1. news

How to surpass the dichotomy in ‘quality’ journalism
and ‘popular’ journalism?
Improving the quality of professional news talk.
Irene Costera Meijer
Senior Associate Professor of Mediastudies
University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
[email protected]
RIPE@2002
Helsinki / Tampere
16-20 january
Broadcasting and Convergence:
Articulating a New Remit
In spite of numerous articles and books which problematize this dichotomy, there is still a
widespread assumption of a one-to-one relationship between a loss of quality in news
reporting and a popularization of news reporting. Could it be the case that our continuing
worries about the supposed impoverishment of journalism are indicative of our inability to
identify value outside the dichotomy of quality versus popular news? If so, our main
problem could just as likely be the confined space to talk about news quality. In this
paper I will support this argument on the basis of my research into the discursive space of
the producers of the major newscast of Dutch public television: NOS News.
How to surpass the dichotomy in ‘quality’ journalism
and ‘popular’ journalism?
Improving the quality of professional news talk.
1
For a long time, the Netherlands was one of the few enclaves where the yellow press
failed to get a strong foothold, but today even NOS News – which always represented
sound and serious news television – is subject to the criticism of catering to popular
sentiment. Given its solid reputation, it was perhaps not surprising that NOS News initially
underestimated the news value of the tragic death of Princess Diana in 1997. However,
when in 1999 there were first signs of a relationship between the Dutch heir to the throne,
Prince William Alexander and Maxima Zorreguieta, NOS News devoted as much as
fourteen minutes, or more than half of its prime time eight o’ clock edition, to this topic.
This clearly reflected a changed policy. Another example of what was interpreted as a
popularization effort of NOS News involved its attention for the enormous success of the
first Big Brother show. In the NOS News special survey of the year 1999, its chief
executive producer (CEP) Nico Haasbroek interviewed one of the Big Brother
participants as if she were the Dutch Prime-minister, and on the eve of the Big Brother
finale the residents were featured live in the eight o’clock newscast. In response, one
could hear viewers say that NOS News was giving in to popular taste. In a similar vein,
leading Dutch newspapers and professional publications questioned the reporting of
some NOS News senior reporters about Kosovo’s everyday life during the war of 1999 for
its lack of detachment and objectivity. The alleged turn to a more popular format was also
criticized from within: the editorial board (redactiecommissie) sounded harsh words and
one of NOS News’ most recognizable figures, presenter Pia Dijkstra, decided to resign.
During the past decade there has been a renewed concern for the quality of news
journalism. Several Dutch media scholars have expressed their worries about certain
changes and tendencies in journalism practices. Peter Vasterman (1999), for example,
identifies a significant rise in media hypes, while Frank van Vree (2000) provides an
almost exclusively critical assessment of the current culture of journalism in the
Netherlands. Jo Bardoel (2000) even speaks of a ‘threefold crisis of journalism’. Writing
more specifically about television, the Australian John Langer (1998) points to the growing
emphasis on ‘traffics in trivialities’, questionable ‘emotainment’, and other forms of
television journalism’s exploitation of individuals and events. Are its major professional
2
values – independence, factuality and reliability –increasingly challenged by the
commercially motivated targets of media marketing specialists (cf. also Evers, 1996)?
Quality versus Popularity
Particularly TV news has become caught up in debates about the characteristics of quality
journalism versus popular journalism. The quality of TV news, some argue, is bound to go
down once the ratings go up. Hardly anyone, however, disputes the democratic
significance of news as a journalistic genre. Many even argue that informed citizenship
can only exist by virtue of news circulation (McQuail, 1995, Blumler & Gurevitch, 1995).
Similarly, the significance of journalism’s role as thegatekeeperdemocracy’s watchdog
role of journalism is rarely questioned. The major argument of the critics of news
popularization concerns the corrosion of the news content, a process that would render it
more difficult for citizens to act in accordance with their rights and responsibilities
(Postman1986, Altheide & Snow 1991). This view of a gradually diminishing news quality
is generally based in the perception of a radical distinction between popular journalism
and quality journalism. In spite of numerous articles and books which problematize the
dichotomy in ‘quality’ journalism and popular journalism, and in spite of the awareness of
almost every media-professional that the opposition between soft news and hard news,
citizens and consumers is a false one, most critics still assume there is a one-to-one
relationship between a loss of quality in news reporting and a popularization of news
reporting. From such a point of view an increase in readers or viewers is seldom the result
of an increase of quality-reporting.
In this paper I will use my inquiries into the quality of news reporting of NOS News, the
major newscast of Dutch public television as a case-study to problematise the
stubbornness of the opposition between quality journalism and popularization. Is it true
that popularization equals trivialization? Which concept of quality journalism, of
democracy and of citizenship does it presuppose? I will show how our worries about the
supposed impoverishment of journalism might me be less of a question of better news
than of better news talk.
The quality of NOS-News
To be sure, the debate on the quality of the major public TV news program in the
Netherlands all but takes place in a vacuum; the pros and cons betray a familiar and
3
perhaps more general pattern. Over the past decade or so, each change in the selection,
size, and framing of news items has been either embraced by some as drawing in more
viewers or rejected by others as a form of trivializing or dramatizing information. Those
who favor change tend to give priority to an increase of the number of viewers, largely
understood as consumers, while they consider the upgrading of content an issue of
secondary importance. Those who contest this view generally do so on the basis of the
ideal of informed citizenship; they tend to have an utter disregard, if not contempt, for the
ideal of reaching a larger and perhaps more diverse audience. In this article, my concern
is with how we can move beyond this binary pattern. Is there a way to reconcile the
seemingly opposite ideals involved? To properly address this concern, it is crucial to
identify the various presuppositions involved and to explore the parameters of the
discursive space we have for discussing the quality of news. In so doing, I will specifically
focus on NOS News and the professional dilemmas of those who produce it.
The Quality of NOS News
During the past few years, NOS News chief executive producer editor-in-chief Nico
Haasbroek has been called upon repeatedly to explain the various changes in the
program’s content and format (Haasbroek, 2001). In february 2000 he justified his
changes as ‘quality impulses’ in the catchwords: ‘Less (political) agenda news and much
more original items and scoops, a broader range of subjects and more attention for the
public’s sphere of interests, more items which attest to a daring and original editorial
attitude, more images and less talking heads and less mistakes’(Haasbroek, 2000).
Whereas Haasbroek was introducing what he described as a higher quality standard for
NOS News, the public reception of his intentions was a little different. In newspapers and
magazines his words were slightly but crucially altered: NOS News had to change along
with the times, if at least it was to stay on top of the new commercial and local companies
in terms of the viewers’ attention1. The result was supposed to be lighter, more pleasant,
more accessible, and faster news (newspaper clippings, 1999, 2000).
1
NOS News lost its monopoly in the 1990s. Many more TV news providers entered the Dutch market:
commercial companies like RTL-4, RTL-5, and SBS-6, but also many regionally oriented television
companies and organizations. The rising popularity of these news programs illustrates how viewers
appreciate lighter, more accessible and faster news. Whereas in 1990/91 84% of the Dutch audience
chose for the NOS News as their main source of television information, in 1994/95 the number of
viewers had dropped to 66%. At the same time commercial news saw its audience increase from 6 %
4
These critical comments on the changing NOS News express a discourse in which quality
and popularization exclude one another. What is at stake in this discussion? Why is
popularization the privileged term to cover all the latest variations in reporting, including
the less detached journalistic style in the news on Kosovo, and later in that on Chechen
and Afghanistan as well? To properly address these questions, it is crucial to identify the
various presuppositions involved and to explore the parameters of the discursive space
we have for discussing the quality of news.
In the 1990s many more TV news providers entered the Dutch market: commercial
companies like RTL-4, RTL-5, and SBS-6, but also many regionally oriented television
companies and organizations. As a consequence, NOS News lost its monopoly. To
ensure its leadership position in the Dutch market, it became important to reflect on its
identity, assess its approach, and plan its future course. I contacted the CEP and his
deputies and After contacting the editorial board of NOS News and articulating
expounded that it might just be the case that everybody’s worries about the supposed
impoverishment of journalism were indicative of their inability to identify value outside the
dichotomy of quality versus popular news. It should be possible to counter the
‘accusations’ of popularization, without having to fall back on general terms like quality
improvement. The official NOS News mission of ‘public broadcasting’ provided a good
start for a standard I named ‘public quality’. Nos News did have her own set of quality
criteria, but this set gave newsmakers not much to hold on to when developing and
legitimizing a new course2.That conversation led them into asking me for a quality
assessment that did justice to the social relevancy of the recent alterationsmy views on
the broader issues at stake, I was asked to put together a news quality ass and had a
practical value. The following five steps were taken.
in 1990/91 to 26 % in 1994/5 (Groenhuijsen & van Liempt, 1995). 5 years later, in 2000, the 34,4 % of
the Dutch population watched NOS News, 18,8 % watched RTL-news and 7,45 % watched SBS-news
(Intomart Media Information Services, June 2001)
2
In 1999 NOS News implemented its own quality guidelines, which included the following elements: balance and
objectivity (distinction facts / comments, multiple perspectives), accessibility and transparency
(comprehensiveness, clarity, consistency in narrative structure, image / text, use of quotes, context / background
information), a proportional division of home news versus foreign news of 60 to 40, a proportional division of big
city urban news versus small cities and rural news of 20 to 80, unflawed news, good beginning and ending of
newscast, correct presentation, proper use of language, fewer talking heads, adequate visualization and format,
and technical sophistication.
5
1) All relevant reports, theses, research projects and policy documents on Dutch news
television that appeared between 1997 and 2000, were studied with specific attention
for references to quality and social or public objectives of newsmakers.
2) I made a start with setting up an inventory of qualitative concepts of ‘good’ journalistic
practice’m on the basis of international media scholarship.
3) I watched and analyzed all NOS News eight o’clock evening editions during the entire
year of 2000.
4) I watched and analyzed athe substantial number of broadcasts of most of NOS News’
major commercial competitors, the 7:30 pm RTL-4 News, and occasionally the 7.00
pm SBS-6 News, another commercial competitor. (This was done only in the first three
months of 2000.)
5) I interviewed extensively thirty employees of NOS News who represented all levels of
the organization (including desk editors, CEP’s, the chief producer and editors of NOS
Children’s News; coordinators of Home news, coordinators of foreign affairs, senior
and junior reporters, programme editors, researchers, news planners, technical
editors, managing director and documentation staff. desk editors, editor-in-chief, the
makers of NOS Children’s News, coordinating editors, reporters, executive board
members, production staff, domestic and international production management,
planning staff, and documentation staff).
On the basis of the first two steps I constructed a differentiated set of quality criteria for
television news. Academic views on quality were integrated with professional ones.
Judging and comparing the quality of the newscasts of NOS, RTL4 and SBS-6 on the
basis of this assessment became the third and fourth step. This resulted in the design of a
first draft of what I called a ‘quality triptych ’. The focus of the interviews that were
subsequently carried out was on naming recent changes at NOS News (both desirable
ones and undesirable ones) and on the usefulness of my quality triptych in further
discussing these changes3. Below I will discuss some of the results. It was never my
intention to pass judgement on the quality of NOS News itself . Nevertheless I got a good
impression of the ways in which newsmakers themselves named quality and the various
routines, pros and cons that weigh up a good newscast.
3
Ordinarily, two note takers were present at each interview; they paid attention in particular to typical phrases,
recurring formulations, or striking remarks of the interviewees.
6
Is news news? Contemporary limits in professional news discourse
Although most of the NOS News employees were quite adamant and enthusiastic in my
interviews with them, a number of issues I raised clearly prompted a more reserved
stance. Some interviewees, for instance, seemed to consider any discussion of news
quality as a potential threat to their autonomy. This hesitation is understandable, perhaps,
in light of their journalistic code. In April 2000, the editorial board formally stated that tThe
primary objectives of NOS News are to be ‘factual, reliable, and, if possible, attractive, but
always independent’ declared the ‘editors committee’ in reaction to my research activities
(news bulletin redactiecommissie, April 2000) . The keyword ‘independence’ explained
the resistance I met when I introduced the topic of news audiences. Apart from the issue
of quality, the subject of ‘viewer groups’ also met with some resistance in our interviews. It
was not uncommon that interviewees underlined that NOS News should prides itself on
not having to cater to specific audiences and that it, unlike the commercial newscasts,
was able to develop its own professional guidelines for what constitutes useful significant
news. ‘What is news is something we decide for ourselves’, Hans Laroes, at the time the
former assistant deputy editor-in-chief executive of NOS News claimed (de Volkskrant,
29-4-00). Furthermore, our the interviews revealed that even reflecting on news selection
caused uneasiness among some staff members. News is news, the most heard response
defense was. At NOS News, as with many other news organizations, news selection was
a matter of standard, unwritten rules (cf. Gans, 1980, Harrison, 2000; Hermans, 2000).
Generally, reporters and editors distinguished between ‘real’ news and ‘other’ news –
between important stories about politics, international relations, and the economy and
potentially interesting but never truly important human-interest-like stories (Langer, 1998).
The selection of ‘real’ news, mostly dealing with negative or serious hard issues, was
hardly ever an issue of contention. It enters the newsroom automatically through Euro
Vision News (EVN), Internet sites, newspapers, news magazines, Lexis Nexis, DigiDoc,
Persdata Pro, Docu Data, and other mediaformal national and international information
channels. But, typically, other news was always subject to debate. Whether or not more
‘popular’ news it was turned into a news item depended on, as a news planner one
planning department staff member suggested, ‘intersubjective agreement’, or a
unanimous interest among colleagues in that particular topic.
7
Standard news selection criteria at NOS News (2000)
Selection of
news
Primary
selection
criteria
Secondary
selection
criteria
Tertiary
selection
criteria
‘Real’, important news (agenda-news and
‘hard’ news)
‘Other’, interesting news
Actors in the event: the higher they are in the
hierarchy, the more important the event (political
news, state visits)
Unanimous interest of the editors
(intersubjective agreement)
Impact of event
• on the nation and its interests
• (assumed) impact of event on large numbers of
people, for example, epidemics, floods, special
groups (like tax payers, youngsters, seniors, the
chronically ill, etc.)
•
foreign news
Story type and story alternation
• ordinary people in uncommon
situations
• man bites dog
• human interest
• disclosures
• heroes
• distress level
Meaning of the event for (national) past and
Aesthetic, ecstatic and technical Quality
future
of the story.
• For example, 10 years after the Golf War broke
• action
out, 50 years after the end of WW II,
• pace
• Death or retirement political leaders, first-time
• comprehensiveness
events
• transparency
How new is event?
• can it be made ‘new’?
• steppingstonesuitable news peg
• taboo on repetition
• too new (not yet crystallized)
Balance?
Balancing heavy/light news, good/bad news
• Good mix of topics
• Regional differentiation
• Demographic differentiation
• Political balance (parties, views of issues)
Competition? What are other news organizations doing?
RTL-4 News, Background news programs, ‘Hart van Nederland’, SBS-6 News
•
© ASCOR, Irene Costera Meijer, 8 March 2001
This diagram reveals how Dutch TV- journalists generally talk about news selection. They
differentiate ‘real’ and ‘other’ news, independent journalism (without target group policy)
and commercial journalism (with target group policy). Since independence was seen as
an intrinsic, even basic quality of ‘quality’ journalism, any discussion of audiences that
surpassed the level of masses versus elite was practically impossible. Popularization in
this news repertoire could only mean two things. You either experimented with form and
sometimes content with the aim to reach the masses with ‘elite’ items on high art or
complicated political events, or you trivialized news items by ‘jazzing them up’. Whether
you spoke in terms of masses and elite, hard news or soft news, popularization or quality,
8
the one term seemed inextricably bound up with the other. Although Othe professional
news makers were capable of hardly valued valuing an idiosyncratic choice of topic or
format outside of the terms of the binary division, almost none were capable of naming it.
outside those terms. Each proposal to broaden the overall news selection was almost
instinctively seen as a plea for more popular news. Furthermore, Tthey experienced each
discussion of audiences that moved beyond a simple distinction between elite and
masses almost automatically as a threat to their journalistic autonomy. , while each
proposal to broaden the overall news selection was almost instinctively seen as a plea for
more popular news.
Our The interviews at NOS News revealed to us that the boundaries of the available
space for discussing news quality were not only restricted by the resistance against
targetviewer group policies, established criteria for selecting topics and the standard news
input. Just as strikingly, the interviewees saw news selection primarily as a matter of
individual effort, - drive and - creativity. In this respect, Hermans (2000) has suggested
that news editors have a tendency to give priority to either their own views and
perspectives or those of other editors, rather than, for instance, those of the audience, the
public at large, or the particular objectives of their own news organization. As a news
planner put it: :
‘It is important to have a sense of anticipation and be inventive on your own. Another factor is
perseverance. This also raises the level of news quality. In addition, the character of the journalist
is relevant. You can bury yourself in your work without ending up with a story of your own. Or you
decide to do the opposite. This is all a matter of commitment, character, and so on. These choices
– which, of course, may well be encouraged – are choices of the individual editor.’
In this reasoning the quality of news items is understood as tied to particular traits and
skills of individual editors. What appeared very relevant to many, then, was not so much
the question which item was made, but whether or not a certain news item had made it.
This indicated that among the NOS News staff the professional discourse on news was
basically locked up in two dichotomies: quality news versus popular news and journalistic
autonomy versus viewer target group policies. However much I quoted recent news items
and even complete newscasts which could no be reduced to one of either positions, most
9
journalists found it hard to talk outside those terms. Maybe news practice was not NOS
News biggest problem, but journalists limited discursive space to talk about it. Below we
will consider these two frames in more detail.
Popularization: trivialization or democratization?
The resistance against target group policies, as well as the established criteria for
selecting topics, the standard news input and a concept of news output as a purely
personal project express a common way among news professionals to talk about news
quality. Over the past decades, media scholars have broken down the problematized this
conceptualization in at least five ways. Since the research of the Glasgow University
Media Group (1976), a growing number of media scholars has become convinced that
news should be seen as a cultural artifact and that, accordingly, the role of journalism
should be understood in broad cultural terms (Schudson, 1995). The transfer of
knowledge or information is just one aspect of news. Studies of the reception of news
have revealed more about the impact of news on viewers. Jensen (1986, 1995), for
instance, has shown that news has important ritual, entertainment, and symbolic
functions. Significantly, having the feeling of being informed turned out to be more
important to many people than the information itself.
ThirdlySecond , critics have challenged the narrow concept of citizenship that frequently is
linked up with the notion of ‘quality’ or ‘real’ news (Allen, 1999; Ouelette, 1999). Herbert
Gans (1980), for instance, has claimed that the selection of news is always a highly
arbitrary matter. More recently, the chair of the Pulitzer Prize jury stated that in the United
States news is no more than what a group of white, middle-class, middle-aged men
considers to be news – a group that, like any other group, has first-hand experience of
only a segment of human experience, but that nevertheless promotes its standard as the
general one (cf. Van Stegeren, 2000). All too often, not only the makers of ‘quality’ news
but also its viewers and readers are assumed to belong to the relatively elitist and
predominantly male group of ‘good citizens’. From this angle, it may be more relevant to
refer to efforts at reaching broader and more diverse segments of the population as
democratization, instead of dismissing such efforts as popularization. Elsewhere I
demonstrated how the popular genre of human-interest or intimate journalism (as in talk
shows) produces useful information for many people who in their everyday life try to find
and express their own sense of good citizenship (Costera Meijer, 2000, 2001). If good
10
citizenship is not restricted to political voting behavior and forming political opinions, a
journalistic genre that allows space for culturally based notions of citizenship and
democracy should not be evaluated – and disqualified – on strictly elitist grounds.
Thirdly, in line with this cultural role of news it has been argued that the social and
political content of news should not count as the only quality standard of news: its cultural
impact is as much part of its quality. After all, democracy is not just a matter of political
rights and social responsibilities. An effective democracy is produced in large measure by
a vital democratic culture (Dahlgren & Sparks, 1991; Dahlgren & Sparks, 1992; Dahlgren,
1995). In this respect, the media are of great importance. Television constitutes our major
source of ‘common knowledge’, something that Jostein Gripsrud defined as ‘the widely
shared pool of information and perspectives from which people shape their conceptions of
self, world and citizenship’ (1999, p. 2).
Fourth, critics have argued that citizenship is not only constituted by reading or watching
news (Fiske, 1992, Hartley, 1999; Hermes, 1999; Gripsrud, 1999, Buckingham, 2000;
Murdock, 1999). Whether a certain genre induces participation in public debates cannot
be established in advance. Clearly, standard quality journalism has lost its exclusive role
as the one and only educator of citizens. By watching soaps, drama productions and
video clips viewers may discover many new and valuable insights on how to be a citizen
(cf. Buckingham, 2000; Costera Meijer, 2001a0; Costera Meijer 2001b, Hartley, 1999).
A final qualification problematization of the opposition between popular news and quality
news is directly associated with American culture. In contrast to Europe, most news in the
United States is a commercial product already. This does not mean, however, that news
on American television or in American newspapers is trivial or sensational by definition.
Recent experiments in ‘public journalism’ reveal that American citizens have a
commercially exploitable need for a form of journalism (which may well be commercially
motivated) which attempts to strengthen democracy as something citizens do and politics
as public problem-solving in which traditional news gathering is linked to aspects of
popular journalism genres (Charity, 1995; Glasser 1999; Lambeth et al., 1998; Rosen
1999).
11
In the relativizations above, popularization does not per definition have to point to
trivialization or ‘soapification’ of the news. It can indicate also that a larger section of the
population has been addressed. In the latter case, the concept democratization seems a
more appropriate term.
In short, whether or not professional or academic discourse reproduces the dichotomy
between popular journalism and quality journalism depends as much on its
operationalisation of quality as on its operationalisation of citizenship4.My thesis is that
widening the discursive space for news discourse requires a thorough redefinition or
reworking of both terms into a new concept: public quality.
What Is Public Quality? Looking for a third journalistic dimension. A New Relationship
between Journalism and Citizenship
If we are to open up and structurally enlarge the space professionals we have for talking
and thinking about news, we should move beyond the two dimensions– quality and
popularity, elite and masses, independence and target group policies, news as individual
project and news as self-evident – that currently frame most professionals’ understanding
of news. Could a broad, cultural concept of democratic citizenship embedded in everyday
life provide fertile ground for extending the professional discussion and imagination of
news? What would the introduction of such a third dimension, or third quality standard
mean for journalistic practice? I would like to introduce ‘public quality’, as an indicator of
the degree in which television news engages viewers its audience in democracy, giving
them more insight into its workings as a cultural and political system of norms, values and
practices (cf. Dahlgren, 1995, Murdock, 1999, Ellis, 1999). (cf. Dahlgren, 1995, p. 141,
Dagger, 1997). How does news represent and address democracy as a set of values,
4
Yet, when it comes to an evaluation of the democratic potential of popular journalism, much academic discourse
seems just as limited as professional discourse. In recent theory the assumed ontological difference between
popular culture and journalism in relation to its relevance for citizens has been questioned extensively. Various
researchers, amongst them Dahlgren (1995), Dahlgren & Sparks (1991), Bird (1998), Brants (1998), Brants &
Neijens (1998); van Zoonen & Brants (1995); Livingstone and Lunt (1994), Munson (1993), Priest (1995), Leurdijk
(1999) etc. focused their attention on the decisive role popular news in general and talk shows in particular play in
establishing a wider discursive space for public deliberations over social issues. Whereas popular journalism was
considered potentially just as vital to democracy as regular journalism, they implicitly or even explicitly kept holding
on to the quality of the information, the independence of the journalist or producer, the rationality of the opinions as
well as the content of the text as the primary axis of concern. In short, popular journalism might be useful for
citizens, but only to the extent it resembled (the qualities of) ‘quality journalism’.
12
rights and responsibilities, as something that is part of one’s identity? How can a citizen
internalize a democratic identity and how can this identity be embedded in a civil society?
A recent communication mission statement of the NOS Board of GovernorsDirectors
offers some concrete starting points for how we should understand ‘public quality’ in terms
of target group policy (a quantitative standard of quality) and in terms of democratic
engagement (a normative standard of quality).
‘We would like to function as some sort of ‘agora’, a site where all groups in Dutch society can
meet each other, where all views are represented and opinions are exchanged. In this role, our
ambition is to contribute to the formation of public opinion, the fighting of prejudice and hence to
the functioning of our democracy.’ (Long-Range Plan, NOS National Public Broadcasting 20002003.)
Television programs, the Board suggests, should involve citizens more directly in the
democratic operation of society. This concern would also set public broadcasting
organizations apart from commercial broadcasting companies.
‘By excluding no one, not a single group, public broadcasting distinguishes itself from commercial
broadcasting, which has no intrinsic concern for minorities. In this respect, public broadcasting
aims for comprehensiveness: it should not be acceptable that even a single group of viewers
would feel neglected or unchallenged by public broadcasting for a substantial amount of time.’
(Long-range Plan, NOS National Public Broadcasting 2000-2003.)
The Board emphasizes that having a public mission is directly tied to reaching out to
viewersthe audience. No one should be excluded, or have reason to feel excluded. Not
the absence of target group policy should be a distinctive trait of public broadcasters, but
its interpretation of that policy. Whereas commercial news networks are aimed at
attracting the right viewers, public networks should try to be aware of the groups they fail
to reach. Thus, the major target group policy aim of commercial companies, which is
intended inclusion, is diametrically opposed to that of public broadcasting organizations,
which precisely try to avoid unintended exclusion of groups of viewers.
If we continue to focus our attention on NOS News, what are the implications of this quite
concrete sense of public mission? Put differently, how does it help us to formulate a public
quality concept for NOS News? Our primary concern here is with the development of a
perspective on news that will allow us to identify specific ‘public’ aspects of news and that
13
will help us to move beyond the dichotomy of popular versus quality news. How does a
‘public’ perspective contribute to a widening of the space we have for talking about news?
Precondition for a three dimensional news discourse is the recognition valuation of all
three dimensions as quality dimensions. Little would be gained if we end up with a new
dichotomy in which the good guys have simply changed places; from 'quality journalism'
to ' public journalism'– if, for instance, we embrace public news as a standard at the cost
of popular ‘quality’ news. It is imperative, therefore, to define a public news approach as
well as to consider redefine each of the three dimensions we identified – quality news
anda popular news as also particular approaches to news, rather than as a normative
standard or a deviation to that standardpopular news, quality news, public news – as
equally significant characteristics or standards of news quality. What matters is to broaden
the professional angle on what constitutes news, to open up the conventional traditional
ways of framing news as either having a quality dimension or a popular dimension. What
is at issue, in other words, is a widening of the professional imagination by conceiving of
news as a three-dimensional discursive domain.
Two strategic decisions play a role in widening journalism’s news repertoire. First, the
common distinction between ‘real’ or quality news and ‘other’ or popular news should be
replaced with a three-fold distinction between conventional, popular and public. Second, it
is crucial to distinguish news approaches rather than kinds of news (like ‘soft’ news, ‘hard’
news). Any given news item, after all, lends itself to a wide range of approaches
(Tuchman, 1978). In order to open up the news imagination of those who produce news it
is important to underscore that topics can be approached from a conventional, popular, or
public angle – that, in other words, there is a choice, a range of options. An approach may
turn out to be more or less appropriate or valuable in a given situation, but it should not be
disqualified in advance.
In 1999 NOS News implemented its own quality guidelines, which included the following
elements: balance and objectivity (distinction facts / comments, multiple perspectives),
accessibility and transparency (comprehensiveness, clarity, consistency in narrative
structure, image / text, use of quotes, context / background information), a proportional
division of domestic versus international news of 60 to 40, a proportional division of
Randstad news versus regional news of 20 to 80, unflawed news, good beginniIn the
14
conventional approach (based more or less on the ‘classic 'quality’ approach) a sense of
news quality is largely determined by the official agenda, the competition and the views of
news editors and producers themselves. A conventional news approach “We cover all the
news and the viewer is entitled to it’ unites a distanced, business-like attitude with a focus
on facts. Editorial commentary is avoided. Full information might be a myth, but a concise
way of news reporting paves the way for more news items.
A popular approach emphasizes viewing and ratings. Quite automatically such an
approach gives space to human-interest news. The ‘people’s concerns and interests’ set
the agenda – pop festivals, overcrowded hospitals, waiting lists, sports, natural or man
made disasters. One should not take for granted that a popular approach gives more
room to trivial news (cuckoo’s egg hatched out by mute swan,). There is however less
attention for news that does not interest the average Dutch resident.
Two assumptions are of central importance for the construction of a public approach.
First, unintended exclusion of viewer groups over a longer period should be prevented.
This does not mean that journalists run after the public. Rather it means that A public
dimension, however, seemed least represented in the guidelines and criteria of NOS
News’ (see below), this third dimension is represented as being of equal importance and it
reflects two assumptions in particular. journalists take their public role seriously and
therefor no longer avoid systematic reflection on target groups nor for the sake of
convenience equate citizens with either masses or elites. Rather they should develop an
awareness of a news approach which addresses the questions and concerns of viewers
in their social and political role as citizens. should be avoidedSecond, if viewers the
audience should become involved as much as possible in the news they watch, whereby
news selection and presentation (explanation, framing, montage, etc.) are major factors,
and they should become more involved with and obtain more insight into the social and
cultural aspects of democracy, then a particular news selection and presentation
(explanation, framing, montage, etc.) seems necessary. This policy requires a substantial
re-conceptualization of news and thus provides a particular challenge to newsmakers.
Furthermore, By adding a third group to the common perception of just two target groups,
the middle class elite and the masses or public at large, namely citizens, at least a start is
made with moving away from schematic, dual thinking about audiences. Does news invite
its audience to participate in public debates? Newsworthiness keeps on being important,
but so does the public usefulness of a news item. The tree news approaches have been
15
integrated in a so-called ‘quality triptych’. The implementation of it will – I expect – enable
journalists to make better choices and thereby improve the overall quality of their
professional performance..
16
Quality triptych NOS News
NOS News
Quality
A. Conventional
approach
B. Popular approach
C. Public approach
Frame of Reference
1. For whom do you
make the news?
colleagues, spouses,
friends.
Was it clear?
The general public.
Was it gripping?
Citizen
Can the citizen manage the
information?
2. What is news?
Official agenda,
important (bad) news
Popular agenda,
interesting news
Public agenda,
important news (good & bad)
3. What are you
striving for?
Full information.
Clear information.
Accessible as good analysis.
4. Basic Principle
The audience has a
right to get as much
information as
possible
Simple information.
Accessible as easily
digestible
The audience has
knowledge-backlash.
5. Standard (of
success)
Scoops &
Competition
Viewer ratings
Democratic involvement
The audience is curious and
wants to understand what
happens.
Angle
5. Framing
(in advance)
Factual, detached
Facts proper, overall
picture, talking heads.
Reproducing
complexity
Personal, Proximity
Good story, vox populi.
Reducing complexity
through clichés /
slogans
Involved, impartial,
Relevancy for citizen.
Reducing complexity by clear
analysis of positions and
options
6. Interpretation
(afterwards)
Implications for
power position
individual or
company (political
implications)
Implications for
person (politician) as
human being
(emotional
implications)
Implications for citizens (Are
their interests being served?)
Format
7. Interview
Cross-examination:
Tough on issues and
people involved
Informal chat:
Easy on issues and
people involved
Dialogue:
Tough on issues, easy on
people involved
8. Natural and man
made disasters
Factual:
Show terror (as in
burning homes,
collapsed bridges
etc.) and officials
Spectacular:
Show spectacle of
terror (as in bleeding or
burned victims)
Multidimensional: (political
& personal) Show terror, but
also its ‘ordinary’ aspects and
experts.
© Irene Costera Meijer (ASCoR. Work in progress)
17
Explanation and illustration of the quality assessment
The quality triptych distinguishes ‘frame of reference’, ángle’ and ‘’form’. Frame of
reference refers to those aspects of the news which are self-evident to journalists:
For whom do you make the news, what is news and where are you proud of?
Angle is about the way news is represented and interpreted. The aspect of Form
treats a common news format, the interview, and a category of news whose form
is more relevant than usual, natural and man-made disasters.
Frame of reference
A Three-dimensional Viewer Group PolicyAlthough NOS News officially was
supposed to cater to the general public, our interviews with its the editors,
producers, and other staff members who were in favor of a conventional news
approach, did have revealed that some have more specific views, albeit implicitly,
about their audience (cf. Harrison, 2000). Colleagues were found proced toto be
an important guidelines for a conventional ‘elitiselitist‘ approach, whereas mothers
in law came up spontaneously as a negative point of reference. A reporter of RTL4 News was called a ‘populist’ by one of our interviewees because ‘he does not
inquire any further than his mother-in-law’. As a positive guideline for popular
news, mothers functioned as ‘imaginary audience’: One NOS reporter claimed to
be hardly interested in scoops because his ‘mother’ didn’t care about them.
The conventional as well as the popular approach are deeply worn journalistic
routines, easy and quick, because collecolleaguesques are close by and the
‘mother perspective’ - as Harrison (2000) earlier showed for the British television
news – has an international base in schools for journalism. A public dimension of
quality is determined by the degree in which a news company succeeds (over a
longer period of time) to do justice to the perspectives and interests of as broad a
range of the Dutch population. Translated into a quality standard for NOS News
which takes into account the unintended exclusion of certain perspectives or
groups of citizens I will call this public standard the ‘proportional relevancy’ of
news. This news approach called up associations with commercial news services
as well as with ‘political correctness’ (cf. Leurdijk, 1999).
18
Question: How can the planning department ensure that more perspectives are given a
chance?
Answer: That’s tricky. It smells like positive discrimination. Do we have to?
Newsmakers tended to interpret proportional relevance as a policy measure about
target figures and as a policy which is imposed by the powers that be rather than
as something that might be intrinsic to journalism.
Question: How do you manage that all groups of citizens get addressed.
Answer: Someone from above should sound the alarm over the target figures… O.K.
nonsense of course. You should stimulate it, but for the same goes for the question: How
do you create your own stories? You have to address people personally.
Question: How can news be made more relevant for young people?
Answer: By approaching it through a youngsters angle.
Q. Does this happen?
Answer: Yes, for instance through a theme like young people and housing
accommodation. Yet, everyone tends to take his own life’s perspective on things.
Question: Don’t you think that journalists should be able to imagine more perspectives
than their own.?
Answer: If so, then it must be encouraged. But, you know. I get so tired of all the do’s
and don’ts. You have to hould a carrot to people. Or you make someone responsible for
a particular subject. In the end, everything depends on the attitude of the responsible
editor.
To be sure, a three-dimensional target group policy is aimed at creating new
levels of reflection, which makes conceivable a wider choice of audience than that
of colleagues (elite), or mothers (popular) .As Herbert Gans (1980) has argued,
this will mean an enrichment of the journalistic repertoire rather than a limitation of
it. He suggested that news should concern itself with different perspectives on an
issue; it should be ‘multiperspectival’:
19
‘The most important purpose of the news ... is to provide the symbolic arena, and the
citizenry, with comprehensive and representative images (or constructs) of nation and
society. In order to be comprehensive, the news must report nation and society in terms
of all known perspectives; in order to be representative, it must enable all sectors of
nation and society to place their actors and activities – and messages – in the symbolic
arena’. (Gans, 1980:312)
I found that certain categories of news – notably important good news and trivial
political news – were not part of their sense of what was normal news; it seemed
to surpass the professionals’ imagination. At NOS News there was a tendency to
put major good news (a large fiscal advantage, the discovery of a new drug for an
incurable disease) and trivial or light news (the birth of a quintuplet, the year’s first
little lambs) in one and the same category. Trivial political news is news which has
not been selected on its content, but on its sender, usually important political or
public figures.
In a public approach of news, ‘narratives that nurture civic transformation’
come first, as ethicist Clifford Christians (1993) has argued, thus underscoring the
significance of extending the journalistic repertoire: ‘Public storytellers must know
the good as much as they need a language to describe the bad’ (p. 111).
Democratic InvolvementAngle: Framing and Interpretation
QuQuality news, most news editors agreed upon on - most NOS News editors
agreed, requires close interaction and collaboration on how a specific issue is
framed. Preferably, the angle of a news item is decided before reporters go on
assignment.
‘We do not send someone on assignment with a sheet of basic info. There is continuous
deliberation. More deliberation allows you to come up with better ideas.’
In such an approach which takes into account the input of several editors and
producers, chances are bigger that the news is more relevant for more people
(public criterion). In a factual, conventional approach of news, however, fewer
people discuss about its relevance. very little bBackground information and
20
service news is given, while service news plays a minor role as well. As one of our
interviewees explained: ‘We are not an information service program’. In a
conventional approach, a certain distance is kept to people and the images should
speak for themselves. ‘You shouldn’t seal the item with talk’, a senior reporter
argued. arguedA colleague:
‘Consider, for instance, the visual impact of the burial of twenty-nine soldiers who
returned home from Chechen in body bags. TV consists of imagery and text. It is the
imagery that adds a sense of depth to an item. If these images were not as beautiful, you
would not do it. It is perfectly acceptable to broadcast images merely because of their
aesthetic value ... It conveys the atmosphere, it provides one a look into the soul of the
Russians.’
Other images, cliché images or ‘condensation symbols’, sometimes speak too
much for themselves(Leurdijk, 1999). But a single focus on images also runs the
risk of stereotyping. In the context of the Chechen war, someone suggested that
when viewers are once again confronted with images of old women with scarves
who are coming out of their destroyed homes, these women become ‘objects, or
even caricatures’. As a successful example of a popular approach one of the
reporters referred to an item of the NOS News Russian correspondent Peter
d’Hamecourt. The item shows how he hands over his cell phone to one of the
Chechen men to give him an opportunity to talk to his wife who had fled to the
Netherlands. At the other end of the line a reporter was in the wife’s presence. ‘In
this way, refugees become individuals people once again’.
Most editors emphasized the significance of the ‘micro story’. ‘I always insist,
show people who tell their story, reveal what it means to them’. A choice for a
personal, ‘human’ angle does not always invite a social public debate. A personal
or human-interest approach to news does not invite debate automatically, nor
does it necessarily give rise to constructive debate in a public, democratic sense
(Bird, 1998). About the speaker of the Dutch House of commons was said;
“Tonight we have a crying Jeltje in the newscast!’(..) ‘That provides lots of
conversation in the living room.’ In and by a personal or human-interest approach,
21
the news can become narrowed down to the person itself in such a way that the
wider social context disappears from view. A case in point is the reporting on the
Turkish Gümüs family , a Turkish man whose residence permit was not extended
for some bureaucratic reason, who, even afterafter having lived in the Netherlands
for a number of years paid taxes and insurance policies for a number of years in
the Netherlands was not allowed to stay. ; as a result, he and his family were
forced to return to Turkey involuntarily. Their His case started out as an example
of a much broader issue that involved many others in a similar situation(a synoptic
detail, starting point of a public approach), but gradually it turned into a story in
which the Gümüs family had become the darling of the public . This popular
approach turned them into an exception to the rule, rather than an illustration of it.
In a public approach of news, adding a personal element to an issue involves a
search for a synoptic detail that in its micro dimension optimally demonstrates the
larger issues at stake.
Although Ttraditionally, the task of journalists isis to interpret the news,
interpretation has become a routine in itself. . As one of the interviewees
suggested:
‘You can never convey the content of an issue by using a micro story. The content does
not speak for itself. This is why you frame an item or do an interview. In this way you add
commentary.’
Conventional commentary, as, for instance, in political reporting, generally means
that the position of power of the politician or company involved is used as
standard: Has the politician lost or gained power through this act (cf Rosen,
1996)? When one company buys another or two banks merge, the conventional
way of reporting devotes attention to the amount of money involved, the
implications for the employees, and the union perspective. In a more popular
approach, the event is couched in the particular emotions – sadness, anger,
satisfaction – of one of the players. But reporters who manage opt for a public
angle will also highlight the implications for citizens. Does the Minister’s proposal
22
reflect the views or desires of citizens? Public-oriented reporters are also likely to
cover so-called ‘output news’, which relates to the practical consequences that
plans and programs of national, public, and private agencies and organizations
have for citizens (cf. Gans, 1980, p. 313-14). Some reporters of NOS News
already take this approach. A recent example involves the hype associated with
World Online, a case whereby NOS News editors actively tried to discourage the
public of buying this company’s stocks.
‘Consider the World Online hype. I wanted a speaker who warned against buying its
stocks. Zalm [the Minister of Financial Affairs] refused, but the Director of the Association
of Stockholders cooperated. You have to be aware of the effects you’re causing.’
Journalistic Format
Many of our interviewees agreed that NOS News should try harder to make its
news items visually attractive to viewers. This also involves such minor practical
techniques as presenting a diagram of specific numbers, or a map that reminds
viewers of how, exactly, Mozambique a foreign country is geographically situated.
‘We did this with Bosnia. At that time we had a cartoon: ‘This TV changes channels at the
word Bosnia.’ It nicely captured the idea that Dutch viewers had lost track of all the
details. Once it dawned on us that everything that was going on in Bosnia had become so
complex, we more often used maps, indicating where at that point the Serbs were located
and where the Bosnians.’
All interviewees agreed that form and content are one in TV news. The
anchorpersons, for instance, displayed their awareness of the relationship
between their dress and their style of presenting. They wore a tie or a dark suit in
the nightly newscasts (after 8:00 p.m.) or when major news events called for more
formal dress, but they opted for an informal approach in the morning programs. To
account for his not wearing a tie at that time of day, one of the anchormen said
that no one in morning programming is wearing a tie. Another element of the
format in which the news is presented has to do with the average age of the
audience. One interviewee characterized NOS News as ‘slow, calm, and clear’,
23
adding that it might be ‘too slow’ for younger viewers who are used to the higherpaced style of music videos.
The issue of format or style is so diverse and multifaceted that I will limit it to a
frequently used format, the political cross-examination, and a frequently used
category of news, war and disaster coverage, which because of its special
character – spectacular, violent, harsh images – requires more reflection than
other kinds of news.
Especially TV interviews with politicians have a tendency to become more like
cross-examinations. A number of NOS News staff members criticized this
practice, blaming it on stuck-up interviewers who feel a need to show off (‘look
how bold I am in asking this daring question’). In a conventional approach of
political news, each statement of political leaders, prime ministers in particular, is
news, regardless of the level of information it contains. rReporters will be inclined
to fit statements of a politician into their own story (Cappella & Jamieson, 1996;
McQuail, 1995, Merritt, 1995, Patterson, 1996). This is an efficient way, in
particular when you only have two minutes to cover a topic Each statement of
political leaders, prime ministers in particular, is news, regardless of the level of
information it contains. In a more popular approach, the politician is represented
first and foremost as a human being. The person behind the political mask is
newsworthy, the interaction between reporter and politician is typically presented
as an informal chat, while the issue at stake seems more like a pretext to allow the
politician to have his or her say. In a public approach of political issues, however,
reporters will show their involvement with the issue. They will explore other angles
on what is political. They will try to find experts or other individuals who can clarify
the issue in such manner that they contribute to its resolution and coach them as
well they can (Merritt, 1995). Although politicians will always remain key players in
news items, they are not necessarily most prolific in articulating issues (cf. Van Es,
2001).
24
The coverage of spectacular events like war, major accidents, crime, and natural
disasters is also a major ingredient of television news. In a conventional approach
the emphasis is on ‘facts’, which means a focus on the physical spectacle of
burning homes and collapsed bridges, or on colorful imagery of tornados,
avalanches, and flowing lava. NOS News tends to refrain from showing extremely
violent or harsh images, since many believe that too much of this news may dull
viewers (Moeller, 1999) a practice that in some cases may contribute to a
stretching of the truth.
‘A man took us to a shack in the garden. The camera was on when loads of last night’s
dead bodies came rolling out of the shack. ... I know the people at NOS News. My report
was sent to Hilversum (NOS News headquarters) with total, medium, and ugly closeups. I said to myself, the close-ups will undoubtedly be cut out, but that would still leave
enough material to be broadcasted. But no, everything was cut out. Then I decided to call
them and said: You either broadcast it or else I go home.’
In a popular approach, the individual human drama in the wake of a disaster is
central: the spectacle of horror is represented in images of bleeding, burning,
drowning, or numbed victims. Since many believe that too much of this news may
dull viewers (Moeller, 1999), newsmakers have to push the envelope in order to
generate viewers’ attentionA public approach, however, does not avoid ‘nasty’
pictures. . But, as As Luc Boltanski (1999) has argued, useful war and disaster
coverage should enable viewers to actively engage with this news. This does not
necessarily imply that they should be pressed to take concrete action against the
suffering involved; rather, it means that the way the news is covered allows them
to discuss it with other people (democratic involvement). In a public approach of
natural or man-made disasters it is important to show more dimensions, political
as well as social, economic and personal aspects of the case. Over the past
decade, the establishment of a public satellite communication space has
increasingly given rise to shared media experiences on a worldwide basis and this
has opened up more opportunities for citizens to put pressure on the international
political community to intervene, in a diplomatic manner or otherwise.
25
In a public approach of wars and natural disasters priority is given to showing multiple
perspectives, including political, economic, social, and personal ones. This is not to suggest
that all perspectives should be cramped into a single news item. Viewers are likely to
become involved in a story when they are confronted with ‘follow-up’ items that enrich it with
new faces, different angles, and fresh views (Bird, 1998).
‘The horror may well be the essence of a story, but it is never the full story. You have to
put it in context. This is why it is important to let people talk in front of the camera. ...
Sometimes this reveals that despite the horror of a disaster, people are much less
devastated than we thought.’
As became clear in the NOS News coverage of the Kosovo War, it is important to
avoid simple patterns and bring out all the various details of a conflict. It is equally
relevant in a public approach to avoid choosing sides in advance, not even if one’s
group or nation has an obvious interest in a particular conflict. In 1999 it took
some time before the seemingly natural stance against the Serbs in the coverage
of NOS News became an issue of debate.
Conclusion: What Is Quality Television News?
In this paper I have tried open up the language and categories professionals have
for debating the quality of television news. By considering one specific news
practice, that of NOS News, I have demonstrated how the ability to imagine
different approaches to news and different audiencesnews as news is has been
confined by the notions and dichotomies that guide their reasoning. In an effort to
move away from the existing binary conception of news as either serious and
sophisticated or popular and light, I proposed to add a third dimension: that of
public quality. If news makers have a professional repertoire at their disposal that
allows them to distinguish between a conventional, a popular, and a public
approach of news, I expect more creativity, more perspectives more impartiality
and more professionalism in the making of news. As a result NOS News might be
more interesting for more people and invite more often some form of public
debate. Trivial political news will probably get less attention and important good
26
news higher priority. My argument can be visualized schematically in the ‘quality
triptychNews might become more imaginative and will cover more fully the
intricacies of our lives and that of others
Of course it is impossible to give one solid definition of a good newscast. In a
situation where the viewers lost all interest for The Palestinian-Israeli-conflict, a
human interest approach might be useful; if the claw and mouth disease has been
commented for days on, a conventional and compact approach might be enough.
The crucial criterion for quality is probably that journalists take more time to reflect
on their choices and that newsmakers get more time to experiment. How would a
news item look like about changes in the Old Age Pensions Law from the
perspective of a sixty year old Moroccan immigrant with remigration plans, a
fifteen year old school girl and two people of fifty something with plans to marriage
?
27
Quality Triptych is not designed to provide a simple answer to what constitutes
quality television news. After all, the choices that are made in covering news on
TV depend on the objectives of the news organization (public or commercial), as
well as on the journalistic assessment of the type of information citizens are
looking for. If viewers are overexposed to news of war casualties and activities it
may be advisable to focus on other war-related aspects. If viewers are bombarded
with emotional images of human suffering, they perhaps have more of a need for
context and explanations, or more background information on what caused the
conflict. If there is little actual news about a war, or if there is much other news, a
conventional approach of war news will do.
Although there will never be a straightforward understanding of complexities of
news and its TV coverage, it is certainly possible to conclude with listing some
basic characteristics of quality television news: it does justice to multiple
perspectives in an impartial way; it devotes significant attention to important good
news; and it is structurally geared toward viewers as citizens and how they
process news that is relevant to them. In this respect, proportional relevancy is a
key notion. The quality level of NOS News is directly linked up with the degree to
which it successfully supplies the curious citizen with inspiration, insight, and
subjects for discussion. Such success depends on a broad and effective viewer
group policy. Accordingly, the question ‘Are we serving the public at large?’ is less
relevant than the question ‘Which groups are we neglecting or underrepresenting?’ This issue of representation is not simply a matter of airtime,
numbers, or other quantifiable aspects, but of qualitative aspects like news angle,
framing, language, selection, and subjectivity. Surely, the representation of
individuals as silent objects embodies an altogether different value than their
representation as speaking subjects.
The framing and interpretation of news topics from a public angle deserves more
attention at NOS News – not because it is necessarily the best approach to news
but because it is currently less prominent in its news practice. Reporters and
28
editors should ask how viewers as citizens can benefit from their approach to
news, rather than wonder about what their colleagues or mothers would feel about
a news topic. Is NOS News perhaps too boring for young viewers? Is it geared too
much to the norms and values of the white middle class? It is important to study
the appeal that various formats may have for various groups of viewers.
Especially in the coverage of political news there is a tendency to choose the
politician’s position of power as angle (one that is less relevant to those who are
not directly politically active). If changes in the power hierarchy are relevant, it is
important to explain why that is the case. Yet frequently citizens have more stakes
and interests in solutions to conflicts than in clever analyses that capitalize on the
rivalry of the key players involved.
Finally, I would argue, it is equally important to add content to news that is
traditionally discarded as light, positive, trivial, or popular. The social and political
significance of news on bureaucratic measures that fail to contribute to solutions
of major problems is evident. But for viewers, in their role as citizens, it is generally
as relevant to be exposed to news that also addresses what works in the complex
social and cultural dynamic in which they function as active participants. Quality
television news, then, will always seek to give citizens, in their role as viewers, a
balanced chronicle of both the failures and the accomplishments of the
democratic cLiterature
Allan, Stuart (1999). News Culture. Buckingham: Open University Press
Altheide, David & Snow, Robert (1991) Media Worlds in the Postjournalism
Era. New York: Aldine de Gruyter
Bardoel, Jo, (2000). Publieke journalistiek in een private wereld: advies aan
de staatssecretaris van OC en W. Den Haag: Ministerie van Onderwijs,
Cultuur en Wetenschappen
Bird, Elisabeth (1998). An audience perspective on the tabloidisation of news.
Javnost: the Public 5 (3), pp. 33-50
Blumler, J.G. & Gurevich, M. (1995). The crisis of communication for
citizenship: in and out of the ashes? In: J.G. Blumler & M. Gurevich (Eds.).
The crisis of communication (pp. 203-221). London & New York: Routledge
29
Boltanski, Luc (1999). Distant suffering: morality, media and politics.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Buckingham, David (2000). The making of citizens: young people, news and
politics. London: Routledge
Capella, N.J. & Jamieson, K.H. (1996). Breaking the spiral of cynism. In: N.J.
Capella & K.H. Jamieson (Eds.). Spiral of cynism: the press and the public
good. (pp. 229-246). New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press
Chafee, Steven H. & McDevitt, Michael (1999). On Evaluating Public Journalism.
In: Theodore L. Glasser (Ed.). The Idea of Public Journalism. (pp. 175-197). New
York: The Guilford Press
Charity, Arthur (1995). Doing public journalism. New York: The Guilford
Press
Christians, Clifford G., Ferré, John P. and Fackler, Mark P. (1993). Good news.
social ethics and the press. New York & Oxford: Oxford University PressCostera
Meijer, Irene (2000a) Het persoonlijke wordt publiek. De maatschappelijke
betekenis van intieme journalistiek. (The personal becomes public. The social
importance of intimate journalism) Tijdschrift voor genderstudies, (3) 3, 15-30.
Costera Meijer, Irene (2001) The public quality of popular journalism:
developing a normative framework. Journalism Studies (in press)
Costera Meijer, Irene (2001a) The public quality of popular journalism:
developing a normative framework. Journalism Studies vol. 2, nr. 2,pp189205
Costera Meijer, Irene (2001b) The colour of soap opera: an analysis of
professional speech on the representation of ethnicity. European Journal of
Cultural Studies vol. 4, nr. 2 pp 207-230
Dagger, Richard (1997). Civic virtues: rights, citizenship, and republican
liberalism. New York: Oxford UP.
Dahlgren, Peter & Sparks, Colin (1991) Communication and citizenship.
journalism and the public sphere. London: Routledge
Dahlgren , Peter (1995) Television and the public sphere. citizenship,
democracy and the Media, The Media, Culture and Society Series. London,
Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage
Ellis, John (1999). Television as working-through. In: Jostein Gripsrud (Ed.).
Television and common knowledge. (pp. 55-70). London & New York:
Routledge
Es, Gijsbert, van (2001). De ‘agenda van de burger’ bestaat niet. In: Nico
Drok & Thijs Jansen (Eds.). Even geen Den Haag vandaag: naar een civile
30
Nederlandse journalistiek. (in press). Den Haag: Sdu uitgevers.
Evers e.a., Huub (1996). Krant &kwaliteit: verkenningen rond de
onderzoekbaarheid van journalistiek. Houthem: Bohn, Stafleu & van Gorcum
J. Fiske, (1992). Popularity and the politics of information. In: Peter Dahlgren
& Colin Sparks (Eds.). Journalism and popular culture. (pp. 45-63). London:
Sage
Fuller, Jack (1996), News values: ideas for an information age. Chicago &
London: University of Chicago Press
Gans, Herbert (1980). Deciding what’s news: a study of CBS Evening News,
NBC Nightly News, Newsweek and Time. New York: Vintage/Random House
Glasgow University Media Group (1976). Bad news. London: Routledge &
Kegan Paul
Glasser, Theodore L. (1999). The idea of public journalism. New York: The
Guilford Press
Gripsrud, Jostein (1999). Television and common knowledge. London & New
York: Routledge
Guttman, Amy & Thompson, Dennis (1996). Democracy and disagreement.
Cambridge (Mass). London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press
Haasbroek, Nico (2000) ‘Journaalplan’. Internal memorandum. February
2000.
Haasbroek, Nico (2001). Het journaal als norm, instituut en anker. In: Nico
Drok & Thijs Jansen (Eds.). Even geen Dan Haag vandaag: naar een civile
Nederlandse journalistiek. Den Haag: Sdu uitgevers
Harrison, J. (2000). Terrestrial tv news in Brittian: the culture of production.
Manchester & New York: Manchester University Press
Hartley, John (1999). Uses of television. London & New York: Routledge
Hermans, Liesbeth (2000). Beroepsmatig handelen van journalisten. Een
kwalitatief onderzoek bij een televisienieuwsredactie. Nijmegen (proefschrift)
Hermes, Joke (1998). Cultural citizenship and popular fiction. In: Kees
Brants, Joke Hermes & Liesbet van Zoonen (Eds.). The Media in
Question. Popular cultures and public interests. (pp. 157-167) London:
Sage
Jensen, Klaus Brun (1986). Making sense of the news. Aarhus University
Press
Jensen, Klaus Brun (1995). The social semiotics of mass communication.
London: Sage
31
Lambeth, Edmund B., Meyer, Philip E. & Thorson, Esther (1998).
Assessing public journalism. Columbia and London: University of Missouri
Langer, John (1998). Tabloid television. popular journalism and the ‘other
news’. London: New York: Routledge
McQuail, Denis (1995). New roles for new times? Media Studies. New York:
Freedom Forum Media Studies Centre
Meerjarenplan Landelijke Publieke Omroep 2000-2003. Raad van Bestuur
Nederlandse Omroep Stichting. 14 oktober 1999
Merritt, Davis (1995). Public journalism and public life: why telling the news is
not enough. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Moeller, Susan D. (1999). Compassion fatigue: how the media sell disease,
famine, war and death. New York & London: Routledge
Murdock, Graham (1999). Rights and representations: public discourse
and cultural citizenship. In Gripsrud, J. (Ed.) Television and common
knowledge. (pp. 7-17). London and New York:: Routledge
Ouelette, Laurie (1999). TV Viewing as good citizenship? Political
rationality, enlightened democracy and pbs. Cultural Studies, 13 (1), 62-90
Patterson, T. (1996). Bad news, bad gouvernance. The annals of American
Acadamy of Political and Social Science, 546, 97-108
Postman, Neil (1985). Amusing ourselves to death. New York: Viking/Penguin
Rosen, Jay (1996). Getting the connections right: public journalism and the
troubles in the press. New York: The Twentieth Century Fund Press
Rosen, Jay (1999). What are journalists for? New Haven & London: Yale
University Press
Schudson, Michael (1995). Creating public knowledge. Media Studies
Journal. New York: Freedom Forum Media Studies Centre
Stegeren, Theo van, (17 november 2000). Liever lastpakken dan
nonconformisten. De Journalist
Tuchman, G. (1978). Making news: a study in the construction of reality. New
York & London: Free Press/Collier Macmillan
Vasterman, Peter, (1999). Mediahype: nieuws maken door de opwinding te
verslaan. Utrecht: HvU Press
Vree, Frank. van, (2000). De politiek van de openbaarheid: journalistiek en
publieke sfeer. Groningen: Historische Uitgeverij
32