Page 173 - Communication Theory and Research

McQuail(EJC)-3281-12.qxd 8/16/2005 12:00 PM Page 158

158 Communication Theory & Research
communicators do not exercise ‘collective control over entry to the group’ nor
are they ever likely to gain such control, as it would be irreconcilable with the
doctrine of the freedom of the press. While it would be difficult to maintain the
proposition that every mass communicator abides by ‘a code of altruistic service,
supported by scrupulous self-policing’, it is nevertheless true that there exists
among newspeople an awareness of a unique responsibility towards the general
public. The strength of this awareness is a key factor in deciding the issue of pro-
fessionalism and sacredness. As regards ‘“client-type” relationships with the
public’ these definitely do exist, but they are shaped by their corporate character
in the sense outlined by Abbott (1983: 856; see also Goode, 1970: 47). 4
There is no dearth of authoritative statements denying professional status to
journalists. Thus Goldstein (1985: 162) states flatly that ‘journalism is not a pro-
fession’ and, according to Olen (1988), ‘... journalism is not a profession ... more
important, it should not be one ... Freedom of the press ... is not a right that
belongs to the institution of journalism’. This argument seems to miss the point
as there is no reason to contrast the responsibilities of journalists with the ques-
tion of freedom of the press. Kepplinger and Köcher (1990: 307) contend that
‘... journalists cannot really be counted among the professional class. In contrast
to members of the professions, journalists can behave in an extremely selective
manner toward themselves and toward third parties’. This is highly debatable.
First, it might be argued that ‘members of the professions’ are allowed some
selectivity as regards their occupational behaviour and second, it could be
argued that journalists who take their work seriously are expected to deal with
certain issues in certain ways and will ignore them at their peril. Merrill (1988)
considers characteristics of a ‘profession’ to be ‘restrictive factors’ and comes to
5
the conclusion that such professionalizing factors as he dealt with ‘are prone to
discipline the press, to keep it in line, to regiment it and ultimately place it under
increasing control’. Merrill is right, but only because he is highly selective in his
choice of ‘professionalizing factors’. Smith (1980: 153) maintains that the ‘key
criteria of professionalization are missing’ with regard to journalism in the West.
Windahl and Signitzer (1992: 128) claim without reservation: ‘Research has
shown ... that journalists may attain only semi-professional status because,
among other reasons, their knowledge base does not command the same respect
as does that of occupational groups such as civil engineers’. 6
On the other hand, according to McQuail (1992: 186): ‘A ... factor at work in
the historical development of modern news was the rise of a journalistic profes-
sion, which has entailed a claim to autonomy, a promise of some ethics of per-
formance and of certain standards of service’. Lichter et al. (1986: 27) also
recognize that change is in the air: ‘In keeping with their newfound status, lead-
ing journalists are increasingly likely to see themselves as professionals who
translate the news rather than craftsmen who merely transmit it’. Finally, con-
sidering how programme staff of the BBC use the word ‘professional’ to imply
the invocation of some moral order which endows them with a legitimacy and
authority, distinguishable from loyalty to the organization or compliance with
outside demands, Tom Burns (1977: 126) finds that ‘professionalism of the broad-
caster can be regarded as having supplanted the idea of public service as it was
defined and established under Reith, and as it was developed during the thirties