Thomas Hanitzsch, Tim P Vos
5 min
Hanitzsch and Vos argue that journalism scholarship has been historically constrained by a "Western-centric" framework that equates journalism almost exclusively with democracy. By prioritizing the media’s role in political life and democratic citizenship, researchers have marginalized other vital functions of journalism, particularly those relevant to non-Western contexts and the "everyday life" of individuals. The authors contend that this narrow focus has led to a "hegemonic model" that treats Western journalistic standards as universal, often ignoring how journalism functions in societies that prioritize social harmony, national development, or collective stability over liberal democratic ideals.
To move beyond these limitations, the authors employ "discursive institutionalism." They define journalistic roles not as fixed, essential functions, but as discursive constructions—ideas about journalism’s identity that are created, negotiated, and contested through ongoing public and professional conversation. Over time, these ideas "sediment" into institutional norms. By viewing roles as products of discourse, the authors argue that we can better understand why certain roles (like the political "watchdog") gain institutional legitimacy while others (like those related to lifestyle or personal guidance) are dismissed as "unworthy."
The paper proposes a more inclusive framework that categorizes journalistic roles into two distinct domains:
By explicitly including "everyday life," the authors argue that journalism serves essential human needs—such as guidance, self-maintenance, and emotional orientation—that are not reducible to political participation.
This research is significant because it challenges the "existential" link between journalism and democracy, suggesting that such a link is a scholarly construct rather than a universal reality. By providing a broader taxonomy of roles, the authors offer a toolkit for researchers to study journalism in diverse global contexts without forcing those practices into a Western mold. This shift allows for a more accurate, inclusive understanding of how journalism actually functions in the lives of people worldwide.
Alex: Why does that second domain matter so much to their argument?
Sam: Because in practice, a huge portion of what journalists actually produce falls into that category—and yet scholarship has largely treated it as secondary, or even trivial. The authors argue that when people turn to a health column for guidance on managing stress, or read a personal finance piece to understand a major life decision, that journalism is performing a genuine social function. Dismissing it as "soft" content means ignoring a significant part of what the profession actually does.
Alex: So it's about extending legitimacy to the lifestyle reporter, not just the political investigator.
Sam: Precisely. To make the relationships between all these roles easier to visualize, the authors use a color wheel analogy. Think of the core functions of journalism as the primary colors—a small number of fundamental purposes. The specific roles journalists play are the individual shades that blend from those primaries. A journalist might act as a watchdog one week and a community facilitator the next, without any contradiction. The roles are fluid, not fixed categories.
Alex: Does this framework actually change how researchers study the field, or is it mainly a conceptual reframing?
Sam: It has real methodological consequences. It pushes researchers to stop using Western democratic ideals as the universal standard. Instead of asking whether a journalist in, say, Southeast Asia is "failing" to be a proper watchdog, a researcher using this framework would ask: what social needs is this journalist successfully meeting within their own context? That's a fundamentally different question, and it tends to produce more accurate answers.
Alex: It sounds like a shift from judging journalism against a single ideal to actually observing what journalism does across different societies.
Sam: That's exactly the move the authors are making. The goal isn't to abandon standards, but to build a framework broad enough to reflect the profession as it actually exists globally—rather than as it exists in one particular political tradition. When you stop forcing every journalist into the same box, the authors suggest, you start to see the full range of work the profession performs.
Alex: It's a meaningful reorientation—and one that seems long overdue given how much of the world's journalism has simply been left out of the conversation. Thanks for listening to ResearchPod.