Social inequality is a defining feature of contemporary societies and a major driver of political polarization. In deeply mediatized contexts, journalism occupies a pivotal position: It shapes discourses on inequality while simultaneously being structured by unequal distributions of resources, power, and recognition. In this conceptual essay, we propose a taxonomy based on four inequality arenas— top-bottom , us-them , inside-outside , and today-tomorrow inequalities. These arenas intersect with three areas of study—inequality mediated by journalism, within journalism, and in journalism research. In so doing, we offer an analytical roadmap that highlights central tensions, persistent shortcomings, and potential future research priorities in the field.
This study examines how journalistic roles are performed in humanitarian news. Using a multistage computational approach applied to news data from 46 international news organizations across 21 countries, we find that role performance varies systematically across topics, political systems, and organizational types. Our findings complicate the predominant tendency in humanitarian journalism scholarship to frame roles in terms of professional norms or humanitarian values. Instead, we show that role performance is multidimensional and contextually contingent. Improving humanitarian coverage therefore requires attention not only to professional practices but also to the institutional conditions that enable diverse forms of journalism.
In a period of high competition, many contemporary journalists attract audience attention by adopting the stylistic conventions (“logics”) of platforms like TikTok to deliver news online. However, the effects of this content on audience trust and learning remain unclear. Using two online experiments, we examine whether audiences perceive journalists as credible and learn from news videos employing TikTok logics, compared to traditional print articles. Results indicate that journalists using TikTok logics may effectively capture attention but are viewed as less trustworthy, credible, professional, and knowledgeable, though more likable, than print journalists. Learning outcomes are similar across formats.
Citizens increasingly need to detect and filter disinformation, yet we know little about why some are more vulnerable than others. We examine whether forms of skepticism toward traditional epistemic authorities—fake news media perception (FNMP) and conspiracy beliefs—are associated with disinformation vulnerability. Using two-wave survey data from Spain ( N W1 = 1,207; n W2 = 821), we find that FNMP is widespread, not a fringe phenomenon. Conspiracy beliefs predict vulnerability across cross-sectional, lagged, and autoregressive models. Support for FNMP as a predictor is partial and not sustained in autoregressive models. Evidence for the interaction between FNMP and conspiracy beliefs is weak.
