Introduction

Change in journalism is an appealing phrase. No wonder, when Change in Journalism subject was firstly introduced in the second semester of 2013, the enrollment was beyond prediction. In the first week, the number of students exceeded the number of chairs available. As a result, the lecture was moved to another larger class room. In fact, the subject is a reincarnation of another subject: Journalism Studies. One of my friends who has taken Journalism Studies and enrolled in Change in Journalism said to me that there are many similarities between those two subjects. If the subject materials were similar, why the response from students was higher when the subject was offered under a different name?

$Description: C:\Users\Fahmi\Documents\facebook-fahmismail\photos\10151348194459737\10151642828554737.jpg$

Figure 1: As enrollment was beyond prediction, no more chairs were available and some students had to sit on the floor during the first lecture of "Change in Journalism" subject in 2013. (Fahmi, 2013)

Journalism, I argue, has always been in a changing state. However, the internet and the digital world have revolutionized journalism in many ways. What we have been witnessing is tremendously different to be compared with the previous era when radio, television, and satellite were introduced. Now, the change has been significantly intensified. New concepts have been introduced. The concept of ‘citizen journalism’ has challenged the future of ‘traditional journalism’ (Barnes, 2012) as well as the idea of ‘prosumer’ in which every individual could produce and consume media content simultaneously and offers a new form of capitalism (Ritzer and Jurgenson, 2010). The idea of working collaboratively in global context has emerged, such as, the Wikileaks phenomenon (Christensen, 2011, McNair, 2012). The concept of ‘media convergence’, in which all form of media are merging and working collaboratively, has now influenced the way production process of journalism and its business model (Goyette-Côté et al., 2012, Gundelsweiler and Filk, 2012).

All of the above-mentioned are just some of the profound changes in journalism today, which I believe, has sparked a big question in the students’ mind: What has actually changed in journalism today? However, another question remains: What we actually mean with ‘change in journalism’? I view that it is not an easy question to answer as journalism has always been in a state of change as Martin Conboy (2004: 1) has pointed out that “over four centuries, journalism has moved from the printing of events, to the publishing of opinion, to the reporting of news and then to the contemporary structured ideologies of narrative and readership.”

With these backdrops, I aim to give some ideas on how change in journalism can be best understood. In this regard, I will argue that there are three steps to understand change in journalism: firstly, by understanding what journalism actually is; secondly, by contextualizing the change in journalism to particular place and time; and thirdly, by identifying what has changed in journalism principles and practices in particular place and time. Some examples will be used to explain my argument. However, I will not delve too much in providing examples as this essay will focus in the reasoning of the three above-mentioned arguments.

What is journalism?

We could not explain what actually has changed in journalism if we cannot firstly define what actually journalism is. However, I realize that if we pick one of journalism definitions, we might be missing the, breadth, dynamic, and constant change of the journalism itself. For example, Journalism in Oxford Dictionary of English (Stevenson, 2010) is defined as “the activity or profession of writing for newspapers or magazines or of broadcasting news on radio or television.” Although the dictionary was published in 2010, I found out that the definition does not recognize the Internet in which a new way of doing journalism has been invented, introduced, nurtured, and flourished.

Acknowledging that defining “journalism” is a difficult task, there is a need to choose a particular definition of journalism. In this regard, I prefer to John Hartley’s (1996: 32-34) definition of journalism that is, “the textual system, the sense-making practice, of modernity”. I want to emphasize the ‘sense-making practice’ phrase. If journalism is a sense-making practice, therefore, I argue, journalism has always been the same since its invention, no matter “its form” has changed many times as Conboy has pointed out. In this context, I argue that the idea of journalism as the ‘sense-making practice’ corresponds to what Brian McNair (2005: 28) has said about three functions of journalism:

1. A supplier of the information required for individuals and groups to monitor their environments; what Dennis McQuail (1987) has characterized as a medium of surveillance.

2. A resource for, support to and often participant in public life and political debate in liberal democratic societies particularly, the discursive foundation of what Habermas (1989) famously called the public sphere.

3. A medium of education, enlightenment and entertainment – what might be grouped together as its recreational or cultural functions. (Emphasis added.)

Contextualizing ‘change in journalism’

‘Change in journalism’ can be identified by contextualizing the change in journalism based on particular circumstances. In this regard, we need to understand that journalism has always been situated in particular society at a particular time with particular political, technological, economical, and cultural circumstances (McNair, 1998). The change in journalism is a reflection and an expression to what has been going on within those particular circumstances. Therefore, to better understand change in journalism, we need to firstly identify the particular circumstances in which journalism is living. This approach might be ending up seeing what has changed in journalism in a very diverse explanation as there are many contexts available.

Historical account in particular society has been widely used to explain what has changed in journalism. This approach, for examples, can be identified from the works of Michael Schudson (2003, 2013, 2009) in elucidating the development of journalism in the United States; and Jean Chalaby (1998) and Martin Conboy (2004) in the United Kingdom. The argument suggests that change in journalism will be best understood if we firstly specify the society in which journalism has developed. After contextualizing it, I suggest that change in journalism can be identified from two approaches; (i) change in journalism principles and (ii) change in journalism practices.

From journalism principles to journalism practices

Change in journalism principles

Change in journalism principles refers to the idea that the principles of journalism has evolved from time to time in response to the dynamic changes of its environments. Change in journalism practices refers to the idea that the way journalist has conducted its journalism activities has also corresponded to the constant changes of its surroundings. The relation between changes in journalism principles and practices is best illustrated in the pyramid of the key components of journalistic legitimacy (Skovsgaard and Bro, 2011). Although it is used in the context of understanding the way in which journalists construct and claim his legitimacy, this pyramid is relevant to illustrate my argument in which journalism principles are the basis of journalism practices.

Figure 2: The key components of journalistic legitimacy (Skovsgaard and Bro, 2011: 323)

Change in journalism principles can be referred to the fundamental idea about what is constituted as journalism. I argue that the principles of journalism have always been referred to values, ethics, and moral standard (Carlson, 2006, Zaw, 2002, Ward, 2005). Pew Research Journalism Project (2013) has found out in the US, that there are nine principles of journalism. Those principles are based on three years research by listening and asking journalists and relevant actors about what they perceive as journalism. Through examination, it is clear that the essence of those principles is values, ethics, and moral standard.

1. Journalism’s first obligation is to the truth;

2. Its first loyalty is to citizens;

3. Its essence is a discipline of verification;

4. Its practitioners must maintain an independence from those they cover;

5. It must serve as an independent monitor of power;

6. It must provide a forum for public criticism and compromise;

7. It must strive to make the significant interesting and relevant;

8. It must keep the news comprehensive and proportional;

9. Its practitioners must be allowed to exercise their personal conscience. (Emphasis added.)

If we look at the history of journalism, we can identify that journalism principles have been changing over time. Although it has not been mentioned among the nine principles, objectivity can be a very good example as it has been argued that it is the cornerstone principle of journalism (Muñoz-Torres, 2012).

It is worth to know that objectivity has not been founded during the earliest time of journalism. Objectivity has been argued as the ‘recent’ invention in journalism. Starting to emerge in the 17^th century, journalism was firstly exposed to the idea of objectivity in the late 19^th century in the US (Kaplan, 2010, Schudson, 2001) and it was acknowledged as a norm in the 1920s (Schudson, 2003, Kovach and Rosenstiel, 2007).

Interestingly, the reputation of objectivity as a lofty norm has started to declined in the last few decades as scholars and practitioners has continuously challenged it. For examples, Muñoz-Torres (2012) argues that objectivity is impossible without the mediation of the subject. Thus, objectivity without subjectivity is nonsense. By using examples, Cunningham (2003: 25-26) argues that press has made failure by allowing objectivity to make readers to become “passive recipients of news rather than aggressive analyzers and explainers of it.” In this regard, I also want to point out that Cunningham’s argument is coherence to the idea that journalism is a sense-making process in which journalist and reader/listener/viewer are subjects who try to make sense what is going on around them by using their own subjectivity.

Against the backdrop, Kovach and Rosenstiel (2007) argues that, in recent time, objectivity has been misunderstood as a concept. They argue that objectivity is best understood as a method to get the facts right. Objectivity has now seen as mode of journalism practice. Therefore, rather than focusing on the heating debate over the idea of objectivity, they propose an idea that “the essence of journalism is a discipline of verification.” (Kovach and Rosenstiel, 2007: 79) (Emphasis added.)

Change in journalism practices

Change in journalism practices is generally understood as the way in which journalists have conducted journalism differently from time to time. Again, how journalists have conducted its journalism practice has been corresponding to the dynamic changes surrounding the journalism field. However, I would like to argue that what has changed in journalism practice is not fundamental. I mean, the fundamental is the definition and the principles of journalism. Journalism practice is the outer layer of journalism principles as it is reflected from the pyramid that has been pointed out before. Journalism practice is how journalism principles are expressed. The principles might be the same from time to time, but the practices might be different.

Technological development has been argued as among the main factors that have changed journalism practices. Identifying these technological changes, I suggest, may help us to understand how journalism practices have changed over time. Journalism started its journey by ‘the help’ of the printing machine. In the last century, radio and television have entered and introduced new practices into the journalism field. And the most recent, the Internet has offered new ways of doing journalism.

To give some examples, Peter Putnis (2013) and Mitchell Stephens (2007) argue that journalism practices have been influenced by technology development in the transportation and communication sectors. It has been pointed out that many newspapers in the English speaking world in the 19^th century scheduled their deadlines and publishing period based on steamship mail schedules.

Published on the eve of the departure of each mail, they [the newspapers] reported news covering the period since the last mail departure to the relevant destination. (Putnis, 2013: 239)

Furthermore, it has been argued that journalism practice has been shaped by the demand of being able to provide the most current news as fast as possible. Stephens (2007) gives many examples to illustrate the need for speed in which technology, such as steam-powered ships, railroads, and telegraph have played its role. Prompted by the hunger of having the most recent news from Europe, some American journalists rushed over to find the news from the newly-arrived ships from Europe by using boats. Furthermore, he explains that

In New York City, in the middle of the 1820s, the use of such “news boats” resulted in one of the world’s first ventures in cooperatives news gathering: Most of the major New York newspapers joined together to send a boat into the harbor in search of European Newspaper and European news. When that cooperative venture split apart in 1928, it led to some intensely competitive races through New York harbor. Rowboats were soon replaced by schooners, and the schooners began venturing farther and farther out in the sea lanes to intercepts ships. (Stephens, 2007: 218)

In radio broadcasting, news reporting was very much different to what is going on today. In the US context, Perry Howell (2012) points out that radio broadcasters in 1930s relied their source of news from newspapers as the majority of the radio did not have their own personnel to make their own report. This is pretty much the case when I was trained to be a radio announcer at one of the leading radio companies in Bandar Lampung, Indonesia, in 1999. I found out that the radio was literally (re)telling news which was published in newspapers. During the same period in Jakarta, Elshinta radio just started to massively produce their own news reports in 24/7 news cycle by employing its own reporters and inviting audience to report news for Elshinta under the concept of citizen journalism. With the power of the easiness and immediacy of radio broadcasting, Elshinta could reverse the trend in which radio was copying the news from newspaper.

Kurniawan and Loo (2007) argues that Elshinta radio has now become one of the main sources of Indonesian newspapers, TV stations and news wires for immediate breaking news. They also emphasize that Eslhinta’s successful story is impossible without the growing usage of mobile phone in Indonesia which was begun in the late 1990s. By using mobile phone, Elhinta’s reporters and its citizen journalists could instantly report any events to the main office to be broadcasted live, anytime and anywhere.

Conclusion

Change in journalism is a very attractive terminology. It offers scholars, students, and practitioners a notion that by understanding it, they could understand what is actually going on in today journalism. Furthermore, they could also predict and envisage what the future of journalism is going to be like. Despite its attractive terminology, change in journalism is not a simple and an easy subject to be explained. It does not only demand breadth, but also depth explanations.

In this essay, I have elucidated three ways to better understand change in journalism. Firstly, we need to firstly understand what journalism actually is. Secondly, we need to contextualize the changes in journalism based to its particular place and time as it will explain its particular social, political, economical and cultural circumstances. Thirdly, we need to identify what has changed to journalism principles and practices over time. This approach should also be explained based on particular place and time.

Although it has been argued that the modern journalism was originated in the UK and the US, it does not necessarily mean that understanding change in journalism in other countries should also be referred to those countries. Change in journalism should always be firstly identified based on certain country’s journalism historical trajectory. However, I am also aware that in the more globally-connected world, it will be difficult to demarcate change in journalism to a particular country. Change in journalism in the US, may instantly influence and change journalism in other countries. Thus, the global synchronization of change in journalism will increase and intensify, beyond the logic of changes in particular place and time.