Ansgard Heinrich

What is ‘Network Journalism’?

Abstract
In today’s interactive digital information environment, journalists lose the power
to define what makes and shapes the news. Media outlets now maneouvre through
a space characterised by continuous information flows, and share communication
paths with new information providers in an online, always-on environment. This
article sketches this dynamic sphere and introduces the paradigm of ‘network
journalism’. Structured around digital networks, the sphere of network journalism
unravels evolving patterns of information production. The task for journalistic
organisations now is to figure out how to include the many traditional and alternative
information nodes in their everyday work. The loss of control over a formerly
strictly regulated information-exchange sphere is viewed here as an opportunity
for journalism to review its practices.

Globalisation trends and an accelerating increase in technological advances over the past
few decades can be identified as two of the foremost challenges to current journalistic
practice. At a time when journalists are facing ‘chaotic’ information flows that span the
globe (McNair, 2006), the traditional model of one-way communication – from a sender
to a more or less silent receiver – increasingly is being replaced by multidirectional
transmission flows. Within the vast space of the internet, ‘the people formerly known
as the audience’ (Rosen, 2006) challenge the professional group of journalists formerly
known as the sole news providers. Journalistic organisations now operate as one voice
among many, in the midst of a vast mix of information providers who fill the information
space across the globe with a seemingly endless stream of information. And while news
organisations try to explore ways to survive as professional businesses, the struggles are
many and the stakes are high.
Many of these struggles arise from the discursive shifts taking place in our global
information networks. With the introduction of internet technology, societal interaction
patterns have been overturned and communication has shifted towards a many-to-many
exchange. In his groundbreaking work The Rise of the Network Society (1996), Castells
was one of the first to identify these discursive shifts in societal organisation. And it is
exactly these shifts that are impacting the profession of journalism at its core.
Journalists now no longer control the gates of information flows, as bloggers, activists
or citizen journalists are seizing the distribution tools on offer. The activist platform
WikiLeaks caused a worldwide uproar when it brought the secret ‘Collateral Murder’
video to worldwide attention in April 2010, revealing how a US aircraft shot and killed
Iraqi civilians in July 2007, including two Iraqi Reuters staff members. Since the start
of the Arab Spring, bloggers and tweeters have provided gripping accounts of scenes
unfolding on the ground in Egypt, Libya, Syria and Bahrain. And online tools such as
Storify now allow any user to create and publish stories constructed from material found
in social media posts roaming through the web.
It has been widely recognised that forms of alternative journalism that seize digital
technologies to spread information are gaining in impact and increasingly are being heard
in many world corners (e.g. see Alejandro, 2010; Atton, 2005; Atton and Hamilton, 2008).

Media International Australia

60
However, it still remains to be seen how journalistic organisations decide to reposition
themselves in this increasingly dynamic information environment, and how much influx
from alternative media they will allow in everyday reporting practice.
Based on the concept of ‘network journalism’ (Heinrich, 2011), this article sets out to
demarcate the increasingly interactive spheres in which the journalistic profession finds
itself today. It provides an analysis of these spheres in which the relative stability and
centralised control of linear news flows – which characterised information exchange for
the purpose of news-making until very recently – are coming to an end. In particular, it
highlights the interplay between digital technology and journalistic practice in a period
where journalists struggle to adapt to the new competitors in the field, to the speed and the
sheer mass of information flows criss-crossing the globe. What are the new communication
ways? And what are the implications for journalistic practice?
To outline the argument, it is first useful to characterise how journalism traditionally
operates. This approach helps to revise a rather narrow definition of who counts as a news
provider and how journalism might look in the years to come. It might further assist in
identifying the paths journalistic organisations could take to ensure that their voices are
being heard in the seemingly endless stream of information that characterises today’s
communication sphere.

Structural patterns of journalistic production

The journalism of the twentieth century can be characterised as an authoritative
communication environment. The idea of trained professionals tied together as a group
through organisational, professional or cultural status helped the journalistic profession to
not only stabilise a group identity (Zelizer, 2009), but also clearly defined the boundaries
between who counted as a journalist and who did not. Norm and belief systems such as
the ideal of objectivity were the markers which helped guarantee that journalism operated
within a rather closed production sphere. What counted as news, who to use as a source
of information and how to frame such news were part of a business mainly confined to
journalistic elites – a development fostered by high production and distribution costs.
The culture of information today carries significantly different markers, however.
Accelerated by the introduction of digital technologies, as many scholars have pointed out
in recent years (e.g. McNair, 2006; Pavlik, 2000; Straubhaar, 2007; Van Dijk, 2004), the
capacities of digital media support instantaneous transmission of information. Furthermore,
the low-cost digital technologies developed over the past decades have enabled alternative
information providers to gain a voice in the global communication exchange market. From
the Indymedia movement to the Occupy protests, from the user taking a picture at the scene
of the London bombings to the independent blogger delivering personal accounts from the
streets of Baghdad or the activist tweeting from Syria or Egypt, spreading newsworthy
information is increasingly practised outside the narrow confines of financially strong
newsrooms. These ‘nonmarket actors’ (Benkler, 2006: 220) support what can be defined
as a ‘paradigm shift’ away from ‘industrial-style content’ to ‘the collaborative, iterative,
and user-led production of content by participants in a hybrid user-producer, or produser
role’ (Bruns, 2006: 275, emphasis in original).
Castells attests that: ‘The emergence of a new electronic communication system
characterised by its global reach, its integration of all communication media and its
potential interactivity is changing and will change forever our culture.’ (2000: 357) It
is also changing the culture of information exchange, which has become much more
fragmented, decentralised and diversified. Users can produce, contribute and interact with
content and with journalists on a scale never seen before. What happens in Egypt seems
to be happening just a click away from the active users of media of whatever kind. The
people seem to hold the world in their hands as they, with their smartphones or tablets,

No. 144 — August 2012

61
 log on to Facebook or Twitter and potentially have access to bloggers thousands of miles
away, while reports from CNN, BBC or Al Jazeera enter their living rooms.
Local and global storylines seem to blur in light of these developments. From the
latest royal wedding in the United Kingdom to the earthquake, tsunami and subsequent
nuclear disaster in Japan – as far apart as these events might seem in terms of the topic,
digital technologies have placed them within reach of every news consumer. All that is
needed is a click of a button on some digital device. These global events might even
have an impact at the local level. As theorists of globalisation proclaim, temporal and
spatial distances seem to be delineated nowadays (Appadurai, 1996; Beck, 2000; Hannerz,
1996). What happens in one corner of the globe might very well affect another corner.
This could be as trivial as binding an audience of millions around the globe in front of
the television to watch the first kiss of a just-married William and Kate (and users then
commenting on the balcony scene via Facebook). It could be as serious as the natural and
nuclear disaster of Japan, which gave the German anti-nuclear protest movement a new
push and had a serious effect on German nuclear politics (while the protest movement
was using online tools to spread its messages).
Digitalisation and globalisation trends thus have to be seen as intertwined mechanisms
that have given rise to an increasingly global flow of information. And as the examples
mentioned already suggest, this information comes from a whole range of sources that are
not necessarily professional journalists. The members of this professional group – who used
to be the ones gathering, producing, distributing and commenting on what they deemed
newsworthy – now have to share the information space. Deuze (2008: 12) asserts that:
‘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 many voices in public
communication.’ Information production diversifies and decentralises, while journalists now
find themselves in the rather unfamiliar position of not necessarily being the first ones to
provide the ‘news’, let alone being the only ones telling people what to ‘think’ about as
news, as the agenda-setting function of the mass media was once described (Cohen, 1963:
13). It now rather seems the case that the key problem of agenda-setting lies in ‘what
people tell the media they want to think about’ (Chaffee and Metzger, 2001: 375). And
‘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’ (Bennett, 2004: 311).
Such loss of control is terrifying for many news producers, who make a living by
selling information. But, however challenging these developments may seem, they might
add some invaluable contributions to the way journalism can be practised today – provided
one understands these interactive paths, acknowledges their power and starts seeking ways
to embed them in everyday work practices. How are these new voices impacting news
production chains, and how can they be used to form a richer tapestry of news? How
can they provide a more ‘global outlook’ in storylines (Berglez, 2008), as they potentially
add different viewpoints or background from various (local) perspectives?
One could argue that with such transformational shifts in information exchange, methods
of information-gathering, production and dissemination of news have to be scrutinised,
customised and reorganised. In line with this, I argue in favour of a paradigmatic shift
towards what could be referred to as a global network journalism structure. It is built upon
the capacities of digital networks, which connect an immeasurable number of information
nodes. Understanding how these networks function might assist journalists to make use
of the many new information paths on offer.

Networks and journalism

Networks are, of course, not new, and networking with sources has been one of the
main tasks of journalists as long as the profession has existed – be it networking with
governments, policy-makers or PR professionals in order to receive information. However,

Media International Australia

62
networking has gained a whole new quality in the digital age, and the internet is a perfect
example in this respect. One of the central characteristics of the internet is that it is a
‘push–pull medium’ (Volkmer, 2003: 12). Whereas news used to be ‘pushed’ towards
audiences (Schoenbach et al., 2005: 248), the internet allows a selective ‘pulling’ of content.
Users are not only able to search selectively for information, but can also actively ‘push’
information into the online sphere. They can break with rather linear news consumption
patterns, as they do not need to wait for the seven o’clock evening news to receive their
daily news digest.
Digital networks in effect now foster a ‘new ease of assembly’ (Shirky, 2009).
They have considerably increased ‘our ability to share, to cooperate with one another,
and to take collective action, all outside the framework of traditional institutions and
organisations’ (2009: 20). The online environment allows for instantaneous feedback and
active participation. Its structure and design support collaborative production modes that
follow a new economic logic:
The new promise of collaboration is that with peer production we will harness human
skill, ingenuity, and intelligence more efficiently and effectively than anything we
have witnessed previously. Sounds like a tall order. But the collective knowledge,
capability, and resources embodied within broad horizontal networks of participants
can be mobilized to accomplish much more than one firm acting alone. (Tapscott
and Williams, 2008: 18)
This allows for a significantly different operation model when producing pieces of
journalism. Journalism, understood as an integral part of societies, is embedded in these
revised network structures. Networks suit the ‘increasing complexity of interaction within
societies’ (Castells, 2000: 70), and journalism eventually will have to adapt to these
new digital communication patterns. Digital networks allow the mass collaboration that
Tapscott and Williams, and Shirky, have in mind. More information is disseminated,
with more disseminators taking part in information exchange. And this ‘more’ promises
greater source opportunities and different angles and viewpoints. These digital networks
are ‘deep’ in a sense that anyone seeking information can crawl through them for further
opinion, fact checks or background material. Furthermore, digital networks are rather
borderless in character. They foster communication across national boundaries, and are
thus perfectly capable of transmitting local events, viewpoints and story angles from one
world corner into another.
The challenge for journalistic outlets, though, lies in the question of how they adapt
to this revised sphere of information exchange. Digital networks are flexible and dynamic.
They help to connect and they are decentralised – not linear, but horizontally organised.
Made up of an immeasurable number of information nodes, the connection options here
seem to be limitless. As Hassan and Thomas (2006: xxiii) put it: ‘Networks are open
structures, able to expand without limits, integrating new nodes as long as they are able
to communicate with the network.’
Professional journalistic organisations are nodes in the digital network – no less, but
also no more – and understanding the patterns of these digital networks is vital to the
survival of news organisations. The manner in which these digital networks operate might
be the basis of a suitable model for journalistic interaction and organisation. Their structure
supports a revised geography of news flows and a new paradigm of network journalism.

Network journalism
At a time when the dynamic flow structures of information exchange are impacting
society – and journalistic outlets as part of it – the ‘network journalism’ model sketches
the interactive spheres in which journalistic organisations operate today. It fosters an
understanding of the completely revised structures our increasingly global news sphere

No. 144 — August 2012

63
 offers in terms of news-gathering, production and exchange. It is built upon previous
research (e.g. Beckett, 2008; Beckett and Mansell, 2008; Jarvis, 2006) that references
a kind of networked journalism to outline a changed relationship between citizens and
professional journalists. And it includes the perspectives of Bardoel and Deuze (2001),
who address changes of journalistic work in an online environment.
However, network journalism, as understood here (Heinrich, 2011), reaches further.
Of course, it embraces the idea of a networked journalism that calls for a collaborative
relationship between a (formerly silent) audience and a journalistic organisation, and it does
include online journalism and its various forms and shapes. Yet the network journalism
model moves beyond these ideas, as it identifies a paradigmatic shift. Its basic idea is that
of a completely revised organisation of our information sphere. As the digital network
takes over as a structural pattern, ‘network journalism’ sets out to outline the changing
connectivity modes in today’s information sphere and sketches the consequences these
societal shifts have for journalism.
Today’s information-transmission structure is made up of an inmeasurable number of
communication nodes that differ in both size and reach. All of these nodes are connected via
numerous information strings that criss-cross through this sphere. Which node is connected
to the others, and how strong or weak these ties are, depend on the individual nodes. How
big or how small these nodes are also depends on the individual nodes. Such nodes can
be journalistic organisations such as the BBC, The New York Times or Associated Press;
however, these nodes are also tweeters, bloggers or the independent journalist freelancing
on international territory. Some of these nodes might have more impact than others, yet
they all share the same information exchange sphere. And as such, they all contribute
bits of information to it. Even though the importance of each node might vary (and so
might the accuracy of information provided by a node), nevertheless it is a sphere in
which information strings can be built, extended or strengthened in multiple directions
– just as the open and flexible network structure allows it. These information strings,
furthermore, are assembled in a non-linear fashion, as digital networks are decentralised
in their ‘chaotic’ organisation. Every single node, no matter what its size, could potentially
connect to another. This is a sphere where hierarchies – at least in theory – do not exist.
The question that remains is how journalistic organisations – no matter whether
their major playground is located in broadcast, print or online journalism – are going to
position themselves within this sphere of network journalism. The dynamics of this sphere
allow for multidirectional information flows. As the traditional hierarchical organisation
of information flows is being replaced, new connectivity opportunities emerge. News
organisations have to decide who to allow into the network, what node to connect to.
So what could be the role of journalistic organisations? Or, to put it differently, as what
kind of node could they be defined?

Journalistic organisations as network nodes

Concerned with the responsibilities of journalism, Seib writes:
Individual journalists have their own duties: to witness and to report, and through
their coverage to prod policymakers and the public to pay more attention to what
is going on around them. The list of stories that need to be covered grows ever
longer. (2002: 109)
In the sphere of network journalism, this responsibility is intensified. With an increased
level of information roaming through digital networks, there is also an increased growth
of misinformation in circulation. The question remains how journalistic organisations
decide to fulfil this responsibility. This could be the point where the qualities of a network
journalism sphere can be turned into opportunities. News organisations might have to

Media International Australia

64
decide, though, if they want to keep the authoritative tone that used to be prevalent when
they inherited the power to be the gatekeepers of news. In the network context, they are
challenged to allow more ‘equality’ in information exchange.
The gateways to information opened within global digital networks are not only about
more information, but also about different kinds of information, and about an increased
number of perspectives on a story. The attitude of ‘Who do these people think they are
that they can tell stories better than us?’, as a volunteer of the Ourmedia community put
it in an interview, might not be helpful here.1 The new source opportunities include many
nodes to which one could connect. Listening to alternative voices and interacting with
publics seem inevitable. Journalistic outlets, then, might have to adapt to the rules of
collaboration. And this includes a self-image of being just one node among many others.
The responsibility of news organisations lies first and foremost in their adaptation to
the sphere of network journalism, which starts by acknowledging and understanding it. In
a next step, the integration of nodes other than traditional sources follows. Such integration
goes well beyond allowing some user comments on a news website or publishing the
occasional YouTube video of an activist in Syria. It calls for a structural reorganisation of
news work at the level of day-to-day practice. Getting social media editors on board to
scrape through the content provided by online users is a first approach by some traditional
news organisations to dig for storylines. Yet the sphere of network journalism offers much
more than just bylines to the news. Information travelling via digital paths can add layers
of perspective to news of local and/or global relevance. Crowdsourcing is an important
asset, and deserves its place in every newsroom.
Furthermore, quite a number of alternative information platforms do an exceptionally
good job of covering the news – particularly when it comes to spots on earth that often
do not make it on to the global news agenda. Social media was an essential source during
the post-election crisis in Kenya (Mäkinen and Kuira, 2008) and during elections in
Zimbabwe (Moyo, 2009). Global Voices Online is committed to covering those parts of the
world where mainstream journalists are rarely found. And these are only a few examples
of many to be found in today’s global information sphere, signalling that there are more
nodes out there worth considering as connection points for traditional newsrooms. At
times, these nodes might bring more perspective and deliver further information on a topic
than journalists might receive through a regular subscription to a news agency package.
Using these connection options on offer, collaborating outside, as well as within,
one’s own ‘professional’ journalism network might be a promising start to take advantage
of opportunities in the sphere of network journalism. This will, at times, break with
the conventional production methods within news organisations. It demands a greater
permeability in terms of whom to allow into the network or whom to view as a stringer
in the field. And it furthermore demands greater transparency and attribution of information
providers. To use the words of Jeff Jarvis (2009): ‘Do what you do best and link to the
rest.’ It is a sign of the control mechanisms to which many traditional news organisations
still cling that on their websites they are reluctant to link to other portals. Because they
are too afraid that they might lose their visitors, often the only links found circle within
their own pages.
However, as an editor for interactivity at the BBC once put it, ‘what broadcasters and
newspapers can do is point you to the best’ (Heinrich, 2011: 216). Here lies one potential
for traditional news organisations. As brands, they already have both a name in the news
business and an audience. That is a major advantage as users search for orientation in the
vast information sphere. Being the compass for their users might pay off in this respect.
Directing users to large as well as to small nodes could be one major responsibility within
this network journalism sphere. Seeing themselves as only one node within a complex
system of many large and small nodes, however, is essential in this respect. When seizing
the digital tools and acknowledging the new collaboration options, they could in fact
resemble a ‘supernode’ (Heinrich, 2011; Volkmer and Heinrich, 2008). Yet ‘super’ here

No. 144 — August 2012

65
 should not be mistaken as ‘authoritative’. Rather, the responsibility of news organisations
is to ensure that the many voices roaming through the global news sphere get heard, and
that users in search of orientation will be guided accordingly.

Conclusion
‘Journalism, however, will survive in India, as it will survive in the USA, Europe,
Australasia. It will have to adapt and evolve, and this process is not without pain, but
it will survive,’ writes McNair (2009: 348). I am positive that he is right. However, the
question is: What kind of journalism will survive?
This is just about the right time to experiment in journalistic practice. As of now,
it seems that many traditional news organisations are still afraid to let go of the ‘good
old times’, hoping to build on the authoritative position in the field of information
provision. This might be an indicator that they are just not there yet – they still have
to fully acknowledge the opportunities of the network journalism sphere. How much of
network journalism we can already identify in today’s professional news environment is
an interesting and important question in that respect. Is Twitter, for example, used by
news organisations as yet another push medium to shovel their own content via links to
users? Or is it seized as the interactive tool for which its digital nature allows? Is it used
as a collaboration instrument, a communication device that enables interaction between
users? And are the users acknowledged as (important) individual communication nodes?
Journalistic organisations that understand the need to reorganise themselves within
this dynamic, flexible sphere of network journalism, who systematically enhance their
networks and form continuous links with nodes – large and small – might not just have
a future, but may well enjoy a very bright one.

Note
1
The interview was part of a series of interviews for the book Network Journalism (Heinrich, 2011).

References
Alejandro, J. 2010, ‘Journalism in the Age of Social Media’, Reuters Institute Fellowship Paper,
University of Oxford, http://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/about/news/item/article/journalism-
in-the-age-of-new-media.html.
Appadurai, A. 1996, Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization, University of
Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN.
Atton, C. 2005, Alternative Media, Sage, London.
Atton, C. and Hamilton, J. 2008, Alternative Journalism, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Bardoel, J. and Deuze, M. 2001, ‘“Network Journalism”: Converging Competencies of Old and
New Media Professionals’, Australian Journalism Review, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 91–103.
Beck, U. 2000, What is Globalization? trans. Patrick Camiller, Polity Press, Cambridge.
Beckett, C. 2008, SuperMedia: Saving Journalism So It Can Save the World, Blackwell, Malden, MA.
Beckett, C. and Mansell, R. 2008, ‘Crossing Boundaries: New Media and Networked Journalism’,
Communication, Culture & Critique, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 92–104.
Benkler, Y. 2006, The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom,
Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
Bennett, W.L. 2004, ‘Gatekeeping and Press–Government Relations: A Multigated Model of News
Construction’, in L.L.  Kaid (ed.), Handbook of Political Communication Research, Lawrence
Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 283–314.
Berglez, P. 2008, ‘What is Global Journalism?’ Journalism Studies, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 845–58.
Bruns, A. 2006, ‘Towards Produsage: Futures for User-led Content Production’, in F. Sudweeks,
H. Hrachovec and C.  Ess (eds), Proceedings: Cultural Attitudes Towards Communication and
Technology, Murdoch University, Perth, pp. 275–84, http://produsage.org/articles.
Castells, M. 1996, The Rise of the Network Society, Blackwell, Oxford.

Media International Australia

66
—— 2000, The Rise of the Network society – Volume I: The Information Ag: Economy, Society
and Culture, 2nd ed., Blackwell, Oxford.
Chaffee, S.H. and Metzger, M.J. 2001, ‘The End of Mass Communication?’ Mass Communication
& Society, vol. 4, no.  4, pp. 365–79.
Cohen, B. 1963. The Press and Foreign Policy, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Deuze, M. 2008, ‘Understanding Journalism as Newswork: How It Changes, and How It Remains
the Same’, Westminster Papers in Communication and Culture, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 4–23.
Hannerz, U. 1996, Transnational Connections: Culture, People, Places, Routledge, London.
Hassan, R. and Thomas, J. (eds) 2006, The New Media Theory Reader, Open University Press,
Maidenhead.
Heinrich, A. 2011, Network Journalism: Journalistic Practice in Interactive Spheres, Routledge,
New York.
Jarvis, J. 2009, What Would Google Do? Collins Business, New York.
Mäkinen, M. and Wangu Kuira, M. 2008, ‘Social Media and Postelection Crisis in Kenya’,
The  International Journal of Press/Politics, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 328–35.
McNair, B. 2006, Cultural Chaos: Journalism, News and Power in a Globalised World, Routledge,
London.
—— 2009, ‘Journalism in the 21st Century: Evolution, Not Extension’, Journalism: Theory, Practice
and Criticism, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 347–49.
Moyo, D. 2009, ‘Citizen Journalism and the Parallel Market of Information in Zimbabwe’s 2008
Election’, Journalism Studies, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 551–67.
Pavlik, J. 2000, ‘The Impact of Technology on Journalism’, Journalism Studies, vol. 1, no. 2,
pp.  229–37.
Rosen, J. 2006, ‘The People Formerly Known as the Audience’, PressThink, 27 June,
http://archive.pressthink.org/2006/06/27/ppl_frmr.html.
Schoenbach, K., de Waal, E. and Lauf, E. 2005, ‘Research Note: Online and Print Newspapers – Their
Impact on the Extent of the Perceived Public Agenda’, European Journal of Communication,
vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 245–58.
Seib, P. 2002, The Global Journalist: News and Conscience in a World of Conflict, Rowman and
Littlefield, Lanham, MD.
Shirky, C. 2008, Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organising Without Organisations, Penguin,
New York.
Straubhaar, J.D. 2007, World Television: From Global to Local, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Tapscott, D. and Williams, A.D. 2008, Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything,
Atlantic Books, London.
vanDijk, J. 2004, ‘Digital Media’, in J.D.H. Downing, D. McQuail, P. Schlesinger and E. Wartella
(eds), The Sage Handbook of Media Studies, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 145–63.
Volkmer, I. 2003, ‘The Global Network Society and the Global Public Sphere’, Development,
vol.  46, no. 1, pp. 9–16.
Volkmer, I. and Heinrich, A. 2008, ‘CNN and Beyond: Journalism in a Globalized Network Sphere’,
in J. Chapman and M. Kinsey (eds), Broadcast Journalism: A Critical Introduction, Routledge,
London, pp. 49–57.
Zelizer, B. 2009, ‘Journalism and the Academy’, in K. Whal-Jorgensen and T. Hanitzsch (eds),
The  Handbook of Journalism Studies, Routledge, New York, pp. 29–41.

Ansgard Heinrich is Assistant Professor in Journalism at the University of Groningen. She holds a
PhD from the University of Otago and was an honorary research fellow at the University of Melbourne.
Prior to her academic career, she worked as freelance local radio journalist in Germany.

No. 144 — August 2012

67