As “boundary objects,” thought-leader articles show some characteristics of journalism but are not considered journalism in its pure sense. Yet this peripheral format occupies a critical place in the media canon and thought-leader articles have value for news organization and audience alike. Given an ongoing demand for content and a declining tendency to pay for it, thought-leader articles have a secure place. But even as they help journalism to overcome one (economic) obstacle, they raise another in the form of questions about their content: Who has a voice? Who is held to account? What agendas are pursued? How are events and topics framed? What are the values of the writer? And who benefits from having a voice, pursuing an agendum and setting the frames of the discussion? When asked of regular reporting, these questions have helped define journalism’s boundaries; when asked of thought-leader articles, the answers similarly reveal what sits inside journalism’s field. This article investigates what thought-leader articles indicate about the boundaries of journalism, through their conformity or otherwise to traditional values and roles.
AlhindiT.MuresanS.Preotiuc-PietroD. (2020). Fact vs opinion: The role of argumentation features in news classification. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (pp. 6139–6149). http://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.coling-main.540
Belair-GagnonV.HoltonA. E. (2018). Boundary work, interloper media, and analytics in newsrooms. Digital Journalism, 6(4), 492–508.
4.
BensonR.NeveuE. (Eds.). (2005). Bourdieu and the journalistic field. Polity Press.
5.
BishopR. (1999). From behind the walls: Boundary work by news organizations in their coverage of Princess Diana’s death. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 23(1), 90–112.
6.
BourdieuP. (1990). The logic of practice. Stanford University Press.
7.
BourdieuP. (1998). On television (Parkhurst FergusonP., Trans.). New Press.
8.
BourdieuP. (2005). The political field, the social science field, and the journalistic field. In BensonR.NeveuE. (Eds.), The field of cultural production (pp. 29–47). Polity Press.
9.
BourdieuP.WacquantL. J. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. University of Chicago Press.
10.
CarlsonM. (2016). Metajournalistic discourse and the meanings of journalism: Definition, control, boundary work, and legitimation. Communication Theory, 26, 349–368.
ChuaL. H. (1998). Singapore. In LatifA. (Ed.), Walking the tightrope: Press freedom and professional standards in Asia (pp. 142–155). Asian Media Information and Communication Centre.
DayA. G.GolanG. (2005). Source and content diversity in op-ed pages: Assessing editorial strategies in the New York Times and the Washington Post. Journalism Studies, 6(1), 61–71.
19.
FerrucciP. (2017). Technology allows audience role in news formation. Newspaper Research Journal, 38(1), 79–89.
FürsichE. (2009). In defense of textual analysis: Restoring a challenged method for journalism and media studies. Journalism Studies, 10(2), 238–252.
22.
GeorgeC. (2012). Freedom from the press: Journalism and state power in Singapore. National University of Singapore Press.
23.
GeorgeC. (2017). Singapore, incomplete: Reflections on a first-world nation’s arrested political development. Ethos Books.
24.
GierynT. F. (1983). Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from nonscience: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review, 48(6), 781–795.
25.
GolanG.WantaW. (2004). Guest columns add diversity to NY Times’ op-ed page. Newspaper Research Journal, 25(2), 70–82.
26.
HallS. (1975). Introduction. In SmithA.ImmirziE.BlackwellT. (Eds.), Paper voices: The popular press and social change, 1935–1965 (pp. 1–24). Chatto & Windus.
27.
HallinD. C.ManciniP. (2011). Comparing media systems beyond the Western world. Cambridge University Press.
28.
HallockS.RodgersR. (2003, August). The paradox of editorial diversity: A content analysis of the Cincinnati Enquirer and Cincinnati Post [Paper presentation]. AEJMC Conference, Kansas City, MO, United States.
29.
HanitzschT.HanuschF.RamaprasadJ.de BeerA. (2019). Worlds of journalism: Journalistic cultures around the globe. Columbia University Press.
KokP. S. (2020, September2). “Digital first” online services must be humanised, user-centric. Business Times.
35.
KondrackiN. L.WellmanN. S. (2002). Content analysis: Review of methods and their applications in nutrition education. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 34, 224–230.
36.
KowalchukL.McLaughlinN. (2009). Mapping the social space of opinion: Public sociology and op-ed in Canada. The Canadian Journal of Sociology, 34(3), 697–728.
KyngäsH.KaakinenP. (2020). Deductive content analysis. In KyngäsH.MikkonenK.KääriäinenM. (Eds.), The application of content analysis in nursing science research (pp. 23–30). Springer.
39.
LasorsaD.LewisS. C.HoltonA. E. (2012). Normalizing Twitter: Journalism practice in an emerging communication space. Journalism Studies, 13(1), 19–36.
MaaresP.HanuschF. (2022). Interpretations of the journalistic field: A systematic analysis of how journalism scholarship appropriates Bourdieusian thought. Journalism, 23(4), 736–754. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884920959552
44.
MaherT. M. (2001). Framing: An emerging paradigm or a phase of agenda setting?. In ReeseS. D.GandyO. H.GrantA. E. (Eds.), Framing public life: Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world (pp. 83–94). Lawrence Erlbaum.
45.
McCombsM.ShawD. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, 176–187.
46.
McIntyreK. (2019). Solutions journalism: The effects of including solution information in news stories about social problems. Journalism Practice, 13(1), 16–34.
NikolaevA. G.PorporaD. V. (2007). Talking war: How elite U.S. newspaper editorials and opinion pieces debated the attack on Iraq. Sociological Focus, 40(1), 6–25.
SantoA. (1994). “In our opinion…” Editorial page views of Clinton’s first year. Media Studies Journal, 8(2), 97–106.
60.
SchudsonM. (1978). Discovering the news: A social history of American newspapers. Basic Books.
61.
SchudsonM.AndersonC. W. (2008). News production and organizations: Professionalism, objectivity, and truth-seeking. In Wahl-JorgensenK.HanitzschT. (Eds.), Handbook of journalism studies (pp. 88–110). Lawrence Erlbaum.
StarS.GriesemerJ. (1989). Institutional ecology, “translations” and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420.
VosT. P.CraftS.AshleyS. (2012). New media, old criticism: Bloggers’ press criticism and the journalistic field. Journalism, 3(7), 850–868.
77.
Wahl-JorgensenK. (2004). Playground of the pundits or voice of the people? comparing British and Danish opinion pages. Journalism Studies, 5(1), 59–70.
ZelizerB. (2004). When facts, truth and reality are God terms: On journalism’s uneasy place in cultural studies. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, 1(1), 100–119.
