The Rhetorical Illusions of News

Chris Peters, Marcel Broersma

Research output: Contribution to book/anthology/report/conference proceedingBook chapterResearchpeer-review

242 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Imagine for a moment – a thought experiment if you will – that journalism as we have come to know it would disappear overnight. What would happen in terms of the informational flows in society? What would we miss and what would be the risk, if any? Instinctively, the answers likely proffered to such a hypothetical scenario are predictable: people would lose crucial information for engaging civically; unfettered from investigative oversight, governments, businesses and other powerful institutions would become less accountable; the fodder for public discussion on prominent issues of the day would be lost; and so on and so forth. In sum: the conditioned reaction on questions about ‘what journalism is good for’ tends to lead back toward familiar rhetorics and rationales.

Journalism’s normative claims rely heavily upon these established modernist discourses which serve to affirm its essential role within a democracy and assert its relevance to the public (see McNair, 2012; Schudson, 2008). However, the reality is that most journalism is not a public good, at least not in the traditional economic sense. Publishers in print and online as well as commercial broadcasters are typically companies with all the drawbacks and market susceptibilities this implies no matter how much journalists, journalism studies scholars, and audiences alike frequently place expectations of public service upon journalism tout court. Even public broadcasting, for that matter, is obliged by law to cater for and reach certain audiences. Given this context, it is intriguing to consider the possible disconnect between journalism’s normative assertions, its day-to-day activities, and its actual resonance.
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationRethinking Journalism Again : Societal role and public relevance in a digital age
EditorsChris Peters, Marcel Broersma
Place of PublicationLondon
PublisherRoutledge
Publication date2017
Pages188-204
Chapter12
ISBN (Print)9781138860865
ISBN (Electronic)9781317506416
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2017

Fingerprint

Journalism
Illusion
Rhetoric
News
Democracy
Public Broadcasting
Broadcasters
Public Services
Government
Journalists
Modernist
Scenarios
Susceptibility
Thought Experiments
Fodder
Discourse
Economics

Keywords

  • news consumption
  • audience studies
  • journalism studies
  • social media
  • journalism

Cite this

Peters, C., & Broersma, M. (2017). The Rhetorical Illusions of News. In C. Peters, & M. Broersma (Eds.), Rethinking Journalism Again: Societal role and public relevance in a digital age (pp. 188-204). London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315716244
Peters, Chris ; Broersma, Marcel. / The Rhetorical Illusions of News. Rethinking Journalism Again: Societal role and public relevance in a digital age. editor / Chris Peters ; Marcel Broersma. London : Routledge, 2017. pp. 188-204
@inbook{8e8b7b999d2d4b05b91c64fd4517d95e,
title = "The Rhetorical Illusions of News",
abstract = "Imagine for a moment – a thought experiment if you will – that journalism as we have come to know it would disappear overnight. What would happen in terms of the informational flows in society? What would we miss and what would be the risk, if any? Instinctively, the answers likely proffered to such a hypothetical scenario are predictable: people would lose crucial information for engaging civically; unfettered from investigative oversight, governments, businesses and other powerful institutions would become less accountable; the fodder for public discussion on prominent issues of the day would be lost; and so on and so forth. In sum: the conditioned reaction on questions about ‘what journalism is good for’ tends to lead back toward familiar rhetorics and rationales. Journalism’s normative claims rely heavily upon these established modernist discourses which serve to affirm its essential role within a democracy and assert its relevance to the public (see McNair, 2012; Schudson, 2008). However, the reality is that most journalism is not a public good, at least not in the traditional economic sense. Publishers in print and online as well as commercial broadcasters are typically companies with all the drawbacks and market susceptibilities this implies no matter how much journalists, journalism studies scholars, and audiences alike frequently place expectations of public service upon journalism tout court. Even public broadcasting, for that matter, is obliged by law to cater for and reach certain audiences. Given this context, it is intriguing to consider the possible disconnect between journalism’s normative assertions, its day-to-day activities, and its actual resonance.",
keywords = "news consumption, audience studies, journalism studies, social media, journalism",
author = "Chris Peters and Marcel Broersma",
year = "2017",
doi = "10.4324/9781315716244",
language = "English",
isbn = "9781138860865",
pages = "188--204",
editor = "Peters, {Chris } and Broersma, {Marcel }",
booktitle = "Rethinking Journalism Again",
publisher = "Routledge",
address = "United Kingdom",

}

Peters, C & Broersma, M 2017, The Rhetorical Illusions of News. in C Peters & M Broersma (eds), Rethinking Journalism Again: Societal role and public relevance in a digital age. Routledge, London, pp. 188-204. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315716244

The Rhetorical Illusions of News. / Peters, Chris; Broersma, Marcel.

Rethinking Journalism Again: Societal role and public relevance in a digital age. ed. / Chris Peters; Marcel Broersma. London : Routledge, 2017. p. 188-204.

Research output: Contribution to book/anthology/report/conference proceedingBook chapterResearchpeer-review

TY - CHAP

T1 - The Rhetorical Illusions of News

AU - Peters, Chris

AU - Broersma, Marcel

PY - 2017

Y1 - 2017

N2 - Imagine for a moment – a thought experiment if you will – that journalism as we have come to know it would disappear overnight. What would happen in terms of the informational flows in society? What would we miss and what would be the risk, if any? Instinctively, the answers likely proffered to such a hypothetical scenario are predictable: people would lose crucial information for engaging civically; unfettered from investigative oversight, governments, businesses and other powerful institutions would become less accountable; the fodder for public discussion on prominent issues of the day would be lost; and so on and so forth. In sum: the conditioned reaction on questions about ‘what journalism is good for’ tends to lead back toward familiar rhetorics and rationales. Journalism’s normative claims rely heavily upon these established modernist discourses which serve to affirm its essential role within a democracy and assert its relevance to the public (see McNair, 2012; Schudson, 2008). However, the reality is that most journalism is not a public good, at least not in the traditional economic sense. Publishers in print and online as well as commercial broadcasters are typically companies with all the drawbacks and market susceptibilities this implies no matter how much journalists, journalism studies scholars, and audiences alike frequently place expectations of public service upon journalism tout court. Even public broadcasting, for that matter, is obliged by law to cater for and reach certain audiences. Given this context, it is intriguing to consider the possible disconnect between journalism’s normative assertions, its day-to-day activities, and its actual resonance.

AB - Imagine for a moment – a thought experiment if you will – that journalism as we have come to know it would disappear overnight. What would happen in terms of the informational flows in society? What would we miss and what would be the risk, if any? Instinctively, the answers likely proffered to such a hypothetical scenario are predictable: people would lose crucial information for engaging civically; unfettered from investigative oversight, governments, businesses and other powerful institutions would become less accountable; the fodder for public discussion on prominent issues of the day would be lost; and so on and so forth. In sum: the conditioned reaction on questions about ‘what journalism is good for’ tends to lead back toward familiar rhetorics and rationales. Journalism’s normative claims rely heavily upon these established modernist discourses which serve to affirm its essential role within a democracy and assert its relevance to the public (see McNair, 2012; Schudson, 2008). However, the reality is that most journalism is not a public good, at least not in the traditional economic sense. Publishers in print and online as well as commercial broadcasters are typically companies with all the drawbacks and market susceptibilities this implies no matter how much journalists, journalism studies scholars, and audiences alike frequently place expectations of public service upon journalism tout court. Even public broadcasting, for that matter, is obliged by law to cater for and reach certain audiences. Given this context, it is intriguing to consider the possible disconnect between journalism’s normative assertions, its day-to-day activities, and its actual resonance.

KW - news consumption

KW - audience studies

KW - journalism studies

KW - social media

KW - journalism

U2 - 10.4324/9781315716244

DO - 10.4324/9781315716244

M3 - Book chapter

SN - 9781138860865

SP - 188

EP - 204

BT - Rethinking Journalism Again

A2 - Peters, Chris

A2 - Broersma, Marcel

PB - Routledge

CY - London

ER -

Peters C, Broersma M. The Rhetorical Illusions of News. In Peters C, Broersma M, editors, Rethinking Journalism Again: Societal role and public relevance in a digital age. London: Routledge. 2017. p. 188-204 https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315716244