Perceived political, organizational, and economical influences by journalists. A threat to the perceived press freedom.
Cristóbal Crespo López 10915753 – crespolop@gmail.com
Master’s Thesis
Graduate School of Communication Master Political Communication Supervisor: Magdalena Wojzciescak
Abstract
The present research investigated the relation of the perceived influences that journalists have with the perceived freedom that journalists enjoy. Political, economical, and organizational influences are considered main influences on the journalistic work. In addition, the existence of an ideological incongruence between the journalists and the organization where they work can produce a moderation in the mentioned relationship. A survey among 217 journalists working in Spain was conducted to measure the following variables: perceived political influences, perceived economical influences, perceived organizational influences, ideological incongruence, and press freedom. In line with the expectations, the results illustrated that these perceived influences have an effect on the perceived press freedom, leading to perceive less press freedom when these influences are higher. In addition, regarding the moderation, the study showed, surprisingly, that the relation between these perceived influences and press freedom is not affected by the existence of an ideological incongruence between journalists and their organization. Female gender was found to enhance the negative effects of the relationship between the perceived organizational and economical influences; and press freedom. In addition, in the three mentioned influences, journalists with a permanent contract shown an effect on the relations between the three perceived influences and press freedom, leading to perceive more freedom and less influences.
Perceived Political, Organizational, and Economical Influences by Journalists. A Threat to the Perceived Press Freedom.
Nowadays, the press freedom can be perceived as threatened. According to the magazine The Economist (2016), the worldwide press freedom has declined by 14% since 2013. The press freedom is fundamental in a democracy. And that is why a wide range of organizations as Freedom House, Reporters sans Frontiére, IREX, etc. were created to measure existing levels of press freedom in the world (Becker, Vlad & Nusser, 2007). But these measures are not always transparent and are just showing problems that press freedom is facing in each country, but not causes.
First, is important to mention that the press freedom can be affected if journalists do not enjoy a complete independence from pressures and influences (Bertrand, 2009). But which ones are the main influences that journalists can perceive? Journalists usually perceive three main influences on their work: Political influences as one of the main influences of the journalistic work (Bertrand, 2009), because politicians or related groups do not want to read bad news about them. That is, why journalists can perceive influences from them if they do not do a “good” job in publishing content to keep happy the politicians (Casero-Ripollés, Izquierdo-Castillo & Doménech-Fabregat, 2014). Organizational influences are another kind of influence of the journalists (Shoemaker & Reese, 1996). Influences that emanate from multiple levels in the organization (Hanitzsch & Mellado, 2011) looking to reach certain objectives that can represent restrictions for the journalists. In the economic aspect, different economic restrictions that journalists and organizations are facing, represent a decline in the journalistic world (Franklin, 2014). Hence, these influences that journalists can perceive are representing limits in the journalistic role, and if the press freedom is limited, journalists cannot play their role.
Chan & Lee (1988) investigated that organizations can control journalists regarding their ideology. So, the relation between perceived influences and perceived press freedom, can be affected if there is an ideological incongruence of the journalists among their organization.
Investigations about possible influences and threats of the journalistic role in Western democracies are very reduced (Löfgren & Ornebring, 2016). Some studies identified different factors that can affect the journalistic freedom, as violent attacks, threats, harassment, or intimidation of journalists, which can help to have a low status of freedom (Chalaby, 2000; Waisbord, 2002), but these researches are focused on tools that can be used to affect the journalistic freedom. Moreover, different researches investigated the relation of the influences previously mentioned with different journalistic roles; as their perceived press autonomy (Deuze, 2005; Hanitzsch, 2011; McDevitt, 2003), perceptions of influences
regarding the watchdog role (Casero-Ripollés et al, 2014) and the information dissemination, the interpretative and the adversarial roles (Aranda, 1999), or perceptions of influences regarding journalistic roles as informative, entertainment, or interpretation (Zhu et al., 1997). In addition, some studies focused on influences in the journalistic work in general
(Herscovitz, 2004) or inclusive general influences in the media (Norris, 1997), but there is not a focus available of the perceived influences regarding press freedom. In addition, press autonomy and press freedom are terms usually confused, but it is important to make a
difference between them as are not the same concepts. Del Gandio (2013) stated that freedom is submitted to some external forces, and autonomy is a practice of self-constituting power.
This research will fill the gap in the available literature, knowing which ones are the main influences that journalists perceive more and can threat the perception of their press freedom. It is necessary to understand and give a knowledge to the journalists regarding what can cause a direct effect on their press freedom.
effect on the perceived press freedom of the journalists. In this case, the perceived political, economical, and organizational influences for the journalists, and their relation with the perceived journalistic press freedom, are the central focus of the study. Then, this ideological distance will contribute more effectively to identify if it causes an effect on the relation between perceived influences and perceived press freedom. To summarize, the goal of the current study is to answer the following central research question:
RQ: “To what extent the ideological incongruence of the journalists among their organization has an effect on the different perceived influences that affect the journalists and in their perceived freedom?”
In order to evaluate the effects that an ideological incongruence can have on the relationship between perceived political, economical and organizational influences; and perceived press freedom, those effects will be empirically tested. A cross-sectional survey will examine this question, starting with an analysis of the dependent variable of this research, which is the perceived press freedom by the journalists and its relationship with perceived political, organizational, and economical influences as independent variables. Immediately after, the ideological distance that measures the ideological distance of the journalists regarding their organization is argued to have a moderating role in the relation between perceived influences and perceived press freedom.
Theoretical Background
Press Freedom
According to Trappel & Maniglio (2009), is very important to have press freedom to guarantee a democratic level of journalism, because communication in a democracy is connected with the idea of freedom. Freedom of expression and opinion-building, as individual basic rights and as institutional guarantees for a free and independent media
system, are part of the very core of democracy; they are an element of a democratic order per se. Thus, press freedom is a fundamental and key component in the democratic systems, and is a statement where scholars agree. (Hallin & Mancini, 2004; Himelboim & Limor, 2008; Trappel & Maniglio, 2009). In addition to the importance of having press freedom,
Lowenstein (1970) argued that:
A completely free press is one where newspapers, periodicals, news agencies,
books, radio, and television have absolute independence and critical ability, except for minimal libel and obscenity laws. The press has no concentrated ownership, marginal economic units or organized self-regulation.’ (cited by Becker et al. 2007, p. 6). Bertrand (2009) added that a journalist can only be accountable and achieve freedom if they enjoy a complete independence from economic and political pressures. Hence, is very important to the function of the democratic system and journalism, that journalist can perceive a high level of press freedom. Otherwise, perceived influences are a threat to the press freedom.
Weaver (1977) mentioned three fundamental components for journalists to guarantee the press freedom: 1- A relative absence of government influences on the media. 2- A relative absence of nongovernmental influences and; 3.- Need of certain conditions to ensure a
freedom to spread ideas and opinions to large audiences. However, when these components are reversed, press freedom is under threat. Political influences can cause an effect on the first component previously mentioned, organizational restraints can cause an effect on the second component, and economical influences can cause influences in the third component.
Also, the media need to carry three fundamental functions: inform and provide citizens with the right information regarding social decisions, to serve as a watchdog towards powers in the society and to function as link for all different points of view in the public opinion (Himelboim & Limor, 2008) and these functions cannot be carried if the freedom
role of the journalists is limited (Reese, 2007). Hallin (1992) for example, considers that: US journalism reached a “high modernism” stage, characterized by the independent insider. This role broke down with the collapse of political consensus and economic support for media reporting, to give way to an interpretive, but largely technical analysis, role. (Cited by Reese, 2001, p. 175)
Himelboim & Limor (2008) agreed with Hallin saying that independence and freedom are important, and adding that recent studies have shifted the focus towards economic and financial aspects of media organizations, viewing them as a threat to media freedom. Thus, these relevant factors can influence and conflict with the journalists and create a conflict in the newsroom regarding a restriction in the press freedom.
Thus, press freedom is a critical element in understanding the function of media in society. With free press freedom, is supposed that journalists will follow certain ethical conducts and roles that can benefit the democratic game and the society in general. However, the influences to the role of the free journalist that are going to be immediately mentioned, can be a limit to their performance and a problem for the democracy. As mentioned before, press freedom is a core part of a democratic system, and the functions that journalists need to carry are a guarantee of the press freedom.
Perceived Influences
Journalistic information is set as a strategic key resource and a very important resource of first order for many people (Casero-Ripollés et al., 2014, p. 355). According to Shoemaker & Reese (1996), journalistic information and content in the news can be
influenced by media workers’ socialization and attitudes, media organizations and routines, other social institutions and forces, and ideological power. Thus, different factors that can try to control the journalistic information can lead to the journalists to perceive influences, in this case, associated to the information that they produce at work. So, is a fact that journalists are
not able to run their professional values and roles when limits on their editorial freedom and autonomy are imposed (Reich & Hanitzsch, 2013).
However, there is not a consensus among scholars about which one of the previously named influences is more important (Hanitzsch & Mellado, 2011). Himelboim & Limor (2008) found that political influences are a main pressure affecting the journalists, but they added that now these tendencies are shifting. Shifting towards economic reasons and different aspects of the organizations where the journalists work. And these movements are
representing some kind of new threats to their perceived freedom. So, based on that, this study will analyse the perception of political, economical and organizational as the main influences that can affect the press freedom of the journalists.
Political influences. Nowadays, we all know the power that the media have. And politicians know it as well. Gans (1979) mentioned, that the relationship between politicians and journalists is like a tango, where one needs each other to “dance”. News are a
fundamental link between political actors and voters, because citizens often find in the media the information needed about their representatives. Moreover, media coverage might be an advantage for the politicians during policy-making processes. Both politicians and journalists believe that the other is firmly in charge of the news production process (Van Aelst et al., 2008). But obviously, as in every relation, one part can have more influence in the other part, and politicians have numerous reasons to represent a journalistic influence.
Why politicians can influence journalists? Because politicians want to generate positive impressions among the citizens, and media is a perfect vehicle for them. Politicians want the media to reach a broad public and to serve as a vehicle for their proposals and policies and generate positive impressions among the citizens (Casero-Ripollés et al., 2014). Politicians always wish to communicate directly with their voters regarding the great actions
they did and became popular, but what they do not want is to communicate their mistakes (Puglisi & Snyder, 2008). In addition, when legislators and government officials use the news media to gain public support and influence their counterparts to get legislation passed
(Fogarty, 2008; Kedrowski, 1996) (cited by Vos, 2012, p. 2438). Hence, politicians want probably a total control of the media for their proposals and own interests. So, perceived influences that politicians can have to reach certain objectives, can cause a limit on the perceived freedom of the journalist.
Also, if we take into consideration the Politics-Media-Politics principle developed by Wolfsfeld (2013), saying that independent media can transform political realities into news stories and have a significant impact and variation in the political atmosphere. Thus, to avoid communicating their mistakes or just to promote themselves and get support, or just to control the transformation of political realities into news stories, the press freedom that journalists can enjoy to report in a certain way, can be limited by politicians, because the needs they have to control journalists are evident. Journalists have to inform following ethical codes that at certain point could be limited because the different reasons of the politicians. And if journalists cannot follow these codes, they can perceive limits on their freedom.
In a study of Hanitzsch et al. (2010), based on the answers of 1700 journalists, was revealed that the political influences originated from the political context, including
government officials, politicians, and censorship, but also those who represent the interests of the business world in the arena of economic policy making (Hanitzsch &Mellado, 2010, p. 3). Same authors mentioned, that seems journalists are aware of the growing of the supremacy of political influences. Politicians know the power that free and independent journalists can have, and in order to reach certain goals following their own interests, they are supposed to represent an influence that can limit the freedom of the journalist to report freely about good or bad actions. The fact is, that the journalistic information is a strategic resource of priority
for the political actors. And that leads to journalists and politicians have a certain kind of special relation. Politicians realized that media can be used as a weapon, and without a media support, their future could be very dark (Roudakova, 2005).
Regarding the relation of this variable with press freedom, is assumed this influence can cause an effect in the relation with press freedom and in consequence, the following hypothesis is formulated: H1: The more political influences perceived by a respondent, the less press freedom this respondent perceives.
Economic influences. Economic influences have direct consequences for the news organizations where the journalists work and include profit expectations of media companies, advertising considerations, the needs of advertisers, as well as market and audience research (Hanitzch & Mellado, 2010 p. 4). Furthermore, economic targets of owners and advertisers represent an important source of influences to the organizations (Donohue et al, 1985; Duval, 2005; Unverwood, 1993; Weaver, et al 2007; Zhu et al. 1997). Moreover, a fail reaching economic targets, can represent an influence to the journalists. The consequences are cuts in editorial staffs, decrease of number of daily papers and in consequence decrease of selling, or loss of advertising revenues. All these consequences are representing a decline in the
journalistic world (Franklin, 2014) and media companies struggle to meet the economic commitments.
In fact, the outlet subsistence is the main objective of media corporations, and there is a media protection of the outlets to reach that objective above all the aspects, that can lead to generating journalistic influences and in consequence, limit the journalistic perception of freedom. In spite of economical pressures to make profits are making pronounced changes in journalistic values (Picard, 2004), it can lead to have some advantages. Journalists can be more efficient, creating news if there is competence between journalists to reach these targets- But again, usually a dominant economic dependence on third parties by the
organization, decreases the quality of the information (Bagdikian, 1985).
Furthermore, considering the production of news nowadays, including distribution, is representing high costs for the organization (Whitney et al. 2004, Puglisi & Snyder, 2008). That can lead as well to have an economic dependence from third parties, because of the inability of most media outlets to commercialize, due to a low circulation and low audiences, which is another important reason of why journalists, editors, and broadcasters turn to
powerful economic figures for financial support and patronage (Roudakova, 2008). Thus, all these factors, economic targets, consequences, and dependence on third parties, are economic influences that can be perceived by the journalist and can represent an influence in their perceived press freedom if they have no more options than reach the economic targets for the subsistence of the organization. Thus, the following hypothesis is formulated: H2: The more economical influences perceived by a respondent, the less press freedom this respondent perceives.
Organizational influences. Another factor that may affect journalistic freedom are the constraints performed internally by the organization, which may affect the journalist (Shoemaker & Reese, 1991). Firstly, Bagdikian (1985) mentioned that politics of media owners affect media content and public opinion on major issues. Secondly, according to Hanitzsch et al. (2010), the editorial organization constitutes a sphere of influence that is most immediate to the journalists’ experience. And thirdly, not only the editors and owners are representing the organizational influences. The organizational influences can emanate as well from different levels, from the newsroom (supervisors and higher editors) and from within the media organization (management and ownership) (Hanitzsch & Mellado, 2011).
Also, the organizational influences are based on these routines that journalists follow imposed by their organizations, which can lead them to have a constraint in their professional role and in consequence in their perceived press freedom. Shoemaker & Reese (1996)
described professional routines as one of several constraining forces that manipulate the work of the journalist. These professional routines are usually imposed by the organization, with the target of repeat habits inside the organization. These habits, or behaviour patterns, deeply studied by the organization. That happens because these habits prevent journalists from making decisions purely based on individual beliefs. Alternatively, decisions are based on standard practices and routines. Professional routines established and imposed by a formal organizational structure, can represent as well an obligation for the journalist (Reese, 2001) and in consequence makes journalists perceive influences from the organization in their press freedom. Also, regarding routines, journalists face pressures like deadlines, external
complaints, editor’s demands, that, mentioned by Tuchman (1972), if journalists emphasize objectivity and they follow the strategies of the organization, these dangers could be
minimized and reduced to receive less influences.
In consequence, organizational influences are referring to how the power is used within an organization, and in the decision-making routines (Relly, Zanger & Fahmy, 2015). The imposition of routines, the direct influences of different members of the organization and the targets of the organization, can lead to the journalists to perceive influences that can affect their press freedom to do their work. In this study, is assumed that the perceived
organizational influences are a constraint and can cause an effect on the perceived press freedom by the journalist, so, in consequence, the following hypothesis is formulated: H3: The more organizational influences perceived by a respondent, the less press freedom this respondent perceives.
Ideological incongruence between journalists and their organizations. The second main goal of this study is to show that the hypothesized relationships between political, organizational and economical influences and perceived freedoms are moderated by an ideological incongruence between the journalist and their organization, as media
professionalism is by no means ideologically free (Chan & Lee, 1988, p.186).
It is necessary to define what is meant by ideological congruence between journalists and their organization. Not defined in any other previous research, ideological journalistic congruence can be defined as the absolute ideological distance between the journalists and their organization. This is assumed based on an adaptation of the definition made by Golder & Stramski (2010) regarding voters and government.
Ideology is usually perceived as an element of union and cohesion in the society (Shoemaker & Reese, 1996), and a shared occupational ideology is believed to serve as the “cultural cement” (Deuze, 2005, p. 455). Thus, ideology can help to represent a link between the journalists and their organizations and help to create a unique identity (Hanitzsch, 2007). However, Lull (1995) stated:
Ideology, in the context of journalists and journalistic values, can be understood in two basic ways: As a system of ideas, and in terms of struggle over dominance. Ideologies are organized thoughts that form internally coherent ways of thinking and that become manifest as a set of values, orientations, and predispositions (cited by Hanitzsch, 2007, p.370).
So, the pursued moderating effect can be argued, based in terms of struggle over dominance, because the political ideology in the newsroom determines a media-institutional control by the organization (Chan & Lee, 1988). In addition, media owners see party affiliation as a chance to increase circulation among party supporters and gain audience (Hallin & Mancini, 2004) because audience consume information based on their ideological preferences. That can lead to the media outlet to follow a certain ideology or trends and control the journalists, in spite of the plural opinion that journalists can have inside the newsroom.
In case of media systems with organizations based on external pluralism, the effective dominance and the winner of the ideological fight would be always the media organization,
as the media owners affiliated with a political group are the dominators of the information in the media outlet (Valcke et al., 2009). However, in media systems with a domination of an internal pluralism in the newsrooms where each organization attempts to follow and represent different views in the political spectrum and society, the internal pluralism can be affected. Basically because of biased information dominated by the organization in order to increase audiences and please their readers and owners (Mullainathan & Shleifer, 2002).
According to Peiser (2000), evidences regarding the importance of the journalists’ own opinions and ideological positions are shown regarding the importance of these in their work, although this relation has not been investigated enough. But, media pluralism has a close relation to media freedom and in a democratic process, they complement each other. Media pluralism is achieved with a degree of scope of press freedom, which is based on the possibility that one has to express themselves and access information (Llorens & Costache, 2014). If the owners, or audiences, are in a different ideological position than the journalist, might be a conflict of interests. In addition, the diverse media outlets often act as political actors in the great themes of political confrontation (Humanes et al., 2013), and that can lead to internal conflicts when the pluralism is internal to determine an ideological position of the organization. But, as mentioned before, the dominance of the organization in this case is high. Is assumed that an ideological incongruence can interact with the influences and press
freedom. In the case of political influences, due to an ideological incongruence with the political factors. Regarding the organizational and economical influences, due to constraints to reach some targets that depend of political actors, as can be subsidies, or political affinity of the owners.
Hence, based on the theory, is assumed that and ideological incongruence of the journalists regarding his/her organization can create a conflict and have an effect on the relation between
perceived influences and perceived press freedom. Thus, the following hypothesis are formulated:
H4: Ideological incongruence of the journalists regarding their organization increase the perception of perceived political influences and reduce the perceived press freedom.
H5: Ideological incongruence of the journalists regarding their organization increase the perception of perceived economical influences and reduce the perceived press freedom.
H6: Ideological incongruence of the journalists regarding their organization increase the perception of perceived organizational influences and reduce the perceived press
freedom.
Spanish context
In this research, the study case relates to journalists working in Spain. This choice is based on the knowledge of the author about Spain, and the absence of language barriers to contact journalists. Spain is a country with an external pluralism (Hallin & Mancini, 2004) and has certain characteristics that can play a role in this research.
First, is important to mention what was mentioned at the beginning. Press freedom is under threat, and Spain this is not an exception. In 2015, Spain scored 28 points in the Freedom House Index of Press Freedom, closing the ranking of countries with press freedom in Europe. The freedom in Spain has been in constant declining since 2003 when Spain scored 16 points. In the Freedom House report of 2015, is mentioned that press freedom in Spain continued to suffer from the effects of the economic crisis, where many media outlets have closed or cut staff in recent years, as public expenditures and the advertising market contracted. This leads to a decline in media diversity, expanding political influence, increasing self-censorship, and causing a deterioration in the independence and quality of reporting.
Secondly, Spain is classified under the Mediterranean system by Hallin & Mancini (2004), where Spain shares some major characteristics with the southern European countries: low levels of newspaper circulation, a tradition of advocacy journalism, the
instrumentalization of privately owned media, politicization of public broadcasting and broadcast regulation and limited development of journalism as an autonomous profession (Hallin & Papathanassopoulos, 2002, p. 193). Based on that, is assumed that the perceived political, economic, and organizational influences can be the as well in this case, the three most representative influence dimensions. Dimensions against the journalistic work in Spain that can limit the perceived press freedom.
Moreover, on one hand, according to the perception of Spanish political journalists, the principal restriction on their professional autonomy is political pressure from within media organizations (Van Dalen, 2012). So, is assumed that in the case of professional press freedom, political influences could also be a main influence. Hallin & Mancini (2004) mentioned that these high levels of perceived political influences should be present in contexts with strong traditions of political parallelism, such as Southern Europe and Latin America. For example, the Spanish governments have a big influence in the Spanish media landscape (Hallin & Papathanassopoulos, 2002). But, Aranda (1999), related as well to Spain, stated that the restrictions of the journalists are wide from inside the organization, and the demands of the organization are very influential in the journalistic profession.
In the other hand, in Spain there is a strong tendency of public and private interests with political alliances and certain interests and ambitions to control the media (Hallin & Papathanassopoulos; 2002) that could represent influences, in this case political,
organizational, or economical, that can have an effect as well on the journalistic press freedom. So, there are reasons to believe that in Spain, a country included in the
Mediterranean model of Hallin & Mancini (2004), exist a high level of journalistic influences that can limit the role of the press freedom.
Methods
The present study tests the relationship between the perceived influences of the journalists (political, organizational and economical) and the perceived press freedom by the journalists. In addition, the possible effect that can cause an ideological congruence regarding the journalists and their organization. For that, an online survey was conducted, using the website Qualtrics as a tool to collect the data. This research is deductive, based on cross-sectional and quantitative data.
The journalists were reached using three techniques: First one, journalists were contacted using social media networks as Twitter and Facebook, sending a short and
informative message to the accounts that included the word “Journalist” on their description. Second one, newsrooms were contacted by email and telephone, providing them a short and informative email about the characteristics and the proposal of the research, including a link to the survey. Contact information of the organizations was provided by a “Communication agenda” of the Spanish government available online. And third one, diverse press
associations were contacted by telephone and their Facebook pages to help distribute the survey among their associated journalists. In all cases, contacted journalists were asked to spread the survey using a snowball sampling to reach as many journalists as possible. The estimation of contacted journalists is not easy to calculate in this case, but more than 1000 messages were sent by social media, and more than 2000 emails to journalists and media outlets were sent. The data collection was completed in 2 weeks during May 2016. This short period might be a cause for a low rate response.
In this study, the country of focus is Spain, thus, the respondents were journalists working in Spain. A total of 513 journalists participated in this study. Before analysing the data, the dataset was checked for inaccuracies and missing data. In total, 298 respondents completed the whole survey. As control questions, a first question was asked to see if the respondent was working as a journalist or not, and after, they were asked to which media outlet they work. 31 were excluded because they were not journalists, and 50 were excluded because they were not working for any media outlet (or neither as a freelance), or they were working in the press offices of public institutions or political parties not related to the production of news. The final sample consisted of 217 respondents, including 119 males (54,8%) and 98 females (45,2%). The participants’ mean age was 53.8 years (SD = 13,11) . The final sample shows a diverse representation of respondents, with diversity of journalists working for local, regional, or national media outlets of TV (8,3%), Radio (15,7%),
Newspapers and Written press (23,9%), Online news (17,1%), News Agencies (13,8%) and others (21,2%).
Measures
This study used different measures in order to test the research model proposed. These included: perceived freedom, perceived political, economical and organizational influences-, and ideological distance. For each variable, existing measures were used and adapted to fit into the purpose of the study.
Perceived press freedom. The central dependent variable, perceived press freedom, was measured with seven items based on a scale used by Quandt et al. (2006) and Hanitzsch et al.(2010). Respondents were asked to indicate their agreement, on a Likert scale from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree), with the following statements: “Journalists in Spain can operate freely and independently”, “I have a lot of control over the work I do” and “I am allowed to take part in decisions that affect my work”. (See appendix B for means and
standard deviations of all the individual items). In addition, respondents were asked the following questions “When you have a good idea for a new report which you think is important and should be followed up, how often are you able to get the subject covered” (from 1 ‘Always’ to 5 ‘Never’)?, “How much freedom do you personally have in selecting news stories you work on” (from 1 ‘Complete freedom’ to 5 ‘No freedom at all’)?, “How much freedom do you personally have in deciding which aspect of a story should be
emphasized” (from 1 ‘Complete freedom’ to 5 ‘No freedom at all’)? And “How often do you participate in editorial and newsroom coordination, such as attending editorial meetings or assigning reporters” (from 1 ‘Always’ to 5 ‘Never’)?. In order to carry the analysis, the answers were recoded to indicate 5 (low perceived press freedom) to 1 (high perceived press freedom). Exploratory factor analysis, using a principal axis factoring with Direct Oblimin rotation indicated the 7 items load on one factor, in a unidimensional scale, explaining a 50,45% of the variance (eigenvalue = 3.53). The seven-item scale proved reliable as indicated by a Cronbach’s alpha of .801 (M = 3.60, SD = .78).
Perceived political influences. One of the central theoretical predictors, perceived political influences, were measured with eight items based on a scale used by Josephi (2015) and Hanitzsch et al.(2010) A first set of questions was asked to measure direct influences; “In general, journalists can face some influences from certain groups. Please indicate from 1 to 5, how influential each of the following is in your work as a journalist: Government officials, politicians, pressure groups, PR of Political Parties, Censorship, and Business People”; and then a second set of two questions was asked: “The following statements describes different political factors that can affect journalists. On the scale below, please indicate how strongly, from 1 to 5, you agree or disagree: Politicians limit me to write about certain content related to them” and “The news and information provided by the media outlet where I work are determined by particular partisan’s interests”. In order to carry the analysis, again, the
answers were recoded to indicate 5 (high perceived influence) to 1 (low perceived influence). Exploratory factor analysis, using a principal axis factoring with Direct Oblimin rotation indicates that the 8 items load on one factor explaining a 60,92% of the variance (eigenvalue = 4.87). The seven-item scale proved reliable as indicated by a Cronbach’s alpha of .905 (M = 3.44, SD = .98).
Perceived economical influences. Another central theoretical predictor, perceived political influences, were measured with six items based on a scale used by Hanitzsch et al.(2010). Respondents were asked to indicate from 1(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) their agreement with the following statements: “Profits are a higher priority more than good journalism in my news organization”, “Advertising considerations”, “Profit expectations of the news organization”, “I need to be careful writing about certain topics that can scare potential advertisers in my media outlet”, and two questions about how important their consider these factors for their organizations: “Earning high, above-average profits” and “Keeping the size of the audience as large as possible” (from 1”Extremely important” to 5 “Not at all important”). In order to carry the analysis, once more, the answers were recoded to indicate 5 (high perceived influence) to 1 (low perceived influence). Exploratory factor analysis, using a principal axis factoring with Direct Oblimin rotation indicates that the 6 items load on one factor explaining a 56,20% of the variance (eigenvalue = 3.37). The six-item scale proved reliable as indicated by a Cronbach’s alpha of .840 (M = 2.54, SD = .95).
Perceived organizational influences. And the last central theoretical predictor, perceived orgatizational influences, were measured with five items based on a scale used by Quandt et al.(2006). Again, a first set of questions was asked to measure direct influences; “In general, organizational factors may affect journalists. Please indicate from 1 (extreme influential) to 5 (Not influential at all), how influential each of the following is in your work as a journalist: Your editorial supervisors and higher editors, The managers of your news
organization, The owners of your news organization, and editorial policy”, and “Please indicate, from 1 (Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly disagree), how you agree with these
statements: My organization prioritizes society’s interest over corporate interest”. In order to carry the analysis, once again, the answers were recoded to indicate 5 (high perceived
influence) to 1 (low perceived influence). Exploratory factor analysis, using a principal axis factoring with Direct Oblimin rotation indicates that the 5 items load on one factor explaining a 60,92% of the variance (eigenvalue = 2.83). The five-item scale proved reliable as indicated by a Cronbach’s alpha of .787 (M = 2.72, SD = .86).
Ideological incongruence. The ideological distance between the journalists and the organization where they work was measured using two questions used by Quandt et
al.(2006). First, asking “The media are often classified politically in terms of left, right, and centre. On a scale from 0, which means extreme left, to 10, which means extreme right, where would you place the editorial leaning of your organization” (M = 5.06 , SD = 1.73)? And secondly: “And where on this scale would you place yourself, keeping in mind that 0 means extreme left and 10 means extreme right” (M = 3.53 , SD = 1.66)? To measure the ideological congruence, a new variable was computed subtracting the absolute values of the questions and finding the difference among the answer to the first question with the answer to the second question. Possible negative differences as a result of the order of the questions were recoded into positive, as the distance remains the same. For example, if the respondent classifies his/her organization with an 8 and himself with a 2, the ideological distance would be about 6 points within 10. Higher values in this measure indicated a low ideological congruence of the journalists regarding the organization where they work. (M = 1.93, SD = 1.65).
Control variables. Even though gender, age, hiring status and production of domestic and national news was not of theoretical interest for this study, they were included as control
variables. Gender and age are typically used control variables and usually very important, and the production of domestic and national news was chosen because of the tendency that
politics have to control the information related to them, regarding what was mentioned in the theory. Bertrand (2005) mentioned that political journalists are usually more influenced. Furthermore, the hiring status could be relevant to analyse, as permanent employees are usually more difficult to influence that the ones without an employment stability. Respondents provided some demographic data such as age, terms of employment and nationality.
Results
To examine the first three hypotheses, whether respondents indeed perceived more influences that reduce their perceived press freedom, three Ordinal Linear Regression models were developed. One for each of the independent variables (perceived political influences, perceived economical influences and perceived organizational influences). The analysis was conducted with “perceived influences” as independent variables, and ”perceived press freedom” as the dependent variable.
The fourth, fifth, and sixth hypotheses, described the moderation effect that a high ideological distance can cause in the relationship between perceived political, economical and organizational influences and press freedom, were examined with the PROCESS macro tool (Hayes, 2013, model 1). Before starting the analysis, the variables perceived political, economical and organizational influences, and press freedom, were computed. And in order to avoid potentially problematic high multicollinearity problems, the variables were centred (Aiken, West & Reno, 1991).
Perceived political influences and perceived press freedom
on the perceived press freedom. In this regression model, the relation perceived press
freedom as the dependent variable, perceived political influences as independent variable and gender and production of national and domestic news as control variables is significant, F (5,211) = 18.70, p < .000. This regression model can therefore be used to predict to what extent the level of perceived political influences cause an effect on the perceived press freedom that journalists perceive. The strength of the prediction is relevant: 30,7 percent of the variation in perceived press freedom can be predicted on the basis of perceived political influences. Perceived political influences has a negative effect on Perceived press freedom, b= -.38; SE= .047; p < .000; 95% CI [-.48; -.29]. These results show that the more perceived political influences the respondent perceive, the less freedom is perceived. Thus, the
hypothesis 1 is supported. Control variables, in this case, gender, p = .09 , working producing news related to domestic politics in Spain, p = .663, and age, p = 335 , are not an effect on the perceived press freedom. However, the status of the journalist shows a positive effect. If they are hired permanent, they tend to perceive more press freedom, b = .39; SE= .09, p = .000 , 95% CI [.21; .57] (See Appendix B for regression table 5).
Perceived economical influences and perceived press freedom
Another OLR regression analysis revealed that perceived economical influences have as well, an effect on the perceived press freedom. In this regression model, the relation perceived press freedom as the dependent variable and perceived political influences as independent variable, and gender and production of national and domestic news as control variables is significant, F (5,211) = 6.76, p < .000. As the previous one, this regression model can therefore be used to predict to what extent the level of perceived economical influences cause an effect on the perceived press freedom that journalists perceive. The strength of the prediction is relevant: 13,8 percent of the variation in perceived press freedom can be
predicted on the basis of perceived economical influences. Perceived economical influences has a negative effect on Perceived press freedom, b= .20; SE= .05; p < .000; 95% CI [.31; -.10]. These results show that the more perceived economical influences the respondent perceive, the less freedom is perceived. Thus, the hypothesis 2 is supported. Control
variables, in this case working producing news related to domestic politics in Spain, p > .73, and age, p > .35, are not causing an effect on the perceived press freedom. However, gender has significance on press freedom, b = -.23, SE = .05, p= .025 , 95% CI [-.44, -.03] and the hiring status as well, b= .31, SE = .10, p= .002, 95% CI [.11; .51]. (See Appendix B for regression table 6)
Perceived organizational influences and perceived press freedom
And regarding the last perceived influence which is related to organizational factors, again an OLR regression analysis revealed as well that perceived organizational influences have an effect on the perceived press freedom. As in the previous cases, the relation perceived press freedom as the dependent variable, perceived organizational influences as independent variable and gender and production of national and domestic news as control variables, were significant, F (5,211) = 12.01, p < .000. Once more, this regression model can therefore be used to predict to what extent the level of perceived organizational influences cause an effect on the perceived press freedom that journalists perceive. The strength of the prediction is important: 22,2 percent of the variation in perceived press freedom can be predicted on the basis of perceived organizational influences. Perceived organizational influences has a negative effect on Perceived press freedom, b= -.34; SE= .06; p < .000; 95% CI [-.45; -.23] These results show that the more perceived organizational influences the respondent perceive, the less freedom is perceived. Thus, the hypothesis 3 is, as well, supported.
Control variables, in this case, working producing news related to domestic politics in Spain, p > .86, and age, p > .41, are not causing an effect on the perceived press freedom. However, in this model, as well, gender has significance on press freedom, b = -.20, SE = .10, p= .038 , 95% CI [-.40, -.01] and the hiring status as well, b= .33, SE = .09, p= .000, 95% CI [.15; .52]. (See Appendix B for regression table 7).
As an addition to the previous analysis, an extra analysis was carried, using the three
perceived influences in one model to see which one has the highest effect among these three on press freedom. Perceived political influences is the variable causing the highest effect on press freedom. b* = -.37, p = .000, followed by perceived organizational influences, b*= -18, p = .017. Control variables show that only the hiring status of the journalist have an effect, b= .39, SE = .09, p= .000, 95% CI [.21; .56]. In addition, there are not interaction effects
between the perceived influences (political, p>.30 ; economical, p> .63 and organizational, p> .65) and the ideological distance towards press freedom.
Ideological congruence as moderator
Hypothesis 4 states that ideological distance moderates the relationships between perceived political influences and the level of press freedom. Moderating effects were assessed via linear regression using Hayes PROCESS-macro in SPSS (Hayes, 2013, model 1). One moderation model was tested with perceived political influences as the independent variable, perceived press freedom as the dependent variable and ideological congruence as the moderator. The effects of perceived political influences on press freedom were not moderated by the ideological congruence of the respondents. R2 change= .0003, F(1,209) = .09, p= .77. So, hypothesis 4 is rejected. In addition, control variables have different results over the model. Gender p > .08 , age: p> .32; and working in the production of domestic and national news, p = .72 does not cause and effect on press freedom, but opposite results are found for the hiring status, which once again, cause an effect, b= .39, SE = .09, p= .000.
Hypothesis 5 states in the same way that the previous one, but with the difference of perceived economical influences instead of political. Again, moderation effects were assessed via linear regression using Hayes PROCESS-macro in SPSS (Hayes, 2013, model 1). One moderation model was tested with perceived economical influences as the independent variable, perceived press freedom as the dependent variable and ideological congruence as the moderator. In this case, the same result than in the hypothesis 4 is obtained. The effects of perceived economical influences on press freedom were not moderated by the ideological congruence of the respondents. R2 change= .004, F(1,209) = 1.38, p= .24 .Again, hypothesis 5 is rejected. In addition, the control variables “gender” and the “hiring status” have an effect over press freedom. Gender: b= -.24, SE = .10, p < .013 . Hiring status: b= .33, SE = .09, p < .000. Not effect regarding working in the production of domestic and national news, p > .74 ; and age: p> .30
Hypothesis 6 states in a similar way than the two previous ones. The ideological distance moderates the relationships between, in this case, perceived organizational
influences and the level of press freedom. Moderating effects were assessed once more via linear regression using Hayes PROCESS-macro in SPSS (Hayes, 2013, model 1). One moderation model was tested with perceived organizational influences as the independent variable, perceived press freedom as the dependent variable and ideological congruence as the moderator. Same results that in the two hypotheses previously mentioned. The effects of perceived organizational influences on press freedom were not moderated by the ideological congruence of the respondents. R2 change= .008, F(1,209) = 2.55, p= .11 .Once again, the hypothesis 6 is rejected. In addition, again, the control variables “gender” and the “hiring status” have an effect over press freedom. Gender: b= -.23, SE = .10, p < .017 . Hiring status: b= .34, SE = .09, p < .000. Not effect regarding working in the production of domestic and national news, p > .76 ; and age: p> .40
Conclusion & Discussion
This study is one of the first attempts to establish a path to research what influences journalists can perceive and can limit their perceived press freedom having an effect on their journalistic role. The aim of this study was to investigate the relation between perceived political, economic and organizational influences and the press freedom that journalists perceive. Furthermore, it was assumed these effects would be moderated by the ideological congruence of the journalists regarding their organization. So, this study aims to fill a gap in the literature by examining separately, these three influences and their effect in the perception of press freedom by the journalists. Taking into account as well the ideological incongruence, as a valuable variable that could affect journalists, this research established a comprehensive model.
Regarding the central core of the research model, the first three hypotheses are
supported. It is determined that the different influences perceived by journalists are having an effect on their perception of press freedom. The findings of this research outline an effect in this relation as expected. A high perception of the perceived political, organizational, and press freedoms, have a negative effect and decrease the perception of press freedom. Can be discussed that the perceived press freedom can be reduced in the case of perceived political influences, due to a huge control of the information that politicians can have in systems to get published the information they want regarding their expectations. Perceived economical influences can reduce the press freedom because of the economical dependence of the journalists to produce news and quality content, and the needs for the subsistence of their media, that can lead to journalists perceive a restriction on their freedom in order to follow certain trends they do not want to, for example, get advertisers, which can influence
journalists. And regarding the effect that organizational factors can have in the press freedom, the path can be clear. The organization has a dominant position and journalists must do what
the organization requires for their objectives. That influence can be done with the imposition of routines, or targets of the organization, or influence of their owners and editors. Regarding the analysis of ideological congruence as the moderation variable, the findings outline a non-moderating effect of an ideological congruence on the relationship between the perceived influences (political, economical and organizational) and press freedom. Thus, the research question “To what extent the ideological distance of the journalists among their organization has an effect on the different perceived influences that affect the journalists and in their perceived freedom?” surprisingly can be answered, saying clearly that the ideological
congruence does not represent an effect in the relation of the perceived journalistic influences and the perceived press freedom.
Hallin & Mancini (2004) explained that Spain is characterised by a low circulation and low audiences, a high-parallelism, and a low journalistic professionalism. These
characteristics are important and can help to explain the different reasons of why journalists can perceive different influences. Influences that can limit their press freedom role if we consider these influences are happening are because of particular interests. Also, we have to consider the high values of the perceived influences, that can represent a certain point a total dominance of the journalistic role. For example, only a 23.5% of the respondents do not perceive direct influences from politicians, a 7,8% of the journalists do not perceive influences from the owners of the organization, or an 11,5% do not perceive the profit
expectations of the organization as an economical influence. So, is a fact that according to the perception of Spanish journalists, the principal restrictions affecting them can be political, economical and organizational influences.
Moreover, Van Dalen (2012) found that in Spain the principal pressures that journalists perceive, affecting their press autonomy are political. In this study, political influences have as well a major effect, but in the perceived press freedom. As well, it is very
important and necessary to take into consideration certain characteristics of the Spanish media system that can explain why the perceived political influences are the most relevant, and why there is no moderation effect.
Also, in the Spanish context, regarding the non-significance of the ideological congruence in the relation between the perceived influences and perceived press freedom could be explained due to the nature of the Spanish media system. Should be mentioned that Hallin & Mancini (2004) found in Spain that the pluralism on media organizations is external and not internal. Chan & Lee (1988) argued that the different political ideologies in a
newsroom determine an media-institutional control. This can lead to the journalists to have an ideological control within their organization. Aranda (1999) stated as well that the demands of the organization are very influential in the journalistic profession, so, could be assumed that the ideology of the organization is above the ideology of the journalists.
Another reason that can prevent this moderating effect of the ideological congruence, may be that journalism is a profession with tends to work and relate collectively, causing a very high demand of the organization over the journalists (Canel & Sádaba, 1999). Thus, those reasons could explain why, to some extent, the ideological incongruence may not represent an influence to the relationship between press freedom and the different influences perceived by journalists, in spite of the results that the survey shows. 52,9% of the journalists consider to have an ideological incongruence of 2 or more points in the ideological spectrum between them and their organizations.
Relevant to mention as well another explanation for the lack of significant moderation that can lie in the actual political circumstances on Spain. The country did not manage to elect a president after the elections of the past 20th December of 2015, and is facing new elections on the next 26th June 2016, after 6 months of incertitude and political instability caused by the non-election of a new Prime Minister. Thus, in consequence, this causes could
lead to journalists to receive political pressures to try to prevail among others and get more space in the media outlets to increase their electoral revenue.
Another interesting point is, the showed results by the control variables. In the case of the perceived political influences, only the hiring status of the journalist is relevant. The analysis shows that usually the journalists hired permanently are the ones who perceive more freedom. Regarding the economical influences, gender and the hiring status are relevant. The analysis shows that female journalists have usually less press freedom and permanent
employees, perceive more. And as last, regarding the organizational influences, there is an effect on the females, as well, who can perceive less freedom, and the permanents hired who perceive more. So, is important to mention that female journalists face less press freedom than male journalists regarding economical and organizational aspects, and permanent hired journalists have the perception that they enjoy more freedom regarding organizational and economical aspects.
Limitations
This survey-based research study faces a few number of limitations that should be taken into consideration when interpreting the findings. Firstly, because of a cross-sectional design was applied to carry the research, conclusions regarding the direction of the causality in the research are unknown and cannot be drawn (Bryman, 2008). Secondly, financial and time constraints caused a limit in the possibility of obtaining more samples, using some other different methods to collect data. Thirdly, the difficulty of finding if the different perceived influences are constituted in a hierarchical structure. Hanitzch et al. (2010) found in their research that organizational, professional and procedural influences are seen as the most powerful influences, but his study shows something different. The perceived political influences are the most powerful influences in this study, but could be that the political control dominate some other influences, and that represent a bias in the perceived influences
by the journalists.
For example, when some of the economic resources of a media outlet depend of a political distribution of a subsidy, political influences can bias the perception of the journalists. Fourthly, the research is focused on influences and press freedom as they were perceived by the journalists. Fifthly, the high drop-rate in the survey (35%), due to probably the sensitiveness of the topic, at certain point respondents could refuse to give their personal opinions, if they think that their anonymous is not guaranteed through a survey received by email. Another reason can be that journalists could consider their press freedom as something unquestionable. And might be, due to the period of economic crisis in Spain, journalists do not want to put at risk their jobs under any circumstance answering surveys related to certain topics. However, the sample is very diverse of the Spanish media landscape. And sixthly, the difficulty of reaching journalists indirectly calling their newsroom. Calls were always re-directed to the editors or directors, which they were the person in charge of deciding if the survey could be distributed among the journalists of the newsrooms. The facilities to distribute the survey were usually negated.
Future research
The following future research focuses can be derived from this study. First, should be considered the possibility of reverse the order of the relationships, and try to find if for example, who perceive less freedom are also those who perceive more pressures. In addition, the option of doing a qualitative research based on interviews to journalists could be another interesting option, to explore if there are more relevant influences that journalists can
perceive, or if the main one is the political. That is, another reason of why future research should therefore consider if political influences are at the same level of influence than the other influences, or political influences are those who influence some other influences.
Another future research, based on what Hallin & Mancini (2004) stated regarding the Mediterranean system where Spain is classified under certain characteristics, as the low professionalization of the journalists. This characteristic could be used as well as a
moderator, to analyse possible effects on the interaction analysed in this study. In addition, future researches could do a similar analysis, but using only the ideology of the media, and finding out if journalists of certain media related to certain ideology are the ones receiving more influences. But in this case, the ideological classification of the media could be very subjective and represent a problem. More future research could be based on gender, as seems that the females are who perceive less freedom regarding males. As last, another interesting and important point could be to research about the hierarchy in the perceived influences that journalists perceive. Political influences are a very high perceived influence, but could be interesting if that influence has some hierarchical dominance above other influences.
This study, as well, may suggest further investigations about these and other specific factors that may influence the press freedom in other countries and media systems, to make a comparison and see if with the different media systems proposed by Hallin & Mancini (2004) same results are obtained.
Practical implications
Journalists struggle with these perceived influences in their journalistic role almost every day. Journalists must know what are the main factors that can influence their
professional role and specifically, their press freedom. The current study helps to understand that. The main factors as political, organizational and economical, cause a negative effect on the perception of press freedom by these journalists.
What the journalists can face as a problem in their role is very important, because Trappel & Maniglio (2009) mentioned that the media needs freedom to guarantee a democratic level and basic rights. If the press freedom is threatened, the democratic game
fails. So, this study shows and fills the gap stating that countries or media systems where journalists perceive high political influences, or maybe organizational, or economical, the perception of the press freedom will be reduced, with the consequences that a reduced press freedom can have. This research, can lead to the journalists to know which influences do they have to face when they perceive that their press freedom is not high.
In the case of Spain, where this study is focused, this research shows that when the journalists are working under certain circumstances, as can be election periods, or economic-crisis periods, both happening nowadays in the time that this research has been done, the journalists will face more influences that can constraint their press freedom. But the press freedom, as mentioned before, is a key concept in the democratic game. So, when the
democratic game does not have stability, as happens nowadays in Spain due to the absence of an elected government, that can have an effect on the journalists, as they will perceive more influences, and in consequence, their perceived press freedom will decrease.
Rafael Correa, president of Ecuador, stated in an interview: "The media power is power. The, all powers need social regulation and that is done through legislation. So, where is the problem?". So, the absence of legislation in Spain about media regulations, are maybe a cause in this relationship between perceived influences and perceived press freedom. Thus, regulations and laws could end with the cravings of the different influences and in
consequence, increase the press freedom which is fundamental in democracy. Acknowledgments
I would like to thank my parents (never give up!), to my supervisor Magdalena Wojcieszak for her patient and guidance (dziękuję bardzo!), and to all the lecturers that I had during the Master and Pre-Master for sharing their knowledge.
References
Aiken, L. S., West, S. G., & Reno, R. R. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and
interpreting interactions. Sage.
Aranda, J. J. S. (1999). La influencia de las actitudes profesionales de periodista español en las noticias. Anàlisi: Quaderns de comunicació i cultura, (23), 151-170.
Bagdikian, B. H. (1985). The US media: Supermarket or assembly line?.Journal of
Communication, 35(3), 97-109.
Becker, L. B., Vlad, T., & Nusser, N. (2007). An evaluation of press freedom indicators. International Communication Gazette, 69(1), 5-28.
Bertrand, C. J. (2009). Media accountability. Pacific journalism review, 11. Bryman, A. (2008). Social research methods. London: Oxford University Press. Canel, M. J., & Sádaba, T. (1999). La investigación académica sobre las actitudes
profesionales de los periodistas. Una descripción del estado de la cuestión. Casero-Ripollés, A., Izquierdo-Castillo, J., & Doménech-Fabregat, H. (2014). From
Watchdog to Watched Dog: Oversight and Pressures between Journalists and Politicians in the Context of Mediatization. Trípodos, 1(34), 23-40.
Chalaby, J. K. (2000). New media, new freedoms, new threats. International Communication
Gazette, 62(1), 19-29.
Chan, J. M., & Lee, C. C. (1988). Press ideology and organizational control in Hong Kong. Communication Research, 15(2), 185-197.
Del Gandio, J. (2013). Rhetoric for radicals: a handbook for 21st century activists. New Society Publishers.
Deuze, M. (2005). What is journalism? Professional identity and ideology of journalists reconsidered. Journalism, 6(4), 442-464.
newspaper type and ownership. Journalism and Mass Communication
Quarterly, 62(3), 489.
Duval, J. (2005). Economic journalism in France. Bourdieu and the journalistic field, 135-155.
Franklin, B. (2014). The Future of Journalism: In an age of digital media and economic uncertainty. Journalism Practice, 8(5), 469-487.
Gans, H. J. (1979). Deciding what's news: A study of CBS evening news, NBC nightly news,
Newsweek, and Time. Northwestern University Press.
Golder, M., & Stramski, J. (2010). Ideological congruence and electoral institutions.
American Journal of Political Science, 54(1), 90-106.
Hallin, D. C., & Mancini, P. (2004). Comparing media systems: Three models of media and
politics. Cambridge university press.
Hallin, D. C., & Papathanassopoulos, S. (2002). Political clientelism and the media: southern Europe and Latin America in comparative perspective. Media, culture &
society, 24(2), 175-195.
Hanitzsch, T. (2007). Deconstructing journalism culture: Toward a universal theory. Communication theory, 17(4), 367-385.
Hanitzsch, T. (2011). Populist disseminators, detached watchdogs, critical change agents and opportunist facilitators. Professional milieus, the journalistic field and autonomy in 18 countries. International Communication Gazette,73(6), 477-494.
Hanitzsch, T., Anikina, M., Berganza, R., Cangoz, I., Coman, M., Hamada, B., ... &
Mwesige, P. G. (2010). Modeling perceived influences on journalism: Evidence from a cross-national survey of journalists. Journalism & Mass Communication
Quarterly, 87(1), 5-22.
journalists in eighteen countries perceive influences on their work. The International
Journal of Press/Politics, 1940161211407334.
Herscovitz, H. G. (2004). Brazilian journalists' perceptions of media roles, ethics and foreign influences on Brazilian journalism. Journalism Studies, 5(1), 71-86.
Himelboim, I., & Limor, Y. (2008). Media perception of freedom of the press A comparative international analysis of 242 codes of ethics. Journalism, 9(3), 235-265.
Humanes, M. L., Sánchez, M. M., de Dios, R. M., & López-Berini, A. (2013). Pluralismo y paralelismo político en la información televisiva en España/Pluralism and political parallelism in Spanish television news programmes. Revista Latina de Comunicación
Social, (68), 566.
Josephi, B. (2015). Journalists for a young democracy. Journalism Studies, 1-16. Llorens, C., & Costache, A. M. (2014). European Union media policy and independent
regulatory authorities: A new tool to protect European media pluralism?. Journal of
Information Policy, 4, 396-420.
Löfgren Nilsson, M., & Örnebring, H. (2016). Journalism Under Threat: Intimidation and harassment of Swedish journalists. Journalism Practice, 1-11.
McDevitt, M. (2003). In defense of autonomy: A critique of the public journalism critique. Journal of Communication, 53(1), 155-160.
Mullainathan, S., & Shleifer, A. (2002). Media bias (No. w9295). National Bureau of Economic Research.
Norris, P. (1997). Politics and the press: The news media and their influences. Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Peiser, W. (2000). Setting the journalist agenda: Influences from journalists' individual characteristics and from media factors. Journalism & Mass Communication
Picard, R. G. (2004). Commercialism and Newspaper Quality. Newspaper Research
Journal, 25(1).
Puglisi, R., & Snyder Jr, J. M. (2008). Media coverage of political scandals(No. w14598). National Bureau of Economic Research.
Quandt, T., Löffelholz, M., Weaver, D. H., Hanitzsch, T., & Altmeppen, K. D. (2006). American and German online journalists at the beginning of the 21st century: A bi-national survey. Journalism Studies, 7(2), 171-186.
Reese, S. D. (2001). Understanding the global journalist: A hierarchy-of-influences approach. Journalism Studies, 2(2), 173-187.
Reese, S. D. (2007). Journalism research and the hierarchy of influences model: A global perspective. Brazilian Journalism Research, 3(2), 29-42.
Reich, Z., & Hanitzsch, T. (2013). Determinants of journalists' professional autonomy: Individual and national level factors matter more than organizational ones. Mass
Communication and Society, 16(1), 133-156.
Relly, J. E., Zanger, M., & Fahmy, S. (2015). Democratic Norms and Forces of Gatekeeping A Study of Influences on Iraqi Journalists’ Attitudes toward Government Information Access. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 92(2), 346-373.
Roudakova, N. (2008). Media-political clientelism: Lessons from anthropology.Media,
culture, and society, 30(1), 41.
Shoemaker, P., & Reese, S. D. (1996). Mediating the message. Theories of Influences on Mass media Content. New York: Routledge. Longman.
The Economist (2015, June 4) The muzzle grows tighter. Retrieved from
http://www.economist.com/news/international/21699906-freedom-speech-retreat-muzzle-grows-tighter
