Topical Seminar on Epistemological Issues in Journalism
03.06.2021
New topical seminar held on June 1 was dedicated to epistemological issues in journalism, i.e. focused on how information is processed by journalists and news organizations, and how the resulting knowledge claims are articulated and justified. Four prominent experts provided theoretical insights and shared results of their research.
A group of outstanding scholars from Norway and Sweden talked about epistemology in the context of news journalism and data journalism, and presented results of various case studies analyzing epistemic practices and challenges in news production. As outlined by Professor Mats Ekström, news journalism is generally characterized by high claims of providing valuable and verified information to the public, and still claims to knowledge differ according to the sub-genres of news journalism. Same holds true about the standards of justification and organization of news production. In this regard, Professor Ekström presented a more specific study into the epistemologies of breaking news and introduced three concepts to deepen the analysis of epistemic problems and challenges: epistemic efforts (what is required to fulfill epistemic claims in a particular news story), the balancing of epistemic claims (a practice when journalists intentionally mitigate their commitment to facts and thereby reduce their responsibility for possible inaccuracies in the high-speed processing of news), and epistemic dissonance (various ways in which the news fails to fulfill the indicated epistemic claims).
Professor Oscar Westlund talked about how epistemic claims of news journalism and the practices of justifications are affected by social media platforms. In this connection, he focused on data journalism, as one of the key developments of digital journalism, and outlined its key themes: different data access opportunities, dependency on data technologies that allow for data preservation and continuation, effects of different data visualization techniques, different approaches towards data perspectives (objective and “raw” data VS limitations and simplifications), new expertise requirements, etc. Professor Westlund also referred to several studies conducted by other scholars in this area, with special attention given to the study by Borges-Rey (2020), who distinguished 2 main epistemologies in data journalism: newshound (traditional journalistic ways of processing data) and techie (use of computational logics and mindsets).
Amanda Ramsälv shared the results of a recently conducted study of data journalism on the material of Swedish media platform SVT. She presented preliminary key findings related to current data journalism practices. Among them is the idea of data journalism as public service ideal, emphasis on simple but informative and innovative data visualizations, orientations towards authoritative datasets. Besides, Ramsälv named a whole group of relevant practices, which are directly linked to epistemological issues: prioritization of epistemic efforts with focus on continuous updates and corrections of mistakes, effective detection of inconsistencies, transparency, which implies detailed presentation of method and materials, as well as guidelines for interpretation, and emphasis on empiricist epistemology.
Russian perspective on this problem was provided by Dr. Maria Anikina. Basing on international Worlds of Journalism Study project, founded to assess the professional views of journalists, conditions and limitations of their work, and their social functions, Dr. Anikina outlined three key elements of journalistic culture: set of values and beliefs, actual practices and artifacts (the results of such practices). She then further distinguished three pillars of journalistic culture. The first pillar is institutional role orientation, which characterizes normative and actual functions of journalism in society and includes three dimensions: interventionism, power distance and market orientation. The second pillar is ethical ideology, which describes how journalists respond to ethical dilemmas and includes four approaches: subjectivism, absolutism, situationism, and exceptionism. This, in fact, is closely linked to the third pillar: journalistic epistemologies, which defines how journalists process information. 7 approaches were distinguished, and Dr. Anikina showed the distribution of countries according to these 7 approaches, which are “depict reality as it is”, “evidence and reliable sources”, “only verified information”, “no personal influence”, “strictly partial”, “make clear better position”, and “provide analysis”. For instance, this scheme showed that there is a strong tendency towards explanatory journalism in Russia.
She also provided results of a survey, which involved journalists from Russia, Poland and Sweden. It revealed that journalists in Russia more than in other countries tend to think that news are equally verified in all media channels, however, a certain percentage leaves open the possibility that verification of online content can be done during the process and not before publishing. The survey also revealed increased level of interactivity, which influences the selection of news content, as well as pointed at a certain contradictory journalism practices, which can be justified in certain cases. The most popular include the use of hidden microphone and cameras, as well as getting employed in the organization to get inside information, while the least popular is altering or fabricating quotes from sources.
Concluding her talk, Dr. Anikina suggested important themes for consideration, which include the place of epistemology in journalistic culture in transforming world, de-professionalization and the role of epistemology in regulating journalistic practices, and standartization of mediatized practices through epistemological lenses.
This seminar is available for watching via this link.
New topical seminar held on June 1 was dedicated to epistemological issues in journalism, i.e. focused on how information is processed by journalists and news organizations, and how the resulting knowledge claims are articulated and justified. Four prominent experts provided theoretical insights and shared results of their research.A group of outstanding scholars from Norway and Sweden talked about epistemology in the context of news journalism and data journalism, and presented results of various case studies analyzing epistemic practices and challenges in news production. As outlined by Professor Mats Ekström, news journalism is generally characterized by high claims of providing valuable and verified information to the public, and still claims to knowledge differ according to the sub-genres of news journalism. Same holds true about the standards of justification and organization of news production. In this regard, Professor Ekström presented a more specific study into the epistemologies of breaking news and introduced three concepts to deepen the analysis of epistemic problems and challenges: epistemic efforts (what is required to fulfill epistemic claims in a particular news story), the balancing of epistemic claims (a practice when journalists intentionally mitigate their commitment to facts and thereby reduce their responsibility for possible inaccuracies in the high-speed processing of news), and epistemic dissonance (various ways in which the news fails to fulfill the indicated epistemic claims).
Professor Oscar Westlund talked about how epistemic claims of news journalism and the practices of justifications are affected by social media platforms. In this connection, he focused on data journalism, as one of the key developments of digital journalism, and outlined its key themes: different data access opportunities, dependency on data technologies that allow for data preservation and continuation, effects of different data visualization techniques, different approaches towards data perspectives (objective and “raw” data VS limitations and simplifications), new expertise requirements, etc. Professor Westlund also referred to several studies conducted by other scholars in this area, with special attention given to the study by Borges-Rey (2020), who distinguished 2 main epistemologies in data journalism: newshound (traditional journalistic ways of processing data) and techie (use of computational logics and mindsets).
Amanda Ramsälv shared the results of a recently conducted study of data journalism on the material of Swedish media platform SVT. She presented preliminary key findings related to current data journalism practices. Among them is the idea of data journalism as public service ideal, emphasis on simple but informative and innovative data visualizations, orientations towards authoritative datasets. Besides, Ramsälv named a whole group of relevant practices, which are directly linked to epistemological issues: prioritization of epistemic efforts with focus on continuous updates and corrections of mistakes, effective detection of inconsistencies, transparency, which implies detailed presentation of method and materials, as well as guidelines for interpretation, and emphasis on empiricist epistemology.
Russian perspective on this problem was provided by Dr. Maria Anikina. Basing on international Worlds of Journalism Study project, founded to assess the professional views of journalists, conditions and limitations of their work, and their social functions, Dr. Anikina outlined three key elements of journalistic culture: set of values and beliefs, actual practices and artifacts (the results of such practices). She then further distinguished three pillars of journalistic culture. The first pillar is institutional role orientation, which characterizes normative and actual functions of journalism in society and includes three dimensions: interventionism, power distance and market orientation. The second pillar is ethical ideology, which describes how journalists respond to ethical dilemmas and includes four approaches: subjectivism, absolutism, situationism, and exceptionism. This, in fact, is closely linked to the third pillar: journalistic epistemologies, which defines how journalists process information. 7 approaches were distinguished, and Dr. Anikina showed the distribution of countries according to these 7 approaches, which are “depict reality as it is”, “evidence and reliable sources”, “only verified information”, “no personal influence”, “strictly partial”, “make clear better position”, and “provide analysis”. For instance, this scheme showed that there is a strong tendency towards explanatory journalism in Russia.She also provided results of a survey, which involved journalists from Russia, Poland and Sweden. It revealed that journalists in Russia more than in other countries tend to think that news are equally verified in all media channels, however, a certain percentage leaves open the possibility that verification of online content can be done during the process and not before publishing. The survey also revealed increased level of interactivity, which influences the selection of news content, as well as pointed at a certain contradictory journalism practices, which can be justified in certain cases. The most popular include the use of hidden microphone and cameras, as well as getting employed in the organization to get inside information, while the least popular is altering or fabricating quotes from sources.
Concluding her talk, Dr. Anikina suggested important themes for consideration, which include the place of epistemology in journalistic culture in transforming world, de-professionalization and the role of epistemology in regulating journalistic practices, and standartization of mediatized practices through epistemological lenses.
This seminar is available for watching via this link.