1
Discussing Journalists as Intellectuals: Hegemony, Occupational Ideology and Power
İncilay Cangöz
Abstract
The history of journalism has been described as civilized and democratic initiation with
claims to an exclusive role and status in society in many countries as well as in Turkey.
Gradually such “serving public interest” role has been defended by journalists’ occupational
ideology. Although the conceptualization of journalism as a professional ideology can be
traced throughout the literature on journalism studies, scholars convincingly criticize such an
ideology more or less for granted. In this article the ideal-typical values of journalism
ideology is investigated in terms of how these values challenged or reproduce established
power or social system in the context of history and cultural change. The analysis in this
paper shows how journalism in the self-perception of journalists has come to mean much
more than its modernist bias of telling people what they need to know, how they live.
Introduction
As globalization is rapidly increasing, media, the main agent in information transmission in
people’s daily life, has gained a crucial role in society. It is basically through mass media that
we learn what is happening in our environment (town, city, country) as well as the world.
That is, our perceptions of external world, other people, and even ourselves are mostly
shaped by the news media. Journalists often use the word “mirror” as a metaphor to describe
their way of making news that reflects reality objectively. However media/communication
studies, based on the Marxist literature, criticize objective reporting referring to the
structuralism/post-structuralism language theory. Ferdinand de Saussure claimed between
human beings and the world they experience, there exist systems of signs which are the
product of society. Signs acquire meaning through being structured into codes, the principle
code being language. Language is not neutral, but a highly constructive mediator. In this
regard, main aim of this paper which based on critical communication studies is to reveal the
relationship between the mainstream media and the elite’s or ruling class power in a social
system.
Critical media studies point out that media constructs reality and such construction
can not be neutral as making meaning is an ideological practice. Journalists who are accepted
as “intellectuals” make meaning everyday; indeed their production practice depends on
economy, political relations and cultural/ideological codes. In this context, this study focuses
2
on the ways in which journalists, who are seieged by the market dynamics, press acts and
ideological professional news making codes, can serve to public interest as “intellectuals”. In
other words, the inconsistency between the discourses and news making practices of
journalists who claim that they serve to public interest within the social responsibility theory
is questioned in this study. The major argument of the paper is the old one: Journalists have
ideological role in society. Unlike their rhetorical arguments such as “unbiased and objective
new making process” or “informing the citizens”, the mainstream media discourse articulates
and reproduces dominant hegemony in society. Alternative/radical/community media as
Grmasci’s term “war of position” or Bauman’s term “resistance island” will be addressed as
a way towards plural democracy. To demonstrate this, firstly Gramsci’s notion and role of
intellectual will be summarized. After that the professional codes of journalism will be
questioned as ideology and then Turkish journalist’s news making practice will be evaluated
in historical, cultural and ideological context.
Intellectuals as Resistance Islands
Gramsci was interested in how capitalism had managed to survive the post-war economic
crisis and restructure itself. He was tried to improve a new analysis of the political and
ideological resources of capitalist societies, the sources of their resilience. He argued that
“political power in liberal capitalist societies depends relatively little, except in times of
extreme crisis, on the coercive apparatus of the state. It rests instead on the strength of a
world-view, a system of assumptions and social values accepted as ‘common sense’ which
legitimates the existing distribution of power and, indeed, renders opposition to it
inconceivable for most of the population.” (Hallin, 1994: 59) It was here that Gramsci made a
major contribution to modern thought in his concept of the role played by ideology. Often the
term "ideology" is seen as referring simply to a system of ideas and beliefs. However, it is
closely tied to the concept of power and the definition given by Anthony Giddens is probably
the easiest to understand. Giddens defines ideology as "shared ideas or beliefs which serve to
justify the interests of dominant groups" (Giddens, 1997: 583) Its relationship to power is that
it legitimizes the differential power that groups hold and as such it distorts the real situation
that people find themselves in.
The traditional Marxist theory of power was a very one-sided one based on the role of
force and coercion as the basis of ruling class domination. This was reinforced by Lenin
whose influence was at its height after the success of the Russian Revolution in 1917.
Gramsci argued that what was missing was an understanding of the subtle but pervasive
3
forms of ideological control and manipulation that served to perpetuate all repressive
structures. He identified two quite distinct forms of political control: domination, which
referred to direct physical coercion by police and armed forces and hegemony which referred
to both ideological control and more crucially, consent. He assumed that no regime,
regardless of how authoritarian it might be, could sustain itself primarily through organised
state power and armed force. In the long run, it had to have popular support and legitimacy in
order to maintain stability. (Burke, 1999; 2005)
Hegemony is not limited to matters of direct political control but seeks to describe a
more general predominance which includes, as one of its key features, a particular way of
seeing the world and human nature and relationships. It is different in this sense from the
notion of world-view, in that the ways of seeing in the world and us and others are not just
intellectual but political facts, expressed over a range from institutions to relationships and
consciousness. (Williams, 1983: 145) As mentioned above media is the main story telling
machine to tell us how we understand what’s happening, who we are and who they are.
Hegemony in this sense is identified with the formation of a new ideological “terrain”, with
political cultural and moral leadership and with consent. Hegemony is thus linked by Gramsci
in a chain of associations and oppositions to civil society as against political society, to
consent as against coercion, to direction as against domination (Forgacs, 2000: 423).
Hegemony is sometimes interpreted as relation purely of cultural or ideological influence or a
sphere of pure consent; it also sometimes assimilated to the notion of dominant ideology. Yet
these interpretations seem to be mistaken. (Forgacs, 2000:423) Gramsci claims that
“Hegemony is ethico-political, it must also be economic, must necessarily be based on the
decisive function exercised by leading group in the decisive nucleus of economic activity.”
(Gramsci, 2000:212 in Forgacs) The media, according to neo-Marxist perspective, play the
role of maintaining the dominant political ideology: They propagate it, celebrate it, interpret
the world in its terms, and, at times, alter it to adapt to the demands of the legitimation in a
changing world. The dominant ideology shapes the production of news and entertainment;
this explains why the media can be expected to function as agents of legitimation, despite the
fact that they are independent of direct political control. (Hallin, 1994: 59)
Gramsci (2007) highlighted the role of intellectuals in a society and claimed that all
men (of course all women) are intellectuals, in that all have intellectual and rational faculties,
but not all men/women have the social function of intellectuals. He claimed that modern
intellectuals were not simply talkers, but directors and organisers who helped build society
4
and produce hegemony by means of ideological apparati such as education and the media.
Furthermore, he distinguished between a “traditional” intelligentsia and “organic”
intelligentsia. Such organic intellectuals do not simply describe social life in accordance with
scientific rules, but rather articulate, through the language of culture, the feelings and
experiences which the masses could not express for themselves.
According to Gramsci (2007), intellectuals consciously or unconsciously- represent
the particular class. To him, traditional intellectuals are those who appear with the
development of industrialism and make their living by working on art, science or cultural
studies. He offers a mission for developing a new historic block to the organic intellectuals.
In this manner, the function of intellectual gain is of more vital importance to Gramsci.
Because, if the hegemony of the ruling capitalist class resulted from an ideological bond
between the rulers and the ruled, what strategy needed to be employed? The answer to those
questions was that those who wished to break that ideological bond had to build up a ‘counter
hegemony’ to that of the ruling class. They had to see structural change and ideological
change as part of the same struggle. The labour process was at the core of the class struggle
but it was the ideological struggle that had to be addressed if the mass of the people were to
come to a consciousness that allowed them to question their political and economic masters
right to rule. It was popular consensus in civil society that had to be challenged and in this we
can see a role for informal education. This includes the 20th century media professionals,
cinema critics, computer analysts, sports experts, management or law consultants, political
experts, military and defense strategists, and reporters of certain markets. Even the modern
mass media justifies Gramsci’s views. (Said, 1994: 25)
If Gramsci’s viewpoint is followed, in the 21st century every person who worked in
the production and circulation of the information is an intellectual. However, everyone does
not have the same role as an intellectual. American sociologist Alvin Gouldner claims that
intellectuals have developed into the class and taken the old money and property owners’
place. Besides, Gouldner says, intellectuals are no longer the people that speak for the
masses; instead they become the members of what he defines as the critical discourse culture.
Specialized intellectuals- lawyers, economists, strategists, etc- use language which can only
be understood by the experts. The unspecialized public can not understand this language
(Said, 1994: 26). For example, ordinary readers cannot understand economy pages of
newspapers but economy has vital importance for everyone.
Although Said accepts the correctness of Gramsci’s thesis, he insists that the
intellectual is an individual who has a social role and is irreducible to the indistinct
5
professional and talented person who seeks only for his/her class’ interest. According to him,
an important phenomenon is that intellectuals represent, incarnate, and connote the message,
view, attitude, philosophy or belief for the public and for the name of public
.
That is the
problematic point of media production practice. Said gives social roles to the intellectual but
much communication research convincingly shows that powerless people such as women,
homosexuals, minorities, children etc. cannot access to the media forums. If they can achieve
to access to media agenda, they represent as survivor of accident, earthquake etc, victim of
poverty, HIV, bird flu, war etc or points drug addicts, homeless people as deviant. In fact
media discourse articulates white/male/heterosexuals hegemony and exclude others, making
them a deviant and potential threat for society. (Alankuş, 2007) In the media, only dominant
ethnicities/religions/races/gender is represented, even in the societies that are culturally
diversified.
At this point, I put forth that journalists who are accepted as intellectuals, change the
main codes of the job. Journalists always speak and observe on behalf of people. I insist that
people should have chance to speak for themselves and also readers/audience/listeners should
have chance to participate producing process in media. Before moving on the question of
how intellectuals use this point, let’s look at the core principles of journalism.
Journalism as Ideology
Journalism is studied, theorized and criticized world-wide by people coming from a variety of
disciplines. Journalism research has been established as a widely acknowledged field,
especially in the second half of the 20
th
. century. Deuze (2005) describes journalism as an
occupational ideology and as a possible meeting point for journalism studies and education,
operationalizing it to analyze how emerging sociocultural and socioeconomic issues stand to
transform ways of thinking about and practicing journalism. Although the ideology of
journalism is an approach widely used in the literature, only rarely has it been adequately
defined and operationalized to fit immediate concerns in a pragmatic way. In this paper, I will
use this concept to define the ways journalists perform their ideological mission for
maintaining the dominant discourse and structure in a society.
Journalism is not like practicing law or medicine , in that when some journalists make
news without ethics or perform out of their occupational rules they are not punished by their
professional organizations. Because of this reason, journalism has not had enough legitimacy.
However, media professionals try to convince others about goals of journalistic performance
through the “social responsibility model of the press”. The model identifies five
6
responsibilities, the fulfillment of which could serve as a measure of press performance. The
press should 1. Provide “a truthful, comprehensive, and intelligent account of the day’s event
in a context which gives them meaning” a commitment evidenced in part by “objective
reporting”; 2. Be “a forum for the exchange of comment and criticism,” meaning in part that
papers should be “common carriers” of public discussion, at least in the limited sense of
carrying views contrary to their own; 3. Project “a representative picture of the constituent
groups in the society”; 4. “Present” and “clarify” the goals and values of the society”; and 5.
Provide “full access to the day’s intelligence, thereby serving the public’s right to be
informed. (Baker, 2002:154-155) The model also identified three central tasks of the press’s
political role: to provide information, to enlighten the public so that it is capable of self-
government, and to serve as a government watchdog.
However, there seems to be a consensus among scholars in the field of journalism
studies, that what typifies more or less universal similarities in journalism can be defined as a
shared occupational ideology among news-workers which functions to self-legitimize their
position in society. As Hallin (1994) remarks, objectivity as a main professional ideal of
journalism originally emerged in the industrial states of the USA in XIX CC. Popular press
was called yellow press or penny newspapers and had high circulation. At that time
advertising and public relations began to improve, thus newspapers had valuable income
source. In this period newspaper owners gained economic independence from political
parties. Objectivity as a professional code was used to describe the distance of journalists
from political parties. When positivism was widely accepted in the social sciences, “scientific
methods” were also demanded. There is sufficient evidence to suggest that over the course of
the 1920s the idea of “neutral” reporting gradually became synonymous with the invocation
of the “public interest” for many news organizations. The original context of objectivity and
the commodity characteristics of news were blurred world-wide.
However journalism scholars point out two crucial issues in the media systems of
many countries, commercialization and monopoly. “Communication on a global scale, albeit
along routes that reflected the organization of economic and political power- was a reality”
(Thompson, 1995). Most of the news and information being transmitted along these lines was
of a commercial nature, often consisting of financial data such as forecasts about commodity
trading. (Allan, 1999) Moreover, the media discourse does not cover all groups, sub-cultures,
or genders in a society. Women, gay/lesbian, children, minorities, and poor people are mostly
ignored by the media agenda due to serve maintaining Gramsci’s term common sense.
7
Research
1
was conducted in which groups in 76 countries submitted data that was analyzed
and compared. The research reveals that women are dramatically under-represented in the
news. Only 21% of news subjects are female. Women’s point of view is rarely heard in those
news’ topics. In stories on politics and government only 14% of news subjects are women;
and in economics and business news only 20%. Yet these are the topics that dominate the
news agenda in all countries. Moreover as authorities and experts women are barely featured
in news stories. Expert opinions in the news are overwhelmingly male. Men are 83% of the
experts, and 86% of the spokespersons. By contrast women appear in a personal capacity-as
eye witnesses (30%), and giving personal views (31%). While women are repressed in media,
how can we say journalists perform impartially? Patriarchy or consent to macho-culture in
society in world-wide reproduces everyday by means of delivering news.
In short, through the elements of journalism -public interest, objectivity, independence
and ethics- powerful groups/people and institutions are always privileged to access and
representation in the media. Journalists have a big dilemma between their discourses and
performing their jobs.
Modernization/Westernization Process and Journalists in Turkey
The development of journalism as a professional occupation in Turkey has a different story
than the European countries. The history of press in Turkey has a close relationship with the
Turkish modernization/Westernization process. Unlike civil dynamics, the first newspaper
was published by the Ottoman Empire. The main aim of the first newspaper was to inform
the public about the modernization movement in the nineteenth century. The Sultan, Mahmut
II, had needed a medium for transmitting his decisions and the informing public about the
new project. The Sultan and the Palace did not want to get information from the public;
indeed he wanted to gain acceptance of his project from public. The first newspaper wasn’t a
commercial product but an ideological apparatus in terms of Gramsci’s hegemony theory.
Pioneer journalists were well educated but all of them worked in the Ottoman Palace, hence
they supported the modernization project voluntarily. It seems that they were farseeing and
civilized persons, however pioneer journalists couldn’t leave critical inheritance to
contemporary journalists.
Pioneer journalists were well educated; they knew European and French
Revolutionary history well. They were strong supporters of freedom. However those
1
See datails
8
journalists were employees of the Palace, so their main goal was to think and act to improve
the state as an intellectual power. The Modernization movement was worked with incredible
authority and the journalists had close relationships with the dominant power. Indeed, the
journalists’ criticism was of the Ottoman Empire or sovereignty; they criticized the strategy
of the modernization. Pioneer journalists and their ideology were far from the public or civil
dynamics. (Gürkan, 1998)
The making of modern Turkey has an interesting and distinctive story. It’s neither the
class-based revolution nor the state-oriented development like the anti-colonial movement.
Turkey has never experienced colonialism in the real sense of the term. However from a
different point of view, the history of making modern Turkey has been that of
Westernization, conditioned by “the will to (Western) civilization”. The Kemalist elite were
to “reach the contemporary level of civilization” by establishing its political, economic and
ideological prerequisites, such as the creation of an independent state, the fostering of
industrialization, and the construction of a secular and modern national identity. The
Kemalist elite thus accepted the universal validity of Western modernity as the way of
building a modern Turkey. In this sense, the making of Turkey was based upon both an
independence war against Western imperialism and an acceptance of its epistemic and moral
dominance (Aydın and Keyman, 2004).
While the Independent War and Revolution was carrying on the press supported them.
Critical journalists were also punished severely. After the Revolution of Alphabet in 1928, all
newspapers began to publish with a new Alphabet. The newspapers’ circulation was 30.000,
the rate of literacy was 5% and there were 3 dailies per 1000 people. It was a radical decision
but it was a big support for the Revolution. The government helped newspapers to overcome
the economic crisis during those days. Of course, this economic dependency was not
explained through “public interest”. In 1961 an institution was built up which is called the
“Press Advertising Institution”. The mission of the institution is allocating official advertising
to press equally. However, a newspaper that supports the government always has privilege to
get financial aid. This means that newspapers were also financially dependant on the state.
Neo-liberal politics were initiated after the 1980’s in England by Margaret Thatcher,
in the USA by Ronald Reagan, and in Turkey by Turgut Ozal. After these politics, the state
began to grow smaller due to privatization and the market and its “independent” rules became
more dominant. Circulation of international capital and international trade became freer since
borders and customs of national states became less importance.
9
The Turkish army made a coup on September 12 1980, and then the country was
governed for four years by the Turkish army. In this period, all political movements and
persons who had engaged with politics were punished severely, so when the civil government
constituted a new economic system, neo-liberalism was accepted without any opposition.
Now, Turkey has been governed by Neo-liberal politics since 1984. Meanwhile destructive
economic crises happened like other underdeveloped countries, Argentina, Brazil etc.
Neo-liberal politics caused many changes in the media system. 1. The state monopoly
was cracked upon broadcasting and entrepreneurs got the right to the media market. Private
television channels and radios grew rapidly. At the same time owners of the newspapers were
changed. Contrary to the traditional names and experienced journalists in the media market,
the new owners were businessmen who had corporations from different sectors like banking,
textile, energy etc. 2. Plural media markets could not be prevented and concentration began
very shortly. Nowadays all media markets are almost under control of three families in
Turkey. 3. Commercialization was increased. To get higher income from advertisers, tabloid
news and entertainment was prevalent in almost all genres of the media. 4. The most dramatic
change is the working conditions of the journalists. Nowadays media professionals have to
work without the union.
After neo-liberal politics the media institutions were more dependent on market
forces. Rating is crucial element for producing many media genres, so that fun culture is very
dominant from news to movies. Popular culture is gradually being increased in culture
industry in Turkey like many countries. However people are going away from critical
thinking.
Shortly the analyses of the elements of journalism or the ideal-typical values of
journalism have shown that any definition of journalism as a profession working truthfully,
operating as a watchdog for the good of society as a whole and enabling people informed
citizen is not only naïve but also hegemonic reasons as Gramsci states us. However
journalists who belong to the mainstream media mostly claim that serve to public interest,
they only work for reproducing established social system. It is almost impossible to access
and represent for minorities, poor people and countries, children, women or
gay/lesbian/bisexual in the media forums. Without very few exceptions, powerless groups or
people and their problems or demands for social change are invisible in the public sphere. In
these conditions how do journalists as “intellectuals” work for plural democracy? Without
giving voice to voiceless how we can respect to cultural diversity? Whose interests that
journalists always repeat in their professional discourse?
10
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alankuş, S. (2007), Önsöz, Kadın Odaklı Habercilik, İstanbul: IPS Vakfı
Allan, S. (2002). News Culture, Buckingham: Open University Press
Baker, C.E. (2002). Media, Markets and Democracy, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press
Bauman, Z. (1996). Yasa Koyucular ile Yorumcular, Çev. Mete Atakay, İstanbul: Metis
Burke, B. (1999, 2005) “Antonio Gramsci, schooling and education”, the encyclopedia of
informal education,
http://www.infed.org/thinkers/et-gram.htm
Deuze, M. (2005). “What is Journalism?: Professional Identity and Ideology of Journalists
Reconsidered”, Journalism, Vol.6 (4), 442-464
Forgacs D. (2000) The Gramsci Reader: Selected Writings, 1916-1935, New York: New
York University Press.
Gramsci, A. (2007). Hapishane Defterleri, 7. Basım Çev. Adnan Cemgil, İstanbul: Belge
Yayınları
Gürkan, N (1998). Demokrasiye Geçişte Basın (1945-1950), Ankara: İletişim
Hallin, D. (1994) We Keep America on Top of the World: Journalism and the Public Sphere,
London: Routledge.
Kejanlıoğlu, D.B. (2004) Türkiye’de Medyanın Dönüşümü, Ankara: İmge
Keyman, E.F. (2005). Değişen Dünya Dönüşen Türkiye, İstanbul: Bilgi Üniversitesi
Yayınları
Thompson, J.B. (1995) Media and Modernity, Cambridge: Politiy
Giddens, A. (1997). Sociology. 3
rd
ed. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Said, E. (1994). Entelektüel, Çev. Tuncay Birkan, İstanbul: Ayrıntı
Williams, R. (1983). Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society, New York: Oxford
University Press