Element 68Element 45Element 44Element 63Element 64Element 43Element 41Element 46Element 47Element 69Element 76Element 62Element 61Element 81Element 82Element 50Element 52Element 79Element 79Element 7Element 8Element 73Element 74Element 17Element 16Element 75Element 13Element 12Element 14Element 15Element 31Element 32Element 59Element 58Element 71Element 70Element 88Element 88Element 56Element 57Element 54Element 55Element 18Element 20Element 23Element 65Element 21Element 22iconsiconsElement 83iconsiconsiconsiconsiconsiconsiconsiconsiconsiconsiconsiconsiconsiconsiconsiconsiconsiconsiconsiconsiconsiconsiconsiconsiconsElement 84iconsiconsElement 36Element 35Element 1Element 27Element 28Element 30Element 29Element 24Element 25Element 2Element 1Element 66
Februar 2019

ECREA Journalism Studies Conference

Prof. Dr. Wiebke Loosen und Julius Reimer sind zu Gast auf der Tagung „Breaking Binaries: Exploring the Diverse Meanings of Journalism in Contemporary Societies“ der ECREA Journalism Studies Section. Am 14. Februar 2019 halten sie dort den Vortrag: „X Journalism: Exploring Journalism’s Diverse Meanings“.


X Journalism: Exploring journalism’s diverse meanings

The emergence of ever new journalistic terms such as ‘robot journalism’, ‘foundation-funded journalism’, or ‘solutions journalism’, is a clear indicator of journalism’s constant transformation and the diverse meanings attached to it. These are terms which, by combining ‘journalism’ with a variety of prefixes, represent a certain specificity and novelty. This practice has arguably gained momentum in recent years and is a reflection of journalism’s progressive differentiation and certain trends in the field.

Our international network of journalism researchers has crowdsourced approximately 130 of these ‘x-journalism’ terms and have inductively and consensually ‘crowd-categorized’ the differentiating aspects they refer to. In so doing, not only do we provide an overview of x-journalisms, more importantly, we want to discuss the resulting typology as an attempt to keep pace with the complexity and dynamics of the field and to make explicit how new x-journalisms seek to distinguish themselves from already existing forms through:
  1. a novel technology used at different stages of the journalistic production process, e.g. for gathering, presenting or distributing news (e.g., ‘sensor’, ‘drone’, ‘augmented’ journalism);
  2. a specific motivation or reporting style (e.g., ‘solutions’, ‘green’, ‘partisan’ journalism);
  3. a particular kind of audience-relationship in terms of participatory openness, publics reached etc. (e.g., ‘engagement’, ‘millennial’, ‘citizen’ journalism);
  4. a distinct form of organization or economic model in terms of a particular funding or business model, structure or process of newswork etc. (e.g., ‘crowdfunded’, ‘post-industrial’, ‘process’ journalism);
  5. a reference to a particular place or locus ranging from ‘hyperlocal’ to ‘global’, or stressing the decreasing importance of place when it comes to news use (‘mobile journalism’).
 A deeper analysis that understands journalism as a discursively constructed institution (e.g., Vos/Thomas 2018; Levin 2018) reveals certain ideal-typical, not necessarily mutually exclusive strategies of and underlying motivations for the recurring creation of ‘new journalisms’, such as:
  • attempts to overcome the perceived deficits of existing approaches with practices or technologies in news production or novel norms, ideologies, or other orientations;
  • a strategy to distinguish one’s own products and services from those of competitors;
  • the ‘invasion’ of journalism from other fields (e.g., in ‘hacker journalism’).
We aim to turn our collection into an open, crowdsourced, and constantly growing database that helps us trace developments in the journalistic field by collecting and systematizing ‘new journalisms’. It can be used for many different purposes. We plan 
  • further analysis of what types of terms appear at what time,
  • to enrich our collection with terms of unchangeable relevance such as ‘investigative’ or ‘objective’ journalism and those that seem to have a rather short lifespan and lose their distinctiveness when the related practices become standard (such as ‘Facebook journalism’ or even ‘online journalism’), as well as
  • the identification of particular patterns of (re-)differentiation within our five categories.

Infos zur Veranstaltung


Institut für Publizistik und Kommunikationswissenschaft
Währinger Straße 29
1090 Wien


Prof. Dr. Wiebke Loosen
Senior Researcher Journalismusforschung

Prof. Dr. Wiebke Loosen

Leibniz-Institut für Medienforschung | Hans-Bredow-Institut (HBI)
Rothenbaumchaussee 36
20148 Hamburg

Tel. +49 (0)40 45 02 17 - 91
Fax +49 (0)40 45 02 17 - 77

E-Mail senden



Infos über aktuelle Projekte, Veranstaltungen und Publikationen des Instituts.