廣播電視新聞學(xué)外文翻譯--新聞學(xué)研究的規(guī)范性視角回顧與展望（英文）

1、Journalism 2014, Vol. 15(3) 259 –272 © The Author(s) 2013 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1464884913498689 jou.sagepub.comNormative perspectives on journalism studies:

2、 Stock- taking and future directionsJay G Blumler University of Leeds, UK Stephen Cushion Cardiff University, UKAbstract Journalism has advanced greatly as a field in its own right in recent decades. As well as a cause

3、 for celebration, however, this may give rise to concerns – in particular that scholars may pay increasing attention to the inner workings of journalistic institutions at the expense of their external ties, impact and

4、significance, including their normative ones. It is true that important normative analyses have appeared in the literature, six of which the article defines and exemplifies. So far, however, these ideas have had relat

5、ively little influence on the thought or practice of journalists. The article concludes by suggesting a way in which a closer and more constructive dialogue could be achieved between journalism scholars and practitione

6、rs, centring on the normative challenges faced by both sides.Keywords Civic engagement, comparative research, democracy, journalism studies, normative analysis, public communicationIn this article we aim to review and

7、assess the place of normative ideas in journalism studies.1 We discern and depict a somewhat mixed picture of them. On the one hand, a number of scholars have made significant contributions over the years to a corpus o

8、f normative thought about the media – ones which we attempt to define and classify below. Corresponding author: Jay G Blumler, Institute of Communications Studies, University of Leeds, Clothworkers’ Building North, 2.1

9、2, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK. Email: jayblumler@sky.com498689 JOU15310.1177/1464884913498689JournalismBlumler and Cushion 2013Articleat MEMORIAL UNIV OF NEWFOUNDLAND on May 28, 2015 jou.sagepub.com Downloaded from Blumler and Cu

10、shion 261series that are shaped by changes in the industry (technological, commercial, etc.) or that purport to deal with specific media, such as newspapers, magazines, television and radio journalism. Palgrave is fea

11、turing a series at present that will arm ‘journalists, academics and students with a unique practical and critical guide to key areas of contemporary journalism practice for the digital age’. This is not to devalue the

12、se and other similar publications but to point out how they may push matters of organization, operation and function further to the centre of journalism studies to the neglect of normative evaluations. Second (and rel

13、ated to the above), there are the numerous, dynamic and varied tech- nological developments that are buffeting everyone involved in journalism these days and that invite a great deal of research, analysis, application,

14、even Futurology! Almost all the articles in a recent special issue of Journalism Studies on ‘The Future of Journalism’, for example, pivoted one way or another on the course or impact of technological change. This is

15、again not to devalue the merit or rigour of these scholarly inquiries, but to point out the somewhat technologically driven terrain of recent journalism scholarship. Third, there are the severe challenges to their short

16、- and long-term viability that many journalistic organizations face these days. The resulting developments and problems, often accompanied by financial and staffing reorganizations, naturally prompt much thought, rese

17、arch and speculation. It would be unsurprising therefore if, amidst this bar- rage of change agents and shifts of industry scenery, the field of journalism studies were to concern itself predominantly with the instituti

18、on itself rather than with its external ramifications. These tendencies may be reinforced by a fourth factor, the increased employment of professionally trained journalists in university departments (termed ‘hackademic

19、s’ by Errigo and Franklin, 2004), some at senior levels. By professionally trained journalists we refer here to the rise of former (or even current) journalists employed in universities who have to some degree had spe

20、cific journalistic training (whether within the industry or via a professional skills-based course), such as newsgathering, editing and distributing news content (see Harcup, 2011a, 2011b, for further discussion about

21、the entry of jour- nalists into journalism faculties). The rise of so-called ‘hackademics’ is partly a response to the demand for skills teaching in what are essentially practical/academic hybrid courses. In many cases

22、 the input of professional journalists will have enriched depart- mental curricula, enhanced the understanding of students and extended the insights of faculty members into industry workings. Indeed, many former journal

23、ists have become leading scholars in the field (Zelizer, 2004). But many of these (notably in the UK) are employed primarily as a teacher (rather than a researcher). Thus, a more practical focus in journalism facultie

24、s could further strengthen preoccupations with the nuts and bolts of reporting as distinct from the broader relationships that journalism has with society and politics at large.The need for a normative perspectiveThe b

25、road church of public communication, which includes the contributions of journal- ism and journalism studies, is an inescapably normative domain. That is, it is inescapably involved in the realization of, or failure to