies 6(4), 543–557.
McLuhan, Marshall (1962). The Gutenberg Galaxy. The Making of Typographic
Man. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
McLuhan, Marshall (1964). Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
McNair, Brian (1998). The Sociology of Journalism. London/New York/Sydney/
Auckland: Arnold.
McNair, Brian (2005). ‘The Emerging Chaos of Global News Culture’. In Stuart Allan
(ed) Journalism: Critical Issues (pp. 151–163). Berkshire: Open University Press.
McNair, Brian (2006). Cultural Chaos. Journalism, News and Power in a Globa-
lised World. London/New York: Routledge.
Meyer, Philip (2002). ‘Journalism’s Road to Becoming a Profession’. Nieman
Reports Winter, 107–108.
Meyrowitz, Joshua (1985). No Sense of Place: The Impact of Electronic Media on
Social Behavior. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Meuser, Michael; Nagel, Ulrike (2003). ‘Experteninterview’. In Ralf Bohnsack;
Winfried Marotzki; Michael Meuser (eds) Hauptbegriffe Qualitativer Sozial-
forschung (pp. 57–58). Opladen: Leske und Budrich.
Mikos, Lothar; Wegener, Claudia (eds) (2005). Qualitative Medienforschung. Ein
Handbuch. Konstanz: UVK.
Mosco, Vincent (2004). The Digital Sublime. Myth, Power, and Cyberspace. Cam-
bridge/London: MIT Press.
Moyo, Dumisani (2009). ‘Citizen Journalism and the Parallel Market of Informa-
tion in Zimbabwe’s 2008 Election’. Journalism Studies 10(4), 551–567.
Nerone, J.C. (1987). ‘The Mythology of the Penny Press’. Critical Studies in Mass
Communication 4, 376–404.
Bibliography 253
Nerone, John (1990). ‘The Problem of Teaching Journalism History’. Educator,
Autumn, 16–24.
Negroponte, Nicholas (1995). Being Digital. New York: Knopf.
Norris, Pippa (2001). Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty,
and the Internet Worldwide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Norris, Pippa (2004). ‘The Digital Divide’. In Frank Webster (ed) The Information
Society Reader (pp. 273–286). London/New York: Routledge.
Nyamnjoh, Francis B. (2004). ‘Global and Local Trends in Media Ownership and
Control: Implications for Cultural Creativity in Africa’. In W. Van Binsbergen;
R. Van Dijk (eds) Situating Globality: African Agency in the Appropriation of
Global Culture (pp. 57–89). Leiden/Boston: Brill.
Nye, David E. (1997). ‘Shaping Communication Networks: Telegraph, Telephone,
Computer’. Social Research 64(3), 1067–1091.
Örnebring, Henrik (2009). ‘Comparative European Journalism: The State of Cur-
rent Research’. Working Paper. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.
Retrieved January 10, 2010 from: http://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/publi-
cations/risj-working-papers.html.
Opel, Andrew; Pompper, Donnalyn (eds) (2003). Representing Resistance: Media,
Civil Disobedience, and the Global Justice Movement. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Ostini, Jennifer; Fung, Anthony Y.H. (2002). ‘Beyond the Four Theories of the
Press: A New Model of National Media Systems’. Mass Communication &
Society 5(1), 41–56.
O’Sullivan, Tim; Dutton, Brian; Rayner, Philip (1994). Studying the Media: An
Introduction. London: Arnold.
The Oxford English Dictionary (1989). Second Edition. Volume X. Prepared by
J.A. Simpson and E.S.C. Weiner. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Palmer, Michael (2003). ‘Parisian Newsrooms in the Late Nineteenth Century:
How to Enter from the Agency Back Office, or Inventing News Journalism in
France’. Journalism Studies 4(4), 479–487.
Palmer, Jerry; Fontan, Victoria (2007). ‘‘Our Ears and our Eyes’: Journalists and
Fixers in Iraq’. Journalism 8(1), 5–24.
Paulussen, Steve; Ugille, Peter (2008). ‘User Generated Content in the Newsroom:
Professional and Organisational Constraints on Participatory Journalism’.
Westminster Papers in Communication and Culture 5(2), 24–41.
Pavlik, John (2000). ‘The Impact of Technology on Journalism’. Journalism Stud-
ies 1(2), 229–237.
Picard, Robert G. (2009). Why Journalists Deserve Low Pay. Address at the
Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism Weekly Seminar, May 6, 2010.
Retrieved January 10, 2010 from: http://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/fel-
lowships/visiting/current-visiting-fellows/robert-g-picard.html.
Pintak, Lawrence; Ginges, Jeremy (2009). ‘Inside the Arab Newsroom. Arab Jour-
nalists Evaluate Themselves and the Competition’. Journalism Studies 10(2),
157–177.
Powell, Adam Clayton III (2003). ‘Satellites, the Internet, and Journalism’. In Kevin
Kawamoto (ed) Digital Journalism. Emerging Media and the Changing Hori-
zons of Journalism (pp. 103–112). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Putnis, Peter (2006). ‘How the International News Agency Business Model Failed—
Reuters in Australia, 1877–1895’. Media History 12(1), 1–17.
Raboy, Marc (ed) (2002). Global Media Policy in the New Millennium. Luton:
Luton University Press.
Rantanen, Terhi (2003). ‘The New Sense of Place in the 19th-Century News’.
Media, Culture & Society 25(4), 435–449.
Raymond, Joad (1996). The Invention of the Newspaper. English Newsbooks
1641–1649. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
254 Bibliography
Raymond, Joad (ed) (2006). News Networks in Seventeenth-Century Britain and
Europe. London/New York: Routledge.
Read, Donald (1999). The Power of News. The History of Reuters. Second Edi-
tion. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
Reese, Stephen D.; Routigliano, Lou; Hyun, Kideuk; Jeong, Jaekwan (2007). ‘Map-
ping the Blogosphere: Professional and Citizen-based Media in the Global News
Arena’. Journalism 8(3), 235–261.
Regan, Tom (2000). ‘Technology is Changing Journalism. Just As it Always Has’.
Nieman Reports, Winter, 6–9.
Reich, Zvi (2008). ‘How Citizens Create News Stories’. Journalism Studies 9(5),
739–758.
Rich, Bryan (2001). ‘Digital Technology Could Lead Journalism Back to Its Roots’.
Nieman Notes 55(2), 90–91.
Ritzer, George (1996). The McDonaldization of Society: An Investigation into the
Changing Character of Contemporary Social Life. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine
Forge Press.
Riverbend (2005). Baghdad Burning: Girl Blog from Iraq. New York: The Femi-
nist Press at CUNY.
Riverbend (2006). Baghdad Burning II. More Girl Blog from Iraq. New York: The
Feminist Press at CUNY.
Roberts, Brian (2007). Getting the Most Out of the Research Experience. What
Every Researcher Needs to Know. Los Angeles/London/New Delhi/Singapore:
Sage.
Robertson, Roland (1992). Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture. Lon-
don/Newbury Park/New Delhi: Sage.
Robertson, Roland (1995). ‘Glocalization: Time-Space and Homogeneity-Het-
erogeneity’. In Mike Featherstone; Scott Lash; Roland Robertson (eds) Global
Modernities (pp. 25–44). London/Thousand Oaks, CA/New Delhi: Sage.
Robins, Kevin (1991). ‘Tradition and Translation: National Culture in its Global
Context’. In John Corner; Sylvia Harvey (eds) Enterprise and Heritage: Cross-
Currents of National Culture (pp. 21–44). London/New York: Routledge.
Robinson, Piers (2002). The CNN Effect: The Myth of News, Foreign Policy and
Intervention. London/New York: Routledge.
Rosenau, James N. (1990). Turbulence in World Politics: A Theory of Change and
Continuity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Sakr, Naomi (ed) (2007). Arab Media and Political Renewal. Community, Legiti-
macy, and Public Life. London/New York: I.B. Tauris.
Schiller, Dan (1982). Telematics and Government. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Schiller, Dan (1999). Digital Capitalism. Networking in the Global Market Sys-
tem. Cambridge/London: MIT Press.
Schiller, Herbert (1976). Communication and Cultural Domination. White Plains,
NY: International Arts and Sciences Press.
Schiller, Herbert (1984). ‘New Information Technologies and Old Objectives’. Sci-
ence and Public Policy 12, 382–383.
Schiller, Herbert (1998). ‘Striving for Communication Dominance. A Half-cen-
tury Review’. In Daya Kishan Thussu (ed) Electronic Empires. Global Media
and Local Resistance (pp. 17–26). London/New York/Sydney/Auckland:
Arnold.
Schmitz Weiss, Amy; Higgins Joyce, Vanessa de Macedo (2009). ‘Compressed
Dimensions in Digital Media Occupations: Journalists in Transformation’.
Journalism 10(5), 587–603.
Schoenbach, Klaus; de Waal, Ester; Lauf, Edmund (2005). ‘Research Note: Online
and Print Newspapers. Their Impact on the Extent of the Perceived Public
Agenda’. European Journal of Communication 20(2), 245–258.
Bibliography 255
Schroeder, Ralph (2007). Rethinking Science, Technology, and Social Change.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Schudson, Michael (1978). Discovering the News. A Social History of American
Newspapers. New York: Basic Books.
Schudson, Michael (1995). The Power of News. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.
Schudson, Michael (2003). The Sociology of News. New York/London: W.W. Nor-
ton & Company.
Seib, Philip (2002). The Global Journalist. News and Conscience in a World of
Conflict. Lanham/Boulder/New York/Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield.
Seib, Philip (2004). Beyond the Front Lines. How the News Media Cover the
World Shaped by War. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Seidman, Irving (2006). Interviewing as Qualitative Research. A Guide for
Researchers in Education and the Social Sciences. Third Edition. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Shirky, Clay (2008). Here Comes Everybody. The Power of Organizing without
Organizations. New York: Penguin.
Siebert, Fred S.; Peterson, Theodore; Schramm, Wilbur (1956). Four Theories of
the Press. The Authoritarian, Libertarian, Social Responsibility and Soviet
Communist Concepts of What the Press Should Be and Do. Urbana: University
of Illinois Press.
Sigal, Leon V. (1973). Reporters and Officials: The Organization and Politics of
Newsgathering. Lexington, MA: Heath.
Silcock, William B.; Keith, Susan (2006). ‘Translating the Tower of Babel? Issues
of Defi nition, Language, and Culture in Converged Newsrooms’. Journalism
Studies 7(4), 610–627.
Sinclair, John (2004). ‘Globalization, Supranational Institutions, and Media’. In
John D.H. Downing; Denis McQuail; Philip Schlesinger; Ellen Wartella (eds)
The SAGE Handbook of Media Studies (pp. 65–82). London/Thousand Oaks,
CA/New Delhi: Sage.
Singer, Jane B. (1998). ‘Online Journalists: Foundations for Research Into Their Chang-
ing Roles. In The Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 4(1). Retrieved
December 10, 2010, from: http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol4/issue1/singer.html
Singer, Jane B. (2004). ‘Strange Bedfellows: Diffusion of Convergence in Four
News Organizations’. Journalism Studies 5(1), 3–18.
Smethers, Stephen (1998). ‘Telegraph’. In Margaret A. Blanchard (ed) History of
the Mass Media in the United States: An Encyclopedia (pp. 634–636). Chicago:
Fitzroy Dearbor.
Smith, Anthony (1978). ‘The Long Road to Objectivity and Back Again: The Kinds
of Truth we get in Journalism’. In George Boyce; James Curran; Pauline Wing-
ate (eds) Newspaper History: From the 17th Century to the Present Day (pp.
153–171). London/Constable/Beverly Hills: Sage.
Sosale, Sujatha (2003). ‘Envisioning a New World Order Through Journalism: Les-
sons from Recent History’. Journalism 4(3), 377–392.
Stalder, Felix (1998). ‘The Network Paradigm: Social Formations in the Age of
Information’. The Information Society 14, 301–308.
Standage, Tom (1998). The Victorian Internet. The Remarkable Story of the Tele-
graph and the Nineteenth Century’s Online Pioneers. London: Phoenix.
Stanton, Richard C. (2007). All News is Local. The Failure of the Media to Reflect
World Events in a Globalized Age. Jefferson, NC/London: McFarland & Company.
Starr, Paul (2004). The Creation of the Media: Political Origins of Modern Com-
munications. New York: Basic Books.
Stephens, Mitchell (2007). A History of News. Third Edition. New York/Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
256 Bibliography
Sterne, Jonathan (1999). ‘Thinking the Internet: Cultural Studies versus the Mil-
lennium’. In Steve Jones (ed) Doing Internet Research: Critical Issues and Meth-
ods for Examining the Net (pp. 257–288). London: Sage.
Stover, John F. (1961). American Railroads. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Straubhaar, Joseph D. (2007). World Television. From Global to Local. Los Ange-
les/London/New Delhi, Singapore: Sage.
Sunstein, Cass R. (2009). Republic.com 2.0. Princeton, NJ/Oxford: Princeton Uni-
versity Press.
Surowiecki, James (2005). The Wisdom of Crowds. New York: Anchor Books.
Tapscott, Don; Williams, Anthony D. (2008). Wikinomics. How Mass Collabora-
tion Changes Everything. Expanded Edition. London: Atlantic Books.
Thorburn, David; Jenkins, Henry (eds) (2003). Rethinking Media Change. The
Aesthetics of Transition. Cambridge/London: MIT Press.
Thurman, Neil (2008). ‘Forums for Citizen Journalists? Adoption of User Gener-
ated Content Initiatives by Online News Media’. New Media & Society 10(1),
139–157.
Thussu, Daya Kishan (ed) (1998). Electronic Empires. Global Media and Local
Resistance. London/New York/Sydney/Auckland: Arnold.
Thussu, Daya Kishan (2000). International Communication: Continuity and
Change. London: Arnold.
Toffler, Alvin (1971). Future Shock. London: Pan.
Tomlinson, John (1999). Globalization and Culture. Oxford: Polity Press.
Tomlinson, John (2007). The Culture of Speed. The Coming of Immediacy. Lon-
don/New Delhi/Singapore/Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Urry, John (2003). Global Complexity. Malden, MA: Polity.
van Dijk, Jan (1999). The Network Society: Social Aspects of New Media. Lon-
don/Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
van Dijk, Jan (2004). ‘Digital Media’. In John D.H. Downing; Denis McQuail;
Philip Schlesinger; Ellen Wartella (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Media Studies
(pp.145–163). London/Thousand Oaks/New Delhi: Sage.
van Dijk, Jan (2005). The Deepening Divide: Inequality in the Information Soci-
ety. London: Sage.
van Dijk, Jan (2006). The Network Society: Social Aspects of New Media. Second
edition. London/Thousand Oaks/New Delhi: Sage.
Volkmer, Ingrid (1999). News in the Global Sphere: A Study of CNN and its
Impact on Global Communication. Luton: University of Luton Press.
Volkmer, Ingrid (2003). ‘The Global Network Society and the Global Public
Sphere’. Development 46(1), 9–16.
Volkmer, Ingrid (2004). ‘Im Zeitalter der weltweiten Vernetzung—Neue Her-
ausforderungen fuer die Oeffentlich-Rechtlichen’. In Peter Christian Hall (ed)
Die Krise des Medienmarktes. Geld—Strukturen—Standards (pp. 209–219).
Mainz, Germany: Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen (Mainzer Tage der Fernseh-
Kritik; 36).
Volkmer, Ingrid (2005). ‘News in the Global Public Space’. In Stuart Allan (ed)
Journalism, Critical Issues (pp. 357–369). Berkshire: Open University Press.
Volkmer, Ingrid (ed) (2006). News In Public Memory: An International Study of
Media Memories across Nations. New York: Lang.
Volkmer, Ingrid (2007). ‘Governing the “Spatial Reach”? Spheres of Influence and
Challenges to Global Media Policy’. International Journal of Communication
1, 56–73.
Volkmer, Ingrid; Heinrich, Ansgard (2008). ‘CNN and Beyond: Journalism in a
Globalized Network Sphere’. In Jane Chapman; Marie Kinsey (eds) Broadcast
Journalism: A Critical Introduction (pp. 49–57). London: Routledge.
Waisbord, Silvio (2004). ‘Media and the Reinvention of the Nation’. In John D.H.
Downing; Denis McQuail; Philip Schlesinger; Ellen Wartella (eds) The SAGE
Bibliography 257
Handbook of Media Studies (pp. 375–392). London/Thousand Oaks, CA/New
Delhi: Sage.
Wall, Melissa A. (2003). ‘Social Movements and the Net: Activist Journalism Goes
Digital’. In Kevin Kawamoto (ed) Digital Journalism. Emerging Media and the
Changing Horizons of Journalism (pp. 113–122). Lanham, MD: Rowman &
Littlefield.
Wall, Melissa (2005). ‘“Blogs of War”. Weblogs as news’. Journalism 6(2), 153–
172.
Wardle, Claire; Williams, Andrew (2008). ugc@thebbc. Understanding its Impact
upon Contributors, Non-contributors and BBC News. Cardiff University
Report to the BBC Knowledge Exchange Programme and the Arts and Humani-
ties Research Council, 16 September 2008. Retrieved January 10, 2010 from:
www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/knowledgeexchange/cardiffone.pdf.
Watts, Duncan J. (2003). Six Degrees. The Science of a Connected Age. New York/
London: W.W. Norton & Company.
Weaver, David (ed) (1998). The Global Journalist: News People Around the World.
Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Webster, Frank (2002). Theories of the Information Society. Second Edition. Lon-
don/New York: Routledge.
Webster, Frank (ed) (2004). The Information Society Reader. London/New York:
Routledge.
Wegener, Claudia; Mikos, Lothar (2005). ‘Wie lege ich eine Studie an?’ In Lothar
Mikos; Claudia Wegener (eds) Qualitative Medienforschung. Ein Handbuch
(pp. 172–180). Konstanz: UVK.
Weinberger, David (2007). Everything is Miscellaneous. New York: Times Books.
Weiss, Robert (1994). Learning from Strangers. The Art and Method of Qualita-
tive Interview Studies. New York: The Free Press.
Weischenberg, Siegfried; Scholl, Armin (1998). Journalismus in der Gesellschaft:
Theorie, Methodologie und Empirie. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Williams, Kevin (2006). ‘Roundtable Discussion of Martin Conboy’s “Journalism:
A Critical History”, London: Sage, 2004’. Media History 12(3), 336–342.
Willmore, Larry (2002). ‘Government Policies Toward Information and Commu-
nication Technologies: A Historical Perspective’. Journal of Information Sci-
ence 28(2), 89–98.
Winston, Brian (1998). Media Technology and Society. A History: From the Tele-
graph to the Internet. London/New York: Routledge.
Zelizer, Barbie; Allan, Stuart (eds) (2002). Journalism After September 11. New
York/London: Routledge.
ONLINE SOURCES
Allbritton, Christopher (2010). ‘About’. Insurgencywatch. Published online (no

date), retrieved April 10, 2010: http://insurgencywatch.com/about/.
Amin, Salim (2007). ‘Voice of Africa a Vision of Hope for Continent’. The Sydney
Morning Herald Online. Published online August 27, retrieved July 24, 2010:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/voice-of-africa-a-vision-of-hope-for-co
ntinent/2007/08/26/1188066939921.html.
BBC News (author unknown) (2008). ‘Accounts from Lhasa and Beyond’. BBC
News. Published online March 18, retrieved July 24, 2010: http://news.bbc.
co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7302319.stm.
BBC News (author unknown) (2008). ‘BBC Website ‘Unblocked in China’’. BBC
News. Published online March 25, retrieved July 24, 2010: http://news.bbc.
co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7312240.stm.
258 Bibliography
BBC News (author unknown, quote Nikolas Macko) (2007). ‘Student Describes
Shooting Spree’. BBC News. Published online April 16, retrieved July 24, 2010:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/6561733.stm.
BBC Press Office (2008). ‘Live Report: BBC Russian Launches New Blogging Com-
munity on LiveJournal.com’. BBC News. Published online April 21, retrieved
July 24, 2010: http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2008/04_
april/21/russian.shtml.
Beaumont, Claudine (2009). ‘New York Plane Crash. Twitter Breaks the News,
Again’. Telegraph.co.uk. Published online January 16, retrieved July 24, 2010:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/twitter/4269765/New-York-plane-
crash-Twitter-breaks-the-news-again.html.
BILDblog (2008). ‘YouTube überfuehrt “BILD-Leser-Reporter”’. BILDblog. Pub-
lished online May 3, retrieved July 24, 2010: http://www.bildblog.de/2943/
youtube-ueberfuehrt-bild-leser-reporter.
Blood, Rebecca (2004). ‘A Few Thoughts on Journalism and What Can Weblogs
Do About It’. Rebecca’s Pocket. Published online April 15, retrieved July 24,
2010: http://www.rebeccablood.net/essays/what_is_journalism.html.
Bösch, Marcus (2008). ‘Tibet 2.0—Blogger berichten aus dem Krisengebiet’.
Deutsche Welle Online. Published online March 17, retrieved July 24, 2010:
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,3198777,00.html.
Bunz, Mercedes (2010). ‘BBC Teams Up with Citizen Journalists’ Network Global
Voices’. Guardian.co.uk PDA The Digital Content Blog. Published online
March 9, retrieved July 24, 2010: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/pda/2010/
mar/09/blogging-digital-media.
Carr, Nicholas (2005). ‘The Amorality of Web 2.0’. Rough Type. Published online
October 3, retrieved July 24, 2010: http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2005/10/
the_amorality_o.php.
Carr, Nicholas (2007). ‘Twitter Dot Dash’. RoughType. Published online March
18, retrieved July 24, 2010: http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2007/03/the_
telegraph_o.php.
Catt, Dan; Pickard, Meg (2010). ‘What’s Hot? Introducing Zeitgeist’. Inside
Guardian.co.uk Blog. Published online February 3, retrieved July 24, 2010:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/insideguardian/2010/feb/03/zeitgeist.
Cohn, David (2007). ‘Network Journalism Versus Citizen Journalism Versus the
Myriad of Other Names for Social Media in the News World’. Newassignment.
Published online September 6, retrieved July 24, 2010: http://www.newassign-
ment.net/blog/david_cohn/sep2007/06/network_journali.
Conde, Mara (2010). ‘BBC and Global Voices Announce Partnership’. Editor-
sweblog.org. Published online March 9, retrieved July 24, 2010: http://www.
editorsweblog.org/newsrooms_and_journalism/2010/03/bbc_and_global_
voices_announce_partnersh.php.
Cyberjournalist.net (author unknown) (2007). ‘Press Release: CNN to Launch User-
Generated Video Show On-Air’. Cyberjournalist.net. Published online May 14,
retrieved July 24, 2010: http://www.cyberjournalist.net/news/004204.php.
Drudge Report (2008). ‘Prince Harry Fights On Frontlines In Afghanistan’.
Drudge Report. Published online February 28, retrieved July 24, 2010:
http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2008/02/28/20080228_164320_
fl ashph.htm.
Dyer, Geoff (2008). ‘Monks’ Tibet Protest Gives Voice to Anger’. FinancialTimes.
com. Published online March 27, retrieved April 01, 2008: http://www.ft.com/
cms/s/0/3c19875a-fbf8-11dc-9229-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1.
Facebook Press Room (2010). Statistics. Published online (no date), retrieved July
24, 2010: http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics.
Friedman, Jon (2008). ‘Prince Harry Blackout Sets a Bad Media Prec-
edent’. Marketwatch. Published online March 5, retrieved July 24,
Bibliography 259
2010: ht tp: //w w w.market watch.com /news /stor y/prince-harr y-black-
o u t - s e t s - b a d / s t o r y. a s p x ? g u i d = 9 D 9 14 3 7 9 - E 9 4 E - 4 B 4 8 - B 2 E F -11 -
D7042A1895&dist=SecMostRead.
Frontline (2008). ‘Growing Up Online’. Documentary. PBS.org. Airdate January
22, 2008. Published online, retrieved July 24, 2010: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/
pages/frontline/kidsonline/.
Fulton, Kate (1996). ‘A Tour of Our Uncertain Future’. Columbia Journalism
Review. Published online March/April 1996, retrieved March 27, 2008: http://
backissues.cjrarchives.org/year/96/2/tour.asp.
Gardham, Duncan (2008). ‘Matt Drudge Expresses No Regret For Prince Harry
Report’. Telegraph.co.uk. Published online March 01, retrieved July 24,
2010: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/29/
wdrudge229.xml.
Gorman, Steve (2007). ‘Al Gore Collects Interactive Emmy for Current TV’. Reu-
ters.com. Published online September 17, retrieved July 24, 2010: http://www.
reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSN1341763520070917.
Harnden, Toby (2008). ‘Matt Drudge: World’s Most Powerful Journalist’. Tele-
graph.co.uk. Published online March 03, retrieved July 24, 2010: http://www.
telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/28/wdrudge128.xml.
Herrmann, Steve (2010). ‘SuperPower: BBC and Global Voices’. BBC News. The
Editors. Published online March 8, retrieved July 24, 2010: http://www.bbc.
co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2010/03/superpower_bbc_and_global_voic.html.
Horrigan, John (2006). ‘More Americans Turn to the Internet for News about
Politics’. Report published by the Pew Internet & American Life Project. Pewin-
ternet.org. Published online September 20, retrieved July 24, 2010: http://www.
pewinternet.org/PPF/r/187/report_display.asp.
Horrocks, Peter (2007). ‘Multimedia News’. BBC News. The Editors. Published
online November 12, retrieved July 24, 2010: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/
theeditors/2007/11/multimedia_news.html.
Horrocks, Peter (2010). ‘BBC’s SuperPower Season’. BBC News. The Editors. Pub-
lished online March 8, retrieved July 24, 2010: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/
theeditors/2010/03/bbcs_superpower_season.html.
Horowitz, Bradley (2006). Creators, Synthesizers, and Consumers, Elatable. Pub-
lished online February 16, retrieved July 24, 2010: http://blog.elatable.com/
search?q=creators+synthesizers.
Howe, Jeff (2006). ‘The Rise of Crowdsourcing’. Wired. Published online June,
retrieved July 24, 2010: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.06/crowds.
html.
International Herald Tribune/Associated Press (2008). ‘China Slams Foreign
Media while Restricting Access to Tibet’. International Herald Tribune. Pub-
lished online March 19, retrieved April 01, 2008: http://www.iht.com/articles/
ap/2008/03/19/asia/AS-GEN-China-Tibet-Media.php.
Jarvis, Jeff (2006). ‘Networked Journalism’. BuzzMachine. Published online July 5,
retrieved July 24, 2010: http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/07/05/networked-
journalism/.
Karp, Scott (2008a). ‘How Link Journalism Could Have Transformed The New
York Times reporting On McCain Ethics’. Publishing2.0. Published online
February 25, retrieved July 24, 2010: http://publishing2.com/2008/02/25/how-
link-journalism-could-have-transformed-the-new-york-times-reporting-on-mc-
cain-ethics/.
Karp, Scott (2008b). ‘How Networked Link Journalism Can Give Journalists
Collectively the Power of Google and Digg’. Publishing2.0. Published online
February 29, retrieved July 24, 2010: http://publishing2.com/2008/02/29/
how-networked-link-journalism-can-give-journalists-collectively-the-power-
of-google-and-digg/.
260 Bibliography
Kiss, Jemima (2008). ‘China ‘unblocks’ BBC news Site’. Guardian.co.uk. Pub-
lished online March 25, retrieved July 24, 2010: http://www.guardian.co.uk/
media/2008/mar/25/digitalmedia.chinathemedia.
Kleinz, Thorsten (2008). ‘Zensierte Hoffnung’. ZEIT ONLINE. Published online
March 18, retrieved July 24, 2010: http://www.zeit.de/online/2008/12/tibet-
zensur-internet?page=all.
Lemann, Nicholas (2006). ‘Amateur Hour: Journalism without Journalists’. The
New Yorker. Published online August 07, retrieved July 24, 2010: http://www.
newyorker.com/archive/2006/08/07/060807fa_fact1.
Lenhart, Amanda; Purcell, Kristen; Smith, Aaron; Zickuhr, Kathryn (2010). ‘Social
Media and Young Adults’. Report published by the Pew Internet & American Life
Project. Pewinternet.rg. Published online February 3, retrieved July 24, 2010: http://
www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Social-Media-and-Young-Adults.aspx.
Mayfield, Antony (2008). ‘Network Journalism: What’s in a Word?’ TypePad.
Published online July 08, retrieved July 24, 2010: http://open.typepad.com/
open/2006/07/network_journal.html.
McCarthy, Rory (2003). ‘Salam’s Story’. Guardian.co.uk. Published online May
30, retrieved July 24, 2010: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/may/30/
iraq.digitalmedia.
McMahon, Barbara; Brown, Maggie; Dowling, Tim (2008). ‘Apology for Royal
Scoop of the Year’. Guardian.co.uk. Published online March 17, retrieved July
24, 2010: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/mar/10/pressandpublishing.
television.
New York Times/Associated Press (2008). ‘China Blocks YouTube After Videos
of Tibet Protests Are Posted’. New York Times. Published online March 17,
retrieved December 20, 2010: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/17/business/
media/17youtube.html?scp=3&sq=china%20blocks%20youtube&st=cse.
PEW Research Center For The People & The Press (multiple authors) (2009). Press
Accuracy Rating Hits Two Decade Low. Survey report published by the Pew
Research Center for the People & the Press. Published Online September 13,
retrieved July 24, 2010: http://people-press.org/report/543/.
Pierce, Andrew (2008). ‘Prince Harry Fighting Taliban in Afghanistan’. Telegraph.
co.uk. Published online March 1, retrieved July 24, 2010: http://www.telegraph.
co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/29/nharry129.xml.
Project for Excellence in Journalism (multiple authors) (2008a). ‘Audience’. The
State of the News Media 2008. An Annual Report on American Journalism.
Published online, retrieved July 24, 2010: http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.
com/2008/narrative_overview_audience.php?cat=3&media=1.
Project for Excellence in Journalism (multiple authors) (2008b). ‘News Investment’.
The State of the News Media 2008. An Annual Report on American Journal-
ism. Published online, retrieved July 24, 2010: http://www.stateofthenewsme-
dia.com/2008/narrative_cabletv_newsinvestment.php?cat=5&media=7.
Project for Excellence in Journalism (multiple authors) (2010a). ‘Nielsen Analysis’.
The State of the News Media 2010. An Annual Report on American Jour-
nalism. Published online, retrieved July 23, 2010: http://www.stateofthemedia.
org/2010/online_nielsen.php.
Project for Excellence in Journalism (multiple authors) (2010b). The State of the
News Media. An Annual Report on American Journalism. Published online,
retrieved July 24, 2010: http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2010/index.php.
Purcell, Kristen; Rainie, Lee; Mitchell, Amy; Rosenstiel, Tom; Olmstead, Kenny
(2010). Understanding the Participatory News Consumer. How Internet and
Cell Phone Users Have Turned News into a Social Experience. Report pub-
lished by the Pew Internet & American Life Project. Published online in March,
Bibliography 261
retrieved July 24, 2010: http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Online-
News.aspx.
Radio Television Digital News Association (author and publication date unknown).
Social Media and Blogging Guidelines. Retrieved July 24, 2010: http://www.
rtdna.org/pages/media_items/social-media-and-blogging-guidelines1915.
php?g=37?id=1915.
Reuters Handbook of Journalism (author unknown) (2008). Social Media Guide-
lines. Published in April, retrieved July 24, 2010: http://handbook.reuters.com/
index.php/Reporting_from_the_internet#Social_media_guidelines.
Rice, Anita (2004). ‘Baghdad Blogger: ‘Elections Our Only Hope’’. BBC News,
Published online October 12, retrieved July 24, 2010: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/
hi/programmes/newsnight/3733104.stm.
Robinson, James (2008). ‘On screen, Online and on the Airwaves: BBC News
Comes Together’. Guardian.co.uk. Published online April 20, retrieved July 24,
2010: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/apr/20/bbc.television.
Rosen, Jay (2005). ‘Bloggers vs. Journalists is Over’. Pressthink. Published online
January 21, retrieved July 24, 2010: http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/
weblogs/pressthink/2005/01/21/berk_essy.html.
Rosen, Jay (2006). ‘The People Formerly Known as the Audience’. Pressthink. Pub-
lished online June 27, retrieved July 24, 2010: http://journalism.nyu.edu/pub-
zone/weblogs/pressthink/2006/06/27/ppl_frmr.html.
Samuelson, Robert J. (2006). ‘A Web of Exhibitionists’. Washington Post. Pub-
lished online September 20, retrieved July 24, 2010: http://www.washington-
post.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/19/AR2006091901439.html.
Stabe, Martin (2008). ‘BBC News Opens Multi-platform Newsroom’. PressGa-
zette.co.uk. Published online April 24, retrieved July 24, 2010: http://www.
pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=40958&c=1.
Stelter, Brian (2010). ‘Honoring Citizen Journalists’. New York Times. Pub-
lished online February 21, retrieved July 24, 2010: http://www.nytimes.
com/2010/02/22/business/media/22polk.html?_r=2&ref=business.
Stillich, Sven (2003). ‘Wir müssen Hoffnung haben. Interview with Salam Pax’. Stern.
de. Published online October 13, retrieved December 10, 2010: http://www.stern.
de/digital/online/salam-pax-wir-muessen-hoffnung-haben-514341.html.
Stray, Jonathan (2010). ‘The Google/China Hacking case: How Many News
Outlets Do the Original Reporting on a Big Story? Nieman Journalism Lab.
Published online February 24, retrieved July 24, 2010: http://www.niemanlab.
org/2010/02/the-googlechina-hacking-case-how-many-news-outlets-do-the-
original-reporting-on-a-big-story/.
Sweney, Mark (2008). ‘China Blocks Media Due to Tibet Unrest”. Guardian.
co.uk. Published online March 17, retrieved July 24, 2010: http://www.guard-
ian.co.uk/media/2008/mar/17/chinathemedia.digitalmedia.
Sweney, Mark (2008). ‘Wikileaks Defies ‘Great Firewall of China’’. Guardian.
co.uk. Published online March 19, retrieved July 24, 2010: http://www.guard-
ian.co.uk/media/2008/mar/19/digitalmedia.tibet.
The Sydney Morning Herald (author unknown) (2006). ‘Kovco Died in ‘Gun
Bungle’’. Sydney Morning Herald. Published online December 01, retrieved
July 24, 2010: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/kovco-died-in-gun-
bungle/2006/12/01/1164777779394.html.
Watts, Jonathan (2008). ‘Tibetan Monks Disrupt Chinese Show of Stability’.
Guardian.co.uk. Published online March 28, retrieved July 24, 2010: http://
www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/28/tibet.china.
Wikileaks Press Release (2008). ‘Wikileaks Releases Over 150 Censored Videos
and Photos of the Tibet Uprising’. Wikileaks.org. Published online March 18,
262 Bibliography
retrieved July 24, 2010: http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Wikileaks_releases_
over_150_censored_videos_and_photos_of_the_Tibet_uprising.
Yahoo! News (2008). ‘What’s in Kevin’s Gearbag’. Yahoo.com. Published online
(date unknown), retrieved June 23, 2008: http://hotzone.yahoo.com/gear;_
ylt=AjWQ61YduyuDQzTQlgH.Il.LFMsF.
YouTube (2008). ‘Autos Brennen Hamburg Demo 1.Mai Polizei Demo Teil 1’. You-
Tube. Published online May 01, retrieved June 23, 2008: http://youtube.com/
watch?v=5ALYMaPU8Og.
WWW.MATERIAL: RESEARCH SAMPLE
AlterNet.org
http://www.alternet.org
Background information on AlterNet: http://www.alternet.org/about/
BBC News
http://www.bbc.co.uk
Background information on BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/historyofthebbc//
BBC Interactive ‘Have Your Say’: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/4784595.stm
‘Fleeing Iraq’: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/6176457.stm
‘Voices From Iraq’: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/02/voices_
from_iraq/html/default.stm
Current TV
http://current.com
Background information on Current TV: http://current.com/s/about.htm; http://
current.com/s/faq.htm
Democracy Now!
http://www.democracynow.org
Background information on Democracy Now!
http://www.democracynow.org/about/history
http://www.democracynow.org/about
Guardian.co.uk
http://guardian.co.uk
Background information on the Guardian Media Group: http://www.guardian.
co.uk/information/0,,711853,00.html; http://www.guardian.co.uk/information/
theguardian/story/0,,1038110,00.html; http://www.gmgplc.co.uk/; http://www.
guardian.co.uk/g24/0,,1820858,00.html
Guardian ‘Comment is Free’: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/index.html
Independent Media Center New York City

http://nyc.indymedia.org/en/index.html
Background information on Indymedia: http://www.indymedia.org/en/static/
about.shtml
http://docs.indymedia.org/view/Global/FrequentlyAskedQuestionEn
International Center for Journalists

http://www.icfj.org/index.html
Background information on ICFJ: http://www.icfj.org/AboutUs/tabid/202/Default.
aspx
Bibliography 263
ICFJ Manual ‘Fighting Words’: http://www.icfj.org/Resources/ManualFighting-
Words/tabid/425/Default.aspx
Background information IJNet: http://www.ijnet.org/Director.aspx?P=Home
MediaChannel.org
http://www.mediachannel.org
Background information on MediaChannel: http://www.mediachannel.org/word-
press/about/; http://www.mediachannel.org/wordpress/about/faq/
Ourmedia.org
http://ourmedia.org
Background information on Ourmedia: http://ourmedia.org//about
Ourmedia partner organizations: The Internet Archive: http://www.archive.org/
index.php
Outhink: http://www.outhink.com/
Revver: http://revver.com
Broadbandmechanics: http://www.broadbandmechanics.com/
Project for Excellence in Journalism PEJ

http://www.journalism.org
Background information PEJ: http://www.journalism.org/about_pej/about_us
PEW Research Center: http://pewresearch.org/
ZEIT ONLINE
http://www.zeit.de
Background information on ZEIT ONLINE: http://www.zeit.de/zeitverlag/zeit_
online; http://www.zeit.de/news/index
ZEIT ONLINE blogs mentioned: Blog ‘Herdentrieb’: http://blog.zeit.de/herden-
trieb/ Blog ‘Beruf Terrorist’: http://blog.zeit.de/bittner/
ADDITIONAL ONLINE REFERENCES
Alive In Baghdad: http://aliveinbaghdad.org/

Back to Iraq: http://www.back-to-iraq.com/
BILDBlog: http://www.bildblog.de
Blogs! Buch Blog / Blogbar: http://blogbar.de/index.php
Blogscope: http://www.blogscope.net/
BuzzMachine: http://www.buzzmachine.com
Center for Citizen Media: http://www.citmedia.org/
CNN I-Report: http://edition.cnn.com/exchange/ireports/spotlight.html
Cyberjournalist.Net: http://www.cyberjournalist.net/news/004204.php
Drudge Report: http://www.drudgereport.com
Globalvision: http://www.globalvision.org/
Global Voices: http://www.globalvoicesonline.org/
Healing Iraq: http://www.healingiraq.blogspot.com/
Indymedia: http://www.independentmedia.org/
InsurgencyWatch: http://www.insurgencywatch.com/
Journalism.co.uk: http://www.journalism.co.uk
Kevin Sites Blog: http://kevinsites.net
Livejournal: http://www.livejournal.com/
MediaShift: http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/
264 Bibliography
MoveOn.org: http://www.moveon.org/
MySpace: http://www.myspace.com/
Nielsen Net Ratings: http://en-us.nielsen.com/content/nielsen/en_us/product_fam-
ilies/nielsen_netratings.html
NowPublic: http://www.nowpublic.com/
NowPublic ‘Mumbai terror attacks’ coverage: http://www.nowpublic.com/tag/
mumbai
OneWorld.net: http://www.oneworld.net
OhMyNews International: http://english.ohmynews.com/
Publish2 Blog: http://blog.publish2.com
Riverbend Baghdad Burning: http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/
RoughType: http://www.roughtype.com/
Technorati: http://technorati.com/
TalkingPointsMemo: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com
Where is Raed?: http://dear_raed.blogspot.com/
Wikileaks.org: http://wikileaks.org/
Yahoo: ‘Kevin in the Hotzone’ http://hotzone.yahoo.com/
Index
A 163; source, 70, 74, 77, 78, 87,

ABC, 102, 244 132, 137, 161, 193, 195, 198,
accountability or accountable, 149, 204, 209, 212, 216, 229, 230;
150, 158–168, 180, 244n3 see also independent media
activist, 70, 71, 74, 80, 97, 99, 101, AlterNet, 10, 88, 92, 101, 102–103,
115, 158, 159, 161, 175, 209; 164, 165, 172, 178, 179, 216,
see also media activist 241n7
Afghanistan, 51, 69, 75, 76, 151, 159, Americanization, 16
185, 193, 203 Anderson, Benedict R., 65
Africa, 2, 9, 46, 68, 72, 191, 193, 194, Appadurai, Arjun, 8, 17, 18, 233n3,
196, 215, 219, 230 236n25
Agence France Press (AFP), 196, 237n2, Associated Press, (AP) 43–45, 46–50,
238n15 83, 140, 196, 203, 206, 237n2,
aggregation site or website, 52, 75, 238n11
77, 80, 92, 103; aggregate or Atton, Chris, 3, 98, 113, 230
aggregating information, 216, audience, 4, 5, 8, 19, 33, 41, 54, 57–59,
218, 219; news aggregator 101; 63, 65, 77–82, 90, 94, 103,
blogging aggregation platform, 109, 115, 127–132, 137, 139,
147 146, 153, 157, 159–161, 164,
agenda, 4, 48, 74, 76, 81, 99, 200, 203; 169–182, 187, 192, 199, 208,
setter, 49, 216; agenda-setting, 210, 214, 222, 226, 227; global,
5, 68, 69, 74–77, 84, 107; news, 4, 21, 66, 187, 199, 202; see
21, 28, 51, 68, 75, 104, 115, also user
116, 140, 186, 212
Agha-Soltan, Neda: see Neda B
Alive in Baghdad, 80, 202, 244n5 Back to Iraq, 203
Al Jazeera, 4, 18, 34, 239, 241, 244n1 backpack journalist, 1, 183, 187–193,
Allbritton, Christopher, 1, 80, 202, 203 194, 199, 202, 204, 226
alternative: journalism, 3, 188, 211, Bardoel Jo, 51, 56, 59, 60, 61, 62, 77,
230; media, 63, 92, 96, 98, 101, 78, 79
113, 121, 139, 145, 152, 159, Bardoel, Jo and Mark Deuze, 51, 56,
160–165, 208, 211, 219; news 59, 60, 61, 62, 77
deliverer, 52, 71, 116; news dis- BBC, 10, 18, 19, 57, 65, 70, 88, 92–94,
seminator, 166, 208, 210, 218; 113, 124, 125, 128–133, 141,
news or information provider, 151, 171, 174, 182, 189, 191–
10, 72, 91, 93, 121, 144, 138, 193, 196, 197–198, 202, 203,
204, 206, 209, 212, 229, 230; 210, 214, 216, 217, 219, 222,
news producer, 122, 167; news 224, 241nn7–10, 242nn2–3,
outlet, 89, 114, 116–118, 121, 244n6; BBC News Interactivity
266 Index
Desk, 92–94, 127–133, 142, 163, 165–167, 175, 183, 193,
171, 214, 224, 183, 193; Fleeing 196, 197, 200, 202, 204, 206,
Iraq, 204; Have your Say, 70, 208–210, 212–217, 219, 220,
93, 94, 107, 128, 171–172, 175, 221, 226, 227, 228–231; partici-
179; Iraqi Voices, 204 pation, 72, 73, 101
Beck, Ulrich, 8, 14, 16, 17, 21, 22, CNN, 18, 19, 34, 65, 66, 70, 77, 98,
233n3 102, 114, 115, 119, 122, 127,
Beckett, Charlie, 51, 56, 58, 62 133, 143, 183, 187, 203, 239n6,
Been There: see Guardian 244n1
Benkler, Yochai, 4, 5, 51, 52, 61, 81, Cohn, David ,56, 57, 61, 62
89, 238n3 collaboration, 5, 10, 54, 55, 82, 90,
BILDBlog, 165, 166 129, 131, 141, 142, 155, 177,
blog, the, 1, 56, 70, 71, 72, 79, 92, 193, 196, 197, 203, 204, 207–
107, 110, 112, 114, 117, 133, 231; collaborate or collabora-
135, 139, 141, 147–168, 172, tive, 47, 52, 57, 58, 59, 64, 78,
174–178, 187, 197, 202, 203, 84, 91, 107, 111, 132, 206
205, 209, 210, 217, 219, 227, Comment is free: see Guardian
231; weblog, 68, 72 connection: digital 2, 50, 74, 167, 183,
blogger, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 31, 33, 52, 188; global 28, 30, 36, 107, 213
55, 65, 70–72, 74, 80, 89, 91, connectivity, 2, 4, 7, 13, 14, 18, 19, 21,
118, 120, 124–126, 135, 138, 23–25, 27, 35, 37, 50, 52, 53,
141, 146, 147–168, 175, 177, 56, 64, 154; connectivity or con-
183, 193, 194, 196, 197, 199, nect (users) 120, 129, 141, 156,
200–202, 204–206, 208–210, 157, 174, 182; new or changing
212, 219, 220, 221, 228, 230; or transformed, 33, 34, 61–63,
blogging, 58, 137, 180, 213, 71, 77–80, 84, 93, 107
226; blogging guide, 106; blogo- consumer (of news), 6, 44, 53, 54, 65,
sphere, 56, 58, 147, 148, 150, 78, 80, 104, 107, 113, 119, 122,
157, 158, 162, 165, 166, 177, 132, 148, 160, 170–174, 176,
201, 211 180, 181, 234, 240; consump-
Boston Globe, 102, 167, 203 tion, 5, 60, 80, 81, 172, 174, 180
Boyd-Barrett, Oliver, 37, 42, 43, 47, convergence or converged, 3, 53, 60,
49, 53 90, 221–224; newsroom, 10,
Boxing Day tsunami, 4, 127, 128, 81, 82, 223; global culture, 16;
134–135, 187 media space, 61, 97
Bruns, Axel, 2, 52, 170 control: distributed to users, 53, 60;
editorial, 42; elite, 28; of infor-
C mation or news flows,50, 51,
Carey, James W., 36, 37, 42, 234n8 208, 228; loss of, 67, 68, 69, 70,
Castells, Manuel, 7, 9, 13, 15, 22–31, 73, 74, 76, 145, 154–155, 166;
51, 55, 62, 77, 80–82, 228, 231, mechanisms, 161, 165; over the
235nn18–20 telegraph, 45, 47, 48, 49; para-
CBS, 244n1 digm, 27, 28, 236; state, 71
celebrity TV, 171, 243n1 conversation (journalism as), 56, 57,
chaos, 31; chaos: of a global news cul- 120, 122, 149, 150, 154, 166,
ture, 28; of the digital age, 82; 169, 171, 174–179, 182, 198,
see also cultural chaos 212, 215; see also dialogue
China, 69, 70, 71, 93, 202, 213, 219, credibility, 118, 158–168, 172, 201,
237n4, 242n4 204, 219, 226, 231
citizen journalism or journalist, 2, 3, crossmedia: to work across media, 82,
4, 5, 31, 56–58, 61, 67, 70, 71, 87, 189, 191; analysis of, 90;
79, 89, 91, 96, 98, 99, 100, 101, competence, 81, reporter, 223;
105, 106, 107, 124, 125, 136, 82; skills, 221; across platforms,
138–146, 147, 152, 158–161, 173, 214, 225, 230
Index 267
crowdsourcing, 57, 130, 154, 177, 211, dissemination: information, 1, 33, 34,
217, 242n4 39, 55, 68, 69, 71, 78, 157, 161,
culture: global news, 7, 8, 27, 28, 29, 166, 173, 228; journalistic, 2,
79, 84; journalism or journalis- 7, 22, 31; knowledge, 6; news,
tic, 3, 4, 9, 10, 19, 20, 22, 28, 4, 6, 21, 35, 38, 49, 50, 52, 56,
29, 62, 83, 89, 91, 223; Arab 61, 68, 77, 79, 82, 87, 107–109,
journalism, 241; of real virtual- 113, 120, 171, 209, 215, 226,
ity, 24 228; modes, 8–10; platforms,
cultural: chaos, 3, 27, 29, 33; flows, 66; 76, 146, 219, 222, 224, 225;
economy, 18, 19; imperialism, technologies, 32, 139; produc-
16, 17, 234n9; production, 7, tion and, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 21, 22,
16, 19 31, 50, 52, 55, 56, 78, 79, 82,
Current TV, 10, 88, 92, 96, 99–101, 87, 91, 93, 107, 108, 120, 144,
142, 143, 144, 157, 159, 165, 173, 209, 214, 215, 226, 228
172, 176, 179, 183, 187, 189, Douglass, Frederick, 139, 242n7
190, 197, 204, 215, 217, 227, Drudge Report, 52, 75, 77, 239n8
241n7, 243n8
Cyberspace, 23, 24, 25, 26, 193, E
235n16, 236n21 Entman, Robert M., 75
D F
decentralization or decentralized, 4, 5, Facebook, 2, 54, 65, 72, 93, 94, 111,
21, 24, 29, 30, 32, 50, 51, 53, 117, 169, 180, 181, 217
55, 61, 63, 69, 76, 78, 84, 87, fact-checking, 53, 55, 68, 126, 148, 149,
98, 161, 161, 167, 207, 226, 161, 163, 164, 166, 177, 215
227, 229 Featherstone, Mike, 14, 17, 233n3
Democracy Now!, 10, 80, 88, 92, Featherstone, Mike and Scott Lash, 67
96–97, 109–111, 114–116, 123, Flickr, 72, 79
141, 189, 193, 222, 241n7 foreign correspondence or correspon-
Deuze, Mark, 3, 20, 28, 51, 56, 59–62, dent, 4, 65, 66–68, 70, 73, 74,
68–69, 77, 80–82, 222–223 80, 84, 111, 183–199, 200–202,
dialogue (journalism as), 58, 119, 226; foreign news, 42, 64–66,
166–167, 170–172, 174, 179; 183, 193, 194, 203–205; foreign
see also conversation reporting, 10, 21, 65, 66, 107,
Digg, 59 183, 184, 193, 198, 203, 206
digital: age, 3, 62, 77, 81–83, 170; foreign policy, 3, 97
camera, 4, 126, 203; capitalism, Four Theories of the Press, The, 28,
26; divide, 60, 68, 72, 236n24, 236n23
243n2; native, 180; space, 2, 53, Fox News, 158, 244n1
55, 72, 79, 152
digitalization, 2, 3, 23, 50, 62, 108, G
112, 183, 184; digitalization Garnham, Nicholas, 25, 26
(introduction to newsrooms), gatekeeping or gatekeeper, 5, 49, 52,
108–123 64, 67, 68, 69–74, 75–77, 84,
digital technology, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 13–15, 107, 114, 115, 117, 133, 212,
23, 28–30, 33–36, 53, 54, 56, 239n6, 240n11
59, 61, 67, 68, 70, 73, 74, 78, geography, new of journalism, 8, 9, 10,
79, 87, 89–92, 107–111, 113, 22, 29, 31, 33, 34, 79, 228
116, 120, 122, 139, 144, 174, Gibson, William, 23, 24, 235n16
183, 188, 206–208, 213, 217, Giddens, Anthony, 14, 16, 19, 22, 27,
230; training, 218; tool, 4, 13, 233n3
23, 27, 62, 72, 80, 82–84, 87, Gillmor, Dan, 52, 56, 211, 212
89, 92, 107, 108, 111, 114, 120, global or globalized: audience, 21,
173, 217 187, 199, 202; complexity, 66;
268 Index
communication, 21, 30, 37; homogenization, 16, 17, 234n10
cultural economy; exchange 14, Hudson River plane crash, 76
53, 65, 109; flow of news or Hurricane Katrina, 192
information, 2, 9, 10, 18, 22, 25,
31–33, 50, 66, 71, 78, 112, 113, I
120, 122, 124, 138, 183, 193, impartiality or impartial, 20, 43, 144,
207, 208, 214, 217, 231; infor- 150, 151, 158
mation sphere, 55, 139, 168, independent media, 89, 92, 96, 98, 100,
170, 192, 228; news culture, 102, 105, 116, 141; see also
7, 8; journalism or journalistic, alternative media
31, 50, 61, 62, 67, 229; news Indymedia or Independent Media Cen-
sphere, 10, 22, 31–35, 50, 53, ter, 10, 88, 92, 96, 97, 98–99,
55, 56, 61, 77, 80, 83, 84, 89, 113, 115, 116, 121–123, 138,
91, 92, 112, 116, 117, 120–122, 141, 143–146, 179, 220, 241n7
141, 151, 152, 230; 18; sphere, information: age, 6, 8, 9, 13, 19, 24,
3, 28, 67, 172, 193, 195, 198, 27, 30, 31, 33–35, 50, 59, 64,
206; village, 16; world 8, 16, 17, 74, 107, 147, 155; society, 9, 25,
56, 193, 194, 206 36; technology revolution, 24;
globalization, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14–23, string: see string
26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 35, 62, 112, Innis, Harold, 37, 42, 47, 237n3
183, 184, 194, 206, 230, 233n3, interactivity, 23, 33, 58, 60, 62, 92,
237n6, 238n15 138, 154, 171, 173, 176, 178,
global and local, 17, 21, 34, 64–66, 179, 182, 209, 211, 244; inter-
109, 112, 138, 183, 193–195, active, 2, 33, 34, 42, 161, 155,
213; local-global axis, 17 166, 168, 174, 177, 227, 231;
Global Voices Online, 2, 9, 56, 72, 93, interaction, 14, 30, 33, 34, 54, 67, 73,
141, 147, 197, 212, 230, 241n10 87, 89, 129, 154, 173, 174, 176,
glocalization, 17, 19; glocal perspec- 178, 181, 190, 212, 215, 218;
tives, 193; glocalized sphere, 22 pattern, 9, 13, 23, 24, 26, 29,
Google, 59, 150, 155, 164, 196, 217, 32, 36, 61, 76, 173, 174, 176,
218, 220, 242n4 178
grassroot, 57, 73, 97, 98, 120, 139, Interactivity Desk (BBC): see BBC
140, 146, 179, 196, 211, 213 International Center for Journalists
Guardian, 70, 94–95, 111, 134, 149, (ICFJ), 10, 88, 92, 104–106,
150, 153, 154, 163, 164, 170– 120, 162, 163, 196, 241n7
172, 175, 179, 220–222, 225, internationalization of news or interna-
241n7; Guardian Media Group, tional news 18, 37, 41, 42–49,
10, 88, 92, 94, 95, 175; Been 50, 65, 112, 116, 196
There, 175; Comment is free, 94, International Center for Journalists
95, 171, 175; Zeitgeist, 94 (ICFJ), 10, 105–106
Internet, 2, 5, 6, 7, 13, 18, 21–26, 29,
H 30, 31, 37, 51, 53–55, 57, 68,
Haiti, 52, 94, 116, 187 71, 72, 83, 89, 90, 93, 105,
Hallin, Daniel C. and Paolo Mancini, 108, 110–112, 114, 117, 120,
20 121, 138, 141, 148, 163, 173,
Hanitzsch, Thomas, 19, 20 174, 176, 180, 181, 184, 189,
Hannerz, Ulf, 15, 17 193, 198, 219, 235n17, 240n3,
Havas, 45, 47, 48 241n1
Healing Iraq, 202 Iran, 1, 4, 9, 52, 64, 70, 93, 94
Herdentrieb, 157, 243n4 Iraq, 2, 80, 151, 185, 186, 193, 195,
Herman, Edward S. and Robert W. 220–222, Iraq War, 1, 80, 107,
McChesney, 17, 234n9 111, 114, 158, 159, 183, 194,
heterogenization, 19, heterogenic move- 195, 198, 199–206; Iraqi blog-
ments, 17 ger, 80, 199–201, 244n3
Index 269
iReport, 127, 133, 242n1 monopoly of knowledge, 47
Morse, Samuel F.B., 40, 237n7
J Mosco, Vincent, 236n21
Jarvis, Jeff, 56, 57, 58, 61, 62, 155, MoveOn.org, 141
239n4 multi-directional: information flow,
Jenkins, Henry, 90, 173–174 17, 24, 55, 63, 121; informa-
journalistic culture: see culture tion string, 33, 52, 64; roster
journalistic practice, 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, of communication, 23; press-
13, 16, 20, 28, 37, 55, 68, 82, government-citizen gatekeeping
87–93, 106, 108, 109, 132, relations, 77
140, 147, 195, 209, 222, 224, multimedia: competence, 81, 82; cover-
227–229, 231, 233n3 age, 52 environment, 28, 227,
230; newsroom, 3, 10, 107,
K 221–227; reporter, 187, 188,
Karp, Scott, 58, 59, 62 189, 203; multimedia, to work
Keen, Andrew, 5, 6, 82, 220, 233n3 191
Kenya, 68, 71, 72–74, 76 multimediality 60, 62
Mumbai attacks, 4, 52, 70, 238n1
L MySpace, 180, 182
Lash, Scott and John Urry, 18
Lebanon War, 128, 171, 189 N
Lévy, Pierre, 54 nation, 36, 37, 65–66, 83; nation-state,
LexisNexis, 164 18, 21, 22, 28, 65–66
linear: character of the telegraph, 47; national: news exchange, 43, 47; news
flow of information, 30, 37; markets 48, 49
information flows, 49; media NBC, 203, 244n1
system, 4; news flows, 35, 50, Neda, 1, 4, 64, 115
51; news flow structure, 62 Negroponte, Nicholas, 15, 81, 233n4
London bombings, 1, 125, 128 network, 13, 24–27, 29–35, 36, 50,
Lovink, Geert, 52, 241n1 55–59, 62–64, 77–79, 90, 122,
Luhmann, Niklas, 32–34, 236n26–28 209, 226, 228, 235nn16–19,
Luyendijk, Joris, 186 236n25, communication, 21, 25,
37, 42, 47, 50, 181; information,
M 25, 37, 44, 64, 73, 78, 80, 194,
mass media, 53, 65, 74, 139; mass 196, 228, 229; journalistic, 36,
media system, 5, 32, 33, 41, 75, 43, 50, 78; news, 37, 38, 39, 42,
79, 236n26–28 43, 49, 50, 78, 226; time, 2, 30
many to many: communication of, 23; network journalism, 9, 10, 34, 35,
connection, 37; information 51–67, 68–84, 87, 89–91, 93,
flow, 29, 55 107, 108, 117, 118, 122, 124,
McCombs, Maxwell, 5 129, 140, 142, 147, 149, 157,
McDonaldization, 16 158, 165, 167–169, 179, 181,
McLuhan, Marshall, 16, 237n3 192, 193, 199, 204, 207–209,
McNair, Brian, 3, 7, 13, 19, 27, 28, 53, 212, 213, 216, 217, 219, 221,
55, 62, 71, 74, 87, 170, 235n14, 226, 227, 228–231; networked
236n22, 243n1 link journalism, 58, 59; net-
media activist, 2, 8, 73, 91, 96, 98, 99, worked journalism, 56, 57, 58,
107, 115, 124, 138–146, 147, 61; Networked Journalism Sum-
166, 196, 220, 227, 228; see mit, 239n4
also activist network society, 7, 9. 13, 22, 23–29,
MediaChannel, 10, 88, 92, 101–102, 30, 33, 34, 61, 62, 78, 79, 83,
113, 114, 153, 172, 200, 211, 174, 207, 229, 230
212, 241n7 networked computer or computer net-
mobile phone: see telephone work, 6, 26, 64, 235n14
270 Index
news agency, 5, 9, 36–49, 50–54, 63, parachute journalism or journalist, 183,
66–68, 80, 83, 111, 121, 129, 184–187, 192–194, 199, 226
140, 196, 205, 213, 238n14 Pavlik, John, 53, 55, 78, 81, 90, 239n3
newsbook, 37, 38, 39, 237n5 Penny Press, 234n7, 238n10
newsgathering, 1, 35, 40, 44–46, 49, podcast, 68, 93, 94, 96, 97, 107, 111,
55, 56, 61, 73, 77, 83, 84, 87, 219, 222
107, 108, 120, 126, 127, 130, Prince Harry, 51, 68, 75, 76
200, 205, 209, 215, 228; infor- printing press, 15, 38, 39, 41, 234n6,
mation, 38, 52, 54, 55, 70, 78, 237n4
80, 91, 108, 110, 121, 126, 214; production: chain, 28, 29, 77, 79, 80,
of news, 5, 16, 31, 43, 45, 46, 127, 144, 149, 155, 171, 183,
50, 68, 129, 213 204; digital, 70, 107, 108, 111,
New York City Independent media 108–123, 202; information, 13,
Center (IMC): see Indymedia 78, 161, 228; journalistic, 1, 2,
New York Times, 4, 95, 151, 153, 160, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 15, 22, 31, 58, 107,
162, 167, 172, 191, 198, 219, 119, 170, 179, 229; mode, 9, 25,
225, 242n4 42, 54, 61, 235; news, 3–7, 20,
node, 9, 10, 28, 30, 31, 33, 34, 56, 21, 27, 37, 43, 49, 52, 55–59,
63, 69, 76–79, 82, 84, 87, 91, 68, 78, 79, 80, 82–84, 87, 91,
122, 141, 165, 168, 181, 196, 93, 113, 114, 118, 120, 121,
214, 216, 226, 231, 236n25; 127, 162, 207, 209, 214, 215,
information, 10, 31, 32, 34, 35, 223, 226, 228, 229; process, 55,
50, 52, 68, 69, 73, 77, 87, 117, 57, 82, 110, 120, 130, 140, 157,
124, 129, 137, 138, 142, 145, 205, 228, 229
147, 149, 181, 207, 219, 226, produser, 52
227, 228–230; supernode, 78, Project for Excellence in Journalism
219, 229 (PEJ), 5, 10, 88, 92, 104, 105,
non-linear news or information flows, 241n7
4, 5, 21, 24, 29, 32, 34, 50, 51, public, the, 20, 36, 41, 44, 57, 62, 64,
55, 61, 63, 68, 78, 79, 84, 89, 75, 76, 108, 115, 119, 159, 171,
91, 108, 207, 219, 228 174, 199, 218
nonmarket actor, 4, 52 public relations, 28, 31, 51, 68,
non-standard source (news), 52, 68, 70, 236n22
74, 117, 161, 121, 193 public service: media or outlet, 5, 5, 51,
Norris, Pippa, 236n24 52, 54, 63, 64, 75, 78, 93, 111,
NowPublic.com, 52, 141, 230, 238n1 113, 115, 122, 129, 141, 144,
149, 160; journalist, 67, 70
O public sphere, 5, 6, 28, 67, 68, 72, 74,
objectivity or objective, 20, 143, 153, 77, 82; alternative, 72
198, 201, 243n1 Publish2, 59, 80
OhmyNews, 4, 56, 141, 146, 161 push-pull medium, 54, 55, 63, 166
one-way flow of information or news,
17, 51, 63, 77, 92 R
one-to-many: information flow, 55; Radio Television Digital News Associa-
path, 54 tion, 137
OneWorld.org, 102, 141 Republican National Convention, 97,
online journalism or journalist, 59–61, 115, 138
94, 176, 220, 223, 225 Reuter, Julius, 36, 45, 46, 238n13
open source, 58, 98, 211 Reuters, 42, 43, 45–46, 47–50, 83, 137,
Ourmedia, 10, 88, 92, 96, 97–98, 113, 140, 196, 237n2, 238n14
115, 123, 144, 145, 241n7 Riverbend, 80, 201, 202, 244n2
Robertson, Roland, 8, 15, 17, 233n3
P Rosen, Jay, 157, 169
Pakistan, 135, 203 RSS, 80, 94, 95, 180, 210, 217
Index 271
S technological determinism, 15, 26, 27,
Salam Pax or Baghdad blogger, 201, 233n4–5, 237n3
202, 244n4 telegraph, the, 9, 35–37, 40–50, 70, 83,
satellite, 2, 16, 18, 21, 66, 67, 76, 109, 237n7; telegraph technology,
111, 188, 203, 206, 233n2, 35–37, 40–50, 83, 84; tele-
235n15 graphic news, 40, 45; telegraphic
Schiller, Dan, 25, 26 reporting, 44, 83
Schiller, Herbert, 25, 234n9 Telegraph, The (newspaper), 222
Schudson, Michael, 15, 16, 40, 41, 43, telephone (history of), 234; cell phone,
44, 78 4, 51, 125, 126, 127, 136;
Seib, Philip, 53, 193 mobile phone, 1, 2, 18, 71, 72,
Shirky, Clay, 2, 54, 114, 161, 235n17 74, 93, 110, 115, 125, 135, 136,
Sites, Kevin, 202, 203 138, 203; satellite phone, 1, 203;
social bookmarking, 180, 181, 218 smartphone, 2, 80
social media, 73, 137, 182; and blog- Thussu, Daya Kishan, 3, 6, 14, 37, 38,
ging guidelines, 137; policy, 137; 42, 46, 47, 49, 53, 65, 237n1
tool, 2, 72, 97 Tibet, 52, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74,
social change, 23, 25, 27, 113, 234n5 76, 115, 239n1–5
social movement, 24, 116 Time Magazine, 160, 203
social network or networking, 54, 58, Toffler, Alvin, 170
94, 96, 117, 137, 180, 181, 211, Tomlinson, John, 13, 14
217, 230; social network site, 1, top-down, 87, 172, 180; communica-
2, 111, 180–182 tion order, 33; gatekeeping
social structure, 7, 13, 22–25, 27, 56, standards, 67; journalism, 8;
77, 235n19 organization models, 209; orga-
space, 2, 3, 5, 8, 14, 15, 18, 19, 21–24, nization of journalistic work, 51;
29–31, 33, 34, 40, 41, 50, 53, reporting methods, 92
55, 56, 61, 65, 71, 72, 79, 122, transnational or transnationally: com-
152, 157, 172, 180, 181, 193, munity, 67; connectivity, 8, 21;
218, 228; information, 4, 9, 33, corporations, 25, 26; cultural
78, 122, 168, 229; of flows, 29, exchange, 17; information,
31, 82 20–21, 66, 112, 194; news, 21,
spin, 28, 71, 74, 135, 161, 236n28, 34, 66, 107, 109, 110, 183, 193,
240n10 195, 198; networks, 107, 183;
Straubhaar, Joseph D., 14, 40, 53, sphere of participation, 117;
234n10, 238n3 state-society, 14
string (information), 5, 7, 24, 29, Twitter, 1, 2, 4, 8, 52, 70, 72, 76, 80,
33–36, 50, 52, 62–64, 71, 73, 169, 181, 213, 217
76, 79, 117, 121, 129, 163, 165,
167, 168 U
StudiVZ, 180 Urry, John, 18, 66, 233n3
Sunstein, Cass R., 5, 6, 82 user, 4, 6, 15, 18, 33, 37, 53–55, 57,
supernode, 78, 219, 229 59–61, 63, 70, 72, 78, 80–82,
Surowiecki, James, 55, 154 84, 87, 89, 90–92, 100, 107,
system (Luhmann), 32–34; centralized 113, 124–138, 142, 154, 155,
(media), 4, 162; closed (media/ 156, 160, 167, 169–182, 183,
journalism), 32, 33, 50, 51, 53, 187, 193, 197, 203, 204, 206,
62, 67, 75, 84, 88, 120, 166, 209, 212, 214, 215, 219, 220,
170, 180 229–231; see also audience
user-generated content, 1, 3, 4, 5, 10,
T 31, 52, 92–94, 96, 107, 110, 122,
Talking Points Memo, 177 124–138, 142, 163, 165, 169,
Tapscott, Don and Anthony D. Wil- 175, 183, 193, 203, 209, 214,
liams, 54, 207, 211 220, 224, 227, 228, 230, 231
272 Index
V web, 25, 31, 37, 42, 54, 58, 59, 122,
Virginia Tech Shooting, 51, 129, 130, 142, 149, 155, 168, 181, 195,
143, 218, 227 212
Voices of Africa, 2, 230 Web 2.0, 6, 70, 96, 178, 180
Volkmer, Ingrid, 3, 8, 16, 18, 22, 30, World Wide Web, 28, 52, 91, 94, 99,
53, 54, 55, 64–66, 77, 78, 81, 109, 138, 150, 178, 179, 193,
82, 243n4 200, 206
world society, 17, 21, 22
W Wolff, 47, 48
Washington Post, 95, 105, 151, 160,
167 Y
Watts, Duncan J., 63, 64 Yahoo News, 196, 203
Weaver, David, 20 YouTube, 68, 71, 72, 79, 93, 109, 111,
weblog: see blog 117, 122, 165, 166, 181
Webster, Frank, 25, 26, 27
Westernization, 16 Z
wiki, 58, 72 ZEIT ONLINE, 10, 88, 92, 95, 96,
Wikipedia, 52, 54, 76, 162 111, 154, 155, 156, 157, 170,
wisdom of crowds, 55, 57, 154, 178, 171, 179, 220, 222, 241n7
211, 229 Zimbabwe, 68, 71, 72, 73, 74, 76, 197

LIVRO. Network Journalism

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LIVRO. Network Journalism

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

LIVRO. Network Journalism

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Network Journalism

Routledge Research in Journalism

1. Journalists, Sources, and

2. Journalism Education, Training

New York London

Simultaneously published in the UK

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2011.

© 2011 Taylor & Francis

Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trade-

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

ISBN 0-203-83045-8 Master e-book ISBN

ISBN13: 978-0-415-88270-5 (hbk)

Preface and Acknowledgments vii

Introduction to Network Journalism 1

1 The Network Age and its Footprints on Journalism 13

2 News Agencies and Telegraph Technology: The Evolution of

3 Network Journalism: Between Decentralization and Non-linear

4 Information Nodes in the Network Journalism Sphere 68

5 Studying Network Journalism 87

6 The Advent of Digitalization in Newsrooms 108

7 The Shared Information Sphere: User-generated Content

8 The Shared Information Sphere: Blogs and their Impact on

10 Transnational News Flows in the Network Journalism Sphere 183

11 Reconceptualizing Journalistic Outlets as Information Nodes 207

This book is the product of a journey through the sphere of journalistic

Journalism is dynamic, not static. It is constantly changing and evolv-

Forms of media, media practices and media institutions [ . . . ] play a

Journalism is a commodity produced within society and is as such influ-

interested in the social determinants of journalistic output—those fea-

Consequently, analyzing journalistic models of news production has to

Shedding light on recent developments in journalistic theory and practice,

The spread of the Internet and digital communication technologies in

We are entering a new phase of connectivity. Information exchange now

1.1. THE DYNAMICS OF GLOBALIZATION PROCESSES

We live in a world of transformations, affecting almost every aspect

Globalization can be seen as a driving force that triggers changes in social,

Digital technologies thus enable us to cross time and space distanciations

Cultures thus are becoming increasingly ‘glocal’—influenced by what hap-

‘Mediascapes’ refer both to the distribution of the electronic capabili-

Journalists then are the mediators of globalization, while also being

1.2. JOURNALISTIC CULTURES AND GLOBALIZATION

To speak of a journalism ‘culture’ affected by such globalization processes

One can generally speak of culture as a set of ideas (values, attitudes,

journalists in elective democracies share similar characteristics and

Accordingly, Deuze identifies a universal denominator for journalists in an

Journalism in this environment cannot be defi ned within national contexts,

1. The emergence of a global news sphere contributes to a bigger number

Thus, in an era of globalization, national determining factors and the sov-

The notion of closed spaces has become illusory. No country or group

Yet, what happens to journalism when it is contextualized within these trans-

1.3. DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES AND THE PARADIGM SHIFT:

The emergence of a new electronic communication system characterized

Castells’ network paradigm explains the shape of today’s developed societ-

Cyberspace. A consensual hallucination experienced daily by bil-

Cyberspace is not a place. It is a corridor between places. You live in

A new world is taking shape in this end of millennium. It originated in

Knowledge carried through the Internet is no less shaped by social

According to Dan Schiller, today’s capitalist structures thus are stronger

must face the charge, irrespective of his somewhat different termi-