TV Journalism TVNM

7/25/2019 TV Journalism TVNM

1/16

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237617202

TelevisionJournalism, Politics

& Entertainment Power and

Autonomy inthe Field of

Television Journalism

ARTICLE in TELEVISION & NEW MEDIA APRIL 2014

Impact Factor: 0.22 DOI: 10.1177/1527476414525671

CITATIONS

2

READS

156

1 AUTHOR:

Gran Bolin

Sdertrn University

35PUBLICATIONS 105

CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Available from: Gran Bolin

Retrieved on: 31 January 2016
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Goeran_Bolin?enrichId=rgreq-fad0a9b0-5165-490b-bd08-a8c90c84b5f3&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNzYxNzIwMjtBUzo5NzE5NTc4NTE5NTUyM0AxNDAwMTg0Njg5ODI4&el=1_x_7https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Goeran_Bolin?enrichId=rgreq-fad0a9b0-5165-490b-bd08-a8c90c84b5f3&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNzYxNzIwMjtBUzo5NzE5NTc4NTE5NTUyM0AxNDAwMTg0Njg5ODI4&el=1_x_4https://www.researchgate.net/institution/Soedertoern_University?enrichId=rgreq-fad0a9b0-5165-490b-bd08-a8c90c84b5f3&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNzYxNzIwMjtBUzo5NzE5NTc4NTE5NTUyM0AxNDAwMTg0Njg5ODI4&el=1_x_6https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237617202_Television_Journalism_Politics_Entertainment_Power_and_Autonomy_in_the_Field_of_Television_Journalism?enrichId=rgreq-fad0a9b0-5165-490b-bd08-a8c90c84b5f3&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNzYxNzIwMjtBUzo5NzE5NTc4NTE5NTUyM0AxNDAwMTg0Njg5ODI4&el=1_x_3https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237617202_Television_Journalism_Politics_Entertainment_Power_and_Autonomy_in_the_Field_of_Television_Journalism?enrichId=rgreq-fad0a9b0-5165-490b-bd08-a8c90c84b5f3&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNzYxNzIwMjtBUzo5NzE5NTc4NTE5NTUyM0AxNDAwMTg0Njg5ODI4&el=1_x_3https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237617202_Television_Journalism_Politics_Entertainment_Power_and_Autonomy_in_the_Field_of_Television_Journalism?enrichId=rgreq-fad0a9b0-5165-490b-bd08-a8c90c84b5f3&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNzYxNzIwMjtBUzo5NzE5NTc4NTE5NTUyM0AxNDAwMTg0Njg5ODI4&el=1_x_3https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237617202_Television_Journalism_Politics_Entertainment_Power_and_Autonomy_in_the_Field_of_Television_Journalism?enrichId=rgreq-fad0a9b0-5165-490b-bd08-a8c90c84b5f3&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNzYxNzIwMjtBUzo5NzE5NTc4NTE5NTUyM0AxNDAwMTg0Njg5ODI4&el=1_x_3https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237617202_Television_Journalism_Politics_Entertainment_Power_and_Autonomy_in_the_Field_of_Television_Journalism?enrichId=rgreq-fad0a9b0-5165-490b-bd08-a8c90c84b5f3&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNzYxNzIwMjtBUzo5NzE5NTc4NTE5NTUyM0AxNDAwMTg0Njg5ODI4&el=1_x_3https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237617202_Television_Journalism_Politics_Entertainment_Power_and_Autonomy_in_the_Field_of_Television_Journalism?enrichId=rgreq-fad0a9b0-5165-490b-bd08-a8c90c84b5f3&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNzYxNzIwMjtBUzo5NzE5NTc4NTE5NTUyM0AxNDAwMTg0Njg5ODI4&el=1_x_3https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237617202_Television_Journalism_Politics_Entertainment_Power_and_Autonomy_in_the_Field_of_Television_Journalism?enrichId=rgreq-fad0a9b0-5165-490b-bd08-a8c90c84b5f3&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNzYxNzIwMjtBUzo5NzE5NTc4NTE5NTUyM0AxNDAwMTg0Njg5ODI4&el=1_x_3https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237617202_Television_Journalism_Politics_Entertainment_Power_and_Autonomy_in_the_Field_of_Television_Journalism?enrichId=rgreq-fad0a9b0-5165-490b-bd08-a8c90c84b5f3&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNzYxNzIwMjtBUzo5NzE5NTc4NTE5NTUyM0AxNDAwMTg0Njg5ODI4&el=1_x_3https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237617202_Television_Journalism_Politics_Entertainment_Power_and_Autonomy_in_the_Field_of_Television_Journalism?enrichId=rgreq-fad0a9b0-5165-490b-bd08-a8c90c84b5f3&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNzYxNzIwMjtBUzo5NzE5NTc4NTE5NTUyM0AxNDAwMTg0Njg5ODI4&el=1_x_3https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237617202_Television_Journalism_Politics_Entertainment_Power_and_Autonomy_in_the_Field_of_Television_Journalism?enrichId=rgreq-fad0a9b0-5165-490b-bd08-a8c90c84b5f3&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNzYxNzIwMjtBUzo5NzE5NTc4NTE5NTUyM0AxNDAwMTg0Njg5ODI4&el=1_x_3https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237617202_Television_Journalism_Politics_Entertainment_Power_and_Autonomy_in_the_Field_of_Television_Journalism?enrichId=rgreq-fad0a9b0-5165-490b-bd08-a8c90c84b5f3&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNzYxNzIwMjtBUzo5NzE5NTc4NTE5NTUyM0AxNDAwMTg0Njg5ODI4&el=1_x_3https://www.researchgate.net/?enrichId=rgreq-fad0a9b0-5165-490b-bd08-a8c90c84b5f3&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNzYxNzIwMjtBUzo5NzE5NTc4NTE5NTUyM0AxNDAwMTg0Njg5ODI4&el=1_x_1https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Goeran_Bolin?enrichId=rgreq-fad0a9b0-5165-490b-bd08-a8c90c84b5f3&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNzYxNzIwMjtBUzo5NzE5NTc4NTE5NTUyM0AxNDAwMTg0Njg5ODI4&el=1_x_7https://www.researchgate.net/institution/Soedertoern_University?enrichId=rgreq-fad0a9b0-5165-490b-bd08-a8c90c84b5f3&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNzYxNzIwMjtBUzo5NzE5NTc4NTE5NTUyM0AxNDAwMTg0Njg5ODI4&el=1_x_6https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Goeran_Bolin?enrichId=rgreq-fad0a9b0-5165-490b-bd08-a8c90c84b5f3&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNzYxNzIwMjtBUzo5NzE5NTc4NTE5NTUyM0AxNDAwMTg0Njg5ODI4&el=1_x_5https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Goeran_Bolin?enrichId=rgreq-fad0a9b0-5165-490b-bd08-a8c90c84b5f3&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNzYxNzIwMjtBUzo5NzE5NTc4NTE5NTUyM0AxNDAwMTg0Njg5ODI4&el=1_x_4https://www.researchgate.net/?enrichId=rgreq-fad0a9b0-5165-490b-bd08-a8c90c84b5f3&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNzYxNzIwMjtBUzo5NzE5NTc4NTE5NTUyM0AxNDAwMTg0Njg5ODI4&el=1_x_1https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237617202_Television_Journalism_Politics_Entertainment_Power_and_Autonomy_in_the_Field_of_Television_Journalism?enrichId=rgreq-fad0a9b0-5165-490b-bd08-a8c90c84b5f3&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNzYxNzIwMjtBUzo5NzE5NTc4NTE5NTUyM0AxNDAwMTg0Njg5ODI4&el=1_x_3https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237617202_Television_Journalism_Politics_Entertainment_Power_and_Autonomy_in_the_Field_of_Television_Journalism?enrichId=rgreq-fad0a9b0-5165-490b-bd08-a8c90c84b5f3&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNzYxNzIwMjtBUzo5NzE5NTc4NTE5NTUyM0AxNDAwMTg0Njg5ODI4&el=1_x_2


2/16

http://tvn.sagepub.com/Television & NewMedia

http://tvn.sagepub.com/content/15/4/336Theonline version of this article can be foundat:

DOI: 10.1177/15274764145256712014 15: 336 originally published online 13 March 2014Television New Media

Gran Bolinin the Field of Television Journalism

Television Journalism, Politics, and Entertainment: Power and Autonomy

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Television & New MediaAdditional services and information for

http://tvn.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://tvn.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://tvn.sagepub.com/content/15/4/336.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Mar 13, 2014OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Apr 8, 2014Version of Record>>

at Sodertorns Hogskolebibliotek on April 8, 2014tvn.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Sodertorns Hogskolebibliotek on April 8, 2014tvn.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://tvn.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://tvn.sagepub.com/http://tvn.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://tvn.sagepub.com/http://tvn.sagepub.com/content/15/4/336http://tvn.sagepub.com/content/15/4/336http://tvn.sagepub.com/content/15/4/336http://tvn.sagepub.com/content/15/4/336.refs.htmlhttp://tvn.sagepub.com/content/15/4/336.refs.htmlhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://tvn.sagepub.com/content/15/4/336.full.pdfhttp://www.sagepublications.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://tvn.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://tvn.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://tvn.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://tvn.sagepub.com/content/15/4/336.refs.htmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://tvn.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/03/12/1527476414525671.full.pdfhttp://tvn.sagepub.com/content/15/4/336.full.pdfhttp://tvn.sagepub.com/content/15/4/336.full.pdfhttp://tvn.sagepub.com/http://tvn.sagepub.com/http://tvn.sagepub.com/http://tvn.sagepub.com/http://tvn.sagepub.com/http://tvn.sagepub.com/http://tvn.sagepub.com/http://tvn.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://tvn.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/03/12/1527476414525671.full.pdfhttp://tvn.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/03/12/1527476414525671.full.pdfhttp://tvn.sagepub.com/content/15/4/336.full.pdfhttp://tvn.sagepub.com/content/15/4/336.full.pdfhttp://tvn.sagepub.com/content/15/4/336.refs.htmlhttp://tvn.sagepub.com/content/15/4/336.refs.htmlhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://tvn.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://tvn.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://tvn.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://tvn.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.sagepublications.com/http://tvn.sagepub.com/content/15/4/336http://tvn.sagepub.com/


3/16


4/16

Bolin 337

edutainment, and other mixes. The evaluation has for the most part been negative andhas produced what Kees Brants (1998) has labeled a critical infotainment scare dis-course. In this discourse, journalism is said to have been driven out of competition byentertainment and other fictional programs that do not truly preserve the political public

sphere and the enhancement of public knowledge that has marked the traditional publicservice broadcasters (e.g., McNair 2000, 4). The second of these trends holds that thisis especially harmful for the relationship between journalists and politicians, as politicsand political discourse have been drawn into the entertainment logic of television.Indeed, in hisRich Media, Poor Democracy, Robert McChesney (1999, 2)has arguedthat this trend is a poison pill for democracy. For want of a better term, we could callthis the commercialization thesis; the thesis asserting that, at the bottom line, com-mercial financing and profit motifs steered by market demands of the media are toblame for the changing forms of radio and television, and for the increase in entertain-ment forms in all sorts of areas, including political debate. This argument is often foundin accounts from political scientists or political economists and their associates withinmedia and communication studies, exemplified here by Jay Blumler (1999, 241f), com-menting on the increased spread of infotainment and its consequences for publicknowledge:

The upsurge of new-found infotainment springs from systemic impulses: the exigenciesof increased competition in multi-channel conditions; the exigencies of tighter mediafinance, requiring news and current affairs producers to show that they can earn their

keep; and the tendency for many citizens to approach politics more like consumers(instrumental, oriented to immediate gratifications and potentially fickle) than believers.

In his article, published as a reply to Kees Brants (1998) earlier attack on Blumlerand others for contributing to the infotainment scare, Blumler rightly points out thatwhether or not infotainment is harmful for public and democratic engagement is ulti-mately an empirical question, and that claims from either side in the debate should bebacked up with scientific evidence. Nonetheless, the commercialization thesis isrehashed over and over again, often not only as a general background to a more

detailed analysis (see, for example, Wieten and Pantti 2005, 21,and the introductionin de Bens 2007) but also as a central part of the discussion on the relationship betweencommercialization and serious media production: Swedish examples would includeJnsson and Strmbck (2007); British examples, Blumler and Gurevitch (1995);French accounts include Bourdieu ([1996] 1998); and from the wealth of U.S. critique,one could single out researchers such as McManus (1994), Hamilton (2004),and thealready mentioned McChesney (1999).

Naturally, there are many national differences that make comparisons between theabove accounts difficult. Most scholars are also careful to state that they do not per se

regard infotainment as intrinsically bad. Some (e.g., Riegert 2007; van Zoonen 2005)also argue in defense of its positive democratic functioning. However, despite thisdisclaimer, the way the relationship is described often reveals a supposed directionofinfluence from entertainment to news and information. For example, when Lance

at Sodertorns Hogskolebibliotek on April 8, 2014tvn.sagepub.comDownloaded from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247206663_Rich_Media_Poor_Democracy_Communication_in_Dubious_Times?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-fad0a9b0-5165-490b-bd08-a8c90c84b5f3&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNzYxNzIwMjtBUzo5NzE5NTc4NTE5NTUyM0AxNDAwMTg0Njg5ODI4https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258170732_Obsessed_with_the_audience_Breakfast_television_revisited?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-fad0a9b0-5165-490b-bd08-a8c90c84b5f3&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNzYxNzIwMjtBUzo5NzE5NTc4NTE5NTUyM0AxNDAwMTg0Njg5ODI4https://www.researchgate.net/publication/209409773_All_The_News_That's_Fit_to_Sell_How_the_Market_Transforms_Information_Into_News?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-fad0a9b0-5165-490b-bd08-a8c90c84b5f3&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNzYxNzIwMjtBUzo5NzE5NTc4NTE5NTUyM0AxNDAwMTg0Njg5ODI4http://tvn.sagepub.com/http://tvn.sagepub.com/https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247206663_Rich_Media_Poor_Democracy_Communication_in_Dubious_Times?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-fad0a9b0-5165-490b-bd08-a8c90c84b5f3&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNzYxNzIwMjtBUzo5NzE5NTc4NTE5NTUyM0AxNDAwMTg0Njg5ODI4https://www.researchgate.net/publication/209409773_All_The_News_That's_Fit_to_Sell_How_the_Market_Transforms_Information_Into_News?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-fad0a9b0-5165-490b-bd08-a8c90c84b5f3&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNzYxNzIwMjtBUzo5NzE5NTc4NTE5NTUyM0AxNDAwMTg0Njg5ODI4https://www.researchgate.net/publication/246765910_Market-Driven_Journalism_Let_the_Citizen_Beware?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-fad0a9b0-5165-490b-bd08-a8c90c84b5f3&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNzYxNzIwMjtBUzo5NzE5NTc4NTE5NTUyM0AxNDAwMTg0Njg5ODI4https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258170732_Obsessed_with_the_audience_Breakfast_television_revisited?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-fad0a9b0-5165-490b-bd08-a8c90c84b5f3&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNzYxNzIwMjtBUzo5NzE5NTc4NTE5NTUyM0AxNDAwMTg0Njg5ODI4http://tvn.sagepub.com/http://tvn.sagepub.com/


5/16

338 Television & New Media 15(4)

Bennett (2005) refers to the media logic theory of Altheide and Snow (1991), hedescribes it as the diffusion of entertainment formats in news and political communi-cation (Bennett 2005, 175).This indicates that the active component is entertainmentand the passive receiver is news. Indeed, Altheide and Snow argue that we are now in

the postjournalism era, that journalism is dead as it has become suppressed by themedia logic, and that journalism will not be reborn until information formats arerecognized, evaluated, and altered with journalistic criteria in mind (Altheide andSnow 1991, xxi). My argument would be the opposite: we are far from having leftjournalism behind; it is more accurate to claim that we are living in the hyperjournal-ism era, marked by a diversified journalistic institution with a high degree ofautonomy.

There is, of course, a great deal of truth in the arguments citing increased economicpressure on media production; in the European context, the television landscape hasindeed become commercialized in the sense that the previously very dominant publicservice broadcasters met with strong commercial competition in the mid-1980s (withnational variations, of course). So there is no denying that there has been a clear shiftwithin television production in general (including television journalism), with eco-nomic power having gradually become more important than political power for theproduction processes in all fields of cultural production, including television produc-tion. However, it is also true that the ways this has affected television production aremore complex than what is usually accounted for. This article aims to account for sucha complexity, and my argument is that the influence is mainly cultural rather than eco-nomic (although the economy adds to the cultural impact). As I will show in greaterdetail, it must be recognized that the shift toward commercialization actually hap-pened long before the advent of commercial television journalism. This is true at leastfor the situation in Sweden and Scandinavia; I will leave open for the moment theextent to which it also holds for other nations, but it is my suspicion that there are simi-larities in how the fields of culture, politics, and economy are related to one another. Iwant to stress, then, that I am taking my departure from the situation in Sweden, as thisis the area where I can claim expertise and knowledge. I do, however, believe my argu-ments could be applied to other national situations: certainly the Nordic countries, butmany other European countries as well, share the characteristics I will highlight asimportant for my argument.

My ambition is thus not to prove Blumler, McChesney, or any of the other men-tioned authors wrong. What I would like to do is suggest an alternative explanation, orat least a weighting of the balance between factors of the economy and other factorsaffecting the relationship between journalism, entertainment and politicians (as well aspolitics more generally), and how these relations have changed over the past century.While taking my departure in the widespread notion of infotainment as the process bywhich commercial logics seek their ways into serious political journalism, I will arguethat this doxic belief is wrong. In fact, I will claim that it is more fruitful to think ofthis the other way aroundin terms of how journalism is affecting entertainment as aconsequence of the fact that the field of journalism (in the Bourdieuan sense) as aspecific subfield of cultural production has grown more autonomous, and has come to

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233113207_News_as_Reality_TV_Election_Coverage_and_the_Democratization_of_Truth?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-fad0a9b0-5165-490b-bd08-a8c90c84b5f3&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNzYxNzIwMjtBUzo5NzE5NTc4NTE5NTUyM0AxNDAwMTg0Njg5ODI4http://tvn.sagepub.com/http://tvn.sagepub.com/https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233113207_News_as_Reality_TV_Election_Coverage_and_the_Democratization_of_Truth?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-fad0a9b0-5165-490b-bd08-a8c90c84b5f3&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNzYxNzIwMjtBUzo5NzE5NTc4NTE5NTUyM0AxNDAwMTg0Njg5ODI4http://tvn.sagepub.com/http://tvn.sagepub.com/


6/16

Bolin 339

be differentiated into several different kinds of journalism. My point is that the jour-nalistic doxa follows with this specific form of cultural impact. An overly economi-cally deterministic view on the causes of the changes in television journalism will thusobscure other perspectives that might in a much better way illuminate factors other

than the economy.In the following, I will give a historical account and analysis of the situation in

Sweden over the past century, to show that the commercialization thesis is inadequatefor explaining the changes within the media, especially the relationship between tele-vision journalism and politics. My analysis is based on the field theory by PierreBourdieu (1993, [1992] 1996), and I will especially emphasize the concept of fieldautonomy, that is, the autonomy to shape the rules of the gamein this case, therules for conducting journalism, to set its standards and define what good journalismis.1I will do so by focusing on three important aspects of the growing autonomy of thesubfield of journalism (as a subfield of the wider field of cultural production): thechanges in recruiting practices in Swedish television, the changes in journalistic meth-ods, and the journalistic institutionalization process. As a final point, I will summarizemy argument in a number of conclusive theses.

Why Not the Commercialization Thesis?

As elsewhere in the world, journalism in Sweden first developed within the press, thenexpanded into radio and subsequently television. In the early 1900s, the press inSweden, as well as in the other Nordic countries, had strong political ties. There was aparty press situation whereby many newspapers were tied to, run by or dependent onpolitical parties. The media, then, were heavily dependent on the political field ofpower, and this was especially the case with the press connected to the workers move-ments, the Social Democrat and Communist parties. When the Social Democrats cameinto political power, this also meant that some parts of the journalistic field developedstrong ties to the state, a situation that has been described by Jan Ekecrantz (2005, 99)as a shift by which the early dependence on the political partyturned into a depen-dence on thestate, later replaced by the market. Dependence is, of course, the oppo-site of autonomy. Production within a subfield of low autonomy means producing inresponse to external demand (Champagne [1995] 2005, 55). Reversely, productionwithin a field with high degrees of autonomy (no field, it should be noted, is entirelyautonomous) means that there is little external influence on production. Journalisticautonomy is thus not autonomy from constraints upon the individual journalist, ashas been mistakenly argued by Michael Schudson (2005). In fact, a field of strongautonomy has a logic that does not provide for much individual freedom to act in anyof the ways the individual agent choosesat least not with success. But the imposi-tions are made from within the field, rather than through external pressure.

However, the dependence on political parties, or the state, did not mean that news-papers and journalists were not dependent on the economic field of power in society.First, not all newspapers were financed through political parties, and second, those thatwere also had substantial income from other sources, some of them commercial (e.g.,

http://tvn.sagepub.com/http://tvn.sagepub.com/http://tvn.sagepub.com/http://tvn.sagepub.com/


7/16


advertising; Gustafsson 2009). So, already, this situation indicates the multiple influ-ences active in journalism production.

This changed a bit toward the end of the 1980s and the early 1990s when the partypress gradually lost ground, and newspapers were taken over by commercial compa-

nies (often large, transnational media houses such as Schibsted). This coincided withthe general shift within television production, whereby the public service organiza-tions faced commercial competitors. The commercialization of Swedish mass media,in the meaning of there being a larger proportion of companies run mainly on com-mercial principles, thus happened at around the same time.

The problem then is that journalisms and journalists relations to politicians ontelevision as well as in the press changed long before this. In the next section, I willsupport this argument with national (Swedish) as well as some international examplesof the growing field autonomy that ultimately affects the previous power relationsbetween the fields of politics and journalistic production. I will focus on three distinctfeatures on the road to autonomy, which occur around the same time shortly after theSecond World War. The first feature is the introduction of the interview as the mainjournalistic method. Second, this coincides with changed recruiting policies amongthe Swedish broadcasters. Third, journalism training is institutionalized in journalismschools.

Changed Journalistic Methods

One indication of a change in the relationship between journalists and politiciansoccurs with the introduction of the interview as a new journalistic technique. AsMichael Schudson has shown, this occurred in the United States at the turn of the lastcentury, if not before (Schudson 1994, cf. Hallin 2005). Although the method can beobserved as early as the 1880s, in Sweden, the breakthrough of the interview as a jour-nalistic method did not occur until the 1950s (Ekstrm 2007, 24). The interview trans-formed the journalist from someone who relayed facts (telegrams, etc.) sent to theeditorial office to the general readership, to the one actually producing facts by activelyseeking news. This included actively approaching, for example, politicians for inter-views (Ekecrantz and Olsson 1994, 19). Following from this, politicians could nolonger set the agenda for their own mediated appearances.

An important consequence of this change in methods was that journalists becamemore active before elections (Esaiasson and Hkansson 2013).Prior to the mid-1960s,political debates on radio and television before elections were run by the politiciansthemselves. It was thus an internal matter for the political field of power whereby theactorsthat is, the politiciansused radio and television as arenas for their own agen-das. Although debates among politicians were often moderated by a studio host, thesehosts never intervened in the debate with critical remarks or suggestions but kept theirrole to distributing the allotted time for each participant, as Henrik rnebring (2001,89158) has shown in detail (see also rnebring 2003, 510).2In 1966, journalists tookover the initiative and introduced the form of interviewing each of the party leaders.This was also self-consciously perceived as a moving forward of their positioning in

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273000335_Enter_the_Professionals_Shifting_Logics_of_Election_Broadcasts_in_Sweden?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-fad0a9b0-5165-490b-bd08-a8c90c84b5f3&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNzYxNzIwMjtBUzo5NzE5NTc4NTE5NTUyM0AxNDAwMTg0Njg5ODI4https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258134587_Televising_the_Public_Sphere_Forty_Years_of_Current_Affairs_Debate_Programmes_on_Swedish_Television?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-fad0a9b0-5165-490b-bd08-a8c90c84b5f3&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNzYxNzIwMjtBUzo5NzE5NTc4NTE5NTUyM0AxNDAwMTg0Njg5ODI4http://tvn.sagepub.com/http://tvn.sagepub.com/https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258134587_Televising_the_Public_Sphere_Forty_Years_of_Current_Affairs_Debate_Programmes_on_Swedish_Television?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-fad0a9b0-5165-490b-bd08-a8c90c84b5f3&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNzYxNzIwMjtBUzo5NzE5NTc4NTE5NTUyM0AxNDAwMTg0Njg5ODI4https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273000335_Enter_the_Professionals_Shifting_Logics_of_Election_Broadcasts_in_Sweden?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-fad0a9b0-5165-490b-bd08-a8c90c84b5f3&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNzYxNzIwMjtBUzo5NzE5NTc4NTE5NTUyM0AxNDAwMTg0Njg5ODI4http://tvn.sagepub.com/http://tvn.sagepub.com/


8/16

Bolin 341

relation to the politicians, in the words of one of the major journalists in these debates,Lars Orup (quoted in Esaiasson and Hkansson 2002, 101). Orup conducted the inter-views together with his colleagues Gustaf Olivecrona and ke Ortmark, and the powerrelation between the three sinister journalists facing the single politician is quite evi-

dent just from the appearance in the studio, as can be seen in clips on both SwedishTelevisions (SVT) own web pages and YouTube.

The asymmetric power relations are clearly noticeable in, for example, the broad-cast interview with C. H. Hermansson, leader of the Communist Party, before the 1968elections.3Not only are the journalists shot from a lowly placed camera, slightly beloweye level, which makes them look down on the interviewed subject, who is accord-ingly shot slightly, barely noticeably, from above, seemingly looking up at his inter-viewers. The fact that Hermansson constantly has to move his eyes between threepersons, rather than being able to firmly focus his gaze on one person, also constructshim as insecure.

Although the position of journalists in relation to politicians became altered infavor of the journalists, the tone of questioning was still quite polite, and it was notuntil the 1970s that a shift in tone could be observed, when the tempo of the programswas speeded up, and the degree to which journalists interrupted politicians increaseddramatically. Previously, politicians were allowed to finish their lines of thought,andin the words of Henrik rnebring, who has conducted a content analysis of theperiodthe tone in these as well as other debate programs was formal, polite andcourteous (rnebring 2003, 510).In the mid-1970s, this changed, however, and jour-nalists became more active in their style of questioning. As Peter Esaiasson andNicklas Hkansson (2002, 121f) have shown in a linguistic analysis of turn-taking inthese rounds of questioning, it was three times more common for journalists to inter-rupt politicians in 1976 compared with six years earlier. One can thus conclude that theshift in visual representation of the changed balance slightly preceded the linguisticdomination by the journalists.

However, the above examples are not taken from entertainment settings but ratherfrom what could be called serious political journalism in current affairs genres.Politicians first appeared in television entertainment in Sweden already in 1962, whenthen-Prime Minister Tage Erlander appeared on the famous Swedish Saturday nightentertainment showHylands hrna(cf. Sjgren 1997).4It thus slightly precedes thechanges in journalistic methods within television production described above.Hylands great influence as a program host, the legendary U.S. talk show host of TheTonight Show, Jack Paar, actually did the same thing a year later (March 8, 1963) withRichard Nixon, with Nixon playing the piano and showing the audience a more humor-ous side of himself (McLuhan [1964] 1967, 297).5

At the occasion, Erlander accommodated himself to the situation by telling a joke,which has since set the standard for how to behave on entertainment television pro-grams for politicians. Peter Dahlgren has suggested that politicians have willinglyentered these entertainment settings as a response to the shrinking sound bites theyare allotted on the news programs (Dahlgren 1995, 56). Indeed, politicians usuallyget more uninterrupted time to lay out their arguments in the more relaxed

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258134587_Televising_the_Public_Sphere_Forty_Years_of_Current_Affairs_Debate_Programmes_on_Swedish_Television?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-fad0a9b0-5165-490b-bd08-a8c90c84b5f3&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNzYxNzIwMjtBUzo5NzE5NTc4NTE5NTUyM0AxNDAwMTg0Njg5ODI4http://tvn.sagepub.com/http://tvn.sagepub.com/https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258134587_Televising_the_Public_Sphere_Forty_Years_of_Current_Affairs_Debate_Programmes_on_Swedish_Television?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-fad0a9b0-5165-490b-bd08-a8c90c84b5f3&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzNzYxNzIwMjtBUzo5NzE5NTc4NTE5NTUyM0AxNDAwMTg0Njg5ODI4http://tvn.sagepub.com/http://tvn.sagepub.com/


9/16


entertainment settings, such as morning television shows (Hjarvard 2001; see alsoBruun 1999). However, the strategyif that was the caseof approaching entertain-ment interview situations instead of factual news situations seems not always to be soeffective, as politicians can end up in quite awkward situations. A Swedish example of

this is when the male Liberal party leader, in October 2000 on the youth/feminist tele-vision program Silikonon the Swedish commercial channel TV3, was asked whetherhe shaved his genitals. Similar international examples are easy to find, many of themaccounted for in the special issue ofPopular Communication(Baym and Jones 2012)on news parody and political satire.

Changes in Recruiting Policies

A second factor in the growth of autonomy of the journalistic field in Sweden wasconnected to shifts in the recruiting policies within Swedish Radio (SR) in the 1950s.Before the 1950s, the staff of SR was mainly composed of academics, often with PhDor Licentiate degrees. In 1945, as many as twenty-five of SRs total thirty-six employ-ees had an academic degree (Engblom 2013, 159), and this was the recruiting principlethat guided SR for many years (Engblom 1998). Beginning in the late 1950s, whentelevision appeared and the company expanded, the domination of academics dimin-ished, to the benefit of journalists. These were mainly press journalists, such as famousjournalist and entertainment host Lennart Hyland (19191993), an immensely popularhost with a background as a local news reporter in the printed press, then a sportsreporter, then an entertainment host on the radio, and then on television.

As journalists became dominant in television productionand we should keep inmind that Sweden is a rather small country when it comes to population (which meansthat the number of people working in TV production is limited)journalists alsoincreasingly appeared in entertainment programs. This goes especially not only forsports journalists but also for major news anchors such as Bengt Magnusson, an anchorat TV4 (the main commercial channel in Sweden) from the early 1990s to date, and thefirst host of the Swedish version of Who Wants to be a Millionaire?broadcast between2000 and 2003. In the same way as Lennart Hyland, although contrary to many otherswho have transgressed the line between news and entertainment production, BengtMagnusson is moving back and forth between genres: he is still a major news anchor,and he is also always the host for the election nights on TV4, where he takes on thepolitical commentators, statisticians, and politicians (whereas the female host isassigned to interview other guests and audience members).

The fact that journalists have come to dominate television production in Swedenhas also entailed that they dominate as hosts of entertainment programs, in which poli-ticians for more than forty years have participated to appear in more relaxed settings.In Sweden, the journalist Gary Engman hosted the live evening show Kvllsppet(19711976) on which he introduced a mix of journalistic reporting and debate withentertainment. In the wake of this success, he was invited to Denmark as a consultantfor the production ofKanal 22(19791982; Bruun 1999, 128; see also Bruun 2006,235). Thus, it came as no surprise when Peter Jihde, a longtime sports journalist and



10/16

Bolin 343

between 2007 and 2010 the host of the Swedish adaptation ofIdol(20042011), alsohosted Utfrgningen(The Questioning) for the 2010 elections, whereby the leaders ofthe political parties were interviewed for the upcoming election, sometimes even inslots following one another. This meant that you could watch Jihde interviewing aspir-

ing pop stars before their audition onIdolat 8:00 p.m., and then watch him interview-ing the leaders of the main Swedish parties on Utfrgningenat 9:00 p.m.

International examples of this transgression of the boundaries between news andentertainment are not absent, of course, and include personalities such as BarbaraWalters and Anderson Cooper, and shows like the Todayshow, in the United States. Anespecially interesting example is NBC news journalist Brian Williamss slow-jam-ming the news onLate Night with Jimmy Fallon, for example, in a video clip com-menting on the 2011 Occupy Wall Street movement.6

The Process of Institutionalization

A major feature along the road to journalistic autonomy is naturally the building ofinstitutions that can consecrate the beliefs by which the field of production can bereproduced. The road to autonomy through institutionalization in Sweden was longand the process slow. The first association for journalists, Publicistklubben (thePublicists Club), was organized in 1874, and Svenska Journalistfreningen (theSwedish Union of Journalists) was organized already in 1901, with its own internaljournal Journalisten (The Journalist) launched in 1904. Together with SvenskaTidningsutgivarefreningen (the Swedish Association of Newspaper Publishers),these two organizations agreed on a media accountability system and formed a self-regulating institution in the Press Council (Pressens Opinionsnmnd) in 1916 (Weibulland Brjesson 1992, 124ff). Similar press councils were also established in otherNordic and North European countries (Hallin and Mancini 2004, 172f).

The trend toward growing autonomy was enforced by the institutionalization ofjournalism training in Sweden in the 1960s (Ekecrantz and Olsson 1994, 226).Journalism training started shortly after the Second World War, first on a private basisin 1947 with the Poppius School of Journalism, and from 1959 in the form of theJournalism Institute in Stockholm, shortly followed by a similar institute in Gothenburg.In 1967, these were reorganized as vocational polytechnics, and in 1977, they wereincluded in the university system. In terms of fields of production, these are institu-tions for the consecration and production of the fields doxa, and as can be seen in theshort description above, the road to legitimization and institutionalization was quiteshort (Petersson 2006, 421ff).

To place this development in an international perspective, we can see that in theUnited States, journalism training appeared already in the early 1900s. This was farahead of Europe, where journalism training seems to have appeared much later but ataround the same time in several countries. Finland holds a prominent position, startingjournalism training at the University of Tampere in 1943 (Schultz 2005, 178f). OtherNordic countries were not far behind. In Norway, journalism training within academiastarted in the 1950s, a few years after the first courses in journalism were started in



11/16


Denmark in 1946 (Schultz 2005, 181f). In the United Kingdom, journalism trainingwithin academia started in 1970 (Frith and Meech 2007, 138). In Portugal, the firstacademic courses in journalism started in 1979 (Correia 2008), although small effortshad also been made previously, just like in many other countries (Sobreira 2003).

In the comparatively small Nordic nations of Sweden, Finland, Denmark, andNorway, this has meant that journalism training has been very homogeneous, as it hasbeen concentrated to only a few schoolssometimes only one. This naturally has hadconsequences for the unified doxa produced within the field. As new educational pro-grams in journalism have appeared over the past decade, this has meant increaseddifferentiation of the field of journalism production, with specific specialized sub-fields (Schultz 2005, 177; cf. Marchetti [2002] 2005 on a similar differentiation inFrance). In Sweden, the growth in journalism training is almost exponential, to theextent that a 2004 report from the Swedish National Agency for Higher Education(2004) directs that degree targets be set for // degree courses in economics andjournalism, where a surplus in these two fields is anticipated.7Although the overpro-duction of journalists had been going on for a long time, the government did not actalong the lines of the recommendation. Many of those who have graduated from jour-nalism training programs have consequently had to work in other sectors, within oroutside the media, in activities to which they have brought the journalistic doxa.

As most Swedish and international journalists today have formal journalism train-ing, this means that although the journalists enter other areas of media production(e.g., entertainment), there is a certain amount of similarity in approach over genres.As Ida Schultz (2005) has shown in a study of highly valued journalistic practices inthe case of Denmark (as revealed in prize motivations for the Cavling Prize), the valueproduced through journalism training of what good journalism is has changed from theideology of information transference to exposure (e.g., the investigative report,unveiling some political or social injustice). This value and these practices also puttheir mark on the way entertainment journalists act, as has, again in the case ofDenmark, been exemplified in detail by Stig Hjarvard (2001) in relation to morningtelevision.8

So, to summarize this section, I have tried to relate three important points in time tosuggest that the commercialization thesis is inadequate for explaining the shifts withinthe media in Sweden. The commercialization of the Swedish broadcasting mediaoccurred in the 1980s, and if the commercialization thesis had been adequate, changeswould have occurred thereafter. However, this was not the case. First, the changes inrecruiting policies and the following increased presence of (trained) journalists withinthe broadcasting media occurred already in the late 1950s. Second, the interview wasintroduced in the 1950s as a new journalistic technique, which radically changed thepower balance between journalists and politicians (but, naturally, other people alsoconfronted the broadcast media)first in the printed press, then on radio and televi-sion. Third, and probably equally important, journalism training started in the 1960s,further establishing the journalistic interview as the major journalistic method, withjournalists taking over the interviews with politicians. And, in small national contexts,the fact that most journalists are trained at the same few schools has a homogenizing



12/16

Bolin 345

effect. As much as journalism training at the time helped to establish journalism as asubfield of cultural production, the rise of new and more specialized journalism train-ing courses has also entailed a differentiation into subdivisions of the field, bringingwith it the journalistic practices and ideologies into these areas.

Conclusion

The commercialization thesis is a powerful and largely naturalized doxic belief, whichotherwise nuanced and reflexive scholars fall back into at times. As I have tried toestablish above, the commercial forces that are active within the field of cultural pro-duction, including television production, need to be placed in relation to other power-ful forces, that is, political, educational, and so forth. Even Bourdieu ([1996] 1998), inhis now famous book On Television and Journalism, has fallen into the trap of thecommercialization thesis, underestimating the force of the autonomization processwithin the subfield of journalistic production (cf. Benson 2005, 99).

In the above, I have suggested an alternative explanation for the historical unfoldingof the relationship between journalism and other fields of power in society. My empiri-cal example has been the changes in these relations in Sweden. As these relations willvary between different national settings, this needs to be tested systematically againstother national data. The concluding points I want to make relate to the Swedish situa-tion, but the explanatory model as such should work for other national settings.

From the analysis above, we can learn that the relationship between entertainmentand factual programming and news journalism in Sweden cannot solely be ascribed tochanges in relations between the field of journalism on one hand and that of the econ-omy and politics on the other. It also needs to be placed in relation to the growingautonomy of the journalistic subfield of cultural production, and the increased internaldifferentiation of this field over the past decades, in Sweden as well as elsewhere (cf.Marchetti [2002] 2005; Schultz 2005).

The growing autonomy of the journalistic field (admittedly later enforced bychanges in its relation to the economy) has meant that journalism has expanded anddiversified, as well as entered and affected entertainment (rather than the other wayaround). One could therefore notsay that the changing roles between journalists andpoliticians, and the changed relations between serious news and entertainment resultfrom changes in financing, but rather from the growth in the autonomy of the journal-istic field. This is very obvious in the Swedish case, as in other European countries,with a change from strong public service broadcasters to a situation in which they havefaced competition from commercial broadcasters. (The situation in the United Statesis naturally different because of the absence of strong public service companies, and itis therefore problematic to import U.S. theories into European contexts, as is some-times the case.)

This means that the changes in relations between fields first occurred between thejournalistic subfield and the political field, to the benefit of the former, and thenbetween journalism and the economic field. One couldand perhaps also shouldblame commercial forces within the media industries for many things, but it is very



13/16


hard to blame forces of commercialization for having initiated changes in the premisesfor public debate and for the changed roles between journalism and politics. It is ratherthe field logic as such that is the explanation for the changing roles between journalistsand politicians, educators or economic potentates. The explanation is largely driven by

the field-specific process of developing good television, as this has been defined bythe consecrating instances of the subfield of cultural production, where the productionof television journalism can be found. With the increased journalistic presence ontelevision, and the fact that television journalism has differentiated into many differentsubforms, we are facing, rather than the death of journalism, the birth of the era ofhyperjournalism.

Acknowledgment

Thanks to Christian Christensen, Rita Figueiras, Jonathan Gray, Jennifer Holt, and KristinaRiegert for directing me to some of the non-Swedish examples of transgressions between newsand entertainment and of journalism training.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of thisarticle.

Notes

1. The theoretical underpinnings of this argument are accounted for in more detail in Bolin(2011).

2. As Andrew Crisell ([1997] 2002, 175) has shown, a similar change between politicians andjournalists occurred in the United Kingdom around the same time.

3. The interview with Hermansson before the elections in 1968 can be seen on SVT Play:

http://svtplay.se/v/1393033/ch_hermansson_vansterpartiet_kommunisterna_1967. Theclip can also be found at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpOdzZa4b9c.4. The whole interview with Erlander can be found on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/

watch?v=viWr51xJJV0.5. A clip can be found at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBc1RywVNkA.6. The clip is accessible at http://www.latenightwithjimmyfallon.com/blogs/2011/10/

its-time-again-to-slow-jam-the-news-with-brian-williams/7. Summary in English of The Labour Market and Higher Education 2004 (Swedish

National Agency for Higher Education 2004): www.hsv.se/aboutus/publications/reports/reports/2004/thelabourmarketandhighereducation2004.5.539a949110f3d591

4ec800070684.html.8. Prizes for outstanding journalistic performances were instituted, for example, in the formof the Swedish prize for investigative journalism (Guldspaden), and in Denmark theCavling Prize, the equivalent to the Pulitzer Prize in the United States. Such prizes natu-rally promote and guide principles for what is to be considered good journalism, and as

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viWr51xJJV0http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viWr51xJJV0http://www.latenightwithjimmyfallon.com/blogs/2011/10/its-time-again-to-slow-jam-the-news-with-brian-williams/http://www.latenightwithjimmyfallon.com/blogs/2011/10/its-time-again-to-slow-jam-the-news-with-brian-williams/http://www.hsv.se/aboutus/publications/reports/reports/2004/thelabourmarketandhighereducation2004.5.539a949110f3d5914ec800070684.htmlhttp://www.hsv.se/aboutus/publications/reports/reports/2004/thelabourmarketandhighereducation2004.5.539a949110f3d5914ec800070684.htmlhttp://www.hsv.se/aboutus/publications/reports/reports/2004/thelabourmarketandhighereducation2004.5.539a949110f3d5914ec800070684.htmlhttp://tvn.sagepub.com/http://tvn.sagepub.com/http://tvn.sagepub.com/http://tvn.sagepub.com/http://www.hsv.se/aboutus/publications/reports/reports/2004/thelabourmarketandhighereducation2004.5.539a949110f3d5914ec800070684.htmlhttp://www.latenightwithjimmyfallon.com/blogs/2011/10/its-time-again-to-slow-jam-the-news-with-brian-williams/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viWr51xJJV0


14/16

Bolin 347

Ida Schultz (2005) has shown, the changing journalistic qualities that have been promotedby the Cavling Prize in Denmark mirror very well the changing autonomy of the journal-istic field. From having been awarded for outstanding journalistic informational effortsbetween 1945 and 1964, the prize came to promote agenda-settingefforts between 1965

and 1984, and then to privilege exposurebetween 1985 and 2004. This is quite in con-cert with Swedish findings along the route toward journalistic institutionalization (e.g.,Ekecrantz 1997; Ekecrantz and Olsson 1994; Petersson 2006).

References

Altheide, D. L., and R. P. Snow. 1991.Media Worlds in the Postjournalism Era. New York:Aldine de Gruyter.

Baym, G., and J. P. Jones. 2012. News Parody in Global Perspective: Politics, Power, andResistance.Popular Communication10 (12): 213.

Bennett, W. L. 2005. News as Reality TV: Election Coverage and the Democratization ofTruth. Critical Studies in Media Communication22 (2): 17177.Benson, R. 2005. Mapping Field Variation: Journalism in France and the United States.

In Bourdieu and the Journalistic Field, edited by R. Benson and E. Neveu, 85112.Cambridge, UK: Polity.

Blumler, J. G. 1999. Political Communication Systems All Change. A Response to KeesBrants.European Journal of Communication14 (2): 24149.

Blumler, J. G., and M. Gurevitch. 1995. The Crisis of Public Communication. London:Routledge.

Bolin, G. 2011. Value and the Media: Cultural Production and Consumption in Digital Markets.

Farnham, UK: Ashgate.Bourdieu, P. 1993. The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature. Cambridge,

UK: Polity.Bourdieu, P. (1992) 1996. The Rules of Art: Genesis and Structure of the Literary Field.

Cambridge, UK: Polity.Bourdieu, P. (1996) 1998. On Television and Journalism. London: Pluto.Brants, K. 1998. Whos Afraid of Infotainment?European Journal of Communication13 (3):

31535.Bruun, H. 1999. Talkshowet. Portrt av en TV-genre. Valby, Denmark: Borgen Publishers.Bruun, H. 2006. TV-Underholdning. InDansk TVs Historie, edited by S. Hjarvard, 21953.

Fredriksberg, Sweden: Samfundslitteratur.Champagne, P. (1995) 2005. The Double Dependency: The Journalistic Field between

Politics and Markets. InBourdieu and the Journalistic Field, edited by R. Benson and E.Neveu, 4863. Cambridge, UK: Polity.

Correia, J. C. 2008. O Estudo do Jornalismo em Portugal aps 1974 [The study of journal-ism in Portugal after 1974]. InJornalismo: Histria, teoria e metodologia da pesquisa.

Perspectivas Luso-Brasileiras [Journalism: History, theory and research methodology.Luso-Brasilian perspectives], edited by J. P. Sousa, 36778. Porto, Portugal: EdiesUniversdade Fernando Pessoa.

Crisell, A. (1997) 2002. An Introductory History of British Broadcasting. 2nd ed. London:

Routledge.Dahlgren, P. 1995. Television and the Public Sphere: Citizenship, Democracy and the Media.

London: Sage.de Bens, E. ed. 2007.Media between Culture and Commerce. Bristol: Intellect Books.

http://tvn.sagepub.com/http://tvn.sagepub.com/http://tvn.sagepub.com/http://tvn.sagepub.com/http://tvn.sagepub.com/


15/16


Ekecrantz, J. 1997. Journalisms Discursive Events and Sociopolitical Change in Sweden1925-1987.Media, Culture & Society19 (3): 393412.

Ekecrantz, J. 2005. News Paradigms, Political Power and Cultural Contexts in 20th CenturySweden. InDiffusion of the News Paradigm 1850-2000, edited by S. Hyer and H. Pttker,

93104. Gteborg, Sweden: Nordicom.Ekecrantz, J., and T. Olsson. 1994.Det redigerade samhllet. Om journalistikens, beskrivnings-

maktens och det informerade frnuftets historia[The edited society. On journalism, descrip-tive power and the history of informed reason]. Stockholm, Sweden: Carlssons.

Ekstrm, M. 2007. Interviewing, Quoting and the Development of Modern News Journalism.A Study of the Swedish Press 1915-1995. InNews from the Interview Society, edited byM. Ekstrm, . Kroon, and M. Nylund, 2148. Gteborg, Sweden: Nordicom.

Engblom, L.-. 1998.Radio- och TV-folket. Rekryteringen av programmedarbetare till radionoch televisionen i Sverige 1925-1995 [The radio and television people. Recruitmentof staff for radio and television in Sweden 1925-1995]. Stockholm, Sweden: Stiftelsen

Etermedierna i Sverige.Engblom, L.-. 2013. Recruitment to Swedish Broadcasting. In The History of Swedish

Broadcasting, edited by M. Djerf-Pierre and M. Ekstrm, 15572. Gteborg, Sweden:Nordicom.

Esaiasson, P., and N. Hkansson. 2002.Besked ikvll! Valprogrammen i svensk radio och TV[The answer tonight! Election broadcasts in Swedish radio and television]. Stockholm,Sweden: Stiftelsen Etermedierna i Sverige.

Esaiasson, P., and N. Hkansson. 2013. Enter the Professionals. Shifting Logics of ElectionBroadcasts in Sweden. In The History of Swedish Broadcasting, edited by M. Djerf-Pierreand M. Ekstrm, 197219. Gteborg, Sweden: Nordicom.

Frith, S., and P. Meech. 2007. Becoming a Journalist.Journalism8 (2): 13764.Gustafsson, K.-E. 2009. Dagspressens affrsmodeller [The business models of the daily

press].Ekonomiska samfundets tidskrift62 (1): 2328.Hallin, D. 2005. Field Theory, Differentiation Theory, and Comparative Media Research.

In Bourdieu and the Journalistic Field, edited by R. Benson and E. Neveu, 22443.Cambridge, UK: Polity.

Hallin, D., and P. Mancini. 2004. Comparing Media Systems. Three Models of Media andPolitics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Hamilton, J. T. 2004.All the News thats Fit to Sell: How the Market Transforms Informationinto News. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Hjarvard, S. 2001. Journalism as Company. In The Aesthetics of Television, edited by G.Agger and J. F. Jensen, 25786. Aalborg, Denmark: Aalborg University Press.

Jnsson, A. M., and J. Strmbck. 2007. TV-journalistik i konkurrens. Nyhets- och samhll-sprogram i svensk TV 1990-2004[Television journalism in competition. News and currentaffairs programs in Swedish television 1990-2004]. Stockholm, Sweden: Ekerlids.

Marchetti, D. (2002) 2005. Subfields of Specialized Journalism. In Bourdieu and theJournalistic Field, edited by R. Benson and E. Neveu, 6482. Cambridge, UK: Polity.

McChesney, R. W. 1999.Rich Media, Poor Democracy: Communication Politics in DubiousTimes. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

McLuhan, M. (1964) 1967.Media. Mnniskans utbyggnader[Media: The Extensions of Man].Stockholm, Sweden: Pan/Norstedts.McManus, J. H. 1994.Market-Driven Journalism. Let the Citizen Beware?Thousand Oaks:

Sage.

http://tvn.sagepub.com/http://tvn.sagepub.com/http://tvn.sagepub.com/http://tvn.sagepub.com/http://tvn.sagepub.com/


16/16

Bolin 349

McNair, B. 2000.Journalism and Democracy: An Evaluation of the Political Public Sphere.London: Routledge.

rnebring, H. 2001. TV-parlamentet. Debattprogram i svensk TV 1956-1996[The TV parlia-ment. Debate programs in Swedish television 1956-1996]. Gteborg, Sweden: JMG.

rnebring, H. 2003. Televising the Public Sphere. Forty Years of Current Affairs DebateProgrammes on Swedish Television.European Journal of Communication18 (4): 50127.

Petersson, B. 2006.Frn journalist till murvel. Journalistyrkets professionalisering frn 1900till 1960-talet[From journalist to hack. The professionalization of journalism from 1900 tothe 1960s]. Gteborg, Sweden: Nordicom.

Riegert, K. ed. 2007.Politicotainment: Televisions Take on the Real. New York: Peter Lang.Schudson, M. 1994. Question Authority: A History of the News Interview in American

Journalism, 1860s-1930s.Media, Culture & Society16:56587.Schudson, M. 2005. Autonomy from What? InBourdieu and the Journalistic Field, edited by

R. Benson and E. Neveu, 21423. Cambridge, UK: Polity.

Schultz, I. 2005.Bag om nyhedskriterierne. En etnografisk feltanalyse af nyhetsvrdier i jour-nalistisk praksis[Behind the news criteria. An ethnographic field analysis of news valuesin journalistic praxis]. Roskilde, Denmark: Institut for Kommunikation, Journalistik ogDatologi.

Sjgren, O. 1997.Den goda underhllningen. Njesgenrer och artister i Sveriges radio och TV1945-1995 [Good entertainment. Entertainment genres and artists in Swedish Radio andTelevision]. Stockholm, Sweden: Stiftelsen Etermedierna i Sverige.

Sobreira, R. M. 2003. Os jornalistas portugueses, 1933-1974: Uma profisso em construo[The Portuguese journalists 1933-1974. A profession under construction]. Lisboa, Portugal:Livros Horizonte.

Swedish National Agency for Higher Education. 2004. The Labour Market and HigherEducation 2004. Report 2004:36 R. Stockholm, Sweden. www.hsv.se/aboutus/publica-tions/reports/reports/2004/thelabourmarketandhighereducation2004.5.539a949110f3d5914ec800070684.html.

van Zoonen, L. 2005.Entertaining the Citizen: When Politics and Popular Culture Converge.Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield.

Weibull, L., and B. Brjesson. 1992. The Swedish Media Accountability System: A ResearchPerspective.European Journal of Communication7 (1): 12139.

Wieten, J., and M. Pantti. 2005. Obsessed with the Audience: Breakfast Television Revisited.Media, Culture & Society27 (1): 2139.

Author Biography

Gran Bolin is a professor in Media and Communication Studies at Sdertrn University. Hiscurrent research is focused on cultural production and consumption in contemporary cultureindustries, and the changing relationship between these provoked by digitization and marketiza-tion processes. Recent publications include Value and the Media: Cultural Production andConsumption in Digital Markets(Ashgate, 2011) and the edited volume Cultural Technologies.The Shaping of Culture in Media and Society(Routledge, 2012).
http://www.hsv.se/aboutus/publications/reports/reports/2004/thelabourmarketandhighereducation2004.5.539a949110f3d5914ec800070684.htmlhttp://www.hsv.se/aboutus/publications/reports/reports/2004/thelabourmarketandhighereducation2004.5.539a949110f3d5914ec800070684.htmlhttp://www.hsv.se/aboutus/publications/reports/reports/2004/thelabourmarketandhighereducation2004.5.539a949110f3d5914ec800070684.htmlhttp://tvn.sagepub.com/http://www.hsv.se/aboutus/publications/reports/reports/2004/thelabourmarketandhighereducation2004.5.539a949110f3d5914ec800070684.html

TV Journalism TVNM

Documents

Transcript of TV Journalism TVNM