Understanding and evaluating systems for open collaboration depends, in part, on appreciating their normative and institutional contexts. In this article, I examine press-public collaboration by tracing how and why news organizations both distance themselves from and depend on networked actors outside the newsroom to achieve professional and organizational goals. I situate contemporary press-public networks within infrastructure scholarship, review their relationship to models of the public sphere, and trace the motivations and assumptions embedded within news organizations’ application programming interfaces, software toolkits that let those outside the newsroom access and repurpose journalistic data.
AitamurtoT.LewisS. C. (2011, April). Open APIs and news organizations: A study of open innovation in online journalism. Paper presented at the International Symposium on Online Journalism, Austin, TX.
2.
AndersonC. W. (2011). Deliberative, agonistic, and algorithmic audiences: Journalism’s vision of its public in an age of audience transparency. International Journal of Communication, 5, 529-547.
3.
BakerC. E. (2001). Media, markets, and democracy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
BarleyW. C.LeonardiP. M.BarleyD. E. (2012). Engineering objects for collaboration: Strategies of ambiguity and clarity at knowledge boundaries. Human Communication Research, 38(3), 280-308.
6.
BenklerY. (2003). Freedom in the commons: Towards a political economy of information. Duke Law Journal, 52, 1245-1276.
7.
BenklerY. (2006). The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
8.
BennettW. L. (1991). Toward a theory of press-state relations. Journal of Communication, 40(2), 103-125.
9.
BennettW. L. (2007). News: The politics of illusion. New York, NY: Pearson Longman.
10.
BennettW. L.LawrenceR. G.LivingstonS. (2006). None dare call it torture: Indexing and the limits of press independence in the Abu Ghraib scandal. Journal of Communication, 56, 467-485.
11.
BoczkowskiP. (2004). Digitizing the news: Innovation in online newspapers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
12.
BollingerL. C. (1991). Images of a free press. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
13.
BowkerG. C.StarS. L. (1999). Sorting things out: Classification and Its consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
14.
CalhounC. (1992). Introduction: Habermas and the public sphere. In CalhounC. (Ed.), Habermas and the public sphere (pp. 1-48). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
15.
CampbellR. (1991). 60 Minutes and the news: A mythology for middle America. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
16.
CareyJ. W. (1997). The communications revolution and the professional communicator. In MunsonE. S.WarrenC. A. (Eds.), James Carey: A critical reader (pp. 128-144). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. (Original work published 1969)
17.
ChristiansC. G.GlasserT. L.McQuailD.NordenstrengK.WhiteR. A. (2009). Normative theories of the media. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
18.
Commission on Freedom of the Press. (1947). A free and responsible press. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
19.
CookT. (1998). Governing with the news. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
20.
CreswellJ. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
21.
DahlbergL. (2001). Computer-mediated communication and the public sphere: A critical analysis. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 7(1). Retrieved from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol7/issue1/dahlberg.html
22.
DahlbergL. (2007). Rethinking the fragmentation of the cyberpublic: From consensus to contestation. New Media and Society, 9(5), 827-847.
23.
DaviesT.GangadharanS. P. (Eds.). (2009). Online deliberation: Design, research, and practice. Stanford, CA: CSLI.
24.
DeweyJ. (1954). The public and its problems. New York, NY: Swallow Press. (Original work published 1927)
25.
DomingoD. (2011). Managing audience participation: Practices, workflows and strategies. In SingerJ. B.HermidaA.DomingoD.. (Eds.), Participatory journalism (pp. 76-95). Malden, MA, Wiley-Blackwell.
26.
DooleyP. L. (2007). The technology of journalism. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
27.
EmersonT. I. (1981). The affirmative side of the First Amendment. Georgia Law Review, 15, 795-849.
28.
EttemaJ. S.GlasserT. L. (1998). Custodians of conscience. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
FishmanM. (1980). Manufacturing the news. Austin: University of Texas Press.
31.
FlanaginA. J.FlanaginC.FlanaginJ. (2010). Technical code and the social construction of the Internet. New Media and Society, 12(2), 179-196.
32.
FortunatiL.SarricaM. (2010). The future of the press: Insights from the sociotechnical approach. Information Society, 26, 247-255.
33.
FraserN. (1992). Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. In CalhounC. (Ed.), Habermas and the public sphere (pp. 107-142). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
34.
FriedmanB.KahnP. H.BorningA. (2006). Value sensitive design and information systems. In ZhangP.GallettaD. (Eds.), Human-computer interaction in management information systems: Foundations (pp. 348-372). London, UK: M. E. Sharpe.
35.
GalisonP. (1997). Image and logic: A material culture of microphysics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
36.
GansH. (1979). Deciding what’s news. New York, NY: Vintage.
37.
GillespieT. (2010). The politics of “platforms.”New Media and Society, 12(3), 347-364.
38.
GirouxH. A. (2011). The crisis of public values in the age of the new media. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 28(1), 8-29.
39.
GitlinT. (1980). The whole world is watching: Mass media in the making and unmaking of the new left. Berkeley: University of California Press.
40.
GlasserT. L. (2000). The politics of public journalism. Journalism Studies, 1(4), 683-686.
41.
HaasT. (2004). The public sphere as a sphere of publics: Rethinking Habermas’s theory of the public sphere. Journal of Communication, 54(1), 178-184.
42.
HabermasJ. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
43.
HabermasJ. (1996). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
44.
HermidaA.ThurmanN. (2008). A clash of cultures: The integration of user-generated content within professional journalistic frameworks at British newspaper websites. Journalism Practice, 2(3), 343-356.
45.
JonesR. A. (1996). Research methods in the social and behavioral sciences. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.
46.
KleinH. K.KleinmanD. L. (2002). The social construction of technology: Structural considerations. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 27(1), 28-52.
47.
Knight Foundation. (2009). Informing communities: Sustaining democracy in the digital age. Commission on the Information Needs of Communities in a Democracy. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute. Retrieved from http://www.knightcomm.org/read-the-report-and-comment/
48.
KovachB.RosenstielT. (2001). The elements of journalism. New York, NY: Three Rivers.
49.
LatourB. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Le DantecC. A.ChristensenJ. E.BaileyM.FarrellR. G.EllisJ. B.DanisC. M.EdwardsW. K. (2010). A tale of two publics: Democratizing design at the margins. In Proceedings of DIS: Designing Interactive Systems (pp. 11-20). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
52.
LessigL. (1999). Code and other laws of cyberspace. New York, NY: Basic Books.
53.
LessigL. (2008). Remix: Making art and commerce thrive in the hybrid economy. New York, NY: Penguin.
54.
LewisS. C. (in press). The tension between professional control and open participation: Journalism and its boundaries. Information, Communication and Society.
55.
LindtnerS.ChenJ.HayesG. R.DourishP. (2011). Towards a framework of publics: Re-encountering media sharing and its user. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 18(2), Article 5.
56.
MeiklejohnA. (1948). Free speech and its relation to self-government. New York, NY: Harper.
57.
MillJ. S. (1974). On liberty. London, UK: Penguin. (Original work published 1859)
58.
NissenbaumH. (2009). Privacy in context. Stanford, CA: Stanford Law Books.
59.
PfauM. (2004). Embedding journalists in military combat units: Impact on newspaper story frames and tone. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 81(1), 74-88.
60.
PuderA.RomerK.PilhoferF. (2006). Distributed systems architecture: A middleware approach. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
61.
ReichZ. (2011). User comments: The transformation of participatory space. In SingerJ. B.HermidaA.DomingoD.. (Eds.), Participatory journalism (pp. 96-117). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
62.
RussellA. (2011). Networked: A contemporary history of news in transition. London, UK: Polity.
63.
SchudsonM. (2000). The sociology of news production revisited (again). In CurranJ.GurevitchM. (Eds.), Mass media and society (pp. 175-200). London, UK: Arnold.
64.
ShawA.BenklerY. (2012). A tale of two blogospheres: Discursive practices on the left and right. American Behavioral Scientist, 56(4), 459-487.
65.
SigalL. V. (1973). Reporters and officials: The organization and politics of newsmaking. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.
66.
SingerJ. B. (2010). Quality control: Perceived effects of user-generated content on newsroom norms, values and routines. Journalism Practice, 4(2), 127-142.
67.
StarS. L.BowkerG. C. (2006). How to infrastructure. In LievrouwL. A.LivingstoneS. M. (Eds.), Handbook of new media: social shaping and social consequences of ICTs (pp. 151-162). London, UK: Sage Publications.
68.
StarS. L.GriesemerJ. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, “translations” and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science, 19, 387-420.
69.
StarS. L.RuhlederK. (1996). Steps toward an ecology of infrastructure: Design and access for large information spaces. Information Systems Research, 7(1), 111-134.
70.
StreeterT. (1996). Selling the air. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
71.
ThurmanN. (2008). Forums for citizen journalists? Adoption of user generated content initiatives by online news media. New Media and Society, 10(1), 139-157.
72.
Wahl-JorgensenK. (2002). The construction of the public in letters to the editor: Deliberative democracy and the idiom of insanity. Journalism, 3(2), 183-204.
73.
WarnerM. (2005). Publics and counterpublics. New York, NY: Zone Books.
74.
WinnerL. (1993). Upon opening the black box and finding it empty: Social constructivism and the philosophy of technology. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 18(3), 362-378.
75.
YoungI. M. (2000). Inclusion and democracy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
76.
ZelizerB. (2005). Definitions of journalism. In OverholserG.JamiesonK. H. (Eds.), The press (pp. 66-80). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
77.
ZittrainJ. (2006). The generative Internet. Harvard Law Review, 119, 1974-2040.
