Reporting and the Transformations of the Journalistic Field: US news media, 1890-2000

How have journalistic ideals of public service arisen? To what extent do journalists live up to these ideals? Can we make any claims as to the social conditions that this performance depends on? Using Bourdieu’s theory of fields of cultural production, this article addresses these questions with evidence from the history of journalism in the United States. What is most distinctive about modern journalism is a specific practice: active news-gathering or reporting. This practice became common in the 1860s and 1870s with the emergence of journalism as a field with its own stakes, relatively independent from political advantage or literary merit. The power of field-specific capital to organize practices in the media has varied since then. The field consolidated in the era from 1890 to 1914, with the newspaper industry expanding. In the interwar years, the boundary between PR and journalism became blurry and the institutional basis for active news-gathering declined. Under favorable economic and political conditions reporting practices, including local and investigative reporting, flourished between 1945 and1970 across media forms. In the past 40 years the importance of active news-gathering has declined

Trick or treat? Australian newspaper portrayal of complementary and alternative medicine for the treatment of cancer

Purpose: Many cancer patients within developed nations cite the media as informing their decisions to use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). The present study describes (1) Australian newspaper coverage of CAM use for cancer between 1998 and 2007; (2) trends in reporting frequency and characteristics; and (3) how the Australian press framed stories on CAM use for cancer. Materials and methods: This study is a content analysis featuring quantitative and qualitative techniques, the latter guided by ‘media framing’, of targeted newspaper articles. Results: One hundred nineteen articles focused on CAM use for the treatment of cancer were identified. Quantitative analysis found that biologically based CAMs were most frequently described and breast cancer most mentioned. Two thirds of all articles described CAM use in the context of a cure, with approximately half of these opposing this reason for use. Potential benefits of CAM were discussed more frequently than potential risks, and information on costs and how to access CAM were uncommon. Recommendations: included advice to use complementary, not alternative therapies, yet advice to discuss CAM with a medical doctor was rare. Qualitative analysis found six CAM cancer-related frames, four in support of CAM use for cancer treatment. The dominant frame constructed CAM as legitimate tools to assist biomedicine (even to cure), with others depicting CAM as normal and necessary or as addressing limitations of biomedicine. Negative frames depicted CAM as questionable and risky practices and the industry/practitioners as possessing malevolent intent. Conclusion: These findings have implications for biomedical practitioners attempting to determine, respect and assist patient choices about their treatment.Reegan Mercurio and Jaklin Ardath Eliot