Abstract
Journalism’s once-neglected periphery has been a focus of academic research in recent years and the urge to make sense of interlopers from the periphery has brought about many approaches to understanding these changes. In this essay I reflect on an ongoing research agenda examining one particular category of interlopers: provocative media actors who have openly challenged the boundaries of the journalistic field. These actors raise questions as to how to account for interlopers at the edges of the journalistic field, including whether we should extend the field to include them. In this essay I argue we should continue to see the field as complex, and maybe now a bit more so. Reflecting on field and practice theories and understandings of boundaries, I reengage the complexity that is a core demand of conceptualizing the journalistic field, while offering ways to consider interlopers’ journalistic identities within its boundaries. Emphasizing similarities over differences, I argue we can move beyond binary distinctions between a field’s core members and interlopers on the periphery by focusing on the nature of interloper work.
Reference47 articles.
1. Ahva, L. (2017). How is participation practiced by “in-betweeners” of journalism? Journalism Practice, 11(2/3), 142-159.
2. Archetti, C. (2014). Journalism and the city. Journalism Studies, 15(5), 586-595.
3. Belair-Gagnon, V., & Holton, A. (2018). Boundary work, interloper media, and analytics in newsrooms. Digital Journalism, 6(4), 492-508.
4. Benkler, Y. (2011). A free irresponsible press. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, 46, 311–397.
5. Benson, R. (1999). Field theory in comparative context: A new paradigm for media studies. Theory and Society, 28(3), 463-498.
Cited by
58 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献