The Sociology of Journalism

The Sociology of Journalism

Discussing the sociological inquiry of journalism is much like discussing Journalism scholarship without a frame. This paradigm of journalism its focus on book by the sociologist Brian Mc Nair in the field of “media studies. People, patterned interactions, organizations, institutions, and structures are the ongoing standard against which much inquiry into journalism has been evaluated, to the extent that the frame’s existence has become largely invisible. Sociology has long existed as the background setting for evolving journalism scholarship, even if much of the recent work on journalism no longer derives necessarily from sociological inquiry. Social factors which make them known in news organizations in the form of economic, bureaucratic and normative pressure which shape journalistic work.

          The core subject of the matter of the sociology of journalism –sociological perspectives on the factors underpinning the production of news and journalism. Six approaches are presented: also call it approaches and theoretical frameworks which sociologists have adopted to explain media content;

Ø  The economic,

Ø  The political,

Ø  The professional-organization

Ø  The technological,

Ø  The cult urological /cultureless/

Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary (1983: 1723) defines “sociology” as “the study of the history, development, organization, and problems of people living together as social groups.” Once pegged as the “science of society,” sociological inquiry provides an elaboration of some arena of behaviour in social networks, reflecting “any general interest in social processes” (Williams 1983b: 295). The term “society” has emerged as so central to sociological inquiry that it has replaced “community” as the dominant way of conceptualizing groups (Schudson 1991).

Central to each motif is a focus on people, particularly as they organize themselves into groups involving systematic patterns of interaction.

   Journalism also a sociological manner of point to be express and defeat the point works interdependent each other. Sociologists examine social conduct in a number of ways. They perform an anthropological function, showing people of one culture what it is like to live in another culture. They identify the complexity in social systems, dressing the simple and the everyday in complex frameworks, and they target the unintended, latent, and accidental consequences of everyday activities so as to make those consequences manifest. This notion—which extends the Durkheimian premise that we live inescapably under society’s logic (Durkheim 1915/1965) suggests a need to continually look for the hidden reasons for behaviour. Sociologists also study the long-term patterns of institutional stability and change, with a concern for the demonstrated impact of the past on the present.

With these premises in mind, sociological inquiry has emerged as germane to the study of journalism around the world. Cueing journalists as agents of modernity, sociology found its way into journalism research in accordance with an emphasis on people, with an eye both to the patterns by which they grouped themselves into organizational and institutional settings and to the surrounding structures, functions, and effects through which they worked.

 All sociological inquiry into journalism was an emphasis on the systematic actions, practices, and interactions by which journalists maintained themselves as journalists. Although extensive scholarship queried the identification of journalists as professionals (e.g., Henningham 1985; Zelizer 1993a)—to the extent that Elihu Katz (1989) suggested displacing the idea of the journalism professional with that of the journalist as scientist journalists were seen within this view as sociological beings who systematically acted in patterned ways that had bearing on the stature and shape of the journalistic collective at large. In the United States, the sociological inquiry into journalism was born of a particularly fertile set of historical circumstances that helped shape scholarship by example or by contrast—elsewhere in the world. In the latter set of circumstances, journalism’s eventual co-opting by communication schools was often solidified along the parameters of sociological research, which proved a fertile means for thinking about journalism as a phenomenon.

  Journalism’s development as a focus of social scientific study was thus largely associated with sociology’s ascent in the academy. Early efforts moved first in the direction of a blend of social scientific and humanistic inquiry. Media sociologists have argued that journalism is not, and never can be, neutral and objective, but is fundamentally interpretative, embodying the dominant values and explanatory frameworks of the society within which it is produced. That observation is a necessary starting point in the critique of ‘objectivity’. But if we wish to argue that journalistic media are in certain ways ‘biased’ we must then go on and pose the question ‘how?’

The economic, of sociological Journalism

News and Journalism in the UK A Textbook Communication and Society_The economics of news and journalism, idea of economy explains The economic approach to the sociology of journalism (also known as the political economy model) asserts that the output of journalistic media is principally determined by the economic structure of the organizations concerned. It is founded on the materialist view of society (as opposed to pluralist) elaborated by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in the nineteenth century. The economic approach to the sociology of journalism asserts that the output of journalistic media is principally determined by the economic structure of the organizations concerned. The liberal pluralist answer to this question is that they do not, for two reasons. First, it is argued, ‘economic ownership of the media has become increasingly separated from managerial control due to the growing dispersal of share ownership’ (Curran, 1990: 143).

This brings us to a second objection frequently made to the economic approach. Some observers may accept that there is excessive concentration of ownership in the media today, but will argue against this that ‘journalists enjoy a considerable degree of independence from supervisory control’ (ibid.: 143). ‘The unpopular truth that proprietors concede a considerable amount of independence to editors and invest millions in their instincts and views with only one condition – circulation success’. There are many examples to suggest the opposite, however. Rupert Murdoch has taken a great personal interest in the running of his media properties, frequently intervening directly to impose a certain editorial line, or to prevent a story being reported. It is entirely routine for journalists to see their copy altered on grounds of stylistic inadequacy or lack of space. The interventions with which we are concerned here, however, are those that have their roots in the political or business interests of the proprietor.

the main mechanism by which proprietors can exert control over newspapers and commercial broadcast news outlets is their power to appoint key personnel, particularly senior editors, who become the proprietor’s ‘voice’ within the newsroom, ensuring that journalistic ‘independence’ conforms to the preferred editorial line. These are hardly earthshattering statements, despite the attempts of some commentators to assert the role of journalistic independence, and its continuing importance in maintaining a free press. Few modern proprietors, and certainly not Rupert Murdoch, would bother to deny that they use their media interests not just to make money, but to influence public opinion and the political environment. Robert Maxwell’s views have already been quoted. There are significant constraints on proprietorial influence, however. Privately owned media organisations, like other capitalist enterprises, are required to sell their product – news, and commentary on the news – in a marketplace of increasingly sophisticated consumers, who have access to a large and increasing number of other news sources. Proprietors must therefore pay serious attention to the demands and preferences of these consumers, including their politico ideological preferences.

 Those elements of economic environment which shape journalists` work. The economic forces in our society impact journalism in two ways:

Ø  The production of journalism is largely the business of an industry, owned and controlled by private individuals and conglomerates/business/. Journalists are employees, strongly influenced by those who own or control their organizations. And the structure of ownership and control of journalistic media is important to the sociologist for the obvious reason that the one that pays up can decide.

And since journalism has effects on readers, media ownership is an attractive position to entrepreneurs with political ambitions.

Ø  Journalism is an industry and is offered for sale in an ever more crowded information marketplace. And therefore it must have a use value and an exchange value for potential customers.

In a capitalist society such as Britain, the media generally take the form of privately owned business enterprises which, like other forms of capitalist ownership, tend to be concentrated in the hands of a small minority of the population. The essence of the economic approach is that the journalism produced by these organisations is inflected in such a way as to serve the interests of that minority – to reproduce their ideas, values and ways of seeing the world as part of the process by which society is able to reproduce itself. It emphasizes ‘the centrality of economic ownership . . . and the strictures and logic of the market’ (Curran, 1990, p. 139). The late Ralph Miliband articulated this viewpoint when he wrote that: Rather obviously, those who own and control the capitalist mass media are most likely to be men whose ideological dispositions run from soundly conservative to utterly reactionary; and in many instances, most notably in the case of newspapers, the impact of their views and prejudices is immediate and direct, in the straightforward sense that newspaper proprietors have often not only\ owned their newspapers but closely controlled their editorial and political lines as well, and turned them, by constant and even daily intervention, into vehicles of their personal views.

(1972, p. 205) To assess the validity of this approach we must examine two separate issues. First, is it true that ownership and control of the news media is concentrated in the hands of a relatively few corporations and individuals? And second, do owners of media organs use their power to influence output in ways favorable to themselves?

The liberal pluralist answer to this question is that they do not, for two reasons. First, it is argued, ‘economic ownership of the media has become increasingly separated from managerial control due to the growing dispersal of share ownership’ (Curran, 1990, p. 143). The argument is frequently heard in relation to the capitalist economic system as a whole and states simply that, as a rule, no single individual or corporation holds enough shares in any particular media outlet to influence its editorial direction. Nowadays, it is argued, the majority of shares are held by pension funds, investment houses and, since the Thatcher Government introduced ‘popular capitalism’ and the ‘share-owning democracy’, the people. In commercial television the big players have acquired fingers in several pies, and there is growing cross-media ownership. And while it is true that many more people own shares than used to be the case, the small shareholder in the media, as in any other sector of business, is virtually powerless against the weight of the large holdings.

Further commercial pressure is exerted, according to some variants of the economic approach, by the constraints placed on journalistic content because of the need to attract and retain advertising revenue. There is evidence that such pressures exist. Companies do on occasion withdraw, or threaten to withdraw, advertisements from publications of which they disapprove. In the US, for example, big advertisers like Chrysler have been known to put pressure on editors not to publish material on controversial subjects like homosexuality. this assumed impartiality and objectivity is quite artificial. For it mainly operates in regard to political formulations which while divided on many issues are nevertheless part of a basic, underlying consensus.

As we shall see below, some sociologists have moved away from this view of broadcast journalism as part of a propaganda apparatus, towards one which stresses the constantly shifting nature of ‘consensus’, and the possibility for dissenting voices to be heard in mainstream journalism. This ‘culturalist’ approach continues to adhere – in the last instance – to economic, class-based explanations in accounting for journalistic output, but recognizes that the processes by which ‘dominant ideologies’ are constructed and then disseminated through the media are more complex and less mechanistic than Miliband’s statement above might imply.

The media are also depended on income to produce, then advertising become an important part. For the newspaper to secure the maximum price for space an audience of a certain quality and quantity has to be delivered to the advertiser.

           The book argues that the influence of economic factors on journalism is less predictable than we might imagine. Journalistic organizations have changed from being agents of radical reform and revolution, to being essentially business organizations, working in capitalist business environment.  The demand of the marketplace drives the content of newspapers and broadcast journalism towards more expository, revelatory forms of coverage.

My view; in the economic understanding of media one of the obstacle to sustain in the market of value and freedom of press, freedom spirt, freedom of expression is naked by economy causes. In the organizational matter economy of the market private Medias are under influence. Press business even the paper value is more expensive to run out, the organizational relation for advertisement is gap between news and information expositional makes oppressed directly or indirectly. Ether a good business relationship makes positive forwarding or negative form of business relation hit it on news reporting.

Example; off mic- my friend who is in private press worker is reporting under the willing of the organizational owners interest. Because they are a sun set down relationships on the table of cups. The reporter blame or admire it under the sustain of economic value press substitution in news value the coverage. Even as he told me the press need to an income in the sponsorship of pages the reporter order to find mistakes about the wealth organization report news.  Then the organization arranges a good relationship with the media outlets.

These assumptions have a grate value for reporters are never alone for the journalistic ethics and rule of press. Ideally the journalist is serving for three things;

      for his organization-editorial policy of the media under the country press law

      for his consciousness-mental internal judgement of the profession

      for the public

To assess the validity of this approach we must examine two separate issues. First, is it true that ownership and control of the news media is concentrated in the hands of a relatively few corporations and individuals? And second, do owners of media organs use their power to influence output in ways favorable to themselves?

 A few corporations control about 90 percent of the British press; a handful controls the commercial broadcasting organizations. These are demonstrable facts, but what is their sociological significance? Do owners use their economic power as an ideological weapon?

The liberal pluralist answer to this question is that they do not, for two reasons. First, it is argued, ‘economic ownership of the media has become increasingly separated from managerial control due to the growing dispersal of share ownership’ (Curran, 1990, p. 143). The argument is frequently heard in relation to the capitalist economic system as a whole and states simply that, as a rule, no single individual or corporation holds enough shares in any particular media outlet to influence its editorial direction. Nowadays, it is argued, the majority of shares are held by pension funds, investment houses and, since the Thatcher Government Introduced ‘popular capitalism’ and the ‘share-owning democracy’, the people.

Example

Suggest the opposite, however. Both Rupert Murdoch and the late Robert Maxwell have taken a great personal interest in the running of their media properties, frequently intervening directly to impose a certain editorial line, or to prevent a story being reported. It is, of course, entirely routine for journalists to see their copy altered on grounds of stylistic inadequacy or lack of space. The interventions with which we are concerned here, however, are those which have their roots in the political or business interests of the proprietor.

In an interview before his death Maxwell boasted that his ownership of national newspapers gave him the power ‘to raise issues effectively. In simple terms, it’s a megaphone’. Political journalist Anthony Bevins, once argued straightforwardly that ‘dissident reporters who do not deliver the goods suffer professional death. They are ridden by newsdesks and backbench executives, they have their stories spiked on a systematic basis, they face the worst form of newspaper punishment – by-line deprivation’ (1990, p. 15). Murdoch’s Sunday Times editors deliberately and without permission altered copy written by journalists on the Death On the Rock affair, in order to cast a bad light on the programme’s producers and sources. The journalists concerned subsequently felt compelled to resign from the paper.

A further elaboration of the sociological inquiry on journalism blended an interest in the political domain with a focus on both the sociology and the economics of journalism. Called the “political economy of news,” this scholarship related news production to the economic structure of the news organization.

Political economists argued that a ruling capitalist class dictated to editors and reporters what to run in their newspapers (e.g., Garnham 1979). In this regard, most news organizations were seen as simply system maintaining, with any adversarial or oppositional journalistic practices undone by the extensive intervention of ruling elites. News here was assumed to take shape at the whim/urge/ of either conservative government or big business, both of which constrained it (Golding and Murdock 1991; Curran, Douglas, and Whannel 1980; Gandy 1982; Mosco 1996).

One book that appeared parallel to the rise of political economy and embraced many of its central tenets /principle/ was that of Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky. In Manufacturing Consent (1988), they offered what came to be known as the “propaganda model of journalism,” by which journalism was thought to mobilize support for special interests underlying both state and private activity.

the political economy of journalism offered a powerful examination of journalism’s “big picture,” this research proved particularly valuable for its critical consideration of a normative impulse—the notion that journalism “ought” to do better by its public.While looking primarily at capitalist democracies and in Schudson’s view (1991) in effect neglecting politics by taking democracies for granted, the combination of normative and critical voices in this scholarship nonetheless underscored the value of interdisciplinary work on journalism. Yet, at the same time that political economists helped explore the broad dimensions of news, they did not account for the fuzzy territory in-between the daily routines of journalism and the larger political economy of society.

'You feel you can argue with literature, temper its vicarious experience with your own. if we view journalism as a chemical compound and break it down we would lind the ingredient 'fact' existed in only small quantities and even then lumbered by hutnan irnpurities ' .

'Either critical researchers should find ways of satisfying the essential preconditions of entering into roll-ons of mutual respect with media personnel, or they should be content to work at a distance from those who cannot really be expected to play ball.

Indeed, in this sense, it has been argued, the mass media are capable, quite literally, of setting the agenda of issues of concern for vas audiences:

'Publication is thus the basis of community consciousness. . Among large groups of people too numerous or too dispersed to interact face-to-face or in any other

Personally mediated fashion. The truly revolutionary significance of modern mass communication is its 'public making' ability ... The terms of broadest social interaction are those available in the most \vide shared message systems of a culture. Increasingly these are mass-produced message systems. That is why mass media have been called the 'agenda setters' of modern society'.'

But, as implied above, social scientists have not normally been  prepared to rely upon explicitly subjective or intuitive assessments of content (assessments which would be analogous inform to a kind of detailed literary criticism). Rather they have sought to devise and routines methodical procedures for the analysis of text or document content. The ultimate rationale behind this attempt at procedural standardisation is the desire to produce 'hard', 'objective' data. Such data can then be expected (it is hoped) to show a high degree of interobserver reliability. This in turn should provide the basis for the building up of ClImulative knowledge concerning document content, and hence facilitate the production of 'scientific' generalisation.

Ø  The political,

In my view Politics is nocoulour without media. Every song of the politics, debates, discuss ional party’s ideology is interpretation are delayed and swim in the press. The result of politics realty one forum of voice rose from media. Media is a political gun powder which a bullet fired a people through idea and expression.

Voices of media is a star for listeners /viewers/readers may be they are politics stands to a majority question while the accountable government answers to make sensationalization in front page or headline of the news. Because politics is a lot of people’s life determination through representatives, it affects the whole life.

News and Journalism in the UK a Textbook Communication and Society focuses on the political determinants of journalism. Whether the media is functioning in the context of a liberal democratic or an authoritarian political system, they are perceived by the politicians. The form of the political environment defines the functions which the journalists is expected to perform in the given society.

 Journalists have a privileged place in culture, but have to constantly struggle against the political apparatus for their freedom to report and analyze events, and be prepared to defend this role against the state’s tendency. The government of the day will try to control and restrict the flow of information. The media has to fight for the democracy in our society.

The book gives us an outline on the two different political environments liberal democracy and authoritarianism. It also gives us an explanation of the economic relationship between the journalistic media and the political apparatus, exercising political pressure and censorship.

The economic interests of media proprietors are expressed in the more or less direct support of their media organs for political parties, as in News International’s support for the Conservative governments of the 1980s and early 1990s. We should remember, however, that politicians have their own motives and interests in seeking to influence news and journalism, independently of their business supporters. These motives and interests may be selfish, as when politicians seek to suppress damaging facts about their performance (many examples of attempted cover-ups, from many countries of the world, could be cited, but Watergate and Irrigate in the US, or arms-to-Iraq and cash-for-questions in Britain are well-known cases). In such cases, political intervention in the workings of the journalistic media may become a source of bad news in itself, leading to greater political damage in the long run.

 Political intervention in the media may, on the other hand, have the more legitimate function of trying to maximize the effective administration and good government of society. Legal censorship of sex and violence in .lm and TV drama is one accepted function of government, as is the placing of restrictions on the more intrusive reporting of the tabloid press Another example of political influence of this type in the British news media would be the Conservative government’s 1988–94 ban on the broadcasting of statements by Sinn Féin representatives.

In my view politics is an arena which Medias playing field. Each off sites and goal score in other word the wrong and right the point and losing is decide by referee /politics/ spectators/audience / may are flammable of the competition. Never separate one of them. Man is apolitical animal. The media glucose of blood circulation is politics. In this sense sociological perception politics and media have a multi relationship. Politics shape as the interest of policy and media also shape politics in the interest of the people. A free flow of information that results in the ability of citizens to have access to their government’s records, documents, and past achievements is key to ensuring open and accountable government. The media often enters into the discussion of public disclosure of information. Media outlets serve as significant political socialization agents by directly informing citizens, on a daily basis, about the works of their government.

Transparency tackles important areas that can be influenced by freedom of information. Governments should encourage information sharing that infuses civil society “where citizens, NGOs and businesses engage in vibrant public life and play an

active role in helping governments meet public challenges.” Access to government held information is essential if citizens are to have confidence in their public institutions and be assured that they are working as they should. It is often explained that “policies and practices of openness can, of themselves, provide much comfort.”

I emphasize that "One of the objects of a newspaper is to understand the popular feeling and give

Expression to it, another is to arouse among the people certain desirable sentiments; the third is fearlessly to expose popular defects"-Mahatma Gandhi.

In the role of media to politics-The importance of media in upholding freedom, and in expanding education and social reforms and change. Media can inform people giving them the voice to be heard and heeded to. Democracy requires that people should have the right to know the activities of the government, especially the decision of the government that affects their life, liberty and property. Information is important for people to make choices regarding their participation in the State, the market and the civil society. Sufficient information helps people to decide rationally and take the right course of action beneficial to them. Media-both print and electronic-thus helps people to know what is happening around the world, socialize them with the values of pluralism and equip them with the elements of modernity. By publicizing information the media also make public services more responsive to the people.

Freedom of citizens, a free and responsible press, an independent judiciary and government's data information are the system which can be perceived to be the key to the enhancement of right to information and make the institutions of governance transparent and accountable. The right to information, guaranteed rights and press and publication right are three vital means for establishing "open society" visualized by

Constitution. An information Act must be brought out as soon as possible both to help in the way of freedom of information, enforce the accountability of information as well as to endow substance and quality in democratic debates so that citizens can monitor the day to day functioning of public institutions and actors. The right to information is closely tied to the accountability mechanism, for monitoring every action of government which leads to good governance, places the dominant actors of governance-the state, the market and civil society in balance, and monitors their performance as per the boundaries for action defined for them. Media thus perform vital tasks of informing, socializing, communicating and articulating the power of the public and preparing them for social transformation and good governance.

Also the press have under benefit executer on the sides of politics. never tells on the bad side of political works only gossiper to action planed runner. they are a fire brigade of opposerse.like Ethiopia telivishen,addis zemen… medias

Politics over media - In many countries in Africa, the state continues to have direct or indirect control over the media and who is able to work as a journalist. However, it is recognised by most journalists that although stiff professionalism and a culture of ethical conduct is a must if the media is to be responsible and thriving, the government should not be the one to decide on who can work as a journalist.

A huge slice of the media in Ethiopia is still owned by the State. However, increasing numbers of media houses are now in private hands. This greater pluralism has often been lauded as an end in itself. But it is important now to ask whether private ownership is always going to promote good governance and the “public good”. There is justifiable concern over whether we should be uncritically promoting private media, particularly in light of the numerous issues of sustainability, transparency and accountability related to the nascent private media sector in many countries. What is at issue, therefore, is whether the growth in the ‘private’ media is by itself enough, or whether there is also a need for the development of effective, independent, ‘public’ media in Ethiopia.

The great censorship and kidnapping of media in Ethiopia is because of a politcs over rule justification.

Example

The 1995 Constitution of Ethiopia puts certain limitations on the freedom of expression. Article 29(6) states that: “Legal limitation can be laid down in order to protect the wellbeing of the youth, and the honor and reputation of individuals.” It further continues: “Any propaganda for war as well as the public expression of opinion intended to injure human dignity shall be prohibited by law.” The limitation shall be imposed through laws “which are guided by the principle that freedom of expression and information cannot be limited on account of the content or effect of the point of view expressed.” Putting limitations on the freedom of expression is not generally a violation of the right to freedom of expression. Rather the point at issue is: What are the preconditions that must be met to impose the limitations? The International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR, 1976) states that the exercise of the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas carries within special duties and responsibilities. It may, therefore, be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and necessary:

For respects of the rights and reputation of others;

2) For the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals (ICCPR, 1976: Article 19) According to the afore-stated provision, the most commonly used restrictions on freedom of expression are justified by the need to protect the rights and reputation of other people, national security, public order and public health. Here it is worth mentioning that these limitations are generally believed to protect the individual and collective interests of people, and hence they are acceptable in a democracy.

Generally, the present government of Ethiopia has expressed its commitment to the right to freedom of expression as well as work for media development.

The professional-organization

Professional-organizational approaches to the study of journalism reject an overly deterministic stress on the political and economic factors of journalistic production, focusing instead on the professional culture and organisational structure underpinning the process: the objectivity ethic, as well as the limitations imposed by the news form, deadline pressures, and other elements of routine journalistic practice.

Bruhn-Jensen notes that ‘the news form is at least to some extent a function of the organisational structure which is needed for large scale communication of information to the public’ (1986, p. 46), while Paul Rock emphasises that ‘news is the result of an organized response to routine bureaucratic problems’ (1973, p. 73), such as the need to produce material according to strict limits on space and timing. Journalists, then, must construct their news ‘to meet the space and timetabling demands of [the journalistic organisation]’ (ibid.). Not only does this\ help to explain why news is characteristically about events rather than processes, and effects rather than causes; it might also be thought to be part of the reason why news media tend, as content analysis shows, to favour the definitions of the powerful when constructing their accounts of events. ‘Because of the demands of time and deadlines’, argues Rock, ‘journalists are inclined to position themselves so that they have ready access to institutions which guarantee a useful volume of reportable activity at useful intervals.

To be ‘objective’, Tuchman argues, the journalist must present both sides of a story (or, in the case of a more complex debate, all credible sides); supporting evidence for any assertions made in the story must be provided; authoritative sources, such as politicians must be quoted (in this way the journalist is seen to distance him or herself from the views reported by establishing that they are someone else’s opinions); ‘fact’ must be separated from ‘opinion’ and ‘hard news’ from ‘editorial comment’; and the presentation of information must be structured pyramidically, with the most important bits coming first, at the ‘top’ of the story. Taken together, the pursuit of these practices signifies ‘objectivity’ to, and thus mobilises the trust of, the audience. In a TV news political story, for example, ‘objectivity’ would demand that the views of a Labour source be balanced by those of an equivalently senior Conservative, and also by a Liberal Democrat; and that a recognised ‘specialist’ correspondent be enlisted to give an authoritative comment on the situation. The newsreader will not give his or

her opinion directly, since this would break with the conventions of impartiality.

The political professional culture and organizational determinants of journalism: the journalist is a professional communicator, whose work is structures and shaped by a variety of practices, conventions and ethical norms, as well as by the constraints and limitations imposed by the fact that journalism is a complex production process requiring a sophisticated organization. The book concerned with the professional organizational factors involved in the production of journalistic text, based on the premise that news content is a product of the professional ethics routine practices and bureaucratic organization of journalists.

The book takes the discussion of bias. It may be a product of political or economic forces or it may be the outcome of routine of professional practices. It also discusses objectivity, what objectivity is and how does objectivity work in our society.

It also concerns about news values and journalistic style, a structure of values which can be applied to the multitude of events occurring in the real world. These news values define which events of all those happening at the same time in the world, will be selected for coverage.

The path to journalism’s sociological study developed more cautiously in the United Kingdom than it had in the United States. Though sociology was slower to arrive in the academy in the United Kingdom than in the United States, with only a few sociology departments in U.K. universities as late as the 1950s (Tumber 2000: 1), it was one of the first academic settings to take note of what journalism had to offer. Of interest were the ways in which journalism helped socialize individuals into upholding certain norms, values, and beliefs via institutions, and British sociologists thereby positioned journalism easily alongside education, the legal system, the family, and religious institutional settings. Although the dominant paradigm of structural functionalism persisted as a way of conducting sociological inquiry, over time dependence on it softened, particularly as sociologists in the United Kingdom experimented with new analytical settings and alternative methodological approaches. In the 1960s and 1970s, sociology became the embodiment of the social sciences across the United Kingdom, and with it came a burgeoning interest in journalism as a potential setting in which to examine sociological concerns.

In my examination- the state continues to have direct or indirect control over the media and who is able to work as a journalist. However, it is recognised by most journalists that although stiff professionalism and a culture of ethical conduct is a must if the media is to be responsible and thriving, the government should not be the one to decide on who can work as a journalist.

The profession also expose for bias, as a corruption. Because of law facility and       wages of monthly salaries;

       Will trend professionals also affect the professional role in the media,

        The dependency of journalists,

         Rule of law the press,

         House style and behind target of the media is affected the profession,

           The profession expose for risk,

          Higher institution on the profession limitation,

 Working as a reporter requires some basic personality traits as well as a number of learned skills. Each reporter can learn how to develop their qualities, but if you are not naturally curious, for instance, there’s not much point in being a reporter; there are plenty of other media jobs that require other attributes.

Journalism is not an end in itself but only the professional means by which reporters and editors serve the public interest and trust. The purpose of the code for ethical journalism is to contribute to on-going efforts by professionals and practitioners towards excellence and commitment to the use of standard practices; encourage journalists to develop a collective capacity for advocacy, so as to effectively articulate the needs of the constituencies they serve.

Observing ethics is the cornerstone of an effective media sector. Also maintaining Editorial independence in both government and private media is crucial for the free flow of information.

Some of the media houses visited by the researcher have developed in-house code of conducts and editorial policies that can serve as a standard of ethics for the practicing journalists. These codes are intended to serve as a guideline to media professionals in the press. A journalist who violates the ethical principles enshrined in the code of conducts will be subjected to penalties. This is one form of accountability. But such codes should be developed with the participation of journalists and be accessible to journalists. It is also sound to lay down a common code of ethics for the whole media than individual codes for each media house. The press complaints commission could initiate such a common code.

In my view - the private presses in Ethiopia are facing many problems to practice responsible journalism and to overcome their responsibility towards the public due to internal and external factors. The internal factors can be cited as lack of adequate knowledge on media ethics, dearth of sufficient training and trained journalists, financial problems, lack of unity, absence of a viable professional association and lack of ethical guidelines. The external factors are cited as repressive legal regime, insufficient market, and discrimination by government.

There are manifest able problems within the press since the aftermath of the 2005 Ethiopian election. The presses are divided along political lines and see each other as Adversaries. This in turn poses a substantial obstacle on establishing a voluntary self regulatory body that could regulate the press. To make things worse, there are also divisions among the professional associations along political lines. Hence, the chasm among private and government journalist as well as within the private press make the establishment of a self-regulatory body remote at the moment.

The technological

The technology of newsgathering is also an important explanatory factor in the sociology of journalism, since the introduction of new information and communication technologies (NICTs) inevitably impacts on the nature of the journalistic production process. Some examples: the invention of light-weight video cameras has greatly increased the mobility of the correspondent in the field, while the availability of satellite up-links and digital editing has enhanced her ‘livens’ and ability to prepare coherent accounts of what is happening, on the spot. Such innovations increase the possibilities of newsgathering, but have also increased the pressures on journalists to deliver ‘news’ before anyone has had time to think about and analyze the events being reported. The result is what Nik Gowing has called ‘real time news’ (1994), and Brent MacGregor ‘knee jerk grandstanding’ (1997) – content of such immediacy and intimacy that it may destabilize the political environment in which the news is received, and hinder rather than clarify public understanding of complex events. Professional organizational and technological explanations of content tend to be opposed to the political and the economic approaches, stressing the constraints acting on journalists rather than the ideological biases emanating from or acting upon them. Both sets of approaches are not mutually exclusive, however, and a third paradigm has emerged which actively seeks to integrate them.

The technological environment, the form and content of journalism is crucially determined by the available technology of newsgathering, production and dissemination available. New communications technology brings with it major benefits for journalistic organizations. But it also has forced to unsettling changes on working practices and routines, and challenged existing lines of democrat ion in the journalistic workplace and thus has easily come to be seen as a threat by practitioners. The new technology has killed time-space barriers and information has become easier to achieve. This has led to reduce of the political power of elites and made the democratic processes stronger.

It has also led to globalization. And that has made the audience itself more international and “global” in nature, and has brought events in the wider world “home” to the audience.

The book also concentrates on the Internet as a new public sphere. The question asked is: “Are the Internet the death of print”. And the book argues that both print and Internet will survive in our society. It also gives us some advantages, like the potential to democratize the media. Such innovations increase the possibilities of newsgathering, but have also increased the pressures on journalists to deliver ‘news’ before anyone has had time to think about and analyze the events being reported.

 New technologies have also destabilized the boundaries that used to exist between print, radio and TV journalism and between all those and online journalism. They have driven the development of multimedia and convergence in news production. Today’s journalists are increasingly expected to produce content for use in print or broadcasting and online formats (sometimes all three), including video packages for podcasts. The BBC is moving its news organization away from TV and radio departments towards multimedia structures that assume all content can be made digitally accessible across a range of platforms. These innovations have implications for the form and content of professional journalism, as well as enabling and encouraging the increased use of what is sometimes known as ‘citizen journalism’ or use regenerated content. Increasingly, what is seen on TV screens and websites, on newspaper front pages, alongside the input of the professionals, is images and text provided by amateurs lucky (or unlucky) enough to have been on the scene of a major newsworthy event, such as the Asian tsunami of 2004 or the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York.

It argues that to understand the impact of ‘new’ technologies on journalism practice, ‘new’ technologies must be seen as continuous with and embedded in existing social, cultural, political and economic networks in which journalism practice is entrenched. We therefore need to examine the multidimensional factors in everyday work practices and wider social contexts – which structure and constrain the deployment of ‘new’ technologies by journalists. This approach finds root in social constructivist approaches to technology and the sociology of journalism which respectively provide enduring insights into the impact of ‘new’ technologies on society and the working practices of journalists.

Very little attention has been paid to ‘new’ technologies as ‘tools’ for news production in mainstream journalism practice, We aver/state/ that to understand the impact of ‘new’ technologies on journalism practice in the profession area, we must put journalists into some critical and analytical context that draws on traditional approaches to both technologies and journalism, and begin to question the social relations within which the journalists operate. Thus, while ‘new’ technologies often invoke claims that ‘new’ technology research is different from other forms of social science investigation and, so, requires unique theoretical and methodological approaches (Mudhai 2004: 315; Hine 2005: 245),

         An open government is one where “businesses, civil society organizations and citizens can know things – obtain relevant and understandable information; get things obtain services from and undertake transactions with the government; and create things take part in decision-making processes. The debate over information sharing can be characterized as a power struggle. My suggestion opening up flows of information changes who can do what. The global movement towards freedom of information indicates that over the past few decades, citizens in all parts of the world have shown themselves to be increasingly unwilling to tolerate secretive decision making. Because of technology In fact, one could argue that the power struggle over information has never been more intense and relevant as it is now. According to Blanton (2002); “Today, as a consequence of globalization, the very concept of freedom of information is expanding from the purely moral stance of an indictment of secrecy to include a more value-neutral meaning—as another form of market regulation, of more efficient administration of government, and as a contributor to economic growth and the development of information industries leads by technological new innovations.

           Example ;  In cities around the world, a range of experiments are under way to explore the new possibilities mobile media technologies might offer for urban governance. Many of these experiments involve establishing new channels of information from urban authorities to urban inhabitants, in the hope that city life can be made better by providing people with useful information where and when they need it. In such efforts, government and commercial\ information is made available on the World Wide Web, and the networked and location ware attributes of mobile media devices are enlisted to enable people to access this information while they are ‘on the go’. But experiments are also underway which seek to enhance the flow of information in the other direction, from urban inhabitants to urban authorities.

The cult urological /cultureless/

 culture is a frame of media content and interpretational  reporting arena of the field. An organisational account of this ‘structured bias’ towards the powerful would focus primarily on such causes as the pressures of deadlines. Hall et al. argue that journalists, in any case, share the culturally consensual assumption that these are automatically the most credible, authoritative sources of information, and have privileged access to the media almost as of right. The powerless, on the other hand, are not seen as credible sources of knowledge and explanation, and tend as a result to be marginalised in journalists’ accounts. In this model, journalistic media are seen not as crude instruments of class power, but rather as neutral channels through which social power – what Schlesinger calls definitional power – flows. The journalists are not necessarily biased towards the powerful – but their routine assumptions make them willing conduits of that power. Curran explains the culturalist thesis assumes that authority within media organisations is devolved to relatively autonomous journalists. Their reporting is structured by cultural and ideological influences – whether inscribed in news routines, relayed through sources, mediated through market influences, or simply absorbed from the dominant climate of opinion – rather than by hierarchical supervision and control. (Curran, 1989: 120)

 The culturalist framework links elements of all the above approaches, within a framework which retains a materialist analysis but incorporates elements of the pluralist model. It has evolved as a result of the difficulties experienced by sociologists in trying to reconcile the materialist approach with the evidence dissenting journalism. Consequently, it focuses not on who owns the news media, but on how those media are positioned relative to the power elites within society. It locates the source of ‘bias’ in the environment external to the journalistic organizations, so that content is not simply a function of ownership, or of journalistic practices and rituals, but of the interaction between news organizations, the sources of their output, and other social institutions.

An organizational account of this ‘structured bias’ towards the powerful would focus primarily on such causes as the pressures of deadlines. argue that journalists in any case share the culturally consensual assumption that these are automatically the most credible, authoritative sources of information, and have privileged access to the media almost as of right. The powerless, on the other hand, are not seen as credible sources of knowledge and explanation, and tend as a result to be marginalised in journalists’ accounts. In this model journalistic media are seen rather as neutral channels through which social power – what Schlesinger calls definitional power – flows. The journalists are not necessarily biased towards the powerful – but their routine assumptions make them willing conduits of that power. Curran explains the culturalist thesis assumes that authority within media organisations is devolved to relatively autonomous journalists. Their reporting is structured by cultural and ideological influences – whether inscribed in news routines, relayed through sources, mediated through market influences, or simply absorbed from the dominant climate of opinion – rather than by hierarchical supervision and control. (1989, p. 120)

The source-centered approach shifts attention away from the journalists towards the various categories of source professional now active in the public arena – public relations professionals of various types, who are paid to shape the news agenda and to persuade journalists that certain definitions of events (certain ‘spins’ on things) are preferable to others. In general, culturalist approaches are more optimistic than some of those reviewed above, since they imply that ‘shifts within the power structure, and in the field of contestation in which the media are situated, can lead to space being given to definitions that are opposed to those that are dominant’ (Curran, 1989, p. 117). The relative autonomy of journalism highlighted by the culturalist approach means that subordinate or marginalized political actors can make the news agenda and influence public debate. It suggests that a struggle takes place, outside the media organizations themselves, for access, shifting the critical emphasis away from journalistic bias to the skill and entrepreneurship of social actors in winning this access.

Elsewhere, sociology left a different kind of imprint. In France, the work of Gabriel Tarde and Roland Barthes and the influence of structuralism turned sociological inquiry toward the humanities, as Edgar Morin urged French scholars to develop what he called a “sociology of the present” in their approach to journalism (Mattelart and Mattelart 1992: 22). A sociological interest in journalism was evident in Germany already at the turn of the century—when Ferdinand Toennies, Karl Knies, Karl Buecher, Albert Salomon, and Emil Loebl mentioned journalism’s role in shaping public sentiment (Hardt 1975; Lang 1996)—but it was clearly articulated by MaxWeber when in a 1924 address to the German Sociological Society he called In each case, sociological inquiry offered a compelling way to shape journalism’s study, often under the rubric of communication. In each case, too, the ascent of sociology in journalism’s study was by and large resisted by journalists and journalism educators, who found its Theoretical impulses problematic for the continued training of journalists.

The amount of sociological scholarship on journalism prompted scholars to attempt wrestling the material into coherent organizational schema. Schudson (1991), for instance, identified three main trends emerging from such research—mainstream sociological research, scholarship on the political economy of news, and cult urological approaches to news.

 Media, entertainment, and advertising influence the way that people think and feel. As technology advances and media sources increase, advertisement is affecting our modern culture more than ever. Nowadays, media is considered to be a window for learning and also the window to the world. It has evolved from simple text in papers, to voices on a radio, to voices and pictures in television and movies to the broad, information packed internet. Today’s society lives in a media rich environment. 
A related form of communication is through mass media. This is paradoxically both public and private communication. It is available to the public, but consumed more often in the confines of the home. Thanks to the advancement of technology in the last century new methods of mass communication have grown dramatically. Before the late 19^th century, there was only the printed word to convey information to the masses. Since then, the world has seen the invention of radio, television, and most recently the internet. One of the most powerful means of communicating ideas is through the use of mass media. In contemporary cultures, the advent of mass media has created an important means of discussing, shaping, and reflecting the values and behaviours of each culture. One popular subject for media is the treatment of romantic relationships. I will use the word "romance" in this report not so much to connote the images of candlelit dinners and flowers (though they form a part of this definition), but the general phenomena of exclusive two partner relationships.

Trans-national media conglomerate News Corporation is being accused of threatening nationalism and cultural identity by filtering western ideas into non-western cultures.

The convergence of media technologies has made it possible for Australian-born media tycoon Rupert Murdoch to build News Corporation into a multi billion-dollar media empire that dominates the globe.

News Corporation is a major player in the media market with world-wide interests ranging from newspapers and film, satellite, cable and digital television to the Internet.

Many academics accuse Mr Murdoch of blurring the cultural lines that lie between national borders and suggest that he is trying to ensure the spread of western hegemony.

But the extent to which one culture allows another culture to penetrate its boundaries is governed by each individual society and its legislation.

For example, China is not afraid to enforce its own legislation to protect its people and aspects of its culture. Although the western democratic world has a different outlook to China's communist views, ultimately the power to decide what media content goes to air in China rests with the Chinese Government.

A BBC television broadcast was censored by the Chinese Government in July 2002. The BBC reported that “Chinese authorities switched off a BBC satellite transmission after accusing the corporation of violating its contract about what it can broadcast.”

The story aired by the BBC spoke of the Falun Gong cult that the Chinese Government sees “as a direct threat to stability and state control”.

The BBC went on to say that “all licensed foreign channels in the country have been ordered…to broadcast through a state owned satellite, allowing the government the power to switch them off at a whim.”

Conclusions

The various approaches to the sociology of journalism reviewed in this chapter are not mutually exclusive. But they are premised on profound differences as to the nature of the state’s functioning, of journalism’s role and the concept of ideology. From one perspective, the economic base determines in various ways (economic ownership, competition for advertising revenue) the form of the cultural and ideological superstructure, of which the journalism industry comprises a major part. Economic, political and managerial control of the means of intellectual production by a dominant class ensures the percolating down through society as a whole of that class’s ideology, which thus also becomes ‘dominant’. Subordinate or oppositional ideas are excluded by or marginalised in the mainstream media. Culturalist and source-centred perspectives, on the other hand, assert that the cultural institutions of advanced capitalism are sites of struggle between competing ideological positions. Some groups have privileged access to these sites, by virtue of economic or political status, and thus their ways of seeing the world may become ‘hegemonic’. They are, however, frequently contested in the struggle to make sense of the events and issues thrown up by social and economic processes. In liberal pluralist societies, it is argued, the relative autonomy, objectivity and impartiality of journalistic media must be taken seriously by journalists, who will preserve spaces in which subordinate ideas and dissenting explanations can be heard, even if only on the fringes of mainstream media output. Without such openness, characterisations of the system as pluralistic or democratic would be much harder to sustain.

The professional–organisational perspective (and the technological, which may be viewed as a sub-category of the organisational), finally, tends to absolve journalists from much of the responsibility for their output by saying that the constraints and conventions imposed on their work – whether imposed by audience expectations, limitations on resources, or the demands of deadlines – are more important in understanding output than any concept of ideological class bias, no matter how ‘open’ one concedes it to be.

Each of these approaches has a contribution to make to the understanding of how and why journalism is produced. There clearly are proprietors who actively seek to influence the content and tone of their media, whether by the appointment of key editorial personnel, or simply by attempting to ‘spike’ stories they do not like. Others adopt a ‘hands-off’ proprietorial style, content to view their properties as cash cows, rather than instruments of ideological and political influence. Some combine both approaches, depending on the media property in question. Rupert Murdoch, by his own admission, is more likely to call the editor of the Sun in the middle of the night than his other counterpart at The Times. While the ‘megaphone’ approach works for the Sun, and is expected of it, market forces demand the perception of greater editorial independence from The Times. On his appointment as editor of The Times in 2002, Robert Thomson declared that the title would remain ‘a fact-based newspaper at the quality end of the market … not at all ideological in its news pages and as objective as any journalism can be’.14 And so, most observers of The Times would agree, it has been. In this case, as in many others, the proprietorial power is subject to significant constraints imposed by the market itself, and the place of a particular media property within it.

Likewise, it is beyond argument that journalists are limited in their work by constraints built into the production process, such as deadlines, limits on space and access to sources. All contribute to the shaping of output and the form of the final product. Any sociological account that fails to acknowledge the importance of these constraints is of minimal value in our understanding of how journalism is made. But neither can one allow journalists to refer all criticisms of their work as ‘organisational factors’ over which they have no control. Journalists hold beliefs and assumptions about who are the most authoritative and credible sources in the construction of a given story; about what is the most important story on a given day; and about how a story fits in with common sense or ‘consensual’ ways of seeing the world. These beliefs and assumptions are – inevitably – value-laden, and will tend to reflect the culture within which the journalist is working and has been – or wishes to become – professionally successful.

Reference ;

Fishman, M. 1980. Manufacturing the News. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Flew, T. 2002. New Media: An Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Jacobs, R. N. 1996. Producing the News, Producing the Crisis: Narrating, Television

and Newswork. Media Culture & Society. 18(3): pp373-397.

Jankowski, N., Jones, S., Samarajiva, R. & Silverstone, R. 1999. Editorial. New

Media & Society. 1(1): pp5-9.

Marx, L. 1997. Technology: The emergence of a hazardous concept. Social Research.

64(3): pp965-988.

Manning, P. 2001. News and News Sources. A Critical Introduction. London: Sage.

Mchakulu, J. E. 2007. ‘How did we ever manage without them in the past?’:

Journalists’ Use of Computers and Mobile Telephones. Paper presented at the Communication Technologies of Empowerment Postgraduate Research Conference, Institute of Communications Studies (ICS), University of Leeds, 18 May 2007.

McNair, B. 1998. The Sociology of Journalism. London: Arnold.