Papers

Tracing the source

Pedro Silva

1 General overview of sources

Michael Schudson finds the emergence of what he calls the objectivity norm in American journalism worth pursuing. In doing so, he identifies "four conditions for the emergence of new norms" (2001, p. 149). These are divided into Durkheimian or Weberian. We might have used a citation here. Schudson mentions that a Durkheimian condition has "to do with horizontal solidarity or group identity" (p. 151); the Weberian condition, on the other hand, concerns "hierarchical social control across an organization" (p. 151-2). Granted, Schudson's first Durkheimian condition for the emergence of objectivity is supported on Tuchman's strategic ritual concept (Tuchman, 1972, pp. 660-679). And both the first and second Weberian conditions are evidenced by the works of Weinstein (1966) and March and Simon (1967) on social psychology and organizational behavior, respectively. However, exactly why these conditions are Durkheimian or Weberian is left to explain. Are they antagonistically positivist and anti-positivist in nature? One may speculate "ritual solidarity" qualifies as one of Émile Durkheim's social facts; likewise, psychological motivation on the inter-personal or organizational levels can be qualified as a Weberian preocupation. Still, the references remain unclear.

Another point Schudson makes is that älternative economic or technological explanations of the emergence of objectivity" are inadequate (p. 149, 158). Although he references Emery et al. (1996) as the source for the alternative economic explanation, it is probably safe to assume Chomsky and Herman's Manufacturing Consent (1988) as the primary source for the theory - if nothing else, because of the primacy of its publication date. Aside from this, his counter-argument is supported only by his own reference (Schudson, 1998) and his student's doctoral dissertation (King, 1992). As for the technological argument, that is dismissed on the grounds of Schudson's öwn observation, based on reading a fair number of newspapers of the turn of century, not based on any systematic evaluation" (Schudson, 2001, p. 159). Carey's Technology and Ideology (1989, pp.201-30), along with Shaw's ßeveral key articles" (1967, pp. 3-12; 1968, pp. 326-9; 1971, pp. 64-86) the main proponent for the case of the telegraph, is considered ëntirely impressionistic" (Schudson, p. 159). Exactly what this means is not clear, as no explanation is advanced.

While Schudson's main hypothesis is well supported, the negation of economic and technological factors as important in the emergence of the objectivity norm is not evidenced at all by the literature. One may be inclined to think the author is trying to accommodate his (well-supported) point of view at the expense of also sound theory by Carey and Shaw.

Nevertheless, the fact that a full section is dedicated to alternative theories is noteworthy. I was intrigued by Carey's argument, and although I don't necessarily agree with Schudson's perspective on this point, he represented a diverging perspective very well.

As might be expected, the lack of primary sources seems to be the weakest point in the article. Most referenced works are books, and all research is consequently based off secondary sources. To compound matters, when Schudson does resort to more primary raw data, as is the case with Shaw's work, the conclusion is unexpectedly divergent. While this in itself would not be a problem, a very systematic analysis would be required to support a new perspective. As it was, the author contrasted Shaw's solid data with his own observations and chose to trust his view.

Notwithstanding, a large part of the literature has solid authority in their fields (Carey, 1989; Chalaby, 1996; Dewey, 1930; Donsbach, 1993/5; Emery and Emery, 1996; Kaplan, 1998; Lippman, 1920; McAdams, 1997; Odegard, 1930; Shaw, 1967/8/71; Tuchman, 1972).

Perhaps again expectedly, Schudson rarely evaluates his sources explicitly. This is excepted when a case is being made against a specific source. With that being said, I must stress almost all of the literature seems to have been thoroughly screened, and is usually adequate. It is safe to assume that, while no explicit source evaluation is conducted, implicit assessment is likely to take place.

2 Tracing the sources

I chose to trace the following references:

Richard McAdams's "The origin, development, and regulation of norms" (1997)
James Carey's "Technology and ideology" essay in "Communication as culture" (1989)
Gaye Tuchman's Öbjectivity as a strategic ritual" (1972)

While all three citations were easy to find, there is an error in Carey's, as far as I can tell: indicated "Communication and culture", its correct title is "Communication as culture: Essays on media and society". This apparent mistake delayed finding the reference.

All were checked for accuracy, and found to have been correctly represented. I have ordered them in degree of preciseness. McAdam's direct citation was necessarily the most accurate. Carey's citation came next, as a specific page was indicated. This did not happen with Tuchman, where her whole essay was referenced: I had to browse through the full text to make sure Schudson's highly framed concept ("resistance displayed by adherents to the norm when it is openly challenged or criticized [Tuchman, 1969, 660-79"]) was accurate.

On this note, the interpretation that Schudson gave to the apparent original author's intent seems to have been clear and faithful. As mentioned before, this is obviously easier in McAdams direct quotation. Furthermore, the fact that it was an operational definition of norm made misinterpreting it quite difficult. Carey's general idea was perfectly projected: I think this has to do with the simplicity of the original concept of the telegraph as a simplifying processor that operated changes in the language. Tuchman's strategic ritual is not as clearly represented by Schudson - partly because he is condensing a whole article into a sentence -, but is still faithful to the original. On the whole, it is quite clear Schudson is using his sources appropriately.

3 Tracing to the original

3.1 Richard H. McAdams

While Schudson has used McAdams's operational definition of "norm" accurately, it is very interesting to note the subtle loss in meaning during the process. Schudson merely retains the core of the definition: norm as a "decentralized behavioral standard that individuals feel obligated to follow" (1997, p. 381). Contrast this with the paragraph following:

(...) decentralized behavioral standard that individuals feel obligated to follow, and generally do follow, for the esteem reasons described above, OR because the obligation is internalized, or both. Without internalization, one obeys the norm to avoid external sanctions made possible by the desire for esteem (...) After internalization, there is yet another cost to violating a norm: guilt. (ibid)

The paragraph is understandably irrelevant to Schudson's argument, but is nevertheless reduced in its meaning through the projection. I assume that McAdam is the primary source for this specific primary operational definition of "norm", as no other work is explicitly referenced.

3.2 James Carey

Carey's argument, which Schudson so eloquently dismisses for its ïmpressionistic" quality, can be traced back two levels: the first one is represented by Carey's own previous work (1969), of which "Technology and ideology" is adapted. However, the primary source for the perspective of the importance of the telegraph in communication is to Adams (1931). Carey references both by classifying the concept än old saw, one I have repeated myself" (Carey, 1989, p.210). Nothing much was changed throughout these two levels. Carey took Adams's idea of the importance of the telegraph in communications and extrapolated toward linguistic determinism - that is, the view that language shapes thoughts. Schudson, I have said, conveys Carey's meaning perfectly, although only to refute it later on.

3.3 Gaye Tuchman

According to Schudson, Tuchman's argument in Öbjectivity as strategic ritual" (1972) can be summarized as follows: the presence of objectivity in the media can be identified by "resistance displayed by adherents to the norm when it is openly challenged or criticized" (pp. 660-79). However, this is not all the argument entails. Tuchman speaks of "three factors which help a newsman to define an 'objective fact': form, content, and inter-organizational relationships" (p.660). Of these, she continues, only when dealing in formalistic procedures can a newsman claim objectivity. Both in discussing content and inter-organizational relationships, he must use his "news judgment" (ibid). The formal attributes of a news story are divided into four strategic procedures:

Presentation of conflicting possibilities
Presentation of supporting evidence
The judicious use of quotation marks
Structuring information in an appropriate sequence

The last procedure is not necessarily objective at all, as there is always judgment involved (p.670). Again, this shows that a degree of simplification always underlies even the most accurate representation of an idea.

Tuchman herself developed the concept based, at least, on the works of Weistein (1966) and March and Simon (1967), amongst others. The impact of interpersonal social psychology and organizational behavioral theory on her thesis is evident. This represents an adaptation from psychological, sociological and economic-organizational themes into motivation in the media.

4 Evaluation of impact

The impact of these sources in the literature review is not evident, because one isn't explicitly developed. However, these undoubtedly inform Shudson's thesis. McAdams's norm is part of the framework over which Schudson builds his argument; Carey's technological argument stands in the way of another perspective, and the author accordingly dedicates a full section to debating its merits and shortcomings; and as I mentioned in the introduction, Tuchman, Weinstein and March and Simon are fundamental in the development of Schudson's main point of the four conditions for the emergence of new norms in the media.

5 References

Adams, Henry (1931). The education of Henry Adams. New York: Modern Library (Originally published, Massachusetts Historical Society, 1918)

Carey, James (1969). The communications revolution and the professional communicator. The Sociological Review Monograph. (13), pp. 23-38

Carey, James (1989). Communication as culture: Essays on media and society. Boston: Unwyn Hyman

March, James G. & Herbert A. Simon (1967). Organizations. New York: Wiley

McAdams, Richard H. (1997). The origin, development, and regulation of norms. Michigan Law Review. Vol. 96 (2), pp. 338-433

Schudson, Michael (2001). The objectivity norm in American journalism. Journalism. Vol. 2 (2), pp. 149-170)

Tuchman, Gaye (1972). Objectivity as strategic ritual: An examination of newsmen's notions of objectivity. The American Journal of Sociology. Vol. 77 (4), pp. 660-679

Weistein, Eugene (1966). "Toward a theory of interpersonal tactics". In Problems in social psychology. Carl Backman and Paul Second (Eds.). New York: McGraw-Hill

File translated from T_EX by T_TH, version 3.77.
On 24 Apr 2007, 23:51.