Reputation and strategic choice in the journalistic field

There are two variants of field theory relevant for understanding the movement–media relationship: the organizational fields discussed by new institutionalists, which often implicitly inform research conducted by media scholars, and field theory as discussed by Pierre Bourdieu. These variants of field theory are complementary. Both perspectives explain the regularities in individual or organizational action by situating actors within a larger field of action; conceptualize a field as a structured social space that is comprised of a network of relationships among actors with more or less power; argue that fields are relatively coherent because the actors operating in a given field are oriented toward a particular value or prize and agree on the “rules of the game” by which these values are accumulated; and suggest that forces external to the field can influence the rules and field output (Benson Reference Benson2006; Bourdieu Reference Bourdieu1998b; DiMaggio and Powell Reference DiMaggio and Powell1983; Martin Reference Martin2003). The theoretical and empirical emphases of the perspectives are different, however.

New institutionalists define an organizational field as “organizations that, in the aggregate, constitute a recognized area of institutional life” (DiMaggio and Powell Reference DiMaggio and Powell1983, 148). Actors are guided by an institutional logic, or “a set of material practices and symbolic constructions” (Friedland and Alford Reference Friedland, Alford, Powell and DiMaggio1991, 248), which provides the organizing principles of the field. New institutionalists often highlight the processes through which actors in a field come to resemble one another, or isomorphism (Scott Reference Scott2001; Zucker 1987). There are three forms of institutional isomorphism: coercive isomorphism, which results from organizations exerting pressure on more dependent organizations; mimetic isomorphism, which is the result of organizations employing similar responses to ambiguity; and normative isomorphism, which is the result of occupational professionalization (DiMaggio and Powell Reference DiMaggio and Powell1983). Because of isomorphism, fields are structured, meaning they have clear relational networks that constrain any one organization’s actions and choices. Thus, while organizations are strategic actors and may alter their goals and/or practices, the rules of the field circumscribe what organizations do and their ability to change (Fligstein Reference Fligstein2001; Hensmans Reference Hensmans2003; Rao, Morrill, and Zald Reference Rao, Morrill and Zald2000).

New institutionalism highlights how both forces external and internal to the journalistic field systematically narrow and homogenize media coverage. Specifically, scholars examine how journalistic professionalization, news production processes, market pressures, and state intervention shape mainstream coverage. Journalists currently uphold the doctrine of objectivity and employ practices designed to inform the masses through fact-driven and politically-neutral reporting (Schudson Reference Schudson2003; Sigelman Reference Sigelman1973; Tuchman Reference Tuchman1972). Journalistic practices also are influenced by pressures external to the “journalistic field” – mainly economics (market imperatives to generate profits) and the state (issues of national security) (Benson and Saguy Reference Benson and Saguy2005; McManus Reference McManus1994). Journalists, who consistently deal with scarce resources, tight deadlines, and limited space for the news, use “news nets” to “catch” the big stories (Tuchman Reference Tuchman1978), rely heavily on “insider” sources (such as government officials), and look to prominent outlets (such as The New York Times) to provide the news of the day (Gans Reference Gans1979; Tuchman Reference Tuchman and Lazere1987). Together, these pressures create a consensus regarding the day’s news and have a homogenizing effect on coverage (Gamson, Croteau, Hoynes, and Sasson Reference Gamson, Croteau, Hoynes and Sasson1992).

The focus on isomorphism, however, obscures the fact that institutional fields are fairly heterogeneous. An actor situates itself relative to other players in a field and, in doing so, establishes how it is similar to and different from other actors (Deephouse Reference Deephouse1999; Whetten Reference Whetten2006). In the “journalistic field,” which is comprised of a broad spectrum of news outlets including mainstream and partisan news venues, news blogs, local newspapers, and community news sites, outlets strategically situate themselves relative to one another in an effort to attract an audience (Benson and Neveu Reference Benson and Neveu2005; Bourdieu Reference Bourdieu1998a; Rohlinger Reference Rohlinger2007). In practical terms this means that while outlets in the field try to balance the dual demands of informing the citizenry and making a profit, how they do so varies widely.

Pierre Bourdieu explains heterogeneity by focusing on the differential pressures that come to bear on outlets in the journalistic field (Bourdieu Reference Bourdieu1998a, Reference Bourdieu, Benson and Neveu2005). He argues that the social world is structured around two opposing forms of power, or economic and cultural capital (Bourdieu Reference Bourdieu1998a, Reference Bourdieu1998b, Reference Bourdieu, Benson and Neveu2005). While the forms of economic and cultural capital vary by field, economic capital is represented by circulation/ratings as well as advertising dollars, and cultural capital by professional honors that result from peer recognition such as the Pulitzer Prize in the journalistic field (Benson Reference Benson2006; Bourdieu Reference Bourdieu1998a). The field itself is structured around two poles: the “heteronomous pole,” which represents forces that are external to the field (the market), and the “autonomous pole,” which represents the specific form of capital valued within the field (intellectual reporting). Because a field is a structured space between these two poles, an actor’s location within the field indicates the kinds of internal and external pressures that come to bear on an actor and the amount of cultural capital it wields (Bourdieu Reference Bourdieu1998a). Commercial, mainstream media outlets are located near the heteronomous pole because they are disproportionately influenced by economic considerations, while “serious” media are situated near the autonomous pole. Outlets, at either extreme or located anywhere in between, strive to build legitimacy in the field through the accumulation of economic or cultural capital. At the same time, outlets espouse the superiority of their particular form of capital relative to the other, which accounts for field heterogeneity (Benson Reference Benson2006).

Over the last decade, scholars have used Bourdieu’s ideas regarding field to analyze how heterogeneity generates differences in what (and how) issues get covered within and across nations (Benson Reference Benson, Benson and Neveu2005; Benson and Hallin Reference Benson and Hallin2007; Benson and Saguy Reference Benson and Saguy2005; Duval Reference Duval, Benson and Neveu2005; Marchetti Reference Marchetti, Benson and Neveu2005; Rohlinger Reference Rohlinger2007). I argue that field theory is useful for understanding strategic choice because it also highlights how institutional norms and dynamics shape the organizational reputation of a given movement actor, which affects its media opportunities and how a group responds to media dilemmas. My conceptualization of the field varies from that of new institutionalists and proponents of Bourdieu, which are primarily interested in how actors in a field orient their actions in relation to one another. I too am interested in field norms and dynamics, but only insofar as they affect the strategic choices of actors trying to operate within a field. In this way, my conceptualization of field is closer to that of Neil Fligstein and Doug McAdam (Reference Fligstein and McAdam2012), who focus on how fields are socially constructed and how they change. The former is important because it helps explain the standing of a field actor during a given historical moment, the factors that lead to a boost or decline in an actor’s standing in a field, and how outside actors (movement groups) looking to navigate a field might exploit field dynamics (or changes) for their own purposes.

Organizational reputation is central to understanding the strategic decisions of groups. Organizational reputation refers to an external assessment of an organization’s identity by an actor in an institutional field. Actors assess the extent to which an organization’s identity corresponds with the logic of the field and their own, more particularistic goals (Rindova, Williamson, and Petkova Reference Rindova, Williamson and Petkova2005). These assessments matter because they determine an organization’s ability to access an institutional arena (Clemens Reference Clemens1997). An actor’s reputation may be strong or weak. If there is a match between an organization’s identity and the logic of a field and actor, then the group will have a strong reputation. If the organization’s identity does not match the demands of the field or actor on one or more dimensions, then the group will have a relatively weak reputation.

Mainstream news outlets dominate the journalistic field (Bourdieu Reference Bourdieu1998a) and reach a broad, general audience. Not surprisingly, these venues are the primary target of many organizations. A group’s reputation relative to these outlets often shapes how an organization uses mass media to forward its goals. There are at least four aspects of an organization’s identity that are relevant to reputation in mainstream outlets: the group’s media structure, the presence of a credentialed spokesperson, the scope of the organization’s goals, and the extent to which the organization draws on resonant values to frame its issue.

Structure shapes an organization’s reputation in mainstream media. Mainstream journalists rely on “legitimate” sources of information when crafting their stories. If a movement organization wants mainstream media attention, it must mimic the structure and practices of institutional sources on which journalists regularly rely. A group can establish a minimal reputation with mainstream media professionals by calibrating their media efforts to fit journalistic routines, producing information and events for journalistic consumption (press releases, press conferences, and research reports), and having a designated spokesperson whose primary job is to communicate with media professionals. An actor can bolster its reputation further if its spokesperson (or leader) is credentialed, meaning one or more activists are professionally recognized for their expertise in a given area, or are publicly recognizable figures (e.g. a celebrity).¹ While the latter can give a group media cache (Meyer and Gamson Reference Meyer and Gamson1995), institutionally credentialed activists give a group a professional veneer. Rather than simply being seen as an activist organization, journalists regard groups with credentialed activists as a legitimate and engaged actor on an issue (Rohlinger and Brown Reference Rohlinger and Brown2013). Credentials must be maintained if they are to provide an effective boost to an organization’s reputation. A spokesperson can only leverage their institutional status on behalf of an organization if s/he is practicing or otherwise professionally engaged.

An organization whose goals suggest incremental changes to the status quo will have a better reputation in mainstream media than a group that proposes dramatic overhauls to an institution. Mainstream outlets are designed to attract a broad, general audience. Not surprisingly, journalists prefer to include moderate views in their stories because these are more representative of (and appealing to) a broad public (Gamson Reference Gamson1990). A group that challenges an institution in relatively small ways, then, fits better into the logic of mainstream outlets than groups proposing institutional overhauls. Similarly, whether an organization has an elaborated or restricted identity affects its reputation in the journalistic field. Mainstream journalists prefer not only groups with moderate goals, but also actors whose ideas resonate with widely held norms and values (Benford and Snow Reference Benford and Snow2000; Ferree Reference Ferree2003). Groups with an elaborated identity will find this easier to do than organizations with restricted identities. An organization with an elaborated identity that uses constitutional principles and rights as a conceptual basis for action, for example, is more likely to champion ideas that resonate with culturally relevant frameworks than actors who draw on more particularistic points of view (such as religious doctrine). The former fit better with the institutional logic of mainstream media, which translates into more access to journalists and more media attention. In short, the more an organization’s identity aligns with the logic of mainstream media, the stronger its reputation will be. A group that has a media structure, boasts a credentialed or publicly recognized spokesperson, advocates for incremental change, and possesses an elaborated identity will have a relatively strong reputation in mainstream media, and will have more and better opportunities to shape how its issues are presented to the public.

There are two additional points worth making about reputation. First, reputation is different from an organization’s relevance during a given historical moment. The latter has been emphasized in research as scholars try to explain what groups appear in news coverage (Amenta et al. Reference Amenta, Caren, Olasky and Stobaugh2009; Sobieraj Reference Sobieraj2010). Scholars typically refer to this as “standing,” which is a measure of how much “voice” a particular group has in mainstream media coverage (Ferree et al. Reference Ferree, Gamson, Gerhards and Rucht2002). Standing is tied almost completely to the political environment and is relatively volatile. A radical group that attracts media attention using dramatic tactics can have as much (and likely more) standing than a moderate group during a given political moment because they are the source of story. Reputation, in contrast, reflects the correspondence between the characteristics of a movement actor and the dynamics of the field, which are relatively stable. In other words, reputationis more enduring and focuses on movement–media interactions over time rather than at a specific point in history.

Second, the composition of a movement has implications for reputation. Reputational evaluations are made comparatively (Whetten and Mackey Reference Whetten and Mackey2002). Journalists determine the reputation of one organization in part through their evaluations of its allies. As a result, an organization may have a more difficult time establishing and maintaining a strong reputation in the journalistic field if it is part of a movement that is dense with organizations that also fit the institutional bill. This is true even for an organization whose identity generally fits with the demands of the field. In situations where journalists have lots of sources from which to choose, they can be finicky and shift their preferences from one group to another. This is not true of sparsely populated movements. If a journalist needs a quote and there are few organizational sources from which s/he can choose, s/he will go with the best option available.

Mainstream media outlets are not the only venues available to carry movement ideas and, more importantly, a group’s reputation can vary across the journalistic field. Although journalists in mainstream and alternative news outlets share a broad occupational goal, how they achieve this goal is quite different. Mainstream journalists use “objective” reporting and emphasize conflict and drama in their stories in an effort to attract large, general audiences (Gans Reference Gans1979; Schudson Reference Schudson2003; Tuchman Reference Tuchman1972). This is not true of alternative venues, which target audience niches with ideological interpretations of – and political perspectives on – the news of the day (Atton and Wickenden Reference Atton and Wickenden2006; Harcup Reference Harcup2003; Lievrouw Reference Lievrouw2011). The emphasis on cultural over economic capital shapes how journalists working in alternative news outlets evaluate issue newsworthiness, source credibility (Atton Reference Atton2001), and, ultimately, an organization’s reputation with an outlet. Media professionals in alternative news outlets such as The Nationand National Review are less concerned with whether a group looks and acts like institutional sources and more interested in whether an organization’s position on and solution to a social problem will be compelling to their audience. Consequently, a broader range of organizations get covered in alternative news venues than in mainstream outlets (Rohlinger et al. Reference Rohlinger, Kail, Taylor and Conn2012). For groups with a weak reputation in mainstream outlets, coverage in alternative venues may be invaluable because it simultaneously allows them to build support for their goals among a generally sympathetic audience and potentially build a reputation via these outlets with political (rather than media) targets.

Conceptualizing mass media as a field of action highlights how the correspondence between organizational identity and the institutional logic of a field (and actor) shape a group’s reputation, which influences how an organization deals with media dilemmas and the tradeoffs it is forced to make. An organization with a relatively strong reputation will have more and better media opportunities, which means that strategic silence is an option. During moments of rancorous debate, the tradeoff for the group is simple: it trades the ability to weigh in on a debate for the option to avoid the negative attention that can accompany controversial issues. A group with a weak reputation may want to get its ideas in mainstream news outlets, but may have difficulty doing so. As such, it is unlikely to turn away mainstream media opportunities when they are available, even when these opportunities promise to reflect the organization and the issue in an unfavorable light. A group with a weak organizational reputation trades media attention for favorable media attention, which can create other media dilemmas. For instance, if an organization receives negative coverage, activists must then decide whether or not (and how) to respond to the bad press. Dealing with negative coverage will be particularly tricky if the group finds itself engaged in a heated and long-term political battle. News space is limited and journalists are likely to move on to other issues and events relatively quickly. An organization, then, might find itself locked in a high-stakes political battle about which the broader public has limited knowledge.

Toward a choice-centered understanding of mass media

The current conceptualization of the “journalistic field” emphasizes the importance of economics to output, which ignores the fact that different kinds of venues may take cues from one another without being in direct competition (Rohlinger et al. forthcoming). Mainstream journalists pay attention to stories circulating in the “Twittersphere” and incorporate the ideas they read into their work (Hermida Reference Hermida2010; Lasorsa, Lewis, and Holton Reference Lasorsa, Lewis and Holton2012). While journalists are not in direct competition with individuals who witness and report news on the ground, scholars should not ignore that journalists increasingly take cues from diverse sources when putting together their stories. Scholars, in short, cannot simply focus on traditional news (and their online companions) if they want to understand news processes in the twenty-first century.

Likewise, if social scientists want to understand how individuals or groups use mass media to bring about change, they must look beyond the front page (or homepage) of mainstream outlets. After all, activist groups do not have to rely on “earned” media coverage to make an appearance in the mainstream. Organizations with the financial means to do so can buy media space and take their message directly to the people through advertisements. Moreover, news outlets are not the only venues that groups can use to achieve their goals. This is particularly true in the contemporary communications environment where there are numerous venues on- and off-line available to carry movement ideas, including books, talk radio, music, social media, and organizational websites (Atton and Wickenden Reference Atton and Wickenden2006; Eyerman and Jamison Reference Eyerman and Jamison1998). News media is but one type of outlet activist groups can use in a broader mass media field.

Figure 2.1 shows a cross section of the media field with the heteronomous and autonomous poles labeled at the top and bottom of the field respectively. The outermost layer of the field (A) is composed of moderated media. In these venues, actors use institutional and organizational norms to determine whether (and how) movement ideas will be included in their stories. Concerns over whether and how to include movement perspectives may be more or less central to the decision-making process of actors working in these venues. News outlets are far more likely to consider the relevance of movements than a music radio station, which is more concerned with profit-making at the heteronomous pole and “music purity” at the autonomous pole.

Figure 2.1. The mass media field

Reputation still matters to non-news outlets; however, it is evaluated differently. Artists are under no obligation to be neutral and, as long as they are profitable, can use their work (concerts and art exhibits) to advocate on behalf of movement causes. There have been several concerts over the last thirty years (opposing apartheid, raising AIDS awareness, promoting cleaner oceans, and advocating debt relief for developing countries) that brought artists together to advocate on behalf of an issue. In these endeavors, movement organizations team with sympathetic artists in an effort to raise money for the group as well as to educate a broader public (Eyerman and Jamison Reference Eyerman and Jamison1998). While the rules governing the music world are quite different from those governing the news, both are oriented to survival, which means that nonjournalistic venues are just as likely to carefully consider an activist partner – even if profitability is more central to their assessments.

The next layer (B) consists of social media such as Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, Snapchat, Instagram, YouTube, and the numerous other outlets that allow movement leaders, supporters, and opponents to communicate with a broader audience directly. Organizations can use social media to bypass moderated outlets and get their ideas to a broader public, but so can individuals and entities not necessarily affiliated with (or supportive of) the group. Moreover, social media are not an open forum. Many social media outlets are oriented toward profit-making, which means that movement messages are often crowded next to advertisements pushing related products. On Facebook, it is not uncommon to see a post by a local farm co-op next to an advertisement for a company that sends all the ingredients for a meal directly to your door. Likewise, the terms and conditions of a social media platform may allow the company to censor some ideas. Facebook has been criticized for removing the pages of breastfeeding activist and anarchist groups, while allowing white supremacists to use its group page function to organize without interruption. Using social media to disseminate movement messages, in short, presents its own sets of challenges.

The innermost layer of the field (C) is direct media. Unlike social media, groups have control over (and assume the cost of producing) both the medium and the content. Organizational websites, newsletters, pamphlets, blogs, radio stations, and films are all examples of direct media. While direct media are available to all groups, an organization’s ability to use them will vary with its resources as well as its media priorities. Websites are a good example in this regard. Some organizations offer visitors little more than an online brochure of their issue, while others create content (e.g., movies, games, and links to signup sheets) designed to engage and mobilize visitors (Earl Reference Earl2006). Both kinds of websites require money and skill to develop and maintain, and some activist groups may find themselves short on both. Thus, even though direct media are fairly far away from the heteronomous and autonomous poles, whether and how movement organizations use these venues are still shaped by economic (and other) considerations.

Reputation influences the ability of a group to use social and direct media effectively. Organizations that have a strong reputation with some moderated media outlets will have some name recognition and get some foot traffic via social and direct media. Likewise, groups that have strong reputations may have the opportunity to embed invitations into its moderated media appearances. A group may be able to invite listeners or viewers to visit its website at the end of a program, or a news outlet may include an organization’s information at the end of a news story, particularly in its online edition. Reputation not only affects the media opportunities available to a group, but also shapes how an organization moves its ideas across the media field. Organizations with a relatively weak reputation may find that they need to build support for their ideas on social media before they are picked up by moderated outlets. Groups with a relatively strong reputation, in contrast, are better positioned to target different outlets with different messages. For example, they may post unedited footage of a recent event on their website (direct media), put together a short film that they circulate on their YouTube channel (social media), and get the event covered in a variety of news outlets (moderated media).

Reputation and responding to media dilemmas

The media field comprises a range of outlets that take cues from one another, but differ in their form, function, and the extent to which they are oriented to the heteronomous and autonomous poles. I conceptualize the media field as a diamond-shaped prism for two reasons. First, it underscores the basic differences between outlets. Moderated media vary by outlet type (e.g., a news outlet is different from talk radio and music), outlet purpose (which may be more or less oriented toward profitability), and target audience (which may be more or less particularistic). Second, it emphasizes the permeability of boundaries between different kinds of media, particularly from the perspective of actors looking to use media to forward their goals. Different media have different advantages and disadvantages, and a group can use a range of venues (sometimes simultaneously) to achieve different goals.

Not all groups have the same opportunities in the media field. Reputation helps explain the kinds of opportunities available to a group, which shapes how it uses media to forward its goals. Organizations with strong reputations in the media field have more opportunities to use moderated media to their advantage and are less reliant on social and direct media to move their ideas across the media field. This is not true for groups with weak reputations, which have fewer opportunities to use moderated media and need social and direct media to market their ideas (and themselves) to sympathetic audiences. Organizations with weak reputations rely on social and direct media to generate enough support to move their ideas into moderated media.

Reputation has implications for how a group responds to media dilemmas. Table 2.1 summarizes how organizations with strong and weak reputations are likely to respond to each dilemma. An organization with a strong reputation is likely to be selective when engaging external media (Dilemma 1) because it has more opportunities to access a range of outlets, including moderated media. A group with a strong reputation may decide to opt out of a television interview that includes an opponent, reasoning that it has little to gain by engaging in a heated debate with an enemy. A group with a weak reputation will not be so selective and may see the same interview as an opportunity to show a sympathetic public that it is confronting its opponents directly and is worthy of support. The same is true of Dilemma 2, whether to respond to negative media attention. An organization with a strong reputation is likely to be selective about when and how it responds to bad press, while a group with a relatively weak reputation will engage moderated media in hopes of receiving more (and potentially better) coverage.

Table 2.1. How groups with strong and weak reputations respond to media dilemmas

The strategic options available to groups with stronger and weaker reputations vary when faced with Dilemma 3, how to publicly respond to losing issues. An organization with a strong reputation may offer its assessment of losing issues in social or direct media, but generally avoid taking up the cause in moderated media, where its name and ideas will be contrasted directly to the more popular ideas of its opponents. This is less true of a group with a weak reputation, which may use direct and social media to outline how it is fighting for the rights of an aggrieved population and moderated media to offer an alternative understanding of a popular issue.

Conclusion

How an organization uses media is shaped by four dynamics – organizational, movement, institutional, and field dynamics. As the last two chapters make clear, these dynamics do not operate independently. A group is nested in a larger movement comprised of other organizations trying to respond to (or change) the broader political environment in ways that will make it more hospitable to their goals. Media plays an important role in this regard because organizations use different kinds of outlets to promote their causes and demand action from the citizenry and politicians. How a group uses media varies according to its reputation and the dilemmas to which it is responding. These dynamics and dilemmas, in short, interact with one another and affect how an organization navigates the political world and uses mass media to forward its agenda. These dynamics are summarized in Figure 2.2, which is labeled a strategic choice approach to the movement–media relationship.

Figure 2.2. A strategic choice approach to the movement–media relationship

A strategic choice approach underscores relational dynamics and the importance of movement, environmental, and institutional dynamics to organizational decision-making. While organizations never have perfect information, they use what information they do have about elite positions, the positions and activities of allies and opponents, and how the media field works (and their reputation in it) to decide whether, when, and how to use mass media to their advantage. The remainder of this book illustrates how these dynamics work and affect how four movement organizations mobilize around the abortion issue and respond to media dilemmas over time.