Practice scholars of news production generally imagine news practices as symbolic resources that exist external to reporters, and prior to reporters’ actions. This understanding has been incredibly productive for scholars, but it elides an important question. How do news practices actually get into reporters’ heads? The lack of answers to this question has created a persistent gap between the study of news practices and examination of reporters’ actions. In this essay, I build on recent advances in cognitive cultural sociology, especially the dual process theory of social cognition, to offer an account of how reporters internalize culture. I argue that this account is especially helpful for analysis of situations in which what journalists can say about what they do is only loosely associated with what they do, or know how to do. In my estimation, such situations are increasingly common in journalism. A clearer understanding of processes of internalization will lead to more accurate assessments of reporters’ actions, especially in situations in which their words and their deeds are not aligned.

It is no secret that local journalism is declining in the United States. The most recent numbers show that half of local journalists have lost their jobs in the last decade, and so-called news deserts are popping up around the country. Moreover, after nearly two decades of experimentation, no scalable business model for local online news has yet appeared. Thus, local journalism is in a deep crisis. Simply put, there is no for-profit business model that can sustain local and regional news organizations, at least not at a scale sufficient to allow them to serve a fully democratic purpose. Thus, if we believe that such journalism is crucial for the maintenance of democracy, as surely most of us do, it is time for us to support it via public subsidies, a radical idea but an idea whose time has arrived.

For decades, scholars have known that much of journalistic practice is motivated by habits that lie beyond the conscious reflection of journalists. Yet, when studying news production, scholars often rely on methods, like interviewing, which elicit consciously articulated self-reports from journalists. Doing so leaves unexplored the comparatively vast terrain of news production driven by pre-reflective motivations. Borrowing from the dual-processing theory of human cognition, this article explores what methods like interviewing can and cannot explain about news production. It also discusses alternative methods specifically designed to investigate the role of ‘practical consciousness’ in behavior. The benefits of this exercise are several, including greater clarity about the sorts of claims that can be made on the basis of self-reported data, better alignment between theories and methods in the study of news production, and consideration of alternative methods for accessing the parts of journalistic practice that work in implicit and unconscious ways.

Among news production scholars, interest in the theories of Bourdieu, Giddens, Latour, and related authors has grown in the last 20 years. However, few have recognized that these theories contribute to a broader practice perspective in social theory that traces back to the writings of Heidegger, and more directly, to Wittgenstein. In this essay, I outline four basic elements of this approach that are shared across these theories. Among these elements is the notion that social action is organized into discrete practices, and that these practices are produced and reproduced in their performance by individuals. I then assess the practice scholarship in the sociology of news in the context of these elements. I show that while a great deal of research has focused on news practices, relatively little has investigated journalistic performance. Thus, the field has not exploited, as well as it might, the panoply of tools and concepts developed by practice theorists.

In a review of my book (Ryfe, 2012), David Domingo (2014) begins by noting that it 'could well be the last of newsroom ethnographies as we know them' (p. 115). Why the last? Because, he writes, 'spending months among journalists to understand their practices, their values, and their aspirations will not soon be enough to analyze the evolution of journalism.' Domingo clearly wishes to say that studying journalists is no longer enough if one wants to understand the evolution of journalism. Fair enough. But when I initially read the sentence, my eyes fixed on its first two words, 'spending months'. I didn't spend months, I thought to myself. I spent years. In fact, I spent approximately two-and-a-half years, stretched over five total years, in newsrooms. In that time, I followed reporters around and sat in on their meetings. I went to lunch with them. I hung around their cubicles to 'shoot the bull'. I even reported and wrote stories myself. As I reflected on this time, which represented a big chunk of time in my life, I thought that Domingo could have ended the sentence with those first two words and still have been correct. My ethnography of news may be the last of its kind because few researchers will have time to spend years in the field, hanging out with journalists (or any news producer), talking with them, observing their practices and engaging in their rituals.

With all the talk of change in American journalism these days, it is almost comforting to hear that some things remain the same. Robert Entman has been one of the foremost scholars of American news...

This chapter reviews literature bearing on the question of who participates in deliberative civic engagement initiatives. Research to date suggests that although significant variation exists among different kinds of civic and political engagement, an underlying logic shapes all forms of public participation: participation goes up when, from the perspective of the individual, its material and symbolic costs are lowered, and/or its benefits are increased. Moreover, a vast amount of research shows that the costs and benefits of participation are generally skewed in favor of those with higher socio-economic status (SES) and education levels. While other factors, such as membership in civic and political organizations and various social networks, can mitigate the impacts of SES and education, it is clear that unless practitioners take corrective measures, participation of all varieties will be skewed. To assist practitioners in such efforts, the chapter reviews several recruitment strategies that may enable the assembly of a broad and diverse group of participants in deliberative civic engagement events.

This chapter canvases the literature in the sociology of news production for explanations as to why, in the face of great change around them, American newspapers have failed to innovate. It finds three sorts of explanations in this literature: journalists are anchored to habits; they have deep investments in traditional practices and values; and they routinely re-enact long-standing definitions of what journalism is and of what it is for. Each explanation is elucidated through examples taken from the author's recent ethnographic work in several newsrooms. Keywords: sociology of news; ethnography of news; internet journalism; journalism profession; news production

The news and information system in the United States is undergoing a significant transformation. From a limited number of professional, major metropolitan newspapers, television and radio stations to a networked system of hundreds of small and medium size information sources. Structural changes in news production and distribution are significantly altering the supply and flow of news to citizens. Using network analysis, we seek to map changes in the news ecology of the San Francisco Bay area. In this study, we graph the relationships between 143 locally based news sites to examine connections between news organizations, between journalists and their sources and between users of the news sites.

Using Hallin's (1994) analysis of soundbites in network television news coverage as a model, we track the quoting practices of five American newspapers during the transition to modern news (1876-1916). We find that despite variation in the size, geographic location, and partisan orientation of these newspapers, trends in their quoting practices moved in relative lockstep. Drawing on the institutionalist concept of path dependency, we argue that these patterns are not consistent with an economic explanation of the transition to modern news. Rather, we suggest that political changespecifically, the breakdown of the third party system in 1896, served as a ocritical junctureo in the transition to modern news. Overall, we argue that detailed analysis of newsgathering practices coupled with an institutional approach may allow historians to trace the timing, sequence and explanation of historical change in journalism in finer detail.