This volume revisits what we know about the relationship between journalists and their sources. By asking new questions, employing novel methodologies, and confronting sweeping changes to journalism and media, the contributors reinvigorate the conversation about who gets to speak through the news. It challenges established thinking about how journalists use sources, how sources influence journalists, and how these patterns relate to the power to represent the world to news audiences. Useful to both newcomers and scholars familiar with the topic, the chapters bring together leading journalism scholars from across the globe. Through a variety of methods, including surveys, interviews, content analysis, case studies and newsroom observations, the chapters shed light on attitudes and practices in the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, Australia, Sweden, Belgium and Israel. Special attention is paid to the changing context of newswork. Shrinking newsgathering resources coupled with a growth in public relations activities have altered the source-journalist dynamic in recent years. At the same time, the rise of networked digital technologies has altered the barriers between journalists and news consumers, leading to unique forms of news with different approaches to sourcing. As the media world continues to change, this volume offers a timely reevaluation of news sources.

When we encounter a news story, why do we accept its version of events? Why do we even recognize it as news? A complicated set of cultural, structural, and technological relationships inform this interaction, and Journalistic Authority provides a relational theory for explaining how journalists attain authority. The book argues that authority is not a thing to be possessed or lost, but a relationship arising in the connections between those laying claim to being an authority and those who assent to it. Matt Carlson examines the practices journalists use to legitimate their work: professional orientation, development of specific news forms, and the personal narratives they circulate to support a privileged social place. He then considers journalists' relationships with the audiences, sources, technologies, and critics that shape journalistic authority in the contemporary media environment. Carlson argues that journalistic authority is always the product of complex and variable relationships. Journalistic Authority weaves together journalists’ relationships with their audiences, sources, technologies, and critics to present a new model for understanding journalism while advocating for practices we need in an age of fake news and shifting norms.

In July 1997, twenty-five of America's most influential journalists sat down to try and discover what had happened to their profession in the years between Watergate and Whitewater. What they knew was that the public no longer trusted the press as it once had. They were keenly aware of the pressures that advertisers and new technologies were putting on newsrooms around the country. But, more than anything, they were aware that readers, listeners, and viewers — the people who use the news — were turning away from it in droves. There were many reasons for the public's growing lack of trust. On television, there were the ads that looked like news shows and programs that presented gossip and press releases as if they were news. There were the "docudramas," television movies that were an uneasy blend of fact and fiction and which purported to show viewers how events had "really" happened. At newspapers and magazines, celebrity was replacing news, newsroom budgets were being slashed, and editors were pushing journalists for more "edge" and "attitude" in place of reporting. And, on the radio, powerful talk personalities led their listeners from sensation to sensation, from fact to fantasy, while deriding traditional journalism. Fact was blending with fiction, news with entertainment, journalism with rumor. Calling themselves the Committee of Concerned Journalists, the twenty-five determined to find how the news had found itself in this state. Drawn from the committee's years of intensive research, dozens of surveys of readers, listeners, viewers, editors, and journalists, and more than one hundred intensive interviews with journalists and editors, The Elements of Journalism is the first book ever to spell out — both for those who create and those who consume the news — the principles and responsibilities of journalism. Written by Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel, two of the nation's preeminent press critics, this is one of the most provocative books about the role of information in society in more than a generation and one of the most important ever written about news. By offering in turn each of the principles that should govern reporting, Kovach and Rosenstiel show how some of the most common conceptions about the press, such as neutrality, fairness, and balance, are actually modern misconceptions. They also spell out how the news should be gathered, written, and reported even as they demonstrate why the First Amendment is on the brink of becoming a commercial right rather than something any American citizen can enjoy. The Elements of Journalism is already igniting a national dialogue on issues vital to us all. This book will be the starting point for discussions by journalists and members of the public about the nature of journalism and the access that we all enjoy to information for years to come.

Matt Carlson confronts the promise and perils of unnamed sources in this exhaustive analysis of controversial episodes in American journalism during the George W. Bush administration, from prewar reporting mistakes at the New York Times and Washington Post to the Valerie Plame leak case and Dan Rather's lawsuit against CBS News. Weaving a narrative thread that stretches from the uncritical post-9/11 era to the spectacle of the Scooter Libby trial, Carlson examines a tense period in American history through the lens of journalism. Revealing new insights about high-profile cases involving confidential sources, he highlights contextual and structural features of the era, including pressure from the right, scrutiny from new media and citizen journalists, and the struggles of traditional media to survive amid increased competition and decreased resources.

This dissertation describes an ethnographic study of how science journalists understand and use credible research information when they select sources to inform their news writing. This research emerges from a socially constructed understanding of credibility that includes social epistemology and community of practice theories, as well as more foundational theories of trust. As economic and technological forces are radically reshaping scientific research and journalism practices, current scholarly discourse suggests that science communication is undergoing a period of significant change. Simultaneously, research data is becoming increasingly important to issues of broad public concern, such as in research related to global climate change. Scholars in many fields are noting that Internet communication can subvert a number of paradigms related to “expert information” and formal structures for knowledge sharing. Science journalism is selected as a particular site for this study, as it resides at a nexus of two communities of practice with distinct epistemological structures: scientific research and journalism. Data was gathered from 18 interviews with established science journalists and an analysis of the participants’ published works to explore patterns of sourcing and the integration of research data into published works. Findings center around the themes of identity and process in a collaborative knowledge-sharing space. Freelance science writers, frequently untethered from formal organizational affiliations, were found to construct their voice as a credible science author over time and through a series of interactions. For example, early-career science writers may be more likely to rely on their formal scientific education to support their writing. Later-stage writers are more confident in their ability to approach and explore new topics, supported by a network of expert sources and colleagues. These findings are organized to inform the development of interdisciplinary collaborative research information spaces and contribute to ongoing conversations related to public understanding of science.

A sobering look at the intimate relationship between political power and the news media, When the Press Fails argues the dependence of reporters on official sources disastrously thwarts coverage of dissenting voices from outside the Beltway. The result is both an indictment of official spin and an urgent call to action that questions why the mainstream press failed to challenge the Bush administration’s arguments for an invasion of Iraq or to illuminate administration policies underlying the Abu Ghraib controversy. Drawing on revealing interviews with Washington insiders and analysis of content from major news outlets, the authors illustrate the media’s unilateral surrender to White House spin whenever oppositional voices elsewhere in government fall silent. Contrasting these grave failures with the refreshingly critical reporting on Hurricane Katrina—a rare event that caught officials off guard, enabling journalists to enter a no-spin zone—When the Press Fails concludes by proposing new practices to reduce reporters’ dependence on power. “The hand-in-glove relationship of the U.S. media with the White House is mercilessly exposed in this determined and disheartening study that repeatedly reveals how the press has toed the official line at those moments when its independence was most needed.”—George Pendle, Financial Times “Bennett, Lawrence, and Livingston are indisputably right about the news media’s dereliction in covering the administration’s campaign to take the nation to war against Iraq.”—Don Wycliff, Chicago Tribune “[This] analysis of the weaknesses of Washington journalism deserves close attention.”—Russell Baker, New York Review of Books