Imagined Journalists

New Framework for Studying Media–Audiences Relationship in Populist Times

Bibliographic Data

ID6457076
AuthorsAyala Panievsky (0000-0001-9296-7670, University of Cambridge, corresponding author), Yossi David (0000-0001-8020-0317, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev), Noam Gidron (0000-0002-0217-1204, Hebrew University of Jerusalem), Lior Sheffer (0000-0002-4049-7299, Academic College of Tel Aviv-Yafo)
Year2024
Volume30
Issue1
Pages38-62
Publication date2024-02-23
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueThe International Journal of Press/Politics (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1940-1612 • E-ISSN: 1040-1620
PublisherSAGE Publishing (PUBLISHER • US)
DOI10.1177/19401612241231541
OpenAlexW4392132131
LanguageEN
Citations received8
References cited79

These are challenging times for journalists’ relationship with their audiences. Attacks against “the media” and the increasing weaponization of social media to harass journalists have drawn the attention of scholars worldwide. In the current climate, journalists are not only distrusted but also hated , which creates a series of distinct ramifications. In this article, we suggest a new framework to study journalists–audiences relationship, particularly in times of hostile populism: the imagined journalists approach. A mirror image of the much-studied concept of imagined audiences, imagined journalists refers to the entirety of ideas, feelings, stereotypes, and imaginaries that audiences hold regarding their imagined news producers. It brings together the research on media trust, audiences’ perceptions, antimedia populism, and the emotional turn in journalism—to generate a comprehensive understanding of people’s criticisms, narratives, and priorities. We demonstrate the potential of this approach by analyzing 1,215 responses to an open-ended question regarding journalists’ traits in Israel in 2021. Employing qualitative and quantitative analyses, we find that: (a) right-wing and pro-populist voters hold more negative views of journalists, as expected; (b) voters express three different types of criticism of journalists (professional, personal, and national)—only one of which directly relates to their professional conduct; (c) different types of voters express different types of criticism; and (d) while objectivity and bias remain main concerns, democracy is not a dominant factor in respondents’ thinking on journalists. These findings contribute theoretically and methodologically to future research in the field, as well as to urgent attempts to improve our information environment

Media studies · Political science · Sociology · Media Influence and Politics · Media Studies and Communication · Social Media and Politics

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access